Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JolanthusTrel 06-13-07, 07:45 AM	I’m just curious as to why Dwarves take penalty to their charisma stat, instead of say taking a racial penalty to charisma based stats when dealing with others of different species that could perhaps be reduced over time when dealing with a particular race. Maybe like rangers favoured enemy but instead calling it a proffered dealing race. I don't believe a Dwarven bard in the mould of a warrior scald should not be penalised for shouting odes of epic dwarven battles to inspire other Dwarf warriors in battle. Maybe another option is taking away the -2 charisma penalty when it is dwarf on dwarf in the very least? I’d also consider the same with other charisma penalised races. What are your opinions people?
NeueRegel 06-13-07, 07:48 AM	That is in fact the way it worked, in 2nd Edition AD&D. I think they just left it out in 3.5 for simplicity, since now CHR is a casting stat. It would be conversely confusing if a dwarven sorcerer's spells worked +2 better against his own race, wouldn't it? Neue
Cartigan 06-13-07, 08:12 AM	I’m just curious as to why Dwarves take penalty to their charisma stat, instead of say taking a racial penalty to charisma based stats when dealing with others of different species that could perhaps be reduced over time when dealing with a particular race. Maybe like rangers favoured enemy but instead calling it a proffered dealing race. Because that would require way too much intricate crap. It's the same reason there are no called shots.
The_Shaman 06-13-07, 08:20 AM	Actually, iirc Dwarves couldn't be arcane casters in 2.x, at least unless you used variant rules, so charisma casting was a non-issue. However, if you want to have a dwarven sorcerer, the Gold Dwarf (-2 dex, +2 con, Races of Faerun) might be a more typical representation of your concept of dwarfdom anyway.
foxtail 06-13-07, 11:05 AM	Well, since all (core) dwarves have the same penalty, it evens out when they try to do things like make opposed Diplomacy checks against one another.
JulesCARV 06-13-07, 11:21 AM	Why can't you have a whole society of uncharismatic people? Couldn't it just be that many dwarves aren't very sociable -- not even with each other? I think it's perfectly reasonable to envision a society of dwarves all of whom have a charisma bell curve which is a bit left of that of gnomes, humans etc, and all of whom tend to spend more time working with metal and stone, and less time hanging out with each other, than humans might consider normal. If you take a bunch of uncharismatic, unsociable people of the sort who are wallflowers at parties, and put them into a room together, they don't all become extraverts for lack of competition. Rather, I think you'll find that the whole room is rather quiet and awkward. Naturally, one must bear in mind that not all dwarves are like this. 14 charisma dwarves exist as surely as 16 charisma humans. Furthermore, if the idea of dwarves being uncharismatic goes against your fantasy concept of dwarves, you could always, say, use gold dwarves or something, but my point is, regardless of the particulars, dwarves taking a charisma penalty even among each other isn't incoherent, even if it isn't right in your campaign setting.
JolanthusTrel 06-13-07, 11:22 PM	Why can't you have a whole society of uncharismatic people? Couldn't it just be that many dwarves aren't very sociable -- not even with each other? I think it's perfectly reasonable to envision a society of dwarves all of whom have a charisma bell curve which is a bit left of that of gnomes, humans etc, and all of whom tend to spend more time working with metal and stone, and less time hanging out with each other, than humans might consider normal. It might be be less than humans might consider normal. But Dwarf on Dwarf wouldn't bad an eyelid in the situation, there might even be a healthy respect for such a hard working kinsman so why is he taking a hit dealing with another of dwarf. If you take a bunch of uncharismatic, unsociable people of the sort who are wallflowers at parties, and put them into a room together, they don't all become extraverts for lack of competition. Rather, I think you'll find that the whole room is rather quiet and awkward. But that is not everyone. Most normal people know how to interact with other people, just as most dwarves would know how to interact with other dwarves. Sure you could have dwarves that are socially inept with everyone but they wouldn't be the norm in the clan. Naturally, one must bear in mind that not all dwarves are like this. 14 charisma dwarves exist as surely as 16 charisma humans. Furthermore, if the idea of dwarves being uncharismatic goes against your fantasy concept of dwarves, you could always, say, use gold dwarves or something, but my point is, regardless of the particulars, dwarves taking a charisma penalty even among each other isn't incoherent, even if it isn't right in your campaign setting. So your saying that the dwarf bard who tells epic tales of his clans glorious battles has to take a penalty because he isn't a gold dwarf?
Spellskin 06-14-07, 11:25 AM	Ok, very simple solution. Give Dwarves a +1 racial bonus on all Charisma-based skillchecks when communicating with other Dwarves. This elleviates the penalty the Charisma score gives and doesn't aid spellcasters, yet it remains completely Dwarven! That's what you wanted right? Now, I can see where both parties are coming from so I suggest the OP just takes it on with his DM and fixes it, instead of trying to convince people who will likely never play with him anyway, and vice versa.
tankschmidt 06-14-07, 11:30 AM	In the future, could we avoid using the phrase "dwarf on dwarf?"
AAB 06-14-07, 01:04 PM	and actually, i disagree with whoever it was that said dwarves don't have to deal with each other as much as a human would. due to the nature of dwarven cities, each dwarf would be in constant contact with countless other dwarves, just because of the fact that they're all jammed underground. it's a lot harder to expand a mountain fortress than a generic human town. i think RoS explained dwarves' charisma penalty as the dwarves being super-introverted specifically because of all the close contact with others at all times. because they do not get any physical privacy they take their emotional and mental privacy very seriously. i don't know how any of this would make a dwarf sorcerer or favored soul or what-have-you any less effective than a human, but oh well. it's just one of the imperfections of the system that we have to deal with.
Flintlockhandmedown 06-14-07, 01:52 PM	In the future, could we avoid using the phrase "dwarf on dwarf?" Oh, Bruenor!
Ecalsneerg 06-14-07, 01:59 PM	The very obvious fact remains that if a Dwarf lost his Cha penalty he would have a +2 Con bonus and a few abilities and no penalty, for LA +0.
Crimson_Concerto 06-14-07, 04:14 PM	The very obvious fact remains that if a Dwarf lost his Cha penalty he would have a +2 Con bonus and a few abilities and no penalty, for LA +0.Um, I think the issue here isn't that it has a CHA penalty or racial penalty at all. It's just that other penalties are conceptually more appropriate. I personally solve this problem by always having my players use Gold Dwarves: +2 CON -2 DEX. While a CHA penalty may seem appropriate for default dwarves, it's only as appropriate as an INT bonus would be for default elves, in my opinion anyways. With the slow movement and bulky bodies, a DEX bonus just seems more appripriate. I don't know about y'all, but I certainly have a much easier time conceptually picturing a Dwarven Sorcerer than a Dwarven Swashbuckler. I introduced the idea to my group like forever ago, and they liked it and agreed, so we've been doing it that way ever sense. :) EDIT: Oh, and about CHA in general, it doesn't represent only appearance and force of personality. It also represents willpower. Think of it in the sense that INT represents mental DEX, WIS represents mental CON, and CHA represents mental STR. The same way there are creatures that are less intelligent than humans, there are also simply those without the same kind of spirit and willpower. They may not interact as much, even amongst each other, and all of these factors combined may translate into a racial CHA penalty.
Cartigan 06-14-07, 06:04 PM	Well, since all (core) dwarves have the same penalty, it evens out when they try to do things like make opposed Diplomacy checks against one another. Thread over.
knuck 06-14-07, 06:07 PM	EDIT: Oh, and about CHA in general, it doesn't represent only appearance and force of personality. It also represents willpower.I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, but unfortunately, as far as I remember right now (don't have the books here), WIS is considered to be willpower, and that, sir, I call b*******. :D Correct me if I'm wrong please. Think of it in the sense that INT represents mental DEX, WIS represents mental CON, and CHA represents mental STR. The same way there are creatures that are less intelligent than humans, there are also simply those without the same kind of spirit and willpower. They may not interact as much, even amongst each other, and all of these factors combined may translate into a racial CHA penalty.I really like the way you put it. :clap: I'll certainly quote you in future arguements about CHA.
Crimson_Concerto 06-14-07, 06:08 PM	Well, since all (core) dwarves have the same penalty, it evens out when they try to do things like make opposed Diplomacy checks against one another.Thread over.Except that Diplomacy isn't an opposed check?
Crimson_Concerto 06-14-07, 06:12 PM	I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, but unfortunately, as far as I remember right now (don't have the books here), WIS is considered to be willpower, and that, sir, I call b*******. :D Correct me if I'm wrong please.Actually, WIS and CHA both represent willpower, just in different ways. WIS represents how one uses their willpower to resist, and CHA represents how one uses their willpower to influence. Again, it's kind of like CON and STR. CON is resisting damage, while STR is dishing it out. This is one of the area where the PHB has done a poor job of explaining.
Jagyr Ebonwood 06-14-07, 06:14 PM	Think of it in the sense that INT represents mental DEX, WIS represents mental CON, and CHA represents mental STR. Interesting...I've never considered that parallel before. You've given my brain something to chew on! :D
Tyberian 06-14-07, 06:20 PM	Except that Diplomacy isn't an opposed check? Wouldn't it be an opposed check if you were negotiating over a term or several terms? Also, most everyone fails to take into account a dwarf's focus, borrowing a term from dark sun for those of us who played it... Their focus on particular accomplishments such as crafting items is partly responsible for their skills bonuses as well as them being known as stubborn. In general, a dwarf's cultural education is more centered on developing crafts and other physical skills as a child, giving a penalty to even those who receive other training.
AAB 06-14-07, 06:25 PM	wait. i just realized that dwarves would get a penalty to opposed diplomacy checks haggling for goods. since when is that right?
Crimson_Concerto 06-14-07, 06:29 PM	I really like the way you put it. :clap: I'll certainly quote you in future arguements about CHA.Interesting...I've never considered that parallel before. You've given my brain something to chew on! :DWhile I'd love to take credit for developing that analogy myself, I cannot. It was written in a similar discussion somewhere else, and I only wish I remembered who said it so I could give them credit. :embarrass Wouldn't it be an opposed check if you were negotiating over a term or several terms?I see nothing in the PHB description of Diplomacy that would suggest that as a use, but then again, Diplomacy in general is a very poorly-constructed still, especially when we're talking about it's DCs... Either way, I can't help but think it bears mentioning that usually CHA-based skills are opposed by WIS-based skills, when they're able to be opposed at all, that is...
JolanthusTrel 06-14-07, 10:40 PM	wait. i just realized that dwarves would get a penalty to opposed diplomacy checks haggling for goods. since when is that right? Ahh yes, the other point I forgot to make, thank you.
AMGriffin 06-15-07, 01:48 AM	I used to think the charisma penalty on dwarves was rather stupid, and not fitting of such a people, but it's not unreasonable ...look at it this way. Dwarven (default) culture places high emphasis on order and society, on the collective good and condition of the clan you live in, as opposed to individuality (thus a conflict with elven society's ideals of freedom and individualism). Well, in such a culture strong personalities are going to be rare. Many dwarves aren't going to draw attention or even try to, they're going to be rather spartan and untalkative because their society encourages them to be faceless to an extent and not put themselves out there unless need be. ...So yeah, the charisma penalty isn't necessarily crazy.
key 06-15-07, 03:06 AM	I’m just curious as to why Dwarves take penalty to their charisma stat, instead of say taking a racial penalty to charisma based stats when dealing with others of different species that could perhaps be reduced over time when dealing with a particular race. Maybe like rangers favoured enemy but instead calling it a proffered dealing race. I don't believe a Dwarven bard in the mould of a warrior scald should not be penalised for shouting odes of epic dwarven battles to inspire other Dwarf warriors in battle. Maybe another option is taking away the -2 charisma penalty when it is dwarf on dwarf in the very least? I’d also consider the same with other charisma penalised races. What are your opinions people? I think the reason they take the penalty on the charisma stat is because those ability adjustments are versus the default of human. They are short and stocky compared to humans...sorta like George Costanza. Folks are drawn to and prefer to follow more refined, elegant, taller, slender types. This is why half-orcs also take a charisma hit...I mean look at them. Versus other dwarves, they're all short and stocky anyway, so the penalty is neutralized.
AAB 06-15-07, 03:24 AM	this doesn't change my observation - why would a miserly old dwarf be more easily persuaded to give up his hard-earned goods for less money?
Spellskin 06-15-07, 07:18 AM	this doesn't change my observation - why would a miserly old dwarf be more easily persuaded to give up his hard-earned goods for less money? They don't ;) I solve this problem by giving them a situational modifier for "their type of personality". I tend to think of Dwarves as stubborn and slightly greedy, therefore haggling with a dwarf is harder then with most other races. In game mechanics I've translated that into the corresponding modifier. There are a lot of strange rules within D&D wich make sense in some cases and hardly any sense in others, just adjust the DC or modifier accordingly and it fits again! I realize I'm basically giving racial, situational modifiers away, but they don't unbalance the game, really. It just makes the world seem more real to me and hopefully to my players as well.
Crimson_Concerto 06-15-07, 04:43 PM	this doesn't change my observation - why would a miserly old dwarf be more easily persuaded to give up his hard-earned goods for less money? The problem with your "observation" is that CHA has absolutely nothing with being convinced or persuaded. CHA just convinces and persuades. There is a major difference. It's just like STR doesn't effect how may hits you can take, just how many you can dish out. CON affects how many you can take.
AAB 06-15-07, 05:10 PM	The problem with your "observation" is that CHA has absolutely nothing with being convinced or persuaded. CHA just convinces and persuades. There is a major difference. It's just like STR doesn't effect how may hits you can take, just how many you can dish out. CON affects how many you can take. one of the uses for diplomacy is actually an opposed diplomacy check - haggling to lower the price of goods.
Holy_Beholder 06-16-07, 02:04 AM	I think the reason they take the penalty on the charisma stat is because those ability adjustments are versus the default of human. They are short and stocky compared to humans...sorta like George Costanza. Folks are drawn to and prefer to follow more refined, elegant, taller, slender types. This is why half-orcs also take a charisma hit...I mean look at them. Versus other dwarves, they're all short and stocky anyway, so the penalty is neutralized. Its Charisma, not Appearance. If you were talking to a blind guy telepathically eliminating both appearance and voice(maybe) your charisma would be the same.
Lady Maedhros 06-16-07, 02:42 AM	Charisma = Sense of self. Pride. Confidence. Undead have high Charisma scores because they are so damn sure that they should exist that they manage to do so in utter defiance of nature. Ditto mind flayers. Dragons have high Cha not because they're hot or anything stupid like that, but because they're :censored: dragons and they damn well know it. Sexual attractiveness and the willingness of others to follow someone's lead, in the real world, are overwhelmingly influenced, more than anything else, by how much any given person seems like he knows what he's talking about. It is the same in D&D. Charisma is a measure of how self-assured you are, how much you value your own opinion and feel assured that others will value it as well. Dwarves are a clan-oriented society. Lawful in the extreme, focused on the subsuming of the individual to the needs of the greater collective, very much without a sense that anything they have to say or anything they desire could possibly be more important than the over-arching needs of the family. They take a penalty to Charisma because they don't think of themselves as individuals, at least not to the extent that humans do. The Borg have Charisma scores of 0. Dwarves are obviously not that bad, but they're a step closer to it then we are. The dwarf Cha hit makes perfect sense, far more than the weird and arbitrary one that gnolls or orcs/half-orcs or other "I'm Grog and I'm more bad:censored: than you!" races take.
key 06-16-07, 11:15 AM	Its Charisma, not Appearance. If you were talking to a blind guy telepathically eliminating both appearance and voice(maybe) your charisma would be the same. Dwarves take a CHA hit because most people aren't blind.
Holy_Beholder 06-16-07, 02:57 PM	The point is it isn't affected by vision. Lets take a modern example, your charisma doesn't go down if you talk on the radio. Also back to D&D you cant boost your charisma with an illusion, because it is self confidence. Also, charisma works on monster types, and I seriously doubt that a dragon cares about what your build is, unless if involves it being massive and powerful and you having a weapon.
The_Shaman 06-16-07, 03:08 PM	With dwarves it makes more sense if you use additional factors to explain. FR has an explanation for the penalty for Shield (PHB) Dwarves - they are the remainders of the destroyed northern dwarven kingdoms, and their civilization has been on a long downfall, with many clans almost struggling for survival. Even if they would never admit it, this has made them more morose and has shaken their confidence. The gold dwarves of the south have not had such problems, but their rather sedentary culture and heavily armored military has made them a bit slower and less nimble (-2 dex) instead. I think that such explanation helps make sense of it all. Remember that a score of 10 is human average. It could be that most human cultures are oriented towards more purposeful, self-assured individuals than, say,goblins or half-orcs.
key 06-16-07, 03:39 PM	The point is it isn't affected by vision. Lets take a modern example, your charisma doesn't go down if you talk on the radio. Also back to D&D you cant boost your charisma with an illusion, because it is self confidence. Also, charisma works on monster types, and I seriously doubt that a dragon cares about what your build is, unless if involves it being massive and powerful and you having a weapon. I agree that there's more to CHA than physical attractiveness, but physical attractiveness is certainly one of the ingredients. I agree that CHA doesn't 'go down' if I talk on the radio...there's just an element of it (looks) which I cannot utilize. Now let's assume that the messages are given in person, rather than via radio. If I'm an attractive young human, as opposed to say, a short, stocky dwarf, I will win over a higher % of my audience than he will, thanks to my looks.
JulesCARV 06-16-07, 04:31 PM	The meaning of a given charisma score varies by the concept of the character in question. It's too much of a composite to really isolate a single factor. For some characters, high charisma could represent be absolute conviction in one's beliefs that makes the character somewhat intimidating and emotionally strong. For others, it might be wit, charm, a sense of humor, and an innate talent for telling tall tales. For others, it might be physical attractiveness. For others, it might be an ability to speak with people in a way that empathizes with their experiences -- being able to identify with the difficulties the apprentice wizard feels in memorizing all of the formulae she's studying, understanding the anticipation and anxeity a young man feel about his expecting wife's child, etc (some might point out that empathy is a function of wisdom. True, but I'm talking about making other people perceive your empathy for them, which is charisma-dependent.) Low charisma is similar, only in the reverse. In short, charisma is the consolidation of many factors into a single number. Since charisma is one number, the information about its components is irrevocably lost. Therefore, attempting to go in the reverse direction -- deriving factors like intense convictions or wit from the charisma score -- is futile, like attempting to derive the population of Chicago from the population of the United States. Now, if we have races, templates, creatures, etc, with particular charisma modifiers -- such as the lich template, the dwarf race, or the succubus -- then we might speculate on what makes them charismatic or uncharismatic, but that doesn't mean that we can reduce charisma to any one thing.
Crimson_Concerto 06-17-07, 01:10 AM	...physical attractiveness is certainly one of the ingredients.No it's not. The PHB is lying to you. There is no statistic in D&D to represent physical attractiveness because physical attractiveness is completely a matter of opinion. Charisma doesn't work like that. Your character can have a CHA of 3 and be ridiculously hot or have a CHA of 20 and be a shriveled up Mind Flayer. For some characters, high charisma could represent be absolute conviction in one's beliefs that makes the character somewhat intimidating and emotionally strong....Actually, I'm pretty sure that's WIS, not CHA.
key 06-17-07, 01:04 PM	No it's not. The PHB is lying to you. There is no statistic in D&D to represent physical attractiveness because physical attractiveness is completely a matter of opinion. I don't know that it's completely a matter of opinion. Let's assume that 50 heterosexual men are held hostage. They have a gun held to their head and are told, one at a time, "You must have relations with 1 of those 2 women over there or get shot." They are told that each woman is 21 years old. Woman A is slender and has clear skin. Woman B is obese, has a deformed head, and is a burn victim. I would think that of the 50 men, at least of the ones who choose to have relations as opposed to getting shot, the majority of them would choose Woman A. Plus, I think they've done a lot of studies showing that babies consistently have more positive reactions to better-looking pictures of people, than they do average-looking folks. Regardless, I have to stick with the PHB, lies or not.
Crimson_Concerto 06-17-07, 01:33 PM	Key, just because the majority shares an opinion doesn't make it any less of an opinion. Furthermore, I don't see where anything in your example has anything to do with charisma at all. Neither woman is trying to convince the men to have "relations" with them or not, it appears. The two women could have CHA scores that are only slightly different, equal, or woman B may even have a much higher one. Appearance in D&D uses circumstancial modifiers and nothing more. EDIT: Oh, and if you're going to try to use more examples, please restrict them to something that won't get this locked or moved to the mature boards...
key 06-17-07, 02:48 PM	EDIT: Oh, and if you're going to try to use more examples, please restrict them to something that won't get this locked or moved to the mature boards... Sorry. Key, just because the majority shares an opinion doesn't make it any less of an opinion. Person B says "It is a fact that 2+2=4 in base 10." Person A says "That's your opinion Person B." Why? Because in Person A's opinion, this whole reality is just somebody's dream. In the real reality, 2+2=5 in base 10. Person A could indeed be right. But for practical purposes, Person B (as well as Persons C - ZZZZ) are going to side with Person B's "opinion". So it's as reasonable to include physical attractiveness as part of CHA as it is to include carrying capacity as a part of STR. Person A (that crazy guy above) may have the opinion that burn victims are beautiful. He may also have the opinion that being able to carry a lot of weight actually means you're weak. Persons B-ZZZZ will continue to operate in reality. Furthermore, I don't see where anything in your example has anything to do with charisma at all. One is a deformed, obese burn victim, the other is not.
Holy_Beholder 06-17-07, 04:03 PM	And if you let the obese burn victim and the other talk for 10 minutes, and the obese burn victim has a good voice, can talk, and is intelligent, and the other stutters, constantly says the same thing over and over, is really annoying, insulting, and other stuff like that, the opinion is going to change, fast. Think of it this way, would you rather date a hot girl(or guy if your a girl) that looks down on you, insults you, has a really high pitched squeaky voice, can't tell the difference between the f sound and the th sound, is always talking about annoying subjects, and is horribly tactless, or an average looking girl(or guy) who sees you as an equal, has a normal voice, can pronounce stuff properly, can talk about interesting subjects, and can manage tact.
key 06-17-07, 04:16 PM	I agree there are other factors. All I'm arguing is that physical attractiveness is one of them.
Qwicksilver 06-17-07, 06:07 PM	I would vote for +2 con -2 dex. The idea that dwarves are just as good rogues as humans, seems more far fetched than a dwarven bard or sorceror, or paladin. Vote Clumsy Dwarves over Grumpy Dwarves Today! :D
Crimson_Concerto 06-17-07, 07:54 PM	Person B says "It is a fact that 2+2=4 in base 10." Person A says "That's your opinion Person B." Why? Because in Person A's opinion, this whole reality is just somebody's dream. In the real reality, 2+2=5 in base 10.Person A is wrong for two reasons. First of all, 2+2=4 in base 10, not 5. Second of all, that's not an opinion. It's a fact, regardless of whether or not this whole reality is somebody's dream (which would indeed be an opinion at this point). There's a difference between having a difference of opinion and simply being wrong. Person A could indeed be right. But for practical purposes, Person B (as well as Persons C - ZZZZ) are going to side with Person B's "opinion".Person A is still wrong, and persons B-ZZZZ are still right. So it's as reasonable to include physical attractiveness as part of CHA as it is to include carrying capacity as a part of STR.WTF? Okay, even assuming your example above HAD been right (which is wasn't), how would that prove anything about physical attractiveness being a part of CHA? :uh-huh: Person A (that crazy guy above) may have the opinion that burn victims are beautiful. He may also have the opinion that being able to carry a lot of weight actually means you're weak. Persons B-ZZZZ will continue to operate in reality.The difference, of course, being that this is a matter of opinion, not CHA, and that your example above is flawed. In your hostage situation, the men ARE NOT making their choise based on CHA. They're making it based off of appearance. You're constructing this example as though you'd already proven your point. I agree there are other factors. All I'm arguing is that physical attractiveness is one of them.Like I've said, physical attractiveness may be a circumstancial modifier to some CHA-based skills or checks at best, but certainly no more.
key 06-17-07, 09:02 PM	Person A is wrong for two reasons. First of all, 2+2=4 in base 10, not 5. Second of all, that's not an opinion. It's a fact, regardless of whether or not this whole reality is somebody's dream (which would indeed be an opinion at this point). There's a difference between having a difference of opinion and simply being wrong. Person A is still wrong, and persons B-ZZZZ are still right. You are assuming this is not all a dream. Let me try again. Let's assume Person X states "Cars exist." Person X could be wrong if this is all a little boy's dream. When the little boy wakes up he realizes that there is no such thing. Unfortunately, horses are the quickest way to get around. Cars have never existed. Someone needs to invent them! In other words, technically, knowing anything with 100% certainty is not possible, because this could all be a dream. Thus, any "fact" is mere opinion. WTF? Okay, even assuming your example above HAD been right (which is wasn't), how would that prove anything about physical attractiveness being a part of CHA? :uh-huh: Just because physical attractiveness might be an opinion does not disqualify it from being a part of CHA, per the PHB. After all, everything is technically an opinion, including the carrying capacity portion of STR. In your hostage situation, the men ARE NOT making their choise based on CHA. They're making it based off of appearance. Yes, they made it off of appearance, a component of CHA per the PHB. Like I've said, physical attractiveness may be a circumstancial modifier to some CHA-based skills or checks at best, but certainly no more. Physical attractivesness is as important a component of CHA as any of CHA's other components.
Crimson_Concerto 06-17-07, 09:13 PM	You are assuming this is not all a dream. Let me try again. Let's assume Person X states "Cars exist." Person X could be wrong if this is all a little boy's dream. When the little boy wakes up he realizes that there is no such thing. Unfortunately, horses are the quickest way to get around. Cars have never existed. Someone needs to invent them! In other words, technically, knowing anything with 100% certainty is not possible, because this could all be a dream. Thus, any "fact" is mere opinion.No, honey, it doesn't work like that. Regardless of whether everything we see and know is an illusion, math is not dependant on reality. You'd can't disprove math. There is no reality where 2+2=5 in base 10. The rest of what you say is basically just boiling down to that you think what you read in the PHB is correct, because you read it in the PHB. I think that's called circular logic or something, and it doesn't prove a thing. The PHB is a good starting point to playing D&D, yes, but not everything it says in regards to non-mechanical concepts is always correct.
key 06-17-07, 09:48 PM	The rest of what you say is basically just boiling down to that you think what you read in the PHB is correct, because you read it in the PHB. I think that's called circular logic or something, and it doesn't prove a thing. The PHB is a good starting point to playing D&D, yes, but not everything it says in regards to non-mechanical concepts is always correct. Here's why I went off on my extreme "there are no facts, everything is an opinion" tangent. Yes, it's true that some heterosexual men might prefer to marry a 21 year old blonde, blue-eyed slender female over a 22 year old brunette, green-eyed slender female...and vice-versa. Here, physical attractiveness is very subjective. Either choice is valid. But now compare that 21 year old blonde to a tree. Yes, some oddballs may choose to marry the tree, just like some oddballs might think cars do not exist. The PHB assumes no heterosexual male would choose the tree. It assumes people are not oddballs. That is why they dock dwarves and half-orcs CHA points. They're trees compared to the other races.
Crimson_Concerto 06-17-07, 10:07 PM	Here's why I went off on my extreme "there are no facts, everything is an opinion" tangent.Extreme enough to be wrong, so that you didn't make any kind of point at all? :confused: Yes, it's true that some heterosexual men might prefer to marry a 21 year old blonde, blue-eyed slender female over a 22 year old brunette, green-eyed slender female...and vice-versa. Here, physical attractiveness is very subjective. Either choice is valid....Okay, first of all, marriage is neither about physical appearance nor charisma, so... what are you trying to prove now? :confused: But now compare that 21 year old blonde to a tree. Yes, some oddballs may choose to marry the tree, just like some oddballs might think cars do not exist. The PHB assumes no heterosexual male would choose the tree. It assumes people are not oddballs.And having that be an awakened tree with a really high CHA of 18 completely invalidates this example if we pretend that you're correct in thinking that CHA includes physical attractiveness (and pretend that marriage has anything to do with either physical appearance or CHA). You're basically refuting your own examples here. That is why they dock dwarves and half-orcs CHA points. They're trees compared to the other races.This is true not matter which one of us is right about CHA, so... yeah... The difference is that my explanation still works when the tree is awakened and has a CHA of 18.
key 06-17-07, 10:36 PM	A while back you said "physical attractiveness is completely a matter of opinion." Assume you walked up to 100 heterosexual men on the street in New York City and asked them "What are you more physically attracted to: trees or women?" How many of the 100 do you think would say trees?
Crimson_Concerto 06-17-07, 11:01 PM	A while back you said "physical attractiveness is completely a matter of opinion."It is. Assume you walked up to 100 heterosexual men on the street in New York City and asked them "What are you more physically attracted to: trees or women?"That's not an opinion question. An opinion question would have been "Which is more attractive: trees or women?" However, I recognize that's probably not your point, so I digress... How many of the 100 do you think would say trees?I doubt any of them would. I'm fairly confidant most of them would choose a CHA 16 human woman over a CHA 20 awakened tree, even by just looking at them and judging their physical beauty.
ravenshrike 06-17-07, 11:17 PM	There is no reality where 2+2=5 in base 10. Untrue, especially when you start getting involved in multidimensional math.
Crimson_Concerto 06-17-07, 11:52 PM	Untrue, especially when you start getting involved in multidimensional math.Actually, it is true, and I have started getting involved in multidimensional math. Adding more dimensions doesn't change the fundementals.
Pangeon 06-17-07, 11:52 PM	Mind Flayers =/= Attractive. Beholders =/= Attractive. Ogre Mages =/= Attractive. Charisma doesn't have anything to do with physical attractiveness. People can be beautiful and complete asses, just as people can be ugly as sin and have great personalities.
key 06-18-07, 12:06 AM	That's not an opinion question. Let's assume you're right, and that all 100 said the woman. It would be a fact that (assuming they were being honest) the majority of them were less physically attracted to the tree vs. the woman. Likewise, it could also be a fact (street interviews would need to be conducted) that the majority of persons of the D&D world are less physically attracted to dwarves than humans. Let's assume that this is also a fact. So despite "physical attractiveness being completely a matter of opinion" it is a fact that the majority of persons in the D&D world are less physically attracted to dwarves vis-a-vis humans. Now let's assume that the D&D authors were correct in choosing to make physical attractiveness a component of CHA. They took facts (not opinions) like the one above into consideration when they decided to dock the dwarf 2 charisma points. Evidence that the authors are correct can be found here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charisma): "charisma noun a personal attractiveness or interestingness that enables you to influence others " ... "from Gk. kharisma "favor, divine gift," from kharizesthai "to show favor to," from charis "grace, beauty, kindness,"
zeratulcraft 06-18-07, 12:36 AM	No it's not. The PHB is lying to you. There is no statistic in D&D to represent physical attractiveness because physical attractiveness is completely a matter of opinion. Charisma doesn't work like that. Your character can have a CHA of 3 and be ridiculously hot or have a CHA of 20 and be a shriveled up Mind Flayer. Quote from SRD. Emphasis is so mine. CHARISMA (CHA) Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.
Crimson_Concerto 06-18-07, 04:12 PM	Let's assume you're right, and that all 100 said the woman. It would be a fact that (assuming they were being honest) the majority of them were less physically attracted to the tree vs. the woman.You are correct. It is a fact that most of them were of the opinion that the woman was more physically attractive. Likewise, it could also be a fact (street interviews would need to be conducted) that the majority of persons of the D&D world are less physically attracted to dwarves than humans.It could be, but that wouldn't be the point, now would it? You're asking this question as though I already agreed that physical appearance was a component of CHA. If I don't, then this question does absolutely nothing to advance your point. Let's assume that this is also a fact. So despite "physical attractiveness being completely a matter of opinion" it is a fact that the majority of persons in the D&D world are less physically attracted to dwarves vis-a-vis humans.Maybe so, but results could easily vary from world to world. Either way, this isn't really going anywhere. Now let's assume that the D&D authors were correct in choosing to make physical attractiveness a component of CHA.No. That's exactly what we're debating here. You can't use the implications of a theory to explain it. Logic doesn't work like that. There's a word and/or phrase for it, but I can't remember it... EDIT: It's called "begging the question" or "circular reasoning," and it's a logical fallacy. They took facts (not opinions) like the one above into consideration when they decided to dock the dwarf 2 charisma points.No, they didn't. They imposed the -2 CHA penalty because Dwarves "tend to be gruff and reserved." Do I agree with them? No. But that doesn't change the fact that that's the reason they did it. Evidence that the authors are correct can be found here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charisma): "charisma noun a personal attractiveness or interestingness that enables you to influence others "personal attractiveness =/= physical attractiveness That would be like saying all attractive people also have sparkling personalities and great leadership skills, and all ugly people are rude and can only follow orders. EDIT: Oh, and notice how you had to go down to the fourth definition to find anything containing a word that may lead you to believe it meant anything about physical attractiveness. "from Gk. kharisma "favor, divine gift," from kharizesthai "to show favor to," from charis "grace, beauty, kindness,"A word doesn't always mean the same thing as the word from which it was derived, as you yourself have proven since your definition of Charisma has nothing in it about physical appearance. I further prove my point by showing you that this "kharisma" also meant "kindness", and Adolf Hitler is widely credited as being a very charismatic individual. :P Quote from SRD. Emphasis is so mine. CHARISMA (CHA) Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. You're late, and you've missed the point. You're only restating exactly what we're debating about. Please read the entire topic before posting. :)
drade 06-18-07, 04:22 PM	I haven't read everything here but I do want to put in the reason why I think they have the neg on Cha.. I don't say they don't enter act well with other dwarfs, or other people for that fact. I think this negative to Cha. comes from they are very stubron, they are set in their ways. A dwarf in any book I have ever read is aways going to think he is the better choice for anything. "Carry the one ring." "Running his kingdom." "Doing battle with the dragon." They think and know they do the right thing always. And in return when 2 dwarfs get into a fight about who can drink more then that is where the -2 cha comes from. Not how well they get along with one another. But how when they don't agree then they don't get along with anyone. <Drops 2 copper and leaves the tavern> Drade
AAB 06-18-07, 05:56 PM	I haven't read everything here but I do want to put in the reason why I think they have the neg on Cha.. I don't say they don't enter act well with other dwarfs, or other people for that fact. I think this negative to Cha. comes from they are very stubron, they are set in their ways. A dwarf in any book I have ever read is aways going to think he is the better choice for anything. "Carry the one ring." "Running his kingdom." "Doing battle with the dragon." They think and know they do the right thing always. And in return when 2 dwarfs get into a fight about who can drink more then that is where the -2 cha comes from. Not how well they get along with one another. But how when they don't agree then they don't get along with anyone. <Drops 2 copper and leaves the tavern> Drade well that's not a charisma penalty. that's just dwarves being the best at everything. i think the game designers just gave dwarves a -2 to charisma so the other races wouldn't ***** and moan so much about having to compete with dwarves all the time.
tiluvias99 06-18-07, 06:13 PM	In terms of physical attractiveness, Charisma in DnD is nor how close to "perfect" you are. It is how much of a reaction your sight provokes. If someone sees you and yells, "OH MY GOD!", then you have high charisma- but that could be because you are horrifically ugly, or because you are stunningly beautiful, or anything else. The point is that you stand out, physically, and can be seperated from the rest of the crowd. Someone with low charisma doesn't have to be ugly at all. They could be amazingly beautiful, but perhaps there's something about them (the way they hold themselves, the way they walk, etc.) that makes the average person not notice them as much as other people. Or perhaps they are noticed, just not remembered afterward. That is what Charisma is, in physical terms.
Soltares 06-18-07, 06:42 PM	Heh, the old 'Charisma = physical attractiveness' debate. Yeah, those Charisma 8 Dwarves are *less* attracted to each other, than to those sexy Charisma 10 Humans, and both Dwarves and Humans are *vastly* more attracted to those uber-sexy graverobbing Ghouls with their Charisma 12! And those Charisma 15 Spawn of Kyuss with their writhing green worms and rotting flesh and aura of fear? Hawtness! Hold me back, you maggot-ridden moldering corpse, you, I cannot resist your animal heat! Or, yanno, Mind Flayers and Mummies and Sea Hags and Medusae could have better-than-human Charisma scores as a result of being *charismatic* and it having nothing to do with how badly the average man wants to have sex with them... I'm all for Dwarves having a -2 Dex and +2 Con. Dex has nothing to do with their Crafting skills, so it's perfect for them. Stubby little limbs and thick sturdy fingers, not ideally suited for precision work, but tough like a fireplug. Core dwarves, as depicted, don't seem weak of personality or insecure, so the idea of having them racially penalized in this way doesn't really fit. There are plenty of subraces that fit the notion, being the last dregs of a fallen race, or having some other reason to be down on themselves as a species, but the core PHB Dwarves don't fit this portrayal.
Crimson_Concerto 06-18-07, 06:47 PM	Heh, the old 'Charisma = physical attractiveness' debate. Yeah, those Charisma 8 Dwarves are *less* attracted to each other, than to those sexy Charisma 10 Humans, and both Dwarves and Humans are *vastly* more attracted to those uber-sexy graverobbing Ghouls with their Charisma 12! And those Charisma 15 Spawn of Kyuss with their writhing green worms and rotting flesh and aura of fear? Hawtness! Hold me back, you maggot-ridden moldering corpse, you, I cannot resist your animal heat! Or, yanno, Mind Flayers and Mummies and Sea Hags and Medusae could have better-than-human Charisma scores as a result of being *charismatic* and it having nothing to do with how badly the average man wants to have sex with them... I'm all for Dwarves having a -2 Dex and +2 Con. Dex has nothing to do with their Crafting skills, so it's perfect for them. Stubby little limbs and thick sturdy fingers, not ideally suited for precision work, but tough like a fireplug. Core dwarves, as depicted, don't seem weak of personality or insecure, so the idea of having them racially penalized in this way doesn't really fit. There are plenty of subraces that fit the notion, being the last dregs of a fallen race, or having some other reason to be down on themselves as a species, but the core PHB Dwarves don't fit this portrayal.QFT on every point! :)
Soltares 06-18-07, 06:50 PM	QFT on every point! :) You think Spawn of Kyuss are hawt? Freak! :)
Metafictional 06-18-07, 07:18 PM	I was watching this special on the History channel a few months back and it was about the Neanderthal man, and why the species died out. Basically, it was the Cro-Magnon man's superior ability to communicate and work together (ie, higher Charisma) that allowed humans to dominate and drive back the Neanderthals, right out of what is now Europe. Dwarves are always presented at being very good at working together in fantasy lore, so I wonder if they should have a charisma penalty at all myself. A lot of strange races have Charisma because of how much presence they have, which can be seen on a lot of terrifying creatures. Charisma can be both awe-inspiringly beautiful and heart-stoppingly horrifying. Which, as stated above, is a little odd when you consider some races, like Orcs, who may indeed be savage, brutish, and coarse, but are also quite intimidating.
AAB 06-18-07, 10:12 PM	yeah, half-orcs, orcs, and dwarves shouldn't have a cha penalty. maybe just circumstance penalties to diplomacy. they should still be just as intimidating, if not more so, than a human.
The_Shaman 06-19-07, 03:26 AM	Charisma can be both awe-inspiringly beautiful and heart-stoppingly horrifying. Yep, that's a part of it. When my character sees a Black Dragon Wyrm, he will probably not get hard in the crotch (I hope, the SoB was trying to sneak around on the elf cleric when she was taking her baths last time I checked, so he may be getting pervy), but he will be darn well impressed. The rest is how good you are at actually making use of your looks: that is where the psychological, social etc. factors come in.
key 06-19-07, 09:11 AM	They imposed the -2 CHA penalty because Dwarves "tend to be gruff and reserved." Do I agree with them? No. But that doesn't change the fact that that's the reason they did it. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gruff "American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source gruff (grŭf) Pronunciation Key adj. gruff·er, gruff·est Brusque or stern in manner or appearance: a gruff reply."
suparman999 06-19-07, 09:43 AM	Bottom line, Ghouls and Spawn of Kyuss are not sexay, despite their high charisma score. And I doubt that dwarves would inherently find other dwarves less physically attractive than humans.
The_Shaman 06-19-07, 10:22 AM	Not to mention kobolds...
drade 06-19-07, 01:12 PM	well that's not a charisma penalty. that's just dwarves being the best at everything. i think the game designers just gave dwarves a -2 to charisma so the other races wouldn't ***** and moan so much about having to compete with dwarves all the time. Yes that is a Charisma Penalty, a large part of Charisma is how people see one another. If you add in the fact that Dwarfs are also not very attractive, pig headed, most get mad fast( in stories), and are known not to want to enter act with other races outside of trade. Guess what these are all ways that being dwarf makes you appear less charismaic. If you ask me all these could lead to a charisma penalty. I don't know about some of you guys out there, but and if a woman I want to know because she is very attractive, turns out to be very very stubbron, full of her self, and down right mean to me or anyone else for that fact. Guess what she has a hit to her charisma. I think what WotC intended with the Charisma Penalty on Dwarfs are a way to stay true to most the dwarf stories we have read out there. The three most famous dwarfs I know out is what I base all my dwarf information of. Bruenor, Flint, and Gimli, all of the dwarfs I mention here have the traits I stated above. Think about how they acted how they look and what flaws they had. If it out weighs the good charisma traits then maybe they do need a charisma penalty.
Crimson_Concerto 06-19-07, 04:16 PM	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gruff "American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source gruff (grŭf) Pronunciation Key adj. gruff·er, gruff·est Brusque or stern in manner or appearance: a gruff reply."You really have no luck with the dictionary, do you? :rolleyes: Try looking up Brusque and Stern. Somebody can appear Brusque or Stern regardless of how physically attractive they are.
JulesCARV 06-19-07, 05:59 PM	See, this is exactly what I was saying. You people are trying to go in the reverse direction -- deriving appearance from charisma, applying such standards to, say, ghouls, and then finding that it doesn't make sense. It doesn't work in that direction. You can find the population of the U.S. by summing the populations of all of the states (and territories like Washington DC, Peurto Rico, etc), but you can't take the population of the U.S. and then derive the population of Missouri from it. Does that mean that the population of Missouri is irrelevant to the U.S. population, though? No, of course not! If you add 100,000 people to Missouri's population, ceteris parabis you also increase the U.S.'s population by 100,000. Charisma is like that. Someone could be very charismatic and also have no sense of humor, but "sense of humor" is still part of "charisma." Charisma is a composite statistic derived from its components, not the other way around.
key 06-19-07, 06:10 PM	Somebody can appear Brusque or Stern regardless of how physically attractive they are. Somebody may appear brusque or stern because they are not physically attractive.
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-19-07, 06:13 PM	The way I think about it is this, Charisma is influenced by, but not solely determined by, physical appearance. Note that i didn't mention attractiveness. Something can be visually pleasing but have nothing to do with being sexually attractive. You can have an awesome looking insignia on your cloak and not want to propose to it. A good physical appearance could equate to attractiveness, but need have nothing to do with it. Now then, charisma is indeed partially influenced by physical apprearance. After all, when faced by two identical people who give the exact same speech in the exact same manner, if one if more visually pleasing(say, he's 6' with perfect features, while the other guy is a 4' tall octogenerian), you'd probably be more inclined to listen to him. Dwarves take a penalty to charisma partially because their rough looks lead them to be less influential, but also because they just aren't as good socially as humans. Just as some races are naturally more intelligent and are better at solving problems, some races have less emotional intelligence and cannot influence others as easily. And by RAW, yes, this makes dwarves more likely to listen to human strangers than their own family, but come one, it's called a circumstance bonus. Use it!
Crimson_Concerto 06-19-07, 06:15 PM	See, this is exactly what I was saying. You people are trying to go in the reverse direction -- deriving appearance from charisma, applying such standards to, say, ghouls, and then finding that it doesn't make sense. It doesn't work in that direction. You can find the population of the U.S. by summing the populations of all of the states (and territories like Washington DC, Peurto Rico, etc), but you can't take the population of the U.S. and then derive the population of Missouri from it. Does that mean that the population of Missouri is irrelevant to the U.S. population, though? No, of course not! If you add 100,000 people to Missouri's population, ceteris parabis you also increase the U.S.'s population by 100,000. Charisma is like that. Someone could be very charismatic and also have no sense of humor, but "sense of humor" is still part of "charisma." Charisma is a composite statistic derived from its components, not the other way around.I'm not completely clear on what you're saying, and I'm hoping you can word it better for me, but I'll try to respond anyways: The problem isn't that some things with high CHA are not physically attractive. The problem arrises when you combine that fact with the fact that lots of things that are physically attractive DON'T have a high CHA. Thus you have four extreme possibilities here: High CHA + Physically Attractive High CHA + Not Physically Attractive Low CHA + Physically Attractive Low CHA + Not Physically Attractive When all four possibilities can easily exist, how could anybody draw any sort of corrilation between CHA and Physical Attraction? The two CAN go together about as much as having big muscles can go with being able to resist poisons, but they don't have to and in many cases certainly don't. The only thing that makes people think that CHA relates to physical appearance at all is a sentence or two in the PHB which can thus simply be categorized as mistakes. It's not like they would be the only mistake in D&D. :rolleyes: Also, as a final note, I don't think sense of humor has anything to do with CHA either, and I don't even remember seeing that one in the book. Go above this paragraph and replace every instance of "Physically Attractive" or "Physical Appearance" with "Sense of Humor" and you get the same results. :confused: Somebody may appear brusque or stern because they are not physically attractive.They MAY, but they may also not. You're not making your point with a "MAY."
suparman999 06-19-07, 11:36 PM	When all four possibilities can easily exist, how could anybody draw any sort of corrilation between CHA and Physical Attraction? I don't know how either. Unless all the people saying CHA=physical attractive find beholders teh sexay, and think that dwarves would inherently find humans objectively more attractive than other dwarves (which would not be good, and would mess up the whole ecosystem.)
Lord_of_Omnipotence 06-20-07, 12:55 AM	I don't know how either. Unless all the people saying CHA=physical attractive find beholders teh sexay, and think that dwarves would inherently find humans objectively more attractive than other dwarves (which would not be good, and would mess up the whole ecosystem.) I guess we figured out why there are more humans than dwarves ^^
JulesCARV 06-20-07, 01:08 AM	Let's say I want to be make a sorcerer character. Naturally, I want to have a decent charisma score. Let's say my sorcerer has 16 charisma. What does that charisma mean, in RP terms? Well, I don't know about you, but I think it should mean something (i.e., shouldn't merely be a statistic that means a diplomacy and bluff modifier or +3, etc.), but I don't think that it should be determined exactly what it means. I think that I should also be able to play a sorcerer who is a bit shy, submissive, and introverted, but also has an inner core of absolute conviction in his faith in the Silver Flame that bolsters his ability to perservere hardship and makes him capable of overcoming anything that would force him to compromise or give up his principles, or die trying. He isn't really outgoing or sociable -- but if he wants to persuade you of something he believes in, he believes in it fervently enough that he can persuade others too. Or, alternatively, maybe I want the sorcerer to be an eager-to-please, jovial, socialite, who revels being in company and always wants to make sure everyone around him is having a good time. He has a great sense of humor, is generous, and makes most people he meets eager to spend time with him. Or possibly I want a sorcerer who isn't so pleasant to be around -- someone who's domineering, intimidating, and frightening. He makes people feel very uncomfortable around him, but also usually makes them feel cowed, helpless, and submissive. No one seeks out his company, and many avoid it when they can, but when people are in his company, they seldom dare defy his wishes. Or possibly I want a sorcerer who is, very handsome, as well as easygoing, relaxed, and alway somehow seems like he's "in charge" of the situation regardless of circumstances. He doesn't really interact with people differently than most, but he's handsome, he says everything that he says more gracefully than most would, and he never seems uncomfortable or panicked. Now, if we say that charisma is determined only be a single factor, then we say that the reason for a given charisma score -- high or low -- cannot vary, then we have character concepts being determined by their charisma score, rather than the other way around. I think that with the most popular reductionist view of charisma -- that it is "force of personality" -- the only viable sorcerer concept would be the intimidating, domineering one, but I'm not sure. I should note that I don't think the reason for dwarves' charisma penalty is physical appearance. It could be, but I think that as a contingent fact, it isn't. I think that dwarves just don't place much value on social interaction, and are more comfortable working with metal and stone than talking to their friends. They're happier putting the finishing touches on an intricately engraved, razor sharp axe than they are making small talk. This is the specific reason why dwarves have a charisma penalty, which is not the same reason as why half-orcs, shifters, or elans have charisma penalties, which is, of course, the advantage of regarding charisma as a multifaceted, composite statistic -- you don't always have to tell the same story about the same number: two people could both have 8 charisma, yet completely different personalities. Trolls can be uncharismatic without being turned into shy, diffident, insecure wallflowers. Nymphs can be charismatic without being domineering, imperious, intimidating autocrats. I think that the way charisma should work is that you should create a description of a creature, then give the creature a charisma score. Perhaps the description is that the creature is ugly or beautiful, or perhaps the description is that the creature is shy or outgoing, or perhaps the description is that the creature is boorish or tactful, or perhaps the description is that the creature is harmless-seeming or frightening. After that, give the creature a charisma score that seems to fit the description you've made. Now, sometimes it might go the other way. Perhaps you find that you're making an 8 charisma wizard, and you want create a description to explain it. I don't think that's exactly as optimal as creating the description first, then determining the charisma score, but it works. What I cannot abide, however, is the view that you should determine the charisma score first, then determine what the description is. This is bad. It can mean things like "your 17 charisma sorcerer can't be quiet and shy! He has to be outgoing and sociable, so your character dances with a number of ladies at the ball," or "your 6 charisma dwarf fighter is introverted and shy. He can't just go around talking to people, even if you say he does come off as boorish and tactless when he does it. He sits in the corner trying to avoid people." No. That's wrong. Your character's ability scores may have an influence on how your character is roleplayed, but they don't determine it precisely. How does this relate back to the appearance-and-charisma debate? Well, I admit I've gone on a bit of a tangent, but my point is this: if you say something like "beholders have high charisma, but are not physically appealing. Therefore, physical appeal =/= high charisma. Therefore, charisma and physical appeal are unrelated," you are saying that all given charisma scores mean the same thing. You are saying that a human paladin's 16 charisma is the same as a gnome bard's 16 charisma is the same as a beholder's 16 charisma is the same as a pixie's 16 charisma is the same as a kolyarut's 16 charisma is the same as a ghast's 16 charisma is the same as a vrock's 16 charisma. After all, if all charisma scores didn't mean the same thing, then one would have to concede that "beholders are ugly and charismatic, so charisma and appearance are unrelated" is a bogus argument, because the description for why a beholder is charismatic is different from the description for why a gnome bard is charismatic, and physical appeal could be a significant factor in one and not the other. Since we're saying that every equal charisma score means the same thing for all characters, we're determining how a character must be roleplayed based on her charisma score. I think that's a bad thing. Okay? This may be a bit of a long an convoluted road, I admit, but in my experience, attempts to reduce charisma to a single factor and exclude other possible factors generally lead there. UPDATE: I should note that not all statements to the effect of "appearance is unrelated to charisma" are attempts to reduce charisma to a single meaning. One can easily say "charisma is a composite of factors, and means different things for different creatures: appearance, however, is not one of those factors." I disagree, but it's not really what I was arguing against in most of the above post. However, most of the arguments I've encountered so far have been dependent on reduction of charisma to a single factor. For instance, a "ghasts aren't pretty, but they have 16 charisma, so physical appearance has nothing to do with charisma" is dependent on the aforementioned reductionism, which does in turn lead to restricted roleplaying. I just thought I'd note, though, that not all arguments against appearance having an effect on charisma are based on the reductionist view of charisma, and as such, do not have the bad consequences for roleplaying that I've mentioned. For instance, the fact that alter self alters appearance without altering charisma is an argument against appearance being a component of charisma that does not depend on reducing charisma to any one factor.
AAB 06-20-07, 01:29 AM	okay, i've seen some more points on the dwarf thing and am completely ignoring the physical appearance thing since i already have my mind made up about it and everyone else does too. Dwarves and Charisma do dwarves tend to have strong personalities? do dwarves tend to take charge of any given situation? is a dwarf more intimidating than a human? does a dwarf have deeply held beliefs that are utterly unshakeable? can a dwarf get people to do what he wants? all of these questions, from my perspective, are answered with a "yes", which would indicate high charisma. the ONLY situation i see where a dwarf would have low charisma is because they don't generally desire as much social interaction as humans, elves, etc. personally i just don't understand the dwarven (or half-orc, for that matter) penalty to charisma. for dwarves i prefer a dex penalty. it makes them dwarfier in my mind. and my heart. the end.
key 06-20-07, 09:14 AM	They MAY, but they may also not. You're not making your point with a "MAY." All I'm trying to do is show that my position could be true. To summarize: Per PHB: a component of CHA is physical attractiveness. Per Dictionary: charisma is "personal attractiveness." Attractiveness is "being attractive." Attractive is "pleasing to the eye or mind especially through beauty or charm". So in the PHB, "physically attractive" could mean physically pleasing to the eye through beauty. Per PHB: dwarves "tend to be gruff and reserved." Per Dictionary: gruff is "brusque or stern in manner or appearance." Brusque is "rough." Appearance is "outward or visible aspect of a person or thing." So in the PHB, the "tend to be gruff" part could mean rough in appearance, i.e. the outward/visible aspect of a dwarf is rough. An appearance (outward/visible aspect) that is rough is contrary to something that is pleasing to the eye. Dwarves aren't pleasing to the eye, i.e. they are not physically attractive, i.e. they have low charisma.
RobbyPants 06-20-07, 11:03 AM	I’d also consider the same with other charisma penalised races. What are your opinions people? My take on this has always been that the game seems to be geared around humans and human-like creatures. Thus, anything seriously different suddenly has a Cha penalty assosciated with it, as they're considered abnormal. Now, I've never fully liked this. I've been redoing a lot of the core races for my upcoming campaign (and I may post them here once I iron out all the details). Ammong other things, I removed the Cha penalty from half-orcs (keeping the Int penalty). I don't feel they lack a force of personality. I certainly feel that a half-orc sorcerer seems more viable than a wizard (at least by flavor), and this gives a mechanical reason, too. I'm strongly debatind on chaning the Cha penalty for dwarves to Dex. About the only core LA +0 race that I'm thinknig about keeping with a Cha penalty is goblins. But, that's my campaign, and how I do things.
Crimson_Concerto 06-21-07, 05:27 PM	*good stuff*I completely agree. I don't think a character's personality should be determined by a game statistic. Furthermore, it never HAS to be if only we simply define CHA as something more intangable, something that everybody with high CHA actually does share and everybody with low CHA lacks. The problem for a lot of people is determining what this thing is. We know it's not appearance, and no, it's also not necessarely a character's sense of humor, outspokeness, conviction, etc. The best definition I've been able to find is that CHA is mental strength or willpower. It's FORCE of personality, not personality. It's a manipulative stat, just like STR, only it usually works on mind instead of matter. With this kind of definition, CHA has absolutely nothing to do with personality or appearance and still fills its function in game as both a skill modifier and casting stat, allowing one to build their character as they may, and that alone should be reason enough to reject the PHB's definition (though all of my previous points still stand). All I'm trying to do is show that my position could be true.But it can't. To summarize: Per PHB: a component of CHA is physical attractiveness.You keep coming back to this and keep ignoring that this is exactly the step that's causing all of the confusion. You can't prove that CHA has anything to do with physical attractiveness without using the PHB definition, which as I keep telling you and you either can't seem to grasp or are ignoring, is flawed on many levels and is complete garbage. Per Dictionary: charisma is "personal attractiveness." Attractiveness is "being attractive." Attractive is "pleasing to the eye or mind especially through beauty or charm".No, no, no, this is all wrong. Personal attractiveness has absolutely nothing to do with being physically attractive. The word "attractive" is there, but if you're going to stretch the definition of "personal attractiveness" into "physical attractiveness," I can just as easily claim CHA works like a magnet or black hole, bull-rushing things towards you. You can't look at just one word of a phrase and assume it's being used in a certain way, especially not when all evidence shows it ISN'T being used that way. So in the PHB, "physically attractive" could mean physically pleasing to the eye through beauty.And the PHB is wrong. Per PHB: dwarves "tend to be gruff and reserved." Per Dictionary: gruff is "brusque or stern in manner or appearance." Brusque is "rough." Appearance is "outward or visible aspect of a person or thing." So in the PHB, the "tend to be gruff" part could mean rough in appearance, i.e. the outward/visible aspect of a dwarf is rough.It could, in that particular isolated case, IF we assume that it's referring to gruff as "brusque or stern in appearance" instead of "brusque or stern in manner." The problem with your reasoning is that "or." You're assuming it's talking about appearance and not manner, and since we've already proven that CHA has nothing to do with appearance, we must assume it means manner, which ACTUALLY FITS. You keep taking too many leaps of logic and making too many assumptions in your arguments, and you keep presenting the same things over and over again which I've already explained. Why am I not getting through to you? :weep:
key 06-21-07, 07:21 PM	You can't look at just one word of a phrase and assume it's being used in a certain way, I'm saying it could be used that way. CHA has nothing to do with appearance Per Dictionary: charisma is "personal attractiveness." Attractiveness is "being attractive." Attractive is "pleasing to the eye or mind especially through beauty or charm".
Crimson_Concerto 06-21-07, 07:54 PM	I'm saying it could be used that way.No it can't, because of what I explained earlier about attractiveness and being a black hole. Read my last response again.
key 06-22-07, 12:24 AM	Per dictionary.com, personal is "of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person." Person is "physique and general appearance." Physique is "physical or bodily structure, appearance, or development." Therefore, part of someone's personal makeup is their physical structure or appearance. Therefore, a component of personal attractiveness (CHA) is physical attractiveness.
Crimson_Concerto 06-22-07, 04:35 PM	Per dictionary.com, personal is "of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person." Person is "physique and general appearance." Physique is "physical or bodily structure, appearance, or development." Therefore, part of someone's personal makeup is their physical structure or appearance. Therefore, a component of personal attractiveness (CHA) is physical attractiveness.You just can't seem to stop stretching things out to impossible positions. FIRST of all, "person" does NOT only mean "physique and general appearance." SECOND of all, just because there is a single definition which when stretched will support your case does NOT mean your case is correct, because you're not using the correct definitions. THIRD of all, we already KNOW charisma has nothing to do with appearance because of the various other proofs. The ONLY thing you seem to be able to do at this point is look things up in the disctionary, and even then, you're looking up the WRONG definitions. You can't prove anything this way, and it doesn't support or advance your case at all. I can just as easily do the following: Per dictionary.com, Personal is "of the nature of an individual rational being." Nature is "the biological functions or the urges to satisfy their requirements." Function is "Assigned duty or activity." Therefore, a component of personal attractiveness (CHA) is the attractiveness of the activity one is biologically urged to do. See? Quoting from the dictionary goes ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE if you cite one definition and not another, especially when you don't use the definition that can best be inferred from the proper intent and usage of the word in context. Stop doing it, it's not working.
JulesCARV 06-22-07, 09:05 PM	Well, to me it seems that saying that charisma is some kind of intangible, undefinable "force of personality" that has no ramifications for roleplaying is basically equivalent to saying that it's purely a mechanical statistic, and having 11 charisma means nothing more or less than +0 modifiers to bluff, diplomacy, handle animal, etc, the ability to cast 0th and 1st level bard and sorcerer spells, no modifier or turn/rebuke undead checks, ability to take 11 damage from ego whip before passing out, etc. As I mentioned earlier, I'd rather avoid that kind complete relegation of charisma to the metagame, blocking it from actually meaning anything within a D&D game "in-world," aside from the mechanics explicitly stated in the rules.
suparman999 06-23-07, 08:51 AM	CHA is not hard to RP. If you have low CHA, rp that by studdering, talking unintelligibly, saying things like "Uhh..." and "Umm..." and "Blog" alot, pausing alot, etc.
Soltares 06-23-07, 07:32 PM	Dwarves and Charisma do dwarves tend to have strong personalities? do dwarves tend to take charge of any given situation? is a dwarf more intimidating than a human? does a dwarf have deeply held beliefs that are utterly unshakeable? can a dwarf get people to do what he wants? all of these questions, from my perspective, are answered with a "yes", which would indicate high charisma. the ONLY situation i see where a dwarf would have low charisma is because they don't generally desire as much social interaction as humans, elves, etc. Sounds right to me. Strap a Dex penalty on those puppies and let the Dwarven king be as leaderly and commanding a presence as the Human king. Charisma is force of personality. Dwarves in the core setting are not insecure, nor do they exhibit some sort of racial inferiority complex. (Gully Dwarves, in Dragonlance, definitely, Forsaken Dwarves in the Scarred Lands, probably, but core Dwarves, not even close.) If it was based on physical appearance, races that are always higher Charisma than Humans and Dwarves, like Spawn of Kyuss and Mind Flayers would be the supermodels and PlayElf centerfolds of the D&D settng.
Forgember 06-24-07, 11:10 AM	Charisma = Sense of self. Pride. Confidence. Undead have high Charisma scores because they are so damn sure that they should exist that they manage to do so in utter defiance of nature. Ditto mind flayers. Dragons have high Cha not because they're hot or anything stupid like that, but because they're :censored: dragons and they damn well know it. Sexual attractiveness and the willingness of others to follow someone's lead, in the real world, are overwhelmingly influenced, more than anything else, by how much any given person seems like he knows what he's talking about. It is the same in D&D. Charisma is a measure of how self-assured you are, how much you value your own opinion and feel assured that others will value it as well. Dwarves are a clan-oriented society. Lawful in the extreme, focused on the subsuming of the individual to the needs of the greater collective, very much without a sense that anything they have to say or anything they desire could possibly be more important than the over-arching needs of the family. They take a penalty to Charisma because they don't think of themselves as individuals, at least not to the extent that humans do. The Borg have Charisma scores of 0. Dwarves are obviously not that bad, but they're a step closer to it then we are. The dwarf Cha hit makes perfect sense, far more than the weird and arbitrary one that gnolls or orcs/half-orcs or other "I'm Grog and I'm more bad:censored: than you!" races take. Excellent job :clap: