It could be reasonable for a DM to apply Advantage or Disadvantage to a Charisma check if it determine attractiveness reflects positive or negative circumstances in any given social interaction.
May be not as much for a player character to believe it should always get Advantage to Charisma checks based on it's pretty appearance.
It's tricky because tastes are subjective, and while the DM govern NPC taste, and a player does for it's own character, it's usually not welcome for a DM to assumes PCs taste, or for a player to assume NPCs one.
But that tastes are subjective just makes the concept more complicated rather than making it go away. Again, the OP is asking about the character being "Super Attractive," with no qualifier as to subjectivity or the standards of any given individual.
They also didn't imply any mechanical effects. Any possible mechanical effects are made up because the Rules As Written provide none. Any benefit or drawbacks for a character's appearance are strictly homebrew.
The OP was not asking if there was any official rule for attractiveness, though. They were asking if it was to play a 'super attractive' character without defining what they mean by that or their expectations of what that would mean in a campaign.
And since there is no such term in the rules, at all, just having that as a declared aspect of their character would be 'strictly homebrew.'
Exactly. Just like skin, eye, or hair color, age, gender, sexuality, marital status or anything else used to describe a character has no mechanical effect on the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Exactly. Just like skin, eye, or hair color, age, gender, sexuality, marital status or anything else used to describe a character has no mechanical effect on the game.
"No effect stated in the rules" and "no significant effect at all" are not the same thing. Minimum, in the list you made there, marital status implies there having to be a spouse somewhere. It is like backstories. These kinds of things either have actual meaning in the campaign, actually relate to that campaign, or there is no point in having them there at all.
Does that involve homebrew? Well, yes, to the same extent that every campaign involving anything not explicitly fully spelled out in the rules does, including reactions reactions to anything and everything about the campaign setting not explicitly set out in any source material used, anything and everything the party might do that is actually done by their choice (rather than outright scripted for them to simply act out) and to the characters, themselves, outside of any stock characters provided for them in the source book(s) used.
Being homebrew does not, in and of itself, equal 'no mechanical effect.'
We can often see adjectives in literature work like handsome, pretty etc.. to describe an individual but in roleplaying games, it can't be more than just meaningless descriptive otherwise it cross the line and dictate what shouldn't.
We can often see adjectives in literature work like handsome, pretty etc.. to describe an individual but in roleplaying games, it can't be more than just meaningless descriptive otherwise it cross the line and dictate what shouldn't.
I don't have any statistics, but I am skeptical that it is used often without any relevance to the story.
We can often see adjectives in literature work like handsome, pretty etc.. to describe an individual but in roleplaying games, it can't be more than just meaningless descriptive otherwise it cross the line and dictate what shouldn't.
I don't have any statistics, but I am skeptical that it is used often without any relevance to the story.
But in any case where it does is fine since the author is in narrative control of the story and characters.
We can often see adjectives in literature work like handsome, pretty etc.. to describe an individual but in roleplaying games, it can't be more than just meaningless descriptive otherwise it cross the line and dictate what shouldn't.
I don't have any statistics, but I am skeptical that it is used often without any relevance to the story.
But in any case where it does is fine since the author is in narrative control of the story and characters.
We can't say that of Roleplaying Games.
The person asking is asking as a player, though ("should we be allowed to play...." ) rather than an author or DM. While a DM could allow such and allow it to matter however much the OP thinks it should, the wprd "should" implies there is someone directly connected to whatever campaign they are in or are joining, likely their DM, likely telling them 'no.'
DM's should do their best to avoid railroading as much as practical, but they do still have narrative control over all except how the PC's act and react to the world the DM is presenting to them. This is not chess or Monopoly, with much simpler, tighter rules that are simple enough not to need any independent narration or interpretation.
At the risk of over-complicating things. I know the OP wasn’t specifically asking about in-game effects and mechanical consequences. But, really that’s what matters in game terms. If people are saying they have feature X, but aren’t asking for anything in-game to reflect that feature, then really no one cares too much. It does become the same as eye color. (Though there are plenty of people who have positive or negative associations with small details like that.)
But another thing to consider is exceptional people stand out more. So if you decide, this person is very attractive, and this particular guard is really picking up what the PC is putting down; at that point, the guard is much more likely to remember that person. And others might be jealous. So, while I personally wouldn’t give mechanical benefits to being attractive, it can easily cut the other direction, and being really good-looking can have its drawbacks as well.
The person asking is asking as a player, though ("should we be allowed to play...." ) rather than an author or DM. While a DM could allow such and allow it to matter however much the OP thinks it should, the wprd "should" implies there is someone directly connected to whatever campaign they are in or are joining, likely their DM, likely telling them 'no.'
As a DM, the main reason I would consider banning a description such as 'super attractive' is because I have some reason to expect annoying behavior from the player if it's allowed. Such as expecting it to have mechanical benefits.
But another thing to consider is exceptional people stand out more. So if you decide, this person is very attractive, and this particular guard is really picking up what the PC is putting down; at that point, the guard is much more likely to remember that person. And others might be jealous. So, while I personally wouldn’t give mechanical benefits to being attractive, it can easily cut the other direction, and being really good-looking can have its drawbacks as well.
Yeah, what it's really saying is "I want a character who is noticeable and distinctive, in this particular way." They may not think that's what they're asking for, but it is.
I am now reminded of the old James Bond RPG where (IIRC) being gorgeous or hideous was free, but if you wanted to be less distinctive, you had to pay character points.
can anyone think of any reason why it would be necessary to include within their characters description/background the words "super attractive" when creating a character, opposed to either including the words "super ugly" in the character description/background or any sort of beauty standard within their characters descriptions/background??
because in my opinion and mine alone - theres no purpose behind adding it into the description of a character unless someone is looking to be treated differently based of appearance then the other players at the table, due to the sole reason that a character cannot be considered attractive to all species (atleast in my opinion)
now ill add that i personally have no issues with people describing their characters in more detail however i do have concerns when it comes to adding in a statement of attractiveness or desirability and/or the lack of such to any created character - its just not needed in my mind
can anyone think of any reason why it would be necessary to include within their characters description/background the words "super attractive" when creating a character, opposed to either including the words "super ugly" in the character description/background or any sort of beauty standard within their characters descriptions/background??
because in my opinion and mine alone - theres no purpose behind adding it into the description of a character unless someone is looking to be treated differently based of appearance then the other players at the table, due to the sole reason that a character cannot be considered attractive to all species (atleast in my opinion)
now ill add that i personally have no issues with people describing their characters in more detail however i do have concerns when it comes to adding in a statement of attractiveness or desirability and/or the lack of such to any created character - its just not needed in my mind
For a lot of people it is just short hand to say they are attractive rather than list attributes that would make them attractive.
can anyone think of any reason why it would be necessary to include within their characters description/background the words "super attractive" when creating a character, opposed to either including the words "super ugly" in the character description/background or any sort of beauty standard within their characters descriptions/background??
because in my opinion and mine alone - theres no purpose behind adding it into the description of a character unless someone is looking to be treated differently based of appearance then the other players at the table, due to the sole reason that a character cannot be considered attractive to all species (atleast in my opinion)
now ill add that i personally have no issues with people describing their characters in more detail however i do have concerns when it comes to adding in a statement of attractiveness or desirability and/or the lack of such to any created character - its just not needed in my mind
For a lot of people it is just short hand to say they are attractive rather than list attributes that would make them attractive.
what if they also include a list of attributes?? would it being shorthand remain true?
for example:
"-Physical Description: [insert name] is by most standards very conventionally beautiful (of course, in the Outer Planes, the stranger looking you are, the more attractive you're considered to be, so [insert name] doesn't think super highly of her appearance). Still, her features are undeniably attractive to most. Her build is tall for a female of her species and quite slender too. She possesses some muscle, but it is more the taught power of a panther than a musclebound bull. Her body is curvy, with an hourglass figure that draws to mind the shape of a ship's figurehead carved by a generous hand. Her skin is radiant and smooth, and her face is long and elegant, with high cheekbones, seeming to glow in the light of the sun, reflecting her good health. Her hair is a lustrous brown, with highlights of fiery red and warm gold tinting her locks, which are usually pulled back in a messy bun or high ponytail. Her eyes shine like twin stars beneath long, fluttering lashes. Her clothes are often simple and light, built to be functional, though the performer in her often shines through with her various accessories and adornments, such as multiple piercings (Ear and nose), as well as various bracelets, amulets, and talismans to remember various things that are important to her. She stands with an alert air, her posture seemingly always ready and displaying a silent kind of confidence."
I find it much easier to use some form of character art than do a detailed character description, then people can make up their own minds about it. That being said, I don't see why using words like "she's kinda cute" or "she's is generally considered pretty" as part a character description is problematic. I don't think I would say "Super Attractive" but I wouldn't care if some one else did. Describing a character is just so people can paint a mental picture anyway. As a DM I wouldn't allow it to affect the dice.
can anyone think of any reason why it would be necessary to include within their characters description/background the words "super attractive" when creating a character, opposed to either including the words "super ugly" in the character description/background or any sort of beauty standard within their characters descriptions/background??
because in my opinion and mine alone - theres no purpose behind adding it into the description of a character unless someone is looking to be treated differently based of appearance then the other players at the table, due to the sole reason that a character cannot be considered attractive to all species (atleast in my opinion)
now ill add that i personally have no issues with people describing their characters in more detail however i do have concerns when it comes to adding in a statement of attractiveness or desirability and/or the lack of such to any created character - its just not needed in my mind
For a lot of people it is just short hand to say they are attractive rather than list attributes that would make them attractive.
what if they also include a list of attributes?? would it being shorthand remain true?
for example:
"-Physical Description: [insert name] is by most standards very conventionally beautiful (of course, in the Outer Planes, the stranger looking you are, the more attractive you're considered to be, so [insert name] doesn't think super highly of her appearance). Still, her features are undeniably attractive to most. Her build is tall for a female of her species and quite slender too. She possesses some muscle, but it is more the taught power of a panther than a musclebound bull. Her body is curvy, with an hourglass figure that draws to mind the shape of a ship's figurehead carved by a generous hand. Her skin is radiant and smooth, and her face is long and elegant, with high cheekbones, seeming to glow in the light of the sun, reflecting her good health. Her hair is a lustrous brown, with highlights of fiery red and warm gold tinting her locks, which are usually pulled back in a messy bun or high ponytail. Her eyes shine like twin stars beneath long, fluttering lashes. Her clothes are often simple and light, built to be functional, though the performer in her often shines through with her various accessories and adornments, such as multiple piercings (Ear and nose), as well as various bracelets, amulets, and talismans to remember various things that are important to her. She stands with an alert air, her posture seemingly always ready and displaying a silent kind of confidence."
If you are at the point of actually describing the character, then it isn't needed and is redundant.
I generally stay away from words like “attractive” when I’m writing characters. I usually just write physical details (“they have long wavy red hair and sparkling green eyes”) and let other characters react to them however they want. I guess as a DM I wouldn’t say no to a player describing their character as super attractive, especially since as someone on this thread pointed out most heroes do tend to be conventionally attractive anyway, but I definitely wouldn’t give any mechanical benefits for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I would say that saying "my character is extremely attractive" is not enough at my table. I would ask for description, and let the world respond to that as they see fit. Someone describing, for example, Flynn Rider from Tangled (who thinks himself as very attractive) might be laughed at by every woman in the setting because attractiveness is directly correlated to beard length there.
As for Charisma and Attractiveness, they are not even linked. You can have one, the other, both, or neither - there's no tangible link that one implies the other. You might have a vacuous shell with the appearance of a god and the personality of strong white bread flour, or you might have a deep well of feelings with the appearance of a vagrant and the personality of a charming heartthrob.
because in my opinion and mine alone - theres no purpose behind adding it into the description of a character unless someone is looking to be treated differently based of appearance then the other players at the table, due to the sole reason that a character cannot be considered attractive to all species (atleast in my opinion)
Flip it around. If someone describes their character as having a hideous scar on their face, do you assume it's because they're trying to be "treated differently" as well, maybe by gaining advantage on Intimidation checks?
Players usually have an image of their character in their mind. Sometimes, that image is of a very physically attractive person
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
IMHO in roleplaying games you don't get to determine how others find you, only for yourself.
So attempts to Describe Appearance in general manner that do is problematic.
This is essentially what I have been trying to get at.
Exactly. Just like skin, eye, or hair color, age, gender, sexuality, marital status or anything else used to describe a character has no mechanical effect on the game.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
While I understand what you're getting at, I see no reason not to let people use shorthand like that.
"No effect stated in the rules" and "no significant effect at all" are not the same thing. Minimum, in the list you made there, marital status implies there having to be a spouse somewhere. It is like backstories. These kinds of things either have actual meaning in the campaign, actually relate to that campaign, or there is no point in having them there at all.
Does that involve homebrew? Well, yes, to the same extent that every campaign involving anything not explicitly fully spelled out in the rules does, including reactions reactions to anything and everything about the campaign setting not explicitly set out in any source material used, anything and everything the party might do that is actually done by their choice (rather than outright scripted for them to simply act out) and to the characters, themselves, outside of any stock characters provided for them in the source book(s) used.
Being homebrew does not, in and of itself, equal 'no mechanical effect.'
We can often see adjectives in literature work like handsome, pretty etc.. to describe an individual but in roleplaying games, it can't be more than just meaningless descriptive otherwise it cross the line and dictate what shouldn't.
I don't have any statistics, but I am skeptical that it is used often without any relevance to the story.
But in any case where it does is fine since the author is in narrative control of the story and characters.
We can't say that of Roleplaying Games.
The person asking is asking as a player, though ("should we be allowed to play...." ) rather than an author or DM. While a DM could allow such and allow it to matter however much the OP thinks it should, the wprd "should" implies there is someone directly connected to whatever campaign they are in or are joining, likely their DM, likely telling them 'no.'
DM's should do their best to avoid railroading as much as practical, but they do still have narrative control over all except how the PC's act and react to the world the DM is presenting to them. This is not chess or Monopoly, with much simpler, tighter rules that are simple enough not to need any independent narration or interpretation.
At the risk of over-complicating things. I know the OP wasn’t specifically asking about in-game effects and mechanical consequences. But, really that’s what matters in game terms. If people are saying they have feature X, but aren’t asking for anything in-game to reflect that feature, then really no one cares too much. It does become the same as eye color. (Though there are plenty of people who have positive or negative associations with small details like that.)
But another thing to consider is exceptional people stand out more. So if you decide, this person is very attractive, and this particular guard is really picking up what the PC is putting down; at that point, the guard is much more likely to remember that person. And others might be jealous. So, while I personally wouldn’t give mechanical benefits to being attractive, it can easily cut the other direction, and being really good-looking can have its drawbacks as well.
As a DM, the main reason I would consider banning a description such as 'super attractive' is because I have some reason to expect annoying behavior from the player if it's allowed. Such as expecting it to have mechanical benefits.
Yeah, what it's really saying is "I want a character who is noticeable and distinctive, in this particular way." They may not think that's what they're asking for, but it is.
I am now reminded of the old James Bond RPG where (IIRC) being gorgeous or hideous was free, but if you wanted to be less distinctive, you had to pay character points.
can anyone think of any reason why it would be necessary to include within their characters description/background the words "super attractive" when creating a character, opposed to either including the words "super ugly" in the character description/background or any sort of beauty standard within their characters descriptions/background??
because in my opinion and mine alone - theres no purpose behind adding it into the description of a character unless someone is looking to be treated differently based of appearance then the other players at the table, due to the sole reason that a character cannot be considered attractive to all species (atleast in my opinion)
now ill add that i personally have no issues with people describing their characters in more detail however i do have concerns when it comes to adding in a statement of attractiveness or desirability and/or the lack of such to any created character - its just not needed in my mind
For a lot of people it is just short hand to say they are attractive rather than list attributes that would make them attractive.
what if they also include a list of attributes?? would it being shorthand remain true?
for example:
"-Physical Description: [insert name] is by most standards very conventionally beautiful (of course, in the Outer Planes, the stranger looking you are, the more attractive you're considered to be, so [insert name] doesn't think super highly of her appearance). Still, her features are undeniably attractive to most. Her build is tall for a female of her species and quite slender too. She possesses some muscle, but it is more the taught power of a panther than a musclebound bull. Her body is curvy, with an hourglass figure that draws to mind the shape of a ship's figurehead carved by a generous hand. Her skin is radiant and smooth, and her face is long and elegant, with high cheekbones, seeming to glow in the light of the sun, reflecting her good health. Her hair is a lustrous brown, with highlights of fiery red and warm gold tinting her locks, which are usually pulled back in a messy bun or high ponytail. Her eyes shine like twin stars beneath long, fluttering lashes. Her clothes are often simple and light, built to be functional, though the performer in her often shines through with her various accessories and adornments, such as multiple piercings (Ear and nose), as well as various bracelets, amulets, and talismans to remember various things that are important to her. She stands with an alert air, her posture seemingly always ready and displaying a silent kind of confidence."
I find it much easier to use some form of character art than do a detailed character description, then people can make up their own minds about it. That being said, I don't see why using words like "she's kinda cute" or "she's is generally considered pretty" as part a character description is problematic. I don't think I would say "Super Attractive" but I wouldn't care if some one else did. Describing a character is just so people can paint a mental picture anyway. As a DM I wouldn't allow it to affect the dice.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
If you are at the point of actually describing the character, then it isn't needed and is redundant.
I generally stay away from words like “attractive” when I’m writing characters. I usually just write physical details (“they have long wavy red hair and sparkling green eyes”) and let other characters react to them however they want. I guess as a DM I wouldn’t say no to a player describing their character as super attractive, especially since as someone on this thread pointed out most heroes do tend to be conventionally attractive anyway, but I definitely wouldn’t give any mechanical benefits for it.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
I would say that saying "my character is extremely attractive" is not enough at my table. I would ask for description, and let the world respond to that as they see fit. Someone describing, for example, Flynn Rider from Tangled (who thinks himself as very attractive) might be laughed at by every woman in the setting because attractiveness is directly correlated to beard length there.
As for Charisma and Attractiveness, they are not even linked. You can have one, the other, both, or neither - there's no tangible link that one implies the other. You might have a vacuous shell with the appearance of a god and the personality of strong white bread flour, or you might have a deep well of feelings with the appearance of a vagrant and the personality of a charming heartthrob.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Flip it around. If someone describes their character as having a hideous scar on their face, do you assume it's because they're trying to be "treated differently" as well, maybe by gaining advantage on Intimidation checks?
Players usually have an image of their character in their mind. Sometimes, that image is of a very physically attractive person
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)