Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8902938" data-attributes="member: 6901101">How is it possible for everyone to be so off base about what I am saying?[USER=7035894]@Clint_L[/USER] , the ability to have it be a part of the game world is what is added by having it be a part of the definition. It is in the DNA of all those skills that use charisma. So why not let it be a part of the ruleset? Which leads me to...[USER=6685541]@BookTenTiger[/USER] , nothing is stopping a character from being drop-dead good looking in the current rules. Yet, there are rules to stop PCs from being too strong. It is represented in the strength score and its attached skills. There are rules stopping PCs from being too dexterous. It is represented in the dexterity score and its attached skills. There are rules that stop people from being too intelligent. It is represented in the intelligence score and its attached skills. And on and on it goes. I have a rogue, he can't have 20 everything. That's part of the game - as represented in the ruleset. The same ruleset that directly ties these abilities to their associated skills. Yet, when it comes to charisma, we leave the most obvious part of its definition out even though it greatly affects its associated skills. Why?[USER=82524]@Vaalingrade[/USER] , arming the DM? Adding to something's definition, expanding it, is not arming the DM - it is arming the player. I believe it was you who said that adding races helped the player. It gave them options. So look at this as another option a player can use.[USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] , that is what I am suggesting. And it is a change. Because, as of now, the definition goes out of its way to avoid talking about beauty, or really any type of appearance at all. So my suggestion is just add that one word. It will not be the definition, because, like all abilities, they encompass many things.[USER=6807152]@Scribe[/USER] , I find it hard to believe everyone doesn't have complete comprehension of what I have written, yet here we are. You are spot-on in your interpretation. And I went back where I wrote the same thing three times, which stated what you said. So for those that missed something:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It is added to the definition. It does not negate anything. You know - player options.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It is reflective of the ruleset in the PHB. Persuasion, intimidation, performance, and deception can use looks.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It is reflective of the game world according to WotC's Adventure Paths and the lore.</li> </ul>Look at it this way - If they took "balance" out of dexterity's official definition, you might see people arguing that to balance would mean to control breathing and therefore it is con, or it would require concentration therefore it's intelligence, or it would require power therefore it's strength. No, you want the word "balance" in the definition so the players can use it.</blockquote>

Verification