Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iblis" data-source="post: 1783730" data-attributes="member: 20429">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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iblis, post: 1783730, member: 20429"] 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, [I]not a single[/I] 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 [I]directly tied[/I] 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 [I]doesn't[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification