PDA

View Full Version : Stats=Beefiness?



wadledo
2007-10-31, 11:06 PM
I was wondering what some of you would say the description of a character would be by their physical stats?
Ya know,
Str=muscle
Dex=long limbed, fluid movements
Con= stocky, strong looking
Cha=appearance, also attitude
but, well Con doesnt really work well as a description, does it?

Your opinions?

Machete
2007-10-31, 11:11 PM
Con can go either way. Low str high con is skinny but toned. High str and high con is somewhat bulky.


I guess it follows a shonen-curve in my head between lumberjacks, marathon champions, and the bouncer at the club although not so cartoonish.

Toliudar
2007-10-31, 11:13 PM
I've always taken the stats to be extremely abstract representations, to allow for the very strong halflings and the fighters with the weekend warrior bulge about the middle. There's a close correlation between strength and shoulder width - until there isn't. High-cha people are beautiful - but there are lots of exceptions.

This is potentially not helpful at all. I'm basically saying, don't be tied to the stat numbers.

skywalker
2007-10-31, 11:13 PM
Con can go either way. Low str high con is skinny but toned. High str and high con is somewhat bulky.


I guess it follows a shonen-curve in my head between lumberjacks, marathon champions, and the bouncer at the club although not so cartoonish.

Wait, so lumberjacks are high STR, low CON right? The runners are low STR, high CON, and the bouncer is high both?

Did I get that right?

Chronos
2007-11-01, 12:24 AM
I assume that anyone who manages to get elected to a major national political office has to have a natural 18 in charisma, but I've seen some damn ugly senators. And I'm a six-foot guy with a lot of muscle mass, but the last time I arm-wrestled a 90-pound woman, I lost.

There's certainly a correlation between certain aspects of appearance and ability scores, but there are always exceptions, which is why players are free to give their characters whatever appearance they want.

Zincorium
2007-11-01, 12:25 AM
Wait, so lumberjacks are high STR, low CON right? The runners are low STR, high CON, and the bouncer is high both?

Did I get that right?

Constitution is important for endurance, so I'd nix the lumberjacks as being low constitution (it isn't as though one blow of an axe fells a tree, you need to work at it for a while).

And, in all seriousness, constitution is well up there with wisdom for being very hard to ascertain the presence of. The absence might be notable, though.

horseboy
2007-11-01, 12:47 AM
Who has the high con? The guy who doesn't need the hanky.

Mr.Moron
2007-11-01, 06:00 AM
The only stat I really see as being concretely reflected in appearance is strength. Obviously somebody with a high strength score is going to be fit and well toned, since strength is a direct measure of muscle power.

High Dex means the person is at least in shape, but you can't tell much more than that. You can't tell how flexible somebody is or how nimble their fingers are by looking at them. It's an athletic attribute, but it doesn't mean much externally. Dex is a measure of your joints, tendons and all that other fun stuff beneath the skin used to move around.

Constitution is even harder to tell then Dex. It's lung capacity, the rate at which you body natural heals, pain tolerance, all sorts internal things. Again, somebody with high con is probably in reasonably healthy shape, but nothing concrete beyond that. However even that isn't a sure thing, some of what CON measures can be had in large amounts by somebody who is somewhat out of shape.

Int is impossible to measure by appearance alone. Same with wisdom.

On CHA:


Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.


Out of all things it's supposed to measure 4/5 are personality traits. Honestly the "physical attractiveness" always felt very tacked on to me. CHA is in with the mental stats, and physical attractiveness is something that is highly subjective.

Obviously a high CHA score can be interpreted as being "Pretty", but I think it's far from being a given. In fact I'd say "good looks" is one of the last things implied by CHA with the description it has and it's in game effects.

It's easy to see why having a strong personality would aid in calling your faith to power you (Smite Evil, Turn Undead) or to bend magic to your whim (bards, sorcerers). Being pretty? Not so much. Same with Intimidate and Use Magic Device. Pretty could help with diplomacy and bluff but the other things CHA measures are still far more important. Perform is kind of middle of the road poets, singers, musicians, etc... don't have to be pretty, they just have to be moving or at least entertaining. Actors, Dancers and the like depend on what they're trying to depict, but pretty can help. Disguise has nothing to do with how you look since you're changing your appearance anyway. It could be argued imitating behavior is the mental part of CHA though.


Honestly, I think Charisma would be better off as something like Spirit(SPI) and "Good Looks" were moved to some secondary property, one that only comes into play in a small number of social situations.

Tengu
2007-11-01, 06:36 AM
I always thought that good looks are only a minor part of charisma, and their prerequesite is at least a decent value in it - you don't have to be pretty when you have a high charisma, but you cannot be pretty if you have a low charisma (because the looks alone would boost it up slightly). I think that the same could be applied to other stats - if you have 18 strength you can but don't have to have the stature of a gorilla, but if you have 8 strength you will always look weak.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-01, 06:39 AM
Despite what the description of the statistic says, I can't see any connection between Charisma and appearance at all.

Remember, rakashas get a +6(!!) bonus to Charisma, and they're basically anthropomorphic animals. Sorry, not attracted. Not even a little.

You can use Alter Self to turn into anything of the same type as yourself, anything at all -- say, from a slender, ethereal, gorgeous elven woman into a big, hulking orcish woman -- and retain exactly the same Charisma score. Tell me how you reconcile that with "Charisma has anything at all to do with appearance."

Besides, appearance is subjective. Maybe an orc male would find your orcish form pretty darned attractive. He might find your natural elvish form unpleasant. Vice-versa, of course, for a human or elf (usually, anyway).

Aside from all of that, why in the world would being prettier make you more intimidating? Yet Charisma is the attribute for the Intimidate skill.

No, Charisma is force of personality period. The mention of physical attractiveness is simply a case of someone not thinking things through.

Mr.Moron
2007-11-01, 06:39 AM
I always thought that good looks are only a minor part of charisma, and their prerequesite is at least a decent value in it - you don't have to be pretty when you have a high charisma, but you cannot be pretty if you have a low charisma (because the looks alone would boost it up slightly). I think that the same could be applied to other stats - if you have 18 strength you can but don't have to have the stature of a gorilla, but if you have 8 strength you will always look weak.

You can be plenty pretty with low charisma.Even if you're drop-dead gorgeous, you're not going to be very attractive if you smell like a sewer and have the personality of a rabid badger.

EDIT: Well unless you know, somebody likes rapid badgers. Dang, theres that subjectivity thing again.

Like I said earlier, the looks thing is really tacked on. Very little of that aspect is reflected in it's in-game effects.

EDIT(Again):
"Good Looks" could easily be feat (taken at 1st level) that adds a large bonus to certain checks related to social activities in specific situations. Something like +X to Diplomacy when dealing with members of your own race.

It could also just as easily be nothing but fluff, with no in-game effect. That really wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Tengu
2007-11-01, 06:57 AM
Despite what the description of the statistic says, I can't see any connection between Charisma and appearance at all.

Remember, rakashas get a +6(!!) bonus to Charisma, and they're basically anthropomorphic animals. Sorry, not attracted. Not even a little.

As I said before. High charisma != great looks. Low charisma = non-great looks (in most cases. If you have a really horrible and revolting personality that's obvious from the first glance, it can be low with good looks. But such cases are very rare).

From two people that have exactly the same personality and ways of dealing with others, the one who is more pleasant to look at will make others do as s/he wants easier, on a personal level.

I think that attaching charisma to appearance came as a way of stopping people who make their characters smashingly handsome/beautiful while still having cha as their dump stat.

DND is full of simplicities. They combined willpower, common sense and perception into one stat, among others.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-01, 07:45 AM
DND is full of simplicities. They combined willpower, common sense and perception into one stat, among others.

I agree, but you can at least make an argument that the Wisdom stat (however illogically) does encompass all of those. But the fact that Alter Self (just as a for example) has no impact on your Charisma no matter how beautiful or ugly you choose to make yourself cinches it: Charisma has nothing to do with appearance. Not just "not much." Nothing.

Tengu
2007-11-01, 07:48 AM
Maybe, despite the image change, such character still manages/does not manage to carry themselves in a way that makes others listen to them? Though that probably has nothing to do with appearance.

And unfortunately, officially a part of charisma comes from looks. Though some official rules seem to contradict that (sorcerers cast spells from charisma, because it measures the powers of their personality, and the impact on the world they can make with it... or something like that) and some don't ("half-orcs get -2 cha cuz their ugly lolx!!111one"). Just another proof that DND is badly designed.

Duke of URL
2007-11-01, 09:59 AM
Honestly the "physical attractiveness" always felt very tacked on to me. CHA is in with the mental stats, and physical attractiveness is something that is highly subjective.

It is perfectly within (demi-)human nature to associate physical attractiveness with other positive traits, whether true or not. As such, attractiveness (itself quite subjective) can very well impact someone's ability to lead or project moral authority, but it is only a part of the whole, and is neither required to be considered very charismatic nor an obstacle to being considered uncharismatic.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-01, 10:01 AM
Ability scores are completely independent of appearance.

SoD
2007-11-01, 10:20 AM
For example-harpy. An ugle half naked winged thing. Yet according to the MM they have 17 cha. In savage species, if you play as a harpy, you get +2 at first level.

Frosty
2007-11-01, 10:43 AM
In my world, Half-orcs don't get a -2 to Charisma. They do, however, get either a -2 to int or wisdom, evenly distributed.

Artanis
2007-11-01, 11:02 AM
Really, strength is the only stat that I can see having any connection to appearance, and even that connection is vague and tenuous at best. Otherwise, the most you can probably say is that stats tend to be connected to character types that, in turn, tend to be described a certain way.

For instance, a character with high Strength is probably a melee combatant, and people are more likely to describe their greataxe-wielding barbarian as having gigantic muscles than they are to describe him as a 98-pound teenager. Or a character with high Dex is liable to be a Rogue or Archer-type, meaning that the player is more likely to describe them as "lithe" than they are to describe them as "morbidly obese". Stuff like that.

SadisticFishing
2007-11-01, 11:03 AM
Charisma does effect your looks, but not the other way around.

Think about it :P

Fhaolan
2007-11-01, 11:28 AM
Also remember that the strongest people in the world aren't bodybuilders. They're powerlifters. Which means a decidedly more... portly appearance. Highly defined muscles are pure appearance, and has nothing to do with actual strength. A fact that most bodybuilders forget, and get in trouble with. I can't count the number of bodybuilders I've seen try out for football, or highland heavy games, and got completely trashed by the heavy-set powerlifters.

Telonius
2007-11-01, 11:36 AM
I don't think that Con would really register as a visible thing. It's a measure of how resilient you are; how well your body handles disease, poison, and wounds. I suppose it would have a very minor effect on appearance (no marks from chicken pox, etc). But you'd have to look at a person's insides to see the real Con in action. It would be like how intelligence affects your appearance - superficially, if at all.

SoD
2007-11-01, 11:39 AM
In my world, Half-orcs don't get a -2 to Charisma. They do, however, get either a -2 to int or wisdom, evenly distributed.

Why? I've always thought that they received the -2 cha penalty because people generally don't like orcs, and, therefore, are less likely to get along with them. Yes, I know that's not all that charisma is for, and that not all orcs are evil. Just before someone says either of those in regards to my post.

cupkeyk
2007-11-01, 11:39 AM
My personal trainer says that all people can overhead lift (assisted seated shoulder press) their own weight, so you can determine a person's weight by their overhead lift capacity (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/carryingAndExploration.html) as determined by their strength, give or take a few tens of pounds/kilos for constitution modifiers. Of course I think he's lying because lifting the hundred thirty pounds that I weigh feels like giving birth to a fully grown sow. I can do about four reps of that before my muscles give out. My bmi is 21, so my con modifier would be around 0? Which is my I can shoulder press exactly what i weigh? I dunno, just a theory.

Stam
2007-11-01, 11:41 AM
Then there's the whipcord-muscled types who are rail-thin, yet scarily strong...

Telonius
2007-11-01, 12:16 PM
Why? I've always thought that they received the -2 cha penalty because people generally don't like orcs, and, therefore, are less likely to get along with them. Yes, I know that's not all that charisma is for, and that not all orcs are evil. Just before someone says either of those in regards to my post.

Elvish propaganda, that's what it is. :smallbiggrin:

Mr.Moron
2007-11-01, 12:26 PM
It is perfectly within (demi-)human nature to associate physical attractiveness with other positive traits, whether true or not. As such, attractiveness (itself quite subjective) can very well impact someone's ability to lead or project moral authority, but it is only a part of the whole, and is neither required to be considered very charismatic nor an obstacle to being considered uncharismatic.

That might apply to the social skills, maybe. It certainly doesn't apply to many other things abilities like smite evil/turn undead aren't a matter of projecting antything, they literally tap into your own capacity for belief. That's how I read into those abilities anyway. It's pretty hard to come with a way being pretty affects things like Use Magic Device, heck being pretty might count against Intimidate.

My statement isn't that good looks can't play into some of the things Charisma is associated with, most notably Diplomacy and to a lesser extend Perform. However I don't think the connection is strong enough for it be considered something the stat itself represents.

I still feel "Good Looks" should be clearly put into something like a feat, that provides bonuses directly to the area where good looks apply. It shouldn't be lumped in with a stat that represents your strength of personality and general ability to deal with people. Charisma = Good looks feels almost as silly to me as if increasing INT scores meant your eyesight got worse, causing you to need glasses.

Artanis
2007-11-01, 12:39 PM
I still feel "Good Looks" should be clearly put into something like a feat, that provides bonuses directly to the area where good looks apply. It shouldn't be lumped in with a stat that represents your strength of personality and general ability to deal with people.
I agree, with the caveat that it should not rule out people deciding that their character is visually attractive...just that the feat means they both "have it" and know how to "use it" :smallwink:

Starbuck_II
2007-11-01, 01:52 PM
For example-harpy. An ugle half naked winged thing. Yet according to the MM they have 17 cha. In savage species, if you play as a harpy, you get +2 at first level.

Harpies are hot, but have bad personal hygiene. Their hotness must outrweigh their bad hygiene so they havbe +6 Charisma

I always think of Albert Odessy (from Sega Saturn) when I think Harpies.

neoweasel
2007-11-01, 01:58 PM
Con can go either way. Low str high con is skinny but toned. High str and high con is somewhat bulky.
Not necessarily. When I was swimming distance competitively (str 14, con 16 approx) I was not really bulky at all. I'd say describe the character as you want to and don't try to give ideas of their stats in descriptions. One person's idea of High Strength, Low Con will be totally different from anothers.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-01, 02:28 PM
Why? I've always thought that they received the -2 cha penalty because people generally don't like orcs, and, therefore, are less likely to get along with them. Yes, I know that's not all that charisma is for, and that not all orcs are evil. Just before someone says either of those in regards to my post.

That's certainly meant to be the reasoning for dwarves. They're "dour, suspicious," and the like. But that line of reasoning leads to a problem:

Since dwarves and half-orcs both get minuses to Charisma no matter whom they're dealing with, does that mean dwarves and half-orcs tend to dislike other dwarves and other half-orcs? And not just as much as anyone dislikes a random stranger, but even more than they'd dislike a random human?

Because that's what the numbers seem to lead to.


I still feel "Good Looks" should be clearly put into something like a feat, that provides bonuses directly to the area where good looks apply.

Do that, and people with magic that alters appearance (Disguise Self, Alter Self, and on up) have a very good argument for being able to arbitrarily gain this bonus at will by casting a spell. Then they're literally getting for free the benefits of a feat anyone else would have to buy.

I think if I did anything with appearance, I'd just offer broad categories people could choose to describe themselves, such as perhaps Beautiful/Handsome, Unnerving and Plain. The first might give bonuses to Diplomacy and/or Bluff, the second to Intimidate, and the third to mundane Disguise attempts and Gather Information attempts where you're trying not to draw attention.

The game effect would be really minor at best, and no feats would be involved. Casters could still emulate any of those categories with a spell and gain the benefits, but at least they wouldn't be gaining for free what someone else had to buy a feat to get.

Artanis
2007-11-01, 02:48 PM
Do that, and people with magic that alters appearance (Disguise Self, Alter Self, and on up) have a very good argument for being able to arbitrarily gain this bonus at will by casting a spell. Then they're literally getting for free the benefits of a feat anyone else would have to buy.
They could explain that being attractive doesn't necessarily mean knowing how to use said looks to their greatest effect, and that the feat means that the person taking does, indeed, know "how to use it".

Chronos
2007-11-01, 03:39 PM
Attractiveness is not nearly as physical as many people think it is. A lot of it is subtle things like posture, facial expression, and mannerisms, and a skilled actor (i.e., high charisma) can consciously go from attractive to unattractive, or vice-versa, without needing makeup or the like (though makeup obviously helps). Folks generally prefer to be attractive, so a high-charisma person will typically present an attractive combination of expression etc. to the world, but if it comes time to intimidate someone, that same person can turn a charming smile into a menacing snarl.

Mr.Moron
2007-11-01, 04:17 PM
Do that, and people with magic that alters appearance (Disguise Self, Alter Self, and on up) have a very good argument for being able to arbitrarily gain this bonus at will by casting a spell. Then they're literally getting for free the benefits of a feat anyone else would have to buy.


Maybe, I wouldn't rule it that way, but it doesn't really matter. You'll notice I use the wording "something like a feat", by that I mean simply a non-stat option taken at the cost of something else. Feats were just the most obvious mechanic to make an example of, it could be something more along the lines of a UA trait, with some sort of disadvantage or something completely different. The option you present is fine too. I'd be happy with anything that wasn't looks being tied to a mental stat.