D&D (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[payn]

Remembe that unlike 3e, the general 5e philosophy is that unless a rule says you can't do something, you can; or at least try it. Which here means, absent any rule or even guideline to the contrary, a player arguing that a character's hot appearance should be a benefit in social interactions (especially in initiating said interactions) is on solid ground both rules-wise and simulation-of-reality-wise.

A one or two word addition within the write-up on Charisma and that whole line of argument vanishes without a trace.

lolwut? No, its rulings over rules for 5E. So, Mr. 8 cha James Bond can go pound sand at my table which takes me a grand total of 1 second to decide.

 

[Lanefan]

What this comes down to, as I alluded to with one of my earlier posts is, if being "pretty" has a benefit, then it needs a cost. Something must be paid in to get the benefits of it. If the DM is ok with that cost being "high Charisma", all well and good.

Agreed.

But if someone is arguing that they should get an advantage for a trait that they didn't pay for, the book shouldn't have to say "no".

Disagreed. Ideally the DM shouldn't be left hanging when it's so easy for the rules to back her up.

Even an overarching statement somewhere very prominent in the PH to the effect of "In order to preserve balance, for every benefit your character has you can expect there to be a countervailing drawback or penalty somewhere else, whether imposed by the rules or your DM" would go a very long way here.

You can't expect to get something for nothing.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Again agreed. The rules just need to both say this and enforce it.

 

[Lanefan]

lolwut? No, its rulings over rules for 5E.

Which echoes what I said.

Rulings means you can try to do it until and unless something says you can't. That is the 5e way, and (though largely unspoken) was the 0e-BX way.

Rules means you can't try to do it unless something says you can. That was the 3e way.

So, Mr. 8 cha James Bond can go pound sand at my table which takes me a grand total of 1 second to decide.

But as DM you still have to decide it, and maybe deal with a resulting argument. Neither would be necessary if the rules were maybe one or two words longer.

And yes, obviously you can't have a rule for everything - 3e taught us that - and I'm not at all suggesting such should be the case. But get the lowest-hanging fruit at least; and this particular fruit is hanging so low it's touching the ground. Why not fix it?

 

[payn]

Which echoes what I said.

Rulings means you can try to do it until and unless something says you can't. That is the 5e way, and (though largely unspoken) was the 0e-BX way.

Rules means you can't try to do it unless something says you can. That was the 3e way.

But as DM you still have to decide it, and maybe deal with a resulting argument. Neither would be necessary if the rules were maybe one or two words longer.

And yes, obviously you can't have a rule for everything - 3e taught us that - and I'm not at all suggesting such should be the case. But get the lowest-hanging fruit at least; and this particular fruit is hanging so low it's touching the ground. Why not fix it?

We been over this, its not fruit at all, its not even part of the tree. This simply isn't a problem that needs to be solved.

 

[Irlo]

Remembe that unlike 3e, the general 5e philosophy is that unless a rule says you can't do something, you can; or at least try it. Which here means, absent any rule or even guideline to the contrary, a player arguing that a character's hot appearance should be a benefit in social interactions (especially in initiating said interactions) is on solid ground both rules-wise and simulation-of-reality-wise.

A one or two word addition within the write-up on Charisma and that whole line of argument vanishes without a trace.

You didn't say that the player was arguing that "hot appearance" should be a benefit in social interactions. You said the player was arguing that they should be exempt from Charisma checks due to the appearance.

Regardless of charisma, I can certainly imagine in-game situations in which appearance could provide a benefit or penalty - advantage or disadvantage on a CHA check, for example.

You might offer a really hideous character advantaage on some intimidation checks, for example, or a beautiful character disadvantage on deception checks because the bartender got scammed by pretty people in the past.

I'll note that you have very different players than I do. I haven't seen anyone ever arguing for or feeling entitled to advantages. The DM sets the DC and determines if advantage or disadvantage applies.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Then maybe play a "sub-optimal" warrior? Or a different class?

I don't understand the resistance to characters having built-in drawbacks.

People like to play competent characters.

And thanks to the way 5e is designed, ability score is pretty much all that matters when it comes to competence.

So I'm not going to hang around a table where I have to choose between being competent at what my character does and playing the character I want because of the numbers.

Especially not one that's going to insult me for recognizing the basic mechanics of the game.

 

[Lanefan]

People like to play competent characters.

Competent at some things. Less competent at others. Maybe even outright incompetent at a few things.

Otherwise, every character ends up being good at everything. Without weaknesses, there's no longer any need for the rest of the party as you can do it all yourself.

And thanks to the way 5e is designed, ability score is pretty much all that matters when it comes to competence.

Which means, then, that unless you're hella lucky with your roll-up there's going to be areas where you're competent (even very competent) and areas where you aren't, based on and reflected by those ability scores.

Trying to do an end-around by saying the non-physical ability scores don't reflect the character and that you can roleplay your way into competence in areas where those ability scores are poor - yeah, that's pushing the envelope pretty hard and not only would I expect any DM to push back just as hard, I'd be disappointed if that DM-side pushback didn't come.

 

[amethal]

Rulings means you can try to do it until and unless something says you can't. That is the 5e way, and (though largely unspoken) was the 0e-BX way.

Rules means you can't try to do it unless something says you can. That was the 3e way.

The Pathfinder (1e) way is that Rules means you can try to do it until at book comes out which has a Feat for it.

 

[James Gasik]

The Pathfinder (1e) way is that Rules means you can try to do it until at book comes out which has a Feat for it.

Ah, that's actually the D&D way! Lost of things were possible until they made rules for it! TSR's exhaustive list of Non-Weapon Proficiencies and 3e's Feats are great examples of it. By the end of 2e, there was a proficiency for everything, and there was precious little you could do without proficiency. Except for Thief skills, of course. Things like moving quietly or picking locks had to come from your Class (despite the fact that making locks was a Non-Weapon Proficiency!).

And 3e was when they decided to up the ante by not only having skills that couldn't be used without proficiency, but also to start printing feats for Tracking in cities or doing research in libraries. I'd bring up Tracking here too, but it wasn't much worse than 2e, where you could take Tracking as a proficiency, but actually reading it, you discovered that unless you were a Ranger, you took a massive penalty.

Ah, the good old days.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Competent at some things. Less competent at others. Maybe even outright incompetent at a few things.

Otherwise, every character ends up being good at everything. Without weaknesses, there's no longer any need for the rest of the party as you can do it all yourself.

Mechanical weaknesses. Not RP. Leave RP to the player.

Which means, then, that unless you're hella lucky with your roll-up there's going to be areas where you're competent (even very competent) and areas where you aren't, based on and reflected by those ability scores.

Again, mechancially.

Trying to do an end-around by saying the non-physical ability scores don't reflect the character and that you can roleplay your way into competence in areas where those ability scores are poor - yeah, that's pushing the envelope pretty hard and not only would I expect any DM to push back just as hard, I'd be disappointed if that DM-side pushback didn't come.

Who said 'non-physical'?

I've played big, fat Dex-lords and beanpole wargods with 22STR. MY stats mean NOTHING to my character's appearance and personality and if the DM pushes back against that, I'm going to step aside so they prat fall and walk out of the game.