Comeliness and Charisma
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
thundershot
Adventurer
I've been long considering bringing back the split stats. As long as there's a way to balance it, of course..
STR: Attack and Damage would be separate (somehow) and lifting and dragging fits in there somewhere.
DEX: AC bonus and Attack bonus would be separate (with reflex saves going with the AC)
CON: Hit points and Fort saves separate
INT: skill points and .... hm... not sure
WIS: will saves and ???
CHA: one is appearance, the other would be for spellcasters, leadership, etc.
*shrug* Didn't make it very far...
Chris
STR: Attack and Damage would be separate (somehow) and lifting and dragging fits in there somewhere.
DEX: AC bonus and Attack bonus would be separate (with reflex saves going with the AC)
CON: Hit points and Fort saves separate
INT: skill points and .... hm... not sure
WIS: will saves and ???
CHA: one is appearance, the other would be for spellcasters, leadership, etc.
*shrug* Didn't make it very far...
Chris
Psion
Adventurer
StAlda said:
This may be a much belated bump but: why in heaven's name would you let comeliness apply to disguise. BoEF did that too, and I thought that was unjustified then, too.
Heck, I'd almost apply it as a NEGATIVE to the skill. Having that beauty mark, the cute little button nose, etc., are things that make a person STAND OUT. They make you more memorable and make people pay more attention to you.
I can just imagine a campaign in which our intrepid PCs disguise themselves as priests to wander into the city. The guard sees that little Catherine Zeta-Jones look-alike rogue in disguise as a priestess, checks out her figure, and thinks to himself wow, I haven't seen an arse like that since that thief that esc... "Hey! Stop that priestess!"
iblis
First Post
Well, it hooked me whenever that was; it hooked me again now damnit.
Just to add to what I've already said, what about Bards, Sorcerers and Wilders (and members of similar classes)?
If someone could honestly say with conviction that the effects of a high Charisma score on spells and/or psionic powers are in any way reflective of that stat's covering physical attractiveness (and apparently the stat does cover that)...I would be...surprised. So then, I assume that for many people, there must be a divorcing of the two lopsided areas the stat covers (physical and psychological).
In accordance with the view that Charisma does cover physical beauty, not a single Bard, Sorcerer or Wilder who is capable of casting/manifesting anything at all, can possibly be ugly. And those who are capable of 'the good stuff' must always be extremely attractive. (?...) What's more, the force of some of their innate supernatural abilities are somehow directly tied to a gauge of their beauty (and other things, obviously, but still...)
On the other hand, if looks are arbitrarily decided, then well...I guess Charisma doesn't cover looks in those cases.
In the end of course, whatever is more practical in each campaign, is better. I myself find that slicing off that - IMO - misplaced element of Charisma and consigning it to a place of its own, has helped to simplify and clarify various situations. YMMV.
Just to add to what I've already said, what about Bards, Sorcerers and Wilders (and members of similar classes)?
If someone could honestly say with conviction that the effects of a high Charisma score on spells and/or psionic powers are in any way reflective of that stat's covering physical attractiveness (and apparently the stat does cover that)...I would be...surprised. So then, I assume that for many people, there must be a divorcing of the two lopsided areas the stat covers (physical and psychological).
In accordance with the view that Charisma does cover physical beauty, not a single Bard, Sorcerer or Wilder who is capable of casting/manifesting anything at all, can possibly be ugly. And those who are capable of 'the good stuff' must always be extremely attractive. (?...) What's more, the force of some of their innate supernatural abilities are somehow directly tied to a gauge of their beauty (and other things, obviously, but still...)
On the other hand, if looks are arbitrarily decided, then well...I guess Charisma doesn't cover looks in those cases.
In the end of course, whatever is more practical in each campaign, is better. I myself find that slicing off that - IMO - misplaced element of Charisma and consigning it to a place of its own, has helped to simplify and clarify various situations. YMMV.
Psion
Adventurer
iblis said:
In my viewpoint, a character's Charisma makes them (more) attractive. Being attractive does not give you Charisma. I have a dear friend who is a very warm person and tends to be at the center of any group... but she has a weight problem. But she has a high charisma.
In reading a few studies about what makes people attractive, attractiveness, though commonly influenced by culture, is commonly considered by scientists to encompass outward signs of characteristics that make one a good mate. Much of this distills down to good health. In D&D terms, that sort of falls into the constitution bin.
A quick guideline I use to generate a psuedo-comeliness score in D&D is 10 + Charisma mod + Constitution mod. (Or if I want to randomize, 2d6 + 3 + Cha mod + Con mod). This is totally dispensible and subject to ad hoc modifiers, scarring, etc., and pretty much applies to your own race (other humanoid races normally have a minus to your own race, but it you like the "elves are pretty" convention, you might affort them a plus.)
