Does Charisma go hand-in-hand with being good looking...

Wrong. Physical attractiveness is simply one of those things, not all of them or a necessary part. And before you start hurrr durring me back in your shitty reply (which I won't even read, kiddo), I know for a FACT that you've played brainless slut high CHA characters who were physically attractive but couldn't lead or inspire anyone farther than the local lovers' back alley.

Yeah pretty much CHA is good looks.

Not that guy but that wasn't a very charismatic response, user. I sure do like you less, get out of my shop.

I didn't try to directly quote any of the manuals. Guess I got pretty close though. My groups always leave the physical attractiveness bit out though. Some people can be pretty and completely unlikeable.

An ogre isn't intimidating because it rolls to convince you to do something. It's intimidating because it clubs you to death and eats you.

>It has nothing to do
>Definition from manual says otherwise
>Well but is just a part
Moving the goalpost already, sweety?

That's why most sane people houserule intimidate to use strength in cases it's about showing muscles rather convincing you're a threat by words.

See this motherfucker? He's an INCREDIBLY charismatic guy. Like, insanely charismatic. Is he handsome? Fuck no. Charisma is how you can impose your will on others.

>Intimidation is just convincing
Go read the skill, that's just one of the many things you can do, and among them there's demoralizing by causing fear conditions

Look at Freddy Krueger. Horribly burned pedophile/child murderer in a tacky sweater and yet is so charismatic that he had his own phone number where you could pay to listen to a recorded message from Freddy and it made bank.

Now that's an impressive sequence of dubs.

>demoralizing by causing fear conditions
or you could just fucking club em

>Is it possible to play a Dragonborn or Tiefling with through the roof Charisma?
You haven't been on Veeky Forums very long, have you? We're as bad as /d/ most days.

That's because D&D is shit and shoehorns a single Stat into each skill. Why is Intimidation Cha dependant only? why not Str? why not Int?. Why is Acrobatics Dex only? why not also Str? so my char with 60 Str that can lift a castle can't jump more than 2 meters high? why?

>He doesn't know there're feats that when you club people you can intimidate as a free action
No, I can't because silly 3 meter high half orc isn't intimidating, lets laugh at him, so silly looking

>All iterations of Dragonborn have bonus to Cha
>Newers iterations of Tieflings have bonus to Cha
I'm going to make a wild guess and say yes, you can

You're either a shitty DM or only played with shitty DM. It's even said that you can substitute the skills with different attributes. The example the Player Handbook put was when a character is swimming long distances, that character is doing an Athletics check with his Constitution. You can easily substitute the skills with the right attribute for the situation, the ones written are just the most common cases.

>it's even said
Only in 5e, not in 3.PF nor in 4e

Not necessarily, but if you want to incorporate it into your character that way, there'll probably be general agreement. If the system explicitly describes CHA as appearance by necessity, though, that's dumb.

>barebones D&D is shit
m8 if you're not house-ruling a great deal of that system to the point that it is organic to your own table, then I have no pity for you. I agree that barebones D&D isn't great and each edition has its own slew of problems.

We roll for attractiveness as a seperate "stat."

Straight 3d6.

>I'm going to homerule this shit...oh wait, what do you mean I can't because I'm a player, well, I'm out
>New group, well, I'm going to homerule this shit...wait, what do you mean I'm a player and i can't do that?
>Rinse and repeat ad nauseam
I just decided to roll with it, I can't win against what it seems to be the vast majority of the fanbase

It's said in every DM's guide that if you don't think something works right, change it.

I think a good example of being charismatic and ugly is any successful comedian or actor that maybe wasn't billed for looks.

This is how you do max charisma right.

Neither are particularly attractive. Yet their personalities shape the world around them and gather like minded people to their side.

ZEHAHAHAHA!

>strictly RAW no ifs ands or buts
I mean if you wanna DM a gamr that way it's up to you, but most sensible people see general play rules as solid guidelines that can be modified should the need or want arise

If you can't find a flexible group with rules you like then that's definitely an issue that I can empathize with, shit people are always a problem and D&D fanboys are definitely less flexible than most people I've met.

Good example actually

I don't see the problem with tieflings.

I'm facing that problem with a tiefling in my current game, I decided to fuck it all after trying to convince my GM so I picked traits that let me use Int for Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidation instead of Cha

implying no one wants to fuck the girl with horns

>luffy
>unattractive

And I don't even want to say anything about the fact that he can jump rope with his own dick.

More importantly, they have followers because of their power, not charisma.

Half of Luffy's crew joined him because he beat someone up at the right time. Most of his crew also furiously disagrees with most of his ideas, because they understand he is an idiot and 80% of the shit he says should be ignored.

And Blackbeard is very likely blackmailing and fearmongering his entire crew.

>More importantly, they have followers because of their power, not charisma.

Luffy has followers because they are his friends. They believe in him when they have little reason otherwise, such as

>he is an idiot and 80% of the shit he says should be ignored.

No one thinks he's smart, but he's still the Captain. Literally charisma.

>And Blackbeard is very likely blackmailing and fearmongering his entire crew.

Blackbeard, before his fruit, was not powerful. He was smart, but cowardly. Yet ge still gathered people around him because they believe he is worth something. Again, charisma.

I'm pretty sure everyone appreciates some handles to grab onto for leaverage, guys and gals.

I'm playing a con-man goblin, so I'd say it's possible.

Someone can influence you through just their words, and while appearance does play a factor, it's not so large as to prevent people who don't look good from being charasmatic

I like to think that high-charisma Dragonborns have more draconic features, spikes and horns, maybe a tail, etc.

I wouldn't say Teach was weak before he had his fruit. He fought Shanks before he obtained it and didn't die in the process.

>0 mention of Gurney Halleck
C'mon, y'all. I thought we'd been over this.

Weak in One Piece. Strong enough to be offered a Captain's position, but not on the levels of any of the big boys. Had to resort to ambushing someone in order to steal his fruit.

>The way I run it
Well isn't that the thing with d&d? Everybody has a way to fix things, but things still start off fucked

Thats CRAP.
Those with high Cha and Str and amazing people
People with low Cha and High Str are on Veeky Forums

> So my chat with 60 are that can lift a castle can't jump more than 2 meters high? Why?
Because he's built like a brick shithouse and still has a 6 and a half foot vertical man. Sorry that your ball of muscles can only drunk on every NBA player ever.

>That's because D&D is shit and shoehorns a single Stat into each skill.
im normally very critical of D&D but i have played other games with skills being dependent on multiple attributes. it's ultimately not worth the effort

>Does Charisma go hand-in-hand with being good looking?
if it did you wouldnt have charismatic dwarves, gnomes, halflings or anything else that isnt and elf or human

>Implying a well groomed dwarf can't be a totally handsome fucker

Luffy is so charismatic he can literally knock out hordes with a look.

>manlet
no he cant

also
>well groomed dwarf
so a halfling?

>halfling
>well groomed

They don't fucking wear shoes, user.

and dwarves dont shave and are fat

all the smallfolk are repulsive

This is a man with high charisma.

Looks can factor into charisma, but it is not the be-all, end-all of charisma. This is why I prefer games that separate Personality from Looks, because while your appearance can affect how people interact with you, your voice and your sheer personality generally have the greater effect, especially when all you encounter is the voice.

Charisma might not be pure genetic looks, but it might manifest in the ability to use what one has got to the best of ones ability. Self care can go a long way.

>>manlet
because that's what you deserve, brainlet

>you may be able to get by with being ugly by your race's standards because others may not now of your race's standards,

This is many white men in Japan.

My friend, I'm sorry to tell you: You will always be ugly.

Ignoring all the other autists here, being attractive makes you more charismatic. Good looking people get acquitted of crimes more often, and they definitely make better con men or scammers.

>Newers iterations of Tieflings have bonus to Cha
The original edition of tieflings had a bonus to Cha. I think it was only 3e that gave them a penalty.

>dwarflet triggered
kek

That's why I said newer and not newest, becuase 5e is the newest, but 5e and 4e are the newer. Get it?

2e isn't newer though, yet your statement excludes it.

My statement still remains true

Birds fly, or are you so autismal that when someone says that they also have to mention some insects, reptiles and mamals too or else you sperg?

I don't think there are actually any flying reptiles alive today.

Literally every bird.

A thing that is technically true while implying falsehoods fails at the basic function of language to convey information.

.... depends on the GM. we have a system for attractiveness and such, where you can buy this trait. But Tieflings must not be ugly.. Its more like there i a uneery presence around them.

Correction, excluding flightless birds.

Bird aren't reptiles, they're birds. Sharing ancestry does not make them the same thing. That's like saying reptiles have fur because mammals do.

If you have lack of reading comprehension skills is not my problem

>Bird aren't reptiles
Wrong, look it up.

user, birds are classed as dinosaurs and dinosaurs are classed as reptiles

I don't know what to tell you user. They aren't.

>I don't know what to tell you user
You could admit to being wrong when corrected.

look it up

>Why is Intimidation Cha dependant only? why not Str?
The last three editions of dnd have permitted this and other stat substitutions.

Am...am I being trolled? Birds are classed as Aves, reptiles are Reptilia.

>Reptiles
>Birds

The whole charisma being related to your body image meme is old, pic related. While I'll give you that attractive people do have an easier time being persuasive (so a bonus to the stat at least) they still have to actually BE charismatic to influence people.

No victoria secret model can go silently pose on a battlefield and make an army surrender.

>they aren't up to day in biology
Yes, and dinosaurs were coldblooded and didn't have feathers. Also black people aren't humans.

>No victoria secret model can go silently pose on a battlefield and make an army surrender.
Are you sure? I feel like the shock of it could at least lead to a ceasefire.

Get with the time grandpa

>up to day
I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

>not using phylogenetic classification
How it feels to be in the 1700s?

We had a thread on prehistoric beasts and one user wouldn't shut up about birds being reptiles. Guess he's back. It seems his retardation has gotten far worse in the meantime. His argument was that because the reptilian ancestors are birds were closer to birds (not that he ever demonstrated how they were more similar) than they were to other reptiles that branched off way, way, way earlier, birds must be reptiles. Because transitionary species totally never existed outside this one example and this logic definitely doesn't defeat the whole point of taxonomy.

Actually, come think of it, doesn't his logic actually prove that feathered, warm blooded dinosaurs were birds, and not the other way around?

>Implying Owls are Birds

To be fair when you talk about the phylogenetic classification you shouldn't use the word reptiles in the first place because it doesn't exist in this classification.

Been a little while since I've seen that one. Thanks Quentin.