I dislike how Charisma measures physical attractiveness AND force of personality.
Have to seen most models? Beautiful people but not very charismatic. Have you seen lots of inspirational people? Not very attractive.
Imagine building Churchill in D&D. His massive CHA score would mean he's both inspirational and handsome, the latter of which he is not.
Physical attractiveness should be something the player either chooses ("I want to be a scarred up Half-Orc, so I have an 8 ATR" where as the dashing Bard has a 16!, etc.).
I dislike how Charisma measures physical attractiveness AND force of personality.
Have to seen most models? Beautiful people but not very charismatic. Have you seen lots of inspirational people? Not very attractive.
Imagine building Churchill in D&D. His massive CHA score would mean he's both inspirational and handsome, the latter of which he is not.
Physical attractiveness should be something the player either chooses ("I want to be a scarred up Half-Orc, so I have an 8 ATR" where as the dashing Bard has a 16!, etc.).
There was Comeliness, introduced in Unearth Arcana (a supplement for AD&D).
From the book: Comeliness reflects physical attractiveness, social grace, and personal beauty of the character. It is used to determine initial reactions to the character, and characters with a high comeliness may affect the wills and actions of others. While charisma deals specifically with leadership and interactions between characters, comeliness deals with attractiveness and first impressions. Comeliness is not charisma. Charisma, however, can affect comeliness.
Comeliness must not have been a very *attractive* stat though; by 2nd Edition it was nowhere to be found. Wonder how popular it was back in the day?
I dislike how Charisma measures physical attractiveness AND force of personality.
It's not really both, though--it's pretty much only force of personality and sense of self, but many people conflate it with physical attractiveness anyway.
Have to seen most models? Beautiful people but not very charismatic.
I disagree--most models are not attractive at all. I mean, there are always exceptions (Heidi Klum), but jeez, have you seen model's typically weird faces and gross skeletal bodies?
Physical attractiveness should be something the player either chooses ("I want to be a scarred up Half-Orc, so I have an 8 ATR" where as the dashing Bard has a 16!, etc.).
I agree that physical appearance should be freely chosen by the player, but I see absolutely no reason to mechanize and score it. Just keep it in the realm of descriptive roleplay.
I dislike how Charisma measures physical attractiveness AND force of personality.
Have to seen most models? Beautiful people but not very charismatic. Have you seen lots of inspirational people? Not very attractive.
Imagine building Churchill in D&D. His massive CHA score would mean he's both inspirational and handsome, the latter of which he is not.
Physical attractiveness should be something the player either chooses ("I want to be a scarred up Half-Orc, so I have an 8 ATR" where as the dashing Bard has a 16!, etc.).
Bullhookums. A pretty girl can far more easily talk me into things than a silver-tongued socialite.
Yes, this time around. Whatever version of D&D being played in 2030 or so may have more or less stats.
Oh, I didn't realize we were talking about 2030.
Oh, right...we weren't.
Thanks for confirming my statement.
If you want to get smart about it, D&D hasn't always had just 6 stats. Comeliness proves that. The point that I was making, and that I believe Salla was also making, is that D&D is a product that changes over time, so there is no guarantee that every edition will follow the 6 attribute paradigm. The devs have said, for now, that DDN will follow that tradition. However, there really is no reason why you couldn't have modules that alter the number of attributes. Also, 2030 isn't that far off. If DDN runs as long as AD&D 2e did, then 6e will come out around 2024.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
1. Numerous social psychology experiments have found that physical attractiveness does in fact add to how persuasive one is - people who are considered attractive are more likely to be judged likable, trustworthy, competant, intelligent, and good, and so forth. It's not the only factor, hence people who are attractive but have little ability to persuade others and people who aren't but who have strong abilities to persuade others; indeed, there are techniques that people can learn to be more persuasive (i.e, acting and public speaking in general). Churchill would be someone who had a low physical Charisma but a high trained Charisma.
If we wanted to get really granular, there should be a Personality stat and an Appearance stat, but given that you could describe a Strength 18 character as either bulging with muscles or wirey, I don't think it's absolutely necessary.
2. I agree with Mithrus and others who have pointed out that Wisdom is the stat that doesn't make sense, because it's trying to carry way too much weight. Consider what Wisdom is supposed to represent: - common sense - sensory acuity - intuition - willpower - Divine spellcasting prowess - affinity for Heal, Listen, Profession, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival.
These are not a cohesive set of qualities. Willpower is not the same thing as sensory acuity, nor intuition the same thing as common sense necessarily. Moreover, it's not at all clear why sensory acuity or common sense should influence how willing the gods are to let you access the divine. Finally, the skill set is wonky. Listen and Spot follow from sensory acuity, but Heal, Profession, and really Survival should be Int-based, given that Int reflects your capacity for learning and all of those things require intensive tutelage. Sense Motive really should be Charisma-based, given that Charisma is supposed to reflect persuasiveness and social skills and good practicioners tend to be good at spotting fellow practioners at work.
There was Comeliness, introduced in Unearth Arcana (a supplement for AD&D).
From the book: Comeliness reflects physical attractiveness, social grace, and personal beauty of the character. It is used to determine initial reactions to the character, and characters with a high comeliness may affect the wills and actions of others. While charisma deals specifically with leadership and interactions between characters, comeliness deals with attractiveness and first impressions. Comeliness is not charisma. Charisma, however, can affect comeliness.
Comeliness must not have been a very *attractive* stat though; by 2nd Edition it was nowhere to be found. Wonder how popular it was back in the day?
Comeliness would be a good stat, that way the ability does more than just show how good looking one is.
I dislike how Charisma measures physical attractiveness AND force of personality.
It's not really both, though--it's pretty much only force of personality and sense of self, but many people conflate it with physical attractiveness anyway.
They equate it with Physical Attractiveness because that's what Charisma is (in addition to Force of Personality).
From the SRD:
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.
Have to seen most models? Beautiful people but not very charismatic.
I disagree--most models are not attractive at all. I mean, there are always exceptions (Heidi Klum), but jeez, have you seen model's typically weird faces and gross skeletal bodies?
Modern models are just weird scarecrow people that designers pitty enough to dress in colorful rags... I was thinking clasic models like Heidi or Cindi Crawford.
Have you seen lots of inspirational people? Not very attractive.
Actually, they are very attractive, because studies have proven confidence is more attractive than any given physical quality.
I am not attracted to Winston Chruchill. He's a great guy but he's not my type. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Physical attractiveness should be something the player either chooses ("I want to be a scarred up Half-Orc, so I have an 8 ATR" where as the dashing Bard has a 16!, etc.).
] I agree that physical appearance should be freely chosen by the player, but I see absolutely no reason to mechanize and score it. Just keep it in the realm of descriptive roleplay.
It need a mechanical expression to show scale. It could easily be 1-10 but putting it on a 1-18+ scale a) ties in with the system better and b) has more options for diversification.
If you want to get smart about it, D&D hasn't always had just 6 stats. Comeliness proves that. The point that I was making, and that I believe Salla was also making, is that D&D is a product that changes over time, so there is no guarantee that every edition will follow the 6 attribute paradigm. The devs have said, for now, that DDN will follow that tradition. However, there really is no reason why you couldn't have modules that alter the number of attributes. Also, 2030 isn't that far off. If DDN runs as long as AD&D 2e did, then 6e will come out around 2024.
Comeliness lasted for less than 4 years. Less than 10% of the game's life span. My point is that the development team seems to be keeping things that have been around for the entire life span of the game (6 stats, hit points, armor class), because they are uniquely D&D. Unless some future development team decides to trash that idea (and even the 4e team didn't do that) it is highly unlikely that D&D will ever have Muscle, Stamina, Smarts, and Perception as it's 4 stats. Talking about 2030 is not the intent of these forums. Talking about D&D Next is.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
My First D&D - 1979 D&D Basic Set (6th Printing)Show
2. I agree with Mithrus and others who have pointed out that Wisdom is the stat that doesn't make sense, because it's trying to carry way too much weight. Consider what Wisdom is supposed to represent: - common sense - sensory acuity - intuition - willpower - Divine spellcasting prowess - affinity for Heal, Listen, Profession, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival.
These are not a cohesive set of qualities. Willpower is not the same thing as sensory acuity, nor intuition the same thing as common sense necessarily. Moreover, it's not at all clear why sensory acuity or common sense should influence how willing the gods are to let you access the divine. Finally, the skill set is wonky. Listen and Spot follow from sensory acuity, but Heal, Profession, and really Survival should be Int-based, given that Int reflects your capacity for learning and all of those things require intensive tutelage. Sense Motive really should be Charisma-based, given that Charisma is supposed to reflect persuasiveness and social skills and good practicioners tend to be good at spotting fellow practioners at work.
Dexterity is almost as wonky, since manual dexterity, balance, and hand-eye coordination have little to do with each other. There is a challenge though; how to not have the game become like GURPS were different abilties are inherently stronger that other such that the only "balance" is to have them cost more (if point buy was strictly enforced). I'd rather try to redistribute some of the associated features.
You listed skills using the 3e skill set. 4e condensed some of the skills into broader skills: Arcana merged 3e Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft. Athletics is Climb and Jump. Steath is Move Silently and Hide in Shadows. Perception is Spot and Listen. Et al. There were some imbalances, but it was an overall improvement, IMO. Every skill got active and passive qualities.
One aspect of 5e that IMO was brilliant was disassociating skill checks from abilities completely. Now you use the ability that makes the most sense based on HOW you are trying to accomplish the action. Opening a locked door? Str+hammer/axe might work. Dex/Int+tools might work. Wis+looking under the mat for the key might work Cha+asking a guard to open it for you might work. This was possible in all editions, but some had better supporting mechanics than others. The next step IMO would be to allow more than a single ability to impact success.
If we assume a Str/Cha (power), Dex/Int (finesse), Con/Wis (resist) pairing between physical and mental abilities, does this make the situation better or worse? How would this impact combat and skill checks? Just like martial combat has the choice of using Str or Dex, magical combat could have the choice between Cha(power) and Int(finesse). Let Con be the goto ability for resisting physical attacks (Fortitude+Reflex), and Wis for mental attacks (Will). Physical attacks would be Str/Dex (mundane) or Cha/Int (magical) vs Physical Defense*. Mental attacks would be Cha or Int vs Mental Defense**.
* Physical Defense is essentially AC in concept, except that it includes more factors: armor worn, Con bonus, class bonus, specialty bonus, circumstance bonus (cover/concealment, attacker having negative status effect, etc). ** Mental Defense is essentially Will, which has fewer defensive bonuses: Wis bonus, class bonus, specialty bonus, circumstance bonus (status effects). As a balance, there are also fewer offensive bonuses, with the primary being the defender having a negative status effect.
Similarly, non-combat actions could use the above pairings as well. Non-combat actions IMO tend to be more complex, which is why I like 5e's approach of letting the circumstance and the HOW dictate the ability. Trying to sneak past a guard? It could be Dex or Int (its all finesse) vs the guard's Mental Defense. Climb a wall? Str or Dex (power or finesse can work) vs a set DC. Negotiations? Could be any of Str/Cha/Dex/Int depending on how you are trying get your point across vs target's Mental Defense. Every ability has a place, with logical crossovers.
Note: If it helps, we can keep Armor Class as the label for Physical Defense, and use Willpower (or something else) for Mental Defense.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Comeliness must not have been a very *attractive* stat though; by 2nd Edition it was nowhere to be found. Wonder how popular it was back in the day?
In my admittedly anecdotal experience it was mostly used by immature adolescents to figure out whether he could seduce the local barwench. In full disclosure, in the 1980's I was an immature adolescent.
stat though; by 2nd Edition it was nowhere to be found. Wonder how popular it was back in the day?
Cha+asking a guard to open it for you might work. This was possible in all editions, but some had better supporting mechanics than others. The next step IMO would be to allow more than a single ability to impact success.