Dr Simon
Explorer
I'm leaping in here without having read the whole discussion (naughty me 
).
One the subject of having a stat for appearance: I generally play RuneQuest rather than a D20 based system, and this has Appearance as a stat (general charisma and force of personality, etc. is subsumed in the stat of Power, which is also a but like S20 Wisdom in that it gives willpower, luck, magical strength etc.).
I have to say that in about 15 years of using this system - Appearance is a dump stat and is pretty much useless. Factor in that at least 50% of PCs are usually non-human, so where does one draw the line on subjective/objective appearance) Actually RQ does this by having a higher or lower stat roll for generally more or less atrractive creatures (a succubus has a better roll than an orc, for example), but also you are -10 APP to those of another race. Still a bit clunky.
Point is - experience has shown me that APP is a pretty useless stat to bother with, unless you are dealing with a genre where seduction is a dominant factor (maybe a James Bond style game).
).One the subject of having a stat for appearance: I generally play RuneQuest rather than a D20 based system, and this has Appearance as a stat (general charisma and force of personality, etc. is subsumed in the stat of Power, which is also a but like S20 Wisdom in that it gives willpower, luck, magical strength etc.).
I have to say that in about 15 years of using this system - Appearance is a dump stat and is pretty much useless. Factor in that at least 50% of PCs are usually non-human, so where does one draw the line on subjective/objective appearance) Actually RQ does this by having a higher or lower stat roll for generally more or less atrractive creatures (a succubus has a better roll than an orc, for example), but also you are -10 APP to those of another race. Still a bit clunky.
Point is - experience has shown me that APP is a pretty useless stat to bother with, unless you are dealing with a genre where seduction is a dominant factor (maybe a James Bond style game).
Personally, I like the (Con + Cha)/2 method to determine physical beauty.
--A sickly looking person (low Con) is going to be less physically attractive than one who is healthy.
--An strong personality (high Cha) is going to manage to use what physical attractiveness they have to the best of its ability.
Not that Comliness really has any mechanical effect, but it's a good way to be able to say "Nyeah, nyeah, my PC is better looking than yours!" Meh.
StAlda:
Yes, a stronger person is going to be able to intimidate through STR more easily, but is that really what is intimidating? When you are intimidated by a muscle-man, you are afraid of his power -- his ability to do you harm. But the ability to project power is not confined to sheer physical strength.
-- Al Pacino is a small man. It is his intensity that makes his characters powerful and intimidating.
-- Brad Dourif (Grima Wormtongue in LOTR) is not a physically strong man, but the guy is creepy. And he makes you think he will do creepy things to you if you don't do what he says.
-- Joe Peci isn't weak, but it's his characters' reputation for being a mean sonnavagun and for being willing to do anything to hurt anyone that scares people who have heard of him.
Yes, strong can be intimidating, but if a strong person isn't able to project that threat to others, they will come off as harmless, or thier punishment easily avoided. Should STR matter? Sure. Personally, I like the idea of rolling a STR-based Intimidate check whenever you Cleave... chopping through someone into someone else should be a worrysome prospect. But STR does not by any means communicate the threat of violence like a strong personality can. And that means Charisma.
--A sickly looking person (low Con) is going to be less physically attractive than one who is healthy.
--An strong personality (high Cha) is going to manage to use what physical attractiveness they have to the best of its ability.
Not that Comliness really has any mechanical effect, but it's a good way to be able to say "Nyeah, nyeah, my PC is better looking than yours!" Meh.
StAlda:
Yes, a stronger person is going to be able to intimidate through STR more easily, but is that really what is intimidating? When you are intimidated by a muscle-man, you are afraid of his power -- his ability to do you harm. But the ability to project power is not confined to sheer physical strength.
-- Al Pacino is a small man. It is his intensity that makes his characters powerful and intimidating.
-- Brad Dourif (Grima Wormtongue in LOTR) is not a physically strong man, but the guy is creepy. And he makes you think he will do creepy things to you if you don't do what he says.
-- Joe Peci isn't weak, but it's his characters' reputation for being a mean sonnavagun and for being willing to do anything to hurt anyone that scares people who have heard of him.
Yes, strong can be intimidating, but if a strong person isn't able to project that threat to others, they will come off as harmless, or thier punishment easily avoided. Should STR matter? Sure. Personally, I like the idea of rolling a STR-based Intimidate check whenever you Cleave... chopping through someone into someone else should be a worrysome prospect. But STR does not by any means communicate the threat of violence like a strong personality can. And that means Charisma.
Similar Threads
