D&D (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[GMforPowergamers]

It is not saying, that one must be a bombshell knockout, to have 18 Charisma, but again, I must certainly be misunderstanding.

My thought is that the 'bomb shell' is more mental then physical. I'm sure that physical helps, but the real "OMG you look like you were photoshoped" is more charisma and less looks.

 

[Charlaquin]

My reading (which clearly must be wrong if my statements are so controversial) is that the OP just wants a call out of physical attractiveness, as part of/a possible source of, the description and application of Charisma.

It is not saying, that one must be a bombshell knockout, to have 18 Charisma, but again, I must certainly be misunderstanding.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume you’re misreading the OP. I think the confusion here is coming from the fact that, if the OP is not suggesting that beauty be a required part of Charisma, then what they are suggesting doesn’t seem to be functionally any different than how it currently works. It may be that everyone else is incorrectly assuming that they’re suggesting it be required, because they don’t understand what the OP is actually suggesting if not that.

 

[Scribe]

I think the confusion here is coming from the fact that, if the OP is not suggesting that beauty be a required part of Charisma, then what they are suggesting doesn’t seem to be functionally any different than how it currently works.

Thats the thing, I dont think the intent is that its REQUIRED. I think the intent is "Hey Wizbro, throw in a sentence saying "...or you may just be smokin' hot".

But whatever I suppose.

 

[Lanefan]

I've yet to see anyone offer an argument for what is gained by mandated physical beauty as part of charisma rather than continuing to let that be player preference.

How's this: a player puts an 8 into a character's Cha score, then (as appearance isn't mandated as part of what makes up Charisma) goes on to describe and narrate how stunningly beautlful/handsome/sexy/etc. that character is and how others - PC and NPC alike - would naturally flock to it due to its allure. That looks alone would give it benefits (mechanical and-or otherwise) on making friends, charming people, and so forth.

Isn't that player maybe gaming the system just a little bit, by turning what should be a character drawback (low Charisma) into a character benefit?

The braoder question is one of whether characters should be played in at least some reflection of their stats (or, conversely, that the stats should reflect how the characters are played), to which I can only say yes they should, otherwise what's the point of stats?

 

[Charlaquin]

Thats the thing, I dont think the intent is that its REQUIRED. I think the intent is "Hey Wizbro, throw in a sentence saying "...or you may just be smokin' hot".

But whatever I suppose.

You may be right, in which case, again I don’t think it makes any functional difference, so sure?

 

[Scribe]

You may be right, in which case, again I don’t think it makes any functional difference, so sure?

Correct, I dont think it was ever a functional change but

 

[Blue]

Until one brings in the rather obvious idea of Charisma being different based on species preference.

No, the attributes define the PCs and don't change. If a "beauty" stat changes based on the race of who's observing, it's not an ability score. My save vs. Banishment doesn't drop lower because the being casting the spell doesn't have the same views on beauty I do.

Sorry, you aren't describing an attribute D&D.

 

[Vaalingrade]

How's this: a player puts an 8 into a character's Cha score, then (as appearance isn't mandated as part of what makes up Charisma) goes on to describe and narrate how stunningly beautlful/handsome/sexy/etc. that character is and how others - PC and NPC alike - would naturally flock to it due to its allure. That looks alone would give it benefits (mechanical and-or otherwise) on making friends, charming people, and so forth.

Isn't that player maybe gaming the system just a little bit, by turning what should be a character drawback (low Charisma) into a character benefit?

Looks more like the DM playing things weird to make a point.

Also, Charisma is still a mental stat, right?

I don't see people clamoring for CON to control the senses because our health plays a part in our sensory capacity.

 

[Lanefan]

No, the attributes define the PCs and don't change. If a "beuty" stat changes based on the race of who's observing, it's not an ability score - it's not Charisma. My save vs. Banishment doesn't drop lower because the being casting the spell doesn't have the same views on beauty I do.

Maybe it should? That'd be an interesting twist - your Cha saves are affected by what the source of the effect is.

Sorry, you aren't describing an attribute D&D.

I believe I am, only I'm making it more complex.

 

[Lanefan]

Looks more like the DM playing things weird to make a point.

Also, Charisma is still a mental stat, right?

In all honesty I've never seen it as a purely mental stat. Part spiritual, part physical, and part mental perhaps; but physical has always been an element in my view.

I don't see people clamoring for CON to control the senses because our health plays a part in our sensory capacity.

Perhaps; though the sensory piece would come up sometimes when a character is diseased or poisoned (e.g. blurry vision, whacked-out sense of smell, etc.) and one's odds of becoming diseased/poisoned are affected by Con. Rightly or wrongly, we tend to assume that absent those conditions our characters are at the peak of health.

What I do see now and then is a clamour for players to play their characters at least somewhat in tune with what the Int and Wis scores say on the character sheet.