Honestly, if you drop the word "super" I think the problem is greatly reduced, because adding a superlative like that implies "exceptional enough that people are expected to respond", whereas if you just say "attractive", it doesn't say much.
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
Well, getting different RP options is kind of the point of filling out your character as more than "generic humanoid form with appropriate gear for class(es)". And who says they're going to get more? DM might use that as an RP point in some cases, and a characteristic of another player as an RP point in others.
that still doesnt answer why someone with "super attractive" in their description gets different RP opportunities then any other character at the table... if "super attractive" holds no ingame value then it shouldnt change or influence anything, everything is already possible without it depending on story and dice as far as im aware
hence why the players expectations should be discussed with the DM during session 0
For the same reason that every other character's individual characteristics can present different RP opportunities- because it creates verisimilitude that the narrative is responding to the particular characters rather than just being cut and paste video game type interactions. The point you seem to be missing here is that it's not something to treat as a button the player can push for social benefit, it's a lever the DM can choose to pull to highlight that the NPCs are responding to the characters themselves rather than just delivering canned dialogue to advance the plot.
im actually stuck on how a player can self claim their own attractiveness - to be attractive you are attracting something, so basically how desirable they are in the eyes of others, to set that by default as "super attractive" (hence "super desirable") just seems like a sketchy road to go down without some prior discussions
At the end of the day "attractiveness" is a characteristic, ergo pretty much by definition it is a legitimate way to describe a character for narrative purposes, including an RPG. Exactly to what degree "super" comes into play is something that needs to be negotiated between the player and DM, as with many other potential character design/backstory elements. Or do you feel it is inappropriate to describe a character as appearing intimidating, knowledgeable, enigmatic, mischievous, etc. as well? Part of the appeal of playing D&D and other narrative RPGs in general is playing as some kind of exceptional individual, and that can include exceptionally attractive. And yes, part of designing a character does include outlining what kind of general "vibe" or other impression they give others. Not to enforce the player's will on all others encountered, but to give the DM a baseline to work from when running interactions. "X character generally comes across as Y. Does Z NPC respond favorably to that? Unfavorably? Are they indifferent, unimpressed, or unaware and therefore unmoved by X's attempts to leverage Y in the encounter?" It's a beginning to how a social situation plays out, not an ending.
is a character still intimidating or enigmatic if there is no one around to come to that assessment??
is a character truly knowledgeable if they have a low intelligence/wisdom score??
So yes i personally got a similar issue and hesitation with those words being used in a characters description
since my mind sees them not as characteristics of the character (self contained features) but instead as an effect that character causes others (since that is how others see them), all of which I think should be story elements available to all characters at the table depending on the given situation rather then a starting point before any situation has occurred
Without talking to the player involved to get clarification on their expectations then my assumptions would be:
intimidating - would suspect the player to brute force what they want
knowledgeable - would suspect the player of meta-gaming at some stage
enigmatic - would suspect the player to avoid majority of social interactions
mischievous seems to be the exception to my mind since it is a self contained behaviour of that character
however i would have the following thought upon seeing it in a character description (personally would prefer to see it in a personality section)
mischievous - would suspect the player to self sabotage group for a laugh
In short I do not think player's should describe their character with the effects of how others feel towards them without discussing their expectations with the table and DM during session 0
But if there is no mechanical effect to that "beauty" or "attractiveness" (and there shouldn't be, as purely a descriptor), then it is a near-empty word or phrase.
You don't see how a "super attractive" character might have different avenues for trying to acquire that information?
Note again that I'm not saying they'll have some bonus on their Persuasion checks or get advantage or anything. I'm pointing out that they will have different RP opportunities available to them
can you explain why that self claimed "super attractive" character has more or even different RP options to choose from and experience opposed to any other character (say a self claimed "super unattractive" character) at the table?
