Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-15-05, 01:15 PM	I'm just curious... how many of you use comeliness? Why or why not? I use it because I think it adds more depth to the characters.
Lina_Inverse 04-15-05, 01:21 PM	i certinly dont.it doesnt affect the dice at all,so theres no reason for me to say no to any appaerance they want.if i dont get a description i assume there all attractive.with the excuse either of there heros,or some mage had to make a spell in all those years....
Salla 04-15-05, 01:43 PM	I let the players decide how pretty/ugly their characters are. It's largely irrelevant, especially considering that what's pretty to one race may not be to another, much less the idea of personal preferences that vary from individual to individual. Beauty, as well as an anti-magic ray, is in the eye of the beholder.
MadBlue 04-15-05, 09:34 PM	I just use the "Sex Appeal" Feat from d20 Pulp Heroes. It gives a +3 to Bluff and Diplomacy on checks dealing with the opposite sex (or whoever would normally be attracted to you). As far as Comeliness is concerned, most players don't care too much, and those that do always somehow wind up with a high Comeliness score for their characters ("honestly, I rolled an 18"). If a few players want their characters to be good-looking enough for it to be a factor, and most players don't care, it's probably worth making it a Feat instead of another ability. MadBlue
Aurotuli 04-15-05, 09:51 PM	Part of the problem with Comeliness is that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' What an elf finds comely likely differs from what a gnome finds comely - or another elven subrace (copper, wild, etc). Consider real life. During the middle ages what was considered comely for women differed in many ways from what is considered comely today. Today tends to focus on either slimness or an hourglass figure (at least from what I see on tv, on magazine covers, etc). In the middle ages a little plumpness was seen as comely in many parts of europe. In japan extreme paleness was seen as comely (hence the makeup worn by geisha). I rather doubt that was the case in many parts of africa. I think, in terms of gameplay, comeliness should not be a stat. Either let the character determine their appearance and do not allow it to affect any rolls, or - if you must use a system, use the feats already in play: Persuasive and Alluring. These are as much or more due to force of personality than appearance, but they are likely closer to being 'comely' in the manner you seem to wish. And the game effects are already determined (a bonus to diplomacy and some social skills, if I recall correctly). One of the problems I've had with the game system is that many seem to assume that high charisma results in extraordinary beauty. I had one GM a while back that always described any high Cha character as very beautiful / handsome and any low Cha character as repulsively ugly. To keep this odd view away from my games I renamed the ability as "Presense" (Prs). The term "Charisma" seems to have gained a comely reputation somehow (pun intended).
wordserpent 04-15-05, 10:05 PM	I allow the players to have their characters look as beautiful or as ugly as they like. I certainly would not waste a stat on it. MadBlue's idea of using a feat to indicate incredible beauty isn't a bad idea. Dedicating a feat to ones good-looks however should net a character a really beautiful appearance.
MadBlue 04-16-05, 03:20 AM	I allow the players to have their characters look as beautiful or as ugly as they like. I certainly would not waste a stat on it. MadBlue's idea of using a feat to indicate incredible beauty isn't a bad idea. Dedicating a feat to ones good-looks however should net a character a really beautiful appearance.Although, "Sex Appeal" (called "Seductive" in WoT) already exists. A +3 to two social skill checks usable on members of the opposite sex is pretty useful for a Feat. That's like having a 16 Charisma to the NPCs in question. If you want to be so beautiful that you stop conversation and turn heads when you walk into a room, and cause members of the opposite sex to fawn over you, that's probably worth more than one Feat. Stunning Beauty You are so beautiful that you stop conversation and turn heads when you walk into a room, and cause members of the opposite sex to fawn over you. Prerequisite: Sex Appeal Benefit: Once a round, you can, as a free action, make a Diplomacy check on all members of the opposite sex (or those who would ordinarily be attracted to you) within 30 feet of you, to improve their initial reaction to you. Normal: Diplomacy takes 1 full minute of interaction, or 1 full round at a -10 penalty to the check. That's just off the cuff, using "Frightful Presence" (from SWRPG) as a model. I can't make any claims that it's balanced. MadBlue
Tenzhi 04-16-05, 05:31 AM	I don't, because the comeliness score would always vary according to the viewer making it pointless to try to make it a flat score.
