Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8929537" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Let's start with this. You are right. The definition allows for the hag to be so confident that her charisma is high. It's neat, huh? How we know why the hag has high charisma. It's probably because, I don't know... because it was in charisma's definition. If charisma wasn't defined that way, there would probably be a lot of D&amp;D players going, &quot;Why is her charisma so high? Probably because she can change shape.&quot; You see how their definition clarified for us why a night hag can have high definition? That is all I want for charisma.Again, as it stands right now, you can say: I am beautiful and have high charisma. What you can't say is: I have high charisma because I am beautiful. There is a difference between the two. I would like to expand the definition so a player can say that. They don't have to be eloquent. They don't have to leaders. Heck, they don't even have to be confident. They can just sit there, and look handsome or gorgeous or stunning and that gives them their advantage. This would be an option instead of making every bard try to be witty and come up with eloquent phrases. This would be an option instead of having every paladin look serious and be ready to lead everyone. This would be an option instead of making every warlock or sorcerer confident. How about, a warlock that is only good at magic because his patron finds him beautiful? How about a bard that can give people inspiration just because he has a beautiful twinkle in his eye? How about a paladin that everyone follows just because he's &quot;so freaking hot?&quot;That is what I am asking for. Because right now, according to the rules as they are written, those things don't exist.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 8929537, member: 6901101"] Let's start with this. You are right. The definition allows for the hag to be so confident that her charisma is high. It's neat, huh? How we know why the hag has high charisma. It's probably because, I don't know... because it was [B]in[/B] [B]charisma's definition[/B]. If charisma wasn't defined that way, there would probably be a lot of D&D players going, "Why is her charisma so high? Probably because she can change shape." You see how their definition clarified for us why a night hag can have high definition? That is all I want for charisma. Again, as it stands right now, you can say: [I]I am beautiful and have high charisma[/I]. What you can't say is: [I]I have high charisma because I am beautiful[/I]. There is a difference between the two. I would like to expand the definition so a player can say that. They don't have to be eloquent. They don't have to leaders. Heck, they don't even have to be confident. They can just sit there, and look handsome or gorgeous or stunning and that gives them their advantage. This would be an option instead of making every bard try to be witty and come up with eloquent phrases. This would be an option instead of having every paladin look serious and be ready to lead everyone. This would be an option instead of making every warlock or sorcerer confident. How about, a warlock that is only good at magic because his patron finds him beautiful? How about a bard that can give people inspiration just because he has a beautiful twinkle in his eye? How about a paladin that everyone follows just because he's "so freaking hot?" That is what I am asking for. Because right now, according to the rules as they are written, those things don't exist. [/QUOTE]

Verification