Well, getting different RP options is kind of the point of filling out your character as more than "generic humanoid form with appropriate gear for class(es)". And who says they're going to get more? DM might use that as an RP point in some cases, and a characteristic of another player as an RP point in others.
that still doesnt answer why someone with "super attractive" in their description gets different RP opportunities then any other character at the table... if "super attractive" holds no ingame value then it shouldnt change or influence anything, everything is already possible without it depending on story and dice as far as im aware
hence why the players expectations should be discussed with the DM during session 0
For the same reason that every other character's individual characteristics can present different RP opportunities- because it creates verisimilitude that the narrative is responding to the particular characters rather than just being cut and paste video game type interactions. The point you seem to be missing here is that it's not something to treat as a button the player can push for social benefit, it's a lever the DM can choose to pull to highlight that the NPCs are responding to the characters themselves rather than just delivering canned dialogue to advance the plot.
im actually stuck on how a player can self claim their own attractiveness - to be attractive you are attracting something, so basically how desirable they are in the eyes of others, to set that by default as "super attractive" (hence "super desirable") just seems like a sketchy road to go down without some prior discussions
At the end of the day "attractiveness" is a characteristic, ergo pretty much by definition it is a legitimate way to describe a character for narrative purposes, including an RPG. Exactly to what degree "super" comes into play is something that needs to be negotiated between the player and DM, as with many other potential character design/backstory elements. Or do you feel it is inappropriate to describe a character as appearing intimidating, knowledgeable, enigmatic, mischievous, etc. as well? Part of the appeal of playing D&D and other narrative RPGs in general is playing as some kind of exceptional individual, and that can include exceptionally attractive. And yes, part of designing a character does include outlining what kind of general "vibe" or other impression they give others. Not to enforce the player's will on all others encountered, but to give the DM a baseline to work from when running interactions. "X character generally comes across as Y. Does Z NPC respond favorably to that? Unfavorably? Are they indifferent, unimpressed, or unaware and therefore unmoved by X's attempts to leverage Y in the encounter?" It's a beginning to how a social situation plays out, not an ending.
is a character still intimidating or enigmatic if there is no one around to come to that assessment??
is a character truly knowledgeable if they have a low intelligence/wisdom score??
Yes and yes they can still appear to be, respectively. A) Because D&D is a narrative game, ergo narrative structure is in play when describing the characters. Heck, the simple fact that we refer to the avatars we control as "characters" highlights the point. D&D is a game about telling a story, and stories do very frequently tell us how a character is generally perceived. Regarding the knowledgeable appearance with low INT/WIS, it's not that hard to cultivate the superficial appearance, leading into point B. There's a reason the trope of the wise elder with the seamed face and long beard is so pervasive, or why so many pharmaceutical commercials feature an actor done up in scrubs or a doctor's coat calmly relaying some message. Those images carry subconscious weight cueing the viewer to regard them a certain way. It doesn't mean absolutely everyone will instantly and uncritically accept the image, but if you polled any significant sample of a typical Western audience, more people than not would probably agree that in those images the individual appears "knowledgeable".
A player using narrative shorthand to describe the general presence they would like their character to have is not problematic. It is only an issue if they attempt to force anyone they encounter to treat them a certain way, which is generally more a sign of a generally problematic player and not something you can definitively tie to using the same kind of language pretty much every novel ever uses to introduce characters.
Honestly, if you drop the word "super" I think the problem is greatly reduced, because adding a superlative like that implies "exceptional enough that people are expected to respond", whereas if you just say "attractive", it doesn't say much.
I think the superlative is probably part of what's feeding the idea that this descriptor is an attempt to bend the setting to the user's will, but I wouldn't outright nix superlatives. Again, it's just a case of the DM taking a few minutes to go over/lay down expectations for what that translates to in game, either during Session 0 or after the group encounters some friction between the DM's concept and the player's.
There's a reason the trope of the wise elder with the seamed face and long beard is so pervasive, or why so many pharmaceutical commercials feature an actor done up in scrubs or a doctor's coat calmly relaying some message. Those images carry subconscious weight queuing the viewer to regard them a certain way. It doesn't mean absolutely everyone will instantly and uncritically accept the image, but if you polled any significant sample of a typical Western audience, more people than not would probably agree that in those images the individual appears "knowledgeable".
you mentioned the viewer - who is the viewer the players character or the dms npc when it comes to a players characters self claimed description??
since you attributed the effect of being seen as "knowledgeable" due to the clothing they wore - would that same character still be seen as "knowledgeable" without the scrubs or doctors coat?? if so why/how??
does a goblin typically in rags one day dresses in a doctors coat does that suddenly make that goblin "knowledgeable"??
You're playing a Rogue with a 20 charisma as played by Johnny Depp, he can look anyway you imagine, but he is objectively hot, as there is a social mechanic in the game and having a 20 charisma means you are going to be more successful in those tests.
CHA in DnD 5e has absolutely nothing to do with looks
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Where did OP say anything about dumping charisma? Where did OP mention a charisma score or any other mechanics at all? Where did the OP suggest circumventing any rule(s)? ... The actual objection you have here is with people who don’t play by the rules, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether a character is super attractive or not. Any presumption that it does is purely speculation on your part.
I know you replied to someone else, but the OP was specifically looking for reasons why someone might balk at the idea. You can't then turn around and say that the OP didn't mention anything about dumping stats or circumventing rules, so they shouldn't be talked about, as they are reasons someone might balk at the idea.
Yes, this would be a "problematic player", but it's just one of those things that might signal you have one on your hands.
I certainly can when describing a character as super attractive is equated with breaking the rules or cheating. That is not what OP asked after.
knowledgeable - would suspect the player of meta-gaming at some stage
The well educated dumb person is a fairly common trope -- uses big words but not always correctly, flaunts their degree from a fancy school even as they propose the stupidest plans and ideas,, doesn't have the vaguest idea how to apply what they were taught to the real world, is actually very smart in their very narrow field but is clueless about everything else... there are plenty of variations on that theme
A character with INT and/or WIS as a dump stat could easily be described as "knowledgeable" or "well read" or whatever and not have it be an attempt to metagame or gain unwarranted advantages
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
knowledgeable - would suspect the player of meta-gaming at some stage
The well educated dumb person is a fairly common trope -- uses big words but not always correctly, flaunts their degree from a fancy school even as they propose the stupidest plans and ideas,, doesn't have the vaguest idea how to apply what they were taught to the real world, is actually very smart in their very narrow field but is clueless about everything else... there are plenty of variations on that theme
A character with INT and/or WIS as a dump stat could easily be described as "knowledgeable" or "well read" or whatever and not have it be an attempt to metagame or gain unwarranted advantages
And that's for actually having some degree of knowledge; I was using it in the context of appearing knowledgeable, which as I previously highlighted is a formula that the advertising industry has pretty well broken down into its constituent parts by now. Pick the right set of clothes, do the hair the right way, possibly get some glasses, carry an appropriately weighty book, a clipboard, or sufficiently highbrow periodical depending on the context and you've got a bona fide Person Who Looks Like They Know Things. Which certainly will not give advantage to making INT checks to know things, but could conceivably give advantage to a Deception check to convince someone to follow your instructions on some procedure because you look like you should know what you're talking about.
knowledgeable - would suspect the player of meta-gaming at some stage
The well educated dumb person is a fairly common trope -- uses big words but not always correctly, flaunts their degree from a fancy school even as they propose the stupidest plans and ideas,, doesn't have the vaguest idea how to apply what they were taught to the real world, is actually very smart in their very narrow field but is clueless about everything else... there are plenty of variations on that theme
A character with INT and/or WIS as a dump stat could easily be described as "knowledgeable" or "well read" or whatever and not have it be an attempt to metagame or gain unwarranted advantages
And that's for actually having some degree of knowledge; I was using it in the context of appearing knowledgeable, which as I previously highlighted is a formula that the advertising industry has pretty well broken down into its constituent parts by now. Pick the right set of clothes, do the hair the right way, possibly get some glasses, carry an appropriately weighty book, a clipboard, or sufficiently highbrow periodical depending on the context and you've got a bona fide Person Who Looks Like They Know Things. Which certainly will not give advantage to making INT checks to know things, but could conceivably give advantage to a Deception check to convince someone to follow your instructions on some procedure because you look like you should know what you're talking about.
Yeah, appearance and ability scores just don't have to be connected at all
You can have a scrawny, weakling-looking character who actually has a STR of 20, or a buff one where the muscles are all for show
You can have a character that looks lithe and nimble but can't stop tripping over their own feet, or a DEX 20 monk modeled after Sammo Hung in his prime
Etc etc etc
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
CHA in DnD 5e has absolutely nothing to do with looks
CHA in D&D is the thing that gives you bonuses on charisma checks. It's silent about how that works, but given that looks are most certainly a factor in whether people will do things for you, I would at least want an explanation for a character who's extremely good looking but low charisma.
CHA in DnD 5e has absolutely nothing to do with looks
CHA in D&D is the thing that gives you bonuses on charisma checks. It's silent about how that works, but given that looks are most certainly a factor in whether people will do things for you, I would at least want an explanation for a character who's extremely good looking but low charisma.
Looks rarely matter in terms of whether or not someone will do something for you. There are of course some guys/girls who will do something for someone they find attractive in hopes of getting with that person, but the actual determination of whether or not the person is attractive is largely subjective. Charisma in D&D is more about actually being charismatic, not how attractive you are.
CHA in DnD 5e has absolutely nothing to do with looks
CHA in D&D is the thing that gives you bonuses on charisma checks. It's silent about how that works, but given that looks are most certainly a factor in whether people will do things for you, I would at least want an explanation for a character who's extremely good looking but low charisma.
There are three types of CHA checks in 5e. Being extremely good looking would almost never matter for Intimidation. It might even be a detriment for Deception.
CHA is mainly about force of personality, not looks. As the rules themselves say, "Confidence, poise, and charm"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
CHA in DnD 5e has absolutely nothing to do with looks
CHA in D&D is the thing that gives you bonuses on charisma checks. It's silent about how that works, but given that looks are most certainly a factor in whether people will do things for you, I would at least want an explanation for a character who's extremely good looking but low charisma.
D&D charisma is about force of personality. Without that, no matter how good-looking you are, you're going to have great difficulty getting people to do what you want.
(Does it oversimplify the complex real-world interactions of real people in real society? Yes! Is that a much better approach than trying to model interspecies reactions to attractiveness, even pretending that any species has an objective scale of attractiveness to begin with? Also yes!)
I'd love to play a magnetism-based subclass of sorcerer, as I'm a fan of Magneto, Master of Magnet. The Light Weaver from Kobold Press would be a good starting template.
What? This is about something else?
NVM...
But, for real, there's playing an "attractive" character, and expecting automatic favors as a result of it.
For one thing, not every NPC will be attracted to your standard that you put into the character. And the dice equalize everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
And that's for actually having some degree of knowledge; I was using it in the context of appearing knowledgeable, which as I previously highlighted is a formula that the advertising industry has pretty well broken down into its constituent parts by now. Pick the right set of clothes, do the hair the right way, possibly get some glasses, carry an appropriately weighty book, a clipboard, or sufficiently highbrow periodical depending on the context and you've got a bona fide Person Who Looks Like They Know Things. Which certainly will not give advantage to making INT checks to know things, but could conceivably give advantage to a Deception check to convince someone to follow your instructions on some procedure because you look like you should know what you're talking about.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like you're giving the person a free disguise kit application (albeit a little narrowly applied) for simply writing a certain description. Was this your intention? Because that actually sounds exactly like the kind of problem that people said would never happen for a player writing that they were "super attractive" (getting mechanical bonuses for a description of their character).
But, for real, there's playing an "attractive" character, and expecting automatic favors as a result of it.
For one thing, not every NPC will be attracted to your standard that you put into the character. And the dice equalize everything.
Again, I'm not planning on dying on this hill, and I already acknowledged that the words "attractive" and "beautiful/handsome/hot" are somewhat interchangeable in our everyday speech, but the former does presume the attitudes of others, while the latter is simply subjective. If no one is actually attracted to your character (because the DM decided to ignore your descriptor for in game purposes), then are they really "attractive"? This is why, at a minimum, I would expect some qualifier to that. Show that you've put some thought into the word as an actual descriptor instead of some presumptive catch-all. The latter words you could at least apply without that presumption. It's certainly possible to think someone is "beautiful" or "handsome" without being attracted to them.
And that's for actually having some degree of knowledge; I was using it in the context of appearing knowledgeable, which as I previously highlighted is a formula that the advertising industry has pretty well broken down into its constituent parts by now. Pick the right set of clothes, do the hair the right way, possibly get some glasses, carry an appropriately weighty book, a clipboard, or sufficiently highbrow periodical depending on the context and you've got a bona fide Person Who Looks Like They Know Things. Which certainly will not give advantage to making INT checks to know things, but could conceivably give advantage to a Deception check to convince someone to follow your instructions on some procedure because you look like you should know what you're talking about.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like you're giving the person a free disguise kit application (albeit a little narrowly applied) for simply writing a certain description. Was this your intention? Because that actually sounds exactly like the kind of problem that people said would never happen for a player writing that they were "super attractive" (getting mechanical bonuses for a description of their character).
A DM deciding to give advantage to a roll based on some bit of circumstance is not getting mechanical advantage from a description, it's the DM using advantage the way the feature is intended.
And that's for actually having some degree of knowledge; I was using it in the context of appearing knowledgeable, which as I previously highlighted is a formula that the advertising industry has pretty well broken down into its constituent parts by now. Pick the right set of clothes, do the hair the right way, possibly get some glasses, carry an appropriately weighty book, a clipboard, or sufficiently highbrow periodical depending on the context and you've got a bona fide Person Who Looks Like They Know Things. Which certainly will not give advantage to making INT checks to know things, but could conceivably give advantage to a Deception check to convince someone to follow your instructions on some procedure because you look like you should know what you're talking about.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like you're giving the person a free disguise kit application (albeit a little narrowly applied) for simply writing a certain description. Was this your intention? Because that actually sounds exactly like the kind of problem that people said would never happen for a player writing that they were "super attractive" (getting mechanical bonuses for a description of their character).
A DM deciding to give advantage to a roll based on some bit of circumstance is not getting mechanical advantage from a description, it's the DM using advantage the way the feature is intended.
And as the DM, you absolutely have that power (you could also allow a one-word description and decide to confer all sorts of benefits, if you like). But if, as a DM, that's what you would do... would you not expect something similar for yourself as a player? If the DM didn't automatically give you said advantage, would you not say something? Who knows, maybe they just didn't remember that you dress up as some know-it-all, and they just needed reminding...
I, of course, know your answer to both of those questions is going to be "no, I would not," but you've also mentioned that things like this can and should be handled in session 0. Something I've also maintained. If it's not handled then, for whatever reason, then a player's presumption that their description confers some bonus in some situations becomes the problem with said description. And that player in your game, that you allowed advantage on a deception check based on a description, now has an idea that they can do it.
What, exactly, is the point of describing a character as "intimidating" if they have a negative CHA mod and/or no proficiency in intimidation? They simply aren't. If they wanted their character to look/be intimidating, I'd expect them to put some points into CHA or take the relevant proficiency. If they wanted to be muscular, I'd expect a high STR. The suggestion in the rules is to lean into your ability scores to describe your character, not go against them. Just like someone putting "super attractive" in their description with no qualifiers, someone putting "intimidating" in their description without +CHA and/or intimidation proficiency is signaling that they may expect something for free. Talk it out to be sure, and maybe persuade them to change things up if an expectation seems likely (or not care, but I know I would).
1. Describe more objectively, if you can. (he has a muscular, statuesque build, and chiseled jaw) 2. If not, at least qualify your subjective descriptor to justify it's use. (people have been telling him he's incredibly handsome since he was a child) <-- note that this does NOT necessarily mean he is handsome. Just that he's been told that. The implications for his personality, however, are identical. 3. Discuss what you expect from that descriptor. (hopefully, nothing)
Why not? It really only matters in roleplay.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
Honestly, if you drop the word "super" I think the problem is greatly reduced, because adding a superlative like that implies "exceptional enough that people are expected to respond", whereas if you just say "attractive", it doesn't say much.
is a character still intimidating or enigmatic if there is no one around to come to that assessment??
is a character truly knowledgeable if they have a low intelligence/wisdom score??
So yes i personally got a similar issue and hesitation with those words being used in a characters description
since my mind sees them not as characteristics of the character (self contained features) but instead as an effect that character causes others (since that is how others see them), all of which I think should be story elements available to all characters at the table depending on the given situation rather then a starting point before any situation has occurred
Without talking to the player involved to get clarification on their expectations then my assumptions would be:
intimidating - would suspect the player to brute force what they want
knowledgeable - would suspect the player of meta-gaming at some stage
enigmatic - would suspect the player to avoid majority of social interactions
mischievous seems to be the exception to my mind since it is a self contained behaviour of that character
however i would have the following thought upon seeing it in a character description (personally would prefer to see it in a personality section)
mischievous - would suspect the player to self sabotage group for a laugh
In short I do not think player's should describe their character with the effects of how others feel towards them without discussing their expectations with the table and DM during session 0
Yes and yes they can still appear to be, respectively. A) Because D&D is a narrative game, ergo narrative structure is in play when describing the characters. Heck, the simple fact that we refer to the avatars we control as "characters" highlights the point. D&D is a game about telling a story, and stories do very frequently tell us how a character is generally perceived. Regarding the knowledgeable appearance with low INT/WIS, it's not that hard to cultivate the superficial appearance, leading into point B. There's a reason the trope of the wise elder with the seamed face and long beard is so pervasive, or why so many pharmaceutical commercials feature an actor done up in scrubs or a doctor's coat calmly relaying some message. Those images carry subconscious weight cueing the viewer to regard them a certain way. It doesn't mean absolutely everyone will instantly and uncritically accept the image, but if you polled any significant sample of a typical Western audience, more people than not would probably agree that in those images the individual appears "knowledgeable".
A player using narrative shorthand to describe the general presence they would like their character to have is not problematic. It is only an issue if they attempt to force anyone they encounter to treat them a certain way, which is generally more a sign of a generally problematic player and not something you can definitively tie to using the same kind of language pretty much every novel ever uses to introduce characters.
I think the superlative is probably part of what's feeding the idea that this descriptor is an attempt to bend the setting to the user's will, but I wouldn't outright nix superlatives. Again, it's just a case of the DM taking a few minutes to go over/lay down expectations for what that translates to in game, either during Session 0 or after the group encounters some friction between the DM's concept and the player's.
you mentioned the viewer - who is the viewer the players character or the dms npc when it comes to a players characters self claimed description??
since you attributed the effect of being seen as "knowledgeable" due to the clothing they wore - would that same character still be seen as "knowledgeable" without the scrubs or doctors coat?? if so why/how??
does a goblin typically in rags one day dresses in a doctors coat does that suddenly make that goblin "knowledgeable"??
You can also have a rogue with a 20 CHA as played by Dan Hedaya, to pick an incredibly dated reference
CHA in DnD 5e has absolutely nothing to do with looks
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I certainly can when describing a character as super attractive is equated with breaking the rules or cheating. That is not what OP asked after.
The well educated dumb person is a fairly common trope -- uses big words but not always correctly, flaunts their degree from a fancy school even as they propose the stupidest plans and ideas,, doesn't have the vaguest idea how to apply what they were taught to the real world, is actually very smart in their very narrow field but is clueless about everything else... there are plenty of variations on that theme
A character with INT and/or WIS as a dump stat could easily be described as "knowledgeable" or "well read" or whatever and not have it be an attempt to metagame or gain unwarranted advantages
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And that's for actually having some degree of knowledge; I was using it in the context of appearing knowledgeable, which as I previously highlighted is a formula that the advertising industry has pretty well broken down into its constituent parts by now. Pick the right set of clothes, do the hair the right way, possibly get some glasses, carry an appropriately weighty book, a clipboard, or sufficiently highbrow periodical depending on the context and you've got a bona fide Person Who Looks Like They Know Things. Which certainly will not give advantage to making INT checks to know things, but could conceivably give advantage to a Deception check to convince someone to follow your instructions on some procedure because you look like you should know what you're talking about.
Yeah, appearance and ability scores just don't have to be connected at all
You can have a scrawny, weakling-looking character who actually has a STR of 20, or a buff one where the muscles are all for show
You can have a character that looks lithe and nimble but can't stop tripping over their own feet, or a DEX 20 monk modeled after Sammo Hung in his prime
Etc etc etc
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
CHA in D&D is the thing that gives you bonuses on charisma checks. It's silent about how that works, but given that looks are most certainly a factor in whether people will do things for you, I would at least want an explanation for a character who's extremely good looking but low charisma.
Looks rarely matter in terms of whether or not someone will do something for you. There are of course some guys/girls who will do something for someone they find attractive in hopes of getting with that person, but the actual determination of whether or not the person is attractive is largely subjective. Charisma in D&D is more about actually being charismatic, not how attractive you are.
There are three types of CHA checks in 5e. Being extremely good looking would almost never matter for Intimidation. It might even be a detriment for Deception.
CHA is mainly about force of personality, not looks. As the rules themselves say, "Confidence, poise, and charm"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Appearance and charisma is different. There's good looking people that aren't charismatic and there's charismatic people of average look.
D&D charisma is about force of personality. Without that, no matter how good-looking you are, you're going to have great difficulty getting people to do what you want.
(Does it oversimplify the complex real-world interactions of real people in real society? Yes! Is that a much better approach than trying to model interspecies reactions to attractiveness, even pretending that any species has an objective scale of attractiveness to begin with? Also yes!)
I'd love to play a magnetism-based subclass of sorcerer, as I'm a fan of Magneto, Master of Magnet. The Light Weaver from Kobold Press would be a good starting template.
What? This is about something else?
NVM...
But, for real, there's playing an "attractive" character, and expecting automatic favors as a result of it.
For one thing, not every NPC will be attracted to your standard that you put into the character. And the dice equalize everything.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like you're giving the person a free disguise kit application (albeit a little narrowly applied) for simply writing a certain description. Was this your intention? Because that actually sounds exactly like the kind of problem that people said would never happen for a player writing that they were "super attractive" (getting mechanical bonuses for a description of their character).
Again, I'm not planning on dying on this hill, and I already acknowledged that the words "attractive" and "beautiful/handsome/hot" are somewhat interchangeable in our everyday speech, but the former does presume the attitudes of others, while the latter is simply subjective. If no one is actually attracted to your character (because the DM decided to ignore your descriptor for in game purposes), then are they really "attractive"? This is why, at a minimum, I would expect some qualifier to that. Show that you've put some thought into the word as an actual descriptor instead of some presumptive catch-all. The latter words you could at least apply without that presumption. It's certainly possible to think someone is "beautiful" or "handsome" without being attracted to them.
A DM deciding to give advantage to a roll based on some bit of circumstance is not getting mechanical advantage from a description, it's the DM using advantage the way the feature is intended.
And as the DM, you absolutely have that power (you could also allow a one-word description and decide to confer all sorts of benefits, if you like). But if, as a DM, that's what you would do... would you not expect something similar for yourself as a player? If the DM didn't automatically give you said advantage, would you not say something? Who knows, maybe they just didn't remember that you dress up as some know-it-all, and they just needed reminding...
I, of course, know your answer to both of those questions is going to be "no, I would not," but you've also mentioned that things like this can and should be handled in session 0. Something I've also maintained. If it's not handled then, for whatever reason, then a player's presumption that their description confers some bonus in some situations becomes the problem with said description. And that player in your game, that you allowed advantage on a deception check based on a description, now has an idea that they can do it.
What, exactly, is the point of describing a character as "intimidating" if they have a negative CHA mod and/or no proficiency in intimidation? They simply aren't. If they wanted their character to look/be intimidating, I'd expect them to put some points into CHA or take the relevant proficiency. If they wanted to be muscular, I'd expect a high STR. The suggestion in the rules is to lean into your ability scores to describe your character, not go against them. Just like someone putting "super attractive" in their description with no qualifiers, someone putting "intimidating" in their description without +CHA and/or intimidation proficiency is signaling that they may expect something for free. Talk it out to be sure, and maybe persuade them to change things up if an expectation seems likely (or not care, but I know I would).
1. Describe more objectively, if you can. (he has a muscular, statuesque build, and chiseled jaw)
2. If not, at least qualify your subjective descriptor to justify it's use. (people have been telling him he's incredibly handsome since he was a child) <-- note that this does NOT necessarily mean he is handsome. Just that he's been told that. The implications for his personality, however, are identical.
3. Discuss what you expect from that descriptor. (hopefully, nothing)