wordserpent 04-16-05, 02:55 PM	MadBlue, is the STUNNING BEAUTY feat something that must be chosen at first level? In that case only humans would be allowed to have it since they are the only ones who get two feats at first level. Also, how do you justify a character suddenly becoming STUNNINGly Beautiful upon reaching third or sixth level? Unless of course your character undergoes polymorphic surgery? Perhaps the sex appeal and the Stunning Beauty feat could be merged since stunningly beautiful people tend to inspire lustful intentions in others? As for the Frightful Appearance...all you need is a razor blade.
SammasterT 04-16-05, 03:21 PM	I use the old Comeliness stat. True it doesn't really effect the game much, at least not mechanically, but sometimes its useful to know and can add depth to a character or circumstance. I like knowing that my old bard (recently fireballed to death) was capable of sweeping women off their feet, but was actually a little on the homely side nevertheless. If I had of had my choice he would have at least been moderately good looking, but then I wouldn't have this memorable character, warts and all, in my memory. One of my faults is always assuming that the players, and most everyone else is physically fit with a good build ... or at least not tooo many layers of fat. I tend to use COM for facial beauty alone. Anyway, too bad the tables for height and weight suck so bad, and aren't tied into things like STR, CON, and DEX, but thems the breaks I guess.
MadBlue 04-16-05, 10:13 PM	MadBlue, is the STUNNING BEAUTY feat something that must be chosen at first level? In that case only humans would be allowed to have it since they are the only ones who get two feats at first level.No. It wouldn't have to be chosen at 1st level. Of course it would mean that only Humans could have both Sex Appeal and Stunning Beauty at 1st level - which might rub some Elf afficionados the wrong way - but then again, a 1st level Human Fighter can be a better archer than a 1st level Elf Fighter by virtue of the extra Feat. Being human has its privileges. Also, how do you justify a character suddenly becoming STUNNINGly Beautiful upon reaching third or sixth level? Unless of course your character undergoes polymorphic surgery?Granted, we're talking about a game where you can "suddenly" become proficient with every martial weapon, armor and shield type by taking a level of Fighter. Presumably, like weapon proficiency, etc., the character would be assumed to be working on their appearance in their off hours. Perhaps the sex appeal and the Stunning Beauty feat could be merged since stunningly beautiful people tend to inspire lustful intentions in others?Well, like I said, Sex Appeal is already a Feat, and a very useful one at that, since anyone who devotes a Feat slot to it is going to find ways to make it useful to them as often as they can. Combining both Sex Appeal and Stunning Beauty into one Feat would make it too powerful. As for the Frightful Appearance...all you need is a razor blade.Frightful Presence requires 9 Ranks in Intimidate and Cha 15+. It's more about how you carry yourself than what you look like. MadBlue
HailSpork 04-16-05, 11:17 PM	Also, how do you justify a character suddenly becoming STUNNINGly Beautiful upon reaching third or sixth level? You obviously haven't seen enough movies; the dorky girl takes off her glasses, undoes the pony tail to reveal her perfectly managed hair, and puts on a dress instead of overalls.
wordserpent 04-17-05, 05:10 AM	Thank you MadBlue. Your reasoning makes sense. HailSpork has a point as well.
Ranger REG 04-17-05, 09:57 PM	I'm just curious... how many of you use comeliness? Why or why not? I use it because I think it adds more depth to the characters. I don't use it. I don't think a rating should determine how I should describe my character's appearance, especially when drawn. Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To some creatures, we humans are about just a smidge above horse manure in attractiveness. IOW, Comeliness just don't add depth, just superficial.
Thelon Fairblade 04-18-05, 10:01 AM	I allow my players to simply describe how attractive (or unattractive) their characters are. With interaction, their charisma and skills always become the deciding factor. In the current group: ** the human BattleMage is plain but nice-looking, but has a strong and commanding presence when he exerts himself (CHA 17) ** the elven cleric is thin and pale, and always has an air of being somewhat distracted (INT 8 from being kicked i nthe head by a horse; CHA 10 - he can pull himself together on topics concerning religion and undead) ** the human rogue is plain to the point of forgetability, but when she smiles (CHA 14) she becomes quite charming and lovely ** the human barbarian is a statuesque blonde, unconcerned about "civilized" nudity taboos... but she has a mouth like an outhouse and an abrasive personaility and blunt manner of speech that is incredibly off-putting (CHA 8 - situationally played as CHA 5 or 6, but mitigated by her beauty... the actual rolled score was 8 though) It's all in the description. The charming but homely bard is another great example. Great beauty or plain boringness have their role-playing potentials, which characters can mitigate or influence with the true presence statistic of Charisma. Harkening back to Basic D&D, Hitler was described as 18 CHA... So, no, I don't think a Comeliness stat affords any benefit to the game. If the player wants a mechanical benefit, purchase a feat. That's true about total lack of beauty/ugliness, too -- if you *really* want to "blend into a crowd" due to your plainness... purchase Stealthy.
HailSpork 04-18-05, 05:09 PM	Well, in one campaign I'm playing in, I have a changeling. What is the comeliness of a changeling? Anything I want it to be. True, I'm limited by my artistic ability... And it doesn't stop at changelings; a level 1 arcane caster can cast disguise self. Others need to purchase an 1800 gp hat.
StormKnight 04-19-05, 11:42 AM	For some reason this is one of my pet peeves. If you are going to have an appearance stat, fine and good and all...but why comeliness??? Yes, some D&D thing a few editions back used it, but they also used THAC0 and max levels for nonhumans. Appearance, Attractiveness, Charm, there are so many things to call it. For some reason I just fine "comeliness" to be a horribly awkward and odd word. I let appearance be a matter of player choice - it is highly subjective and hard to implement anyway. Sure sometimes it will give you a bonus, but how about the times when the other person has a totally different standard? Or is worried about making their significant other jealous? Or the people who have a negative reaction from jealousy? Just not worth it.
Tenzhi 04-20-05, 03:38 AM	If you are going to have an appearance stat, fine and good and all...but why comeliness??? It has more pseudo-medieval flavour. Taverns are filled with comely serving wenches you see, and if we want to know just how comely they are we have to consult their comeliness score. :P
weasel fierce 04-20-05, 04:57 AM	We use it, though its never actually used in a test. Its more a descriptive factor.
Insignia) 04-21-05, 05:42 AM	I don't use comeliness. My players are mature enough not to make every character "stunningly beautiful," so we usually don't have any issues with it... I agree with some of the others: it's all in the description. Thelon Fairblade: Just as a side note, a character who gets hit in the head by a horse (especially an elf character) is (95% of the time) a *dead* character. Try it, you'll see what I mean. :P A
J Milburn 04-22-05, 02:53 PM	Well, we have an awkward system. We decided it would just sort it out and save the bad rolepleyers from getting the highest charisma they could afford. 3d6 base, + double charisma, +2 for good, -2 for evil, +2 half elf, -2 halforc (and others for other races obviously) People moan about the good evil thing, or the people whop refuse to play unless theyt are CN anyway.
IceFractal 04-23-05, 03:08 AM	Now see, your rules about the score show exactly what's wrong with it (no offense). +2 for Half-Elf, -2 for Half-Orc. That's fine ... if the observer is a human. To a full orc, the half-orc would likely be more appealing. To an elf, the half-orc might be hideous, whereas to a gnome, they'd both be too tall and skinny, and about the same otherwise. To a beholder, all humanoids are about equally "comely" - no more so than a snake or a desk lamp. Incidientally, I'm not so sure about the good/evil thing either. What about the extremely hot yet extremely evil Sorceress? That's practically an archetype. What about the (either metaphorical or literal) "handsome devil"?
Ranger REG 04-23-05, 05:39 AM	As I have said earlier, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. As you have pointed out, the one Comeliness score would have to vary depending on the observer's race and their definition of beauty, whereas other ability scores remain the same across the board.
Tenzhi 04-23-05, 05:54 AM	As I have said earlier, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. As you have pointed out, the one Comeliness score would have to vary depending on the observer's race and their definition of beauty, whereas other ability scores remain the same across the board. Or, as a very wise person once said: "the comeliness score would always vary according to the viewer making it pointless to try to make it a flat score."
Kursk 04-23-05, 01:34 PM	I used it about 18 years ago. Didn't affect the game enough to continue...
J Milburn 04-24-05, 05:31 AM	Now see, your rules about the score show exactly what's wrong with it (no offense). +2 for Half-Elf, -2 for Half-Orc. That's fine ... if the observer is a human. To a full orc, the half-orc would likely be more appealing. To an elf, the half-orc might be hideous, whereas to a gnome, they'd both be too tall and skinny, and about the same otherwise. To a beholder, all humanoids are about equally "comely" - no more so than a snake or a desk lamp. Incidientally, I'm not so sure about the good/evil thing either. What about the extremely hot yet extremely evil Sorceress? That's practically an archetype. What about the (either metaphorical or literal) "handsome devil"? yes, im talking about typical good looks here, like in the case of a model. Well, i only actually planned to use this for the PCs to roll (i included evil because some of my players like that, i dont) and everyone else i decide. And it is basically from the point of veiw of a human, me and my players are 14 for goodness sake!
MadBlue 04-24-05, 01:17 PM	yes, im talking about typical good looks here, like in the case of a model. Well, i only actually planned to use this for the PCs to roll (i included evil because some of my players like that, i dont) and everyone else i decide. And it is basically from the point of veiw of a human, me and my players are 14 for goodness sake!When I was around your age (actually a little older - I think I was 16 at the time) our group played a superhero RPG called Villains and Vigilantes. One of the character generation methods was to create yourself as a superhero, basing the stats (which were similar to D&D stats) on yourself. We got into a big argument as to who had the highest Charisma in our group and wound up rolling up random characters. :D MadBlue
wordserpent 04-24-05, 02:57 PM	When I was around your age (actually a little older - I think I was 16 at the time) our group played a superhero RPG called Villains and Vigilantes. One of the character generation methods was to create yourself as a superhero, basing the stats (which were similar to D&D stats) on yourself. We got into a big argument as to who had the highest Charisma in our group and wound up rolling up random characters. :D MadBlue I am an old V&V player myself (I still have all the books and mods). I found that there were always arguments on ALL of the stats. But one point to bring up is in V&V your charisma determined how Good or Bad you were. Prominant evil guys had high charisma scores but they suffered negative reactions from good people and vice-versa. Charisma in that game was a useless stat because it only let you inflence people who were already on your side.
Vanamir 04-25-05, 08:37 AM	I don't use comeliness simply because it is something that depends too much on your race. What a human might consider beautiful is not necessarily what a goblin finds attractive and vice versa. Having universal standards of attractiveness among all races seems a little bit unbelievable to me. Even among members of a single race there would be huge differences what individuals prefer so it seems to me way to subjective to have a comeliness score.
unconformist 04-26-05, 01:29 AM	Beauty, as well as an anti-magic ray, is in the eye of the beholder. that has to be the best quote ever... but anyway... that said... i have, over the course of 5 years, compiled a complete listing of comeliness modifiers due to race using all creatures in the monster manuals and all playable races to date... it's a spreadsheet that takes up five square pages and is organized so you can crossreference any race to see who they find attractive......... no... making comeliness an actual stat for dnd is idiotic... there's too many races with differring opinions... it wouldn't be worth it... why is no one happy with the number of stats in dnd? it's balanced... it may not be perfect, but it's balanced... i'm not just talking about this thread... there's so many threads saying to add this ability score and that ability score... and pretty soon, i'm thinking i'm going to see a thread suggesting 50 ability scores encompassing everything possible... we'll have a special score just to dictate sunder attempts... you don't need to specialize ability scores that much people... if you want a game with more specialized ability scores, they are out there... dnd is nice and simple and good the way it is...
weasel fierce 04-26-05, 01:33 AM	dnd is nice and simple and good the way it is... which is why the players handbook is 314 pages ;)