I've been watching this thread and thinking how I would handle such a situation. I would use this against the player, honestly. Just to be petty and make a point.
I would allow them to be super attractive...to themselves. For example, they catch a glimpse of their reflection in a reflective wall or floor and miss a turn in combat due to being distracted by their own attractiveness.
Being "super attractive" takes work. A lot of it. Periodically deduct gold from their account to cover things like grooming, haircuts, and etc.
Have the other players treat them like they are full of themselves. Or have them try their luck on getting freebies using their "super attractiveness" just to have NPCs be like, "I know your type. Not happening."
Have that player try their hand at accepting quests for the party. Just to be met with quizzical eyebrows, even outright laughter. Example:
"You're not an adventurer. This is for the folks that aren't afraid to get their hands dirty."
Always being second guessed because they don't look the part. As a matter of fact, they are so attractive, it makes everyone else suspicious of their motives/capabilities. Put them in the position of constantly having to prove themselves.
I don't know you or your players but this would be my MO - there are pros and cons to everything. I would highlight all the cons. You could even have NPCs insist they don't look their age and have one or two of them talk down to the player like a child.
I've been watching this thread and thinking how I would handle such a situation. I would use this against the player, honestly. Just to be petty and make a point.
I would allow them to be super attractive...to themselves. For example, they catch a glimpse of their reflection in a reflective wall or floor and miss a turn in combat due to being distracted by their own attractiveness.
Being "super attractive" takes work. A lot of it. Periodically deduct gold from their account to cover things like grooming, haircuts, and etc.
Have the other players treat them like they are full of themselves. Or have them try their luck on getting freebies using their "super attractiveness" just to have NPCs be like, "I know your type. Not happening."
Have that player try their hand at accepting quests for the party. Just to be met with quizzical eyebrows, even outright laughter. Example:
"You're not an adventurer. This is for the folks that aren't afraid to get their hands dirty."
Always being second guessed because they don't look the part. As a matter of fact, they are so attractive, it makes everyone else suspicious of their motives/capabilities. Put them in the position of constantly having to prove themselves.
I don't know you or your players but this would be my MO - there are pros and cons to everything. I would highlight all the cons. You could even have NPCs insist they don't look their age and have one or two of them talk down to the player like a child.
I get what you’re saying, but unless they’re bitter incels, people don’t typically react to super attractive people that way unless the attractive person is really full of themself (and sometimes not even then). I would just make it clear to the player that they’re not getting any mechanical benefit from being super attractive and otherwise let NPCs react to them based on how they rp their character rather than their perceived attractiveness.
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've been watching this thread and thinking how I would handle such a situation. I would use this against the player, honestly. Just to be petty and make a point.
I would allow them to be super attractive...to themselves. For example, they catch a glimpse of their reflection in a reflective wall or floor and miss a turn in combat due to being distracted by their own attractiveness.
Being "super attractive" takes work. A lot of it. Periodically deduct gold from their account to cover things like grooming, haircuts, and etc.
Have the other players treat them like they are full of themselves. Or have them try their luck on getting freebies using their "super attractiveness" just to have NPCs be like, "I know your type. Not happening."
Have that player try their hand at accepting quests for the party. Just to be met with quizzical eyebrows, even outright laughter. Example:
"You're not an adventurer. This is for the folks that aren't afraid to get their hands dirty."
Always being second guessed because they don't look the part. As a matter of fact, they are so attractive, it makes everyone else suspicious of their motives/capabilities. Put them in the position of constantly having to prove themselves.
I don't know you or your players but this would be my MO - there are pros and cons to everything. I would highlight all the cons. You could even have NPCs insist they don't look their age and have one or two of them talk down to the player like a child.
These are all terrible ideas rooted in a "player vs DM" mindset. No thanks
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)
I don't know you or your players but this would be my MO - there are pros and cons to everything. I would highlight all the cons. You could even have NPCs insist they don't look their age and have one or two of them talk down to the player like a child.
My players and i don't put that much stock into the impact of creature's appearance to get that heavy handed.
I don't know you or your players but this would be my MO - there are pros and cons to everything. I would highlight all the cons. You could even have NPCs insist they don't look their age and have one or two of them talk down to the player like a child.
My players and i don't put that much stock into the impact of creature's appearance to get that heavy handed.
If you don't put that much stock into a creature's appearance, then it is very unlikely that one of your players would bother writing "super attractive" as part of their description... That's kind of the point.
Most people (74.1%) don't see an issue with people wanting to play someone pretty while a small number (23.5%) think that someone wanting to be pretty are wanting to cheat the system. And a very very small number of people (2.5%) don't think anyone should be pretty in D&D at all.
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.
It conveys information. It says something about the character's appearance, style, and mannerisms. It's separate from if they can actually turn that look into a lever to make people do things. (If they're the type to start a request with "Pardon me, but would you mind...", they are not gonna be doing well on the Intimidate rolls, regardless of their looks.)
It's also the sort of thing I'd expect to see in a description immediately followed by "but is actually a sweet cinnamon roll". It's a classic trope.
And then you might get scenes where the shifty halfling rogue is saying to the thugs: "Well, I can't do much myself, but Gronk here, well... let's just say that you don't want to upset Gronk.", and leverages your appearance into advantage on his intimidate check, as long as Gronk doesn't say anything to ruin the effect.
(And you don't want to upset Gronk, because then Gronk is sad, and everybody loves Gronk and feels bad that he's sad. :)
Describing a character can (and probably should) be about more than just a list of physical traits. We are playing a narrative game, and the character's narrative aspects need to be conveyed. If I were describing the warlock I used to play as they ended up, I would certainly include the phrase "incredibly creepy". The other players all agree I successfully played that character as creepy AF, but putting it in the description primes narrative expectations, and allows the RP interactions to start off on the correct foot. (Did I describe them as "creepy" in their initial introduction? Don't recall. Probably not, but they were also less far gone along the "losing connection with all the concerns of the world, up to and including gravity" track.)
No reason you can't have a D&D campaign start at a Beauty Pageant that gets interrupted by an invading demon who kidnaps the local prince and the best contenders decide to get together to rescue the Prince for their own chance to become the princess. Honestly, the only decent reason for blocking people from playing certain things is if they get disruptive to the party/other player's fun with it but that is usually a player issue, not a character concept issue.
I don't know you or your players but this would be my MO - there are pros and cons to everything. I would highlight all the cons. You could even have NPCs insist they don't look their age and have one or two of them talk down to the player like a child.
My players and i don't put that much stock into the impact of creature's appearance to get that heavy handed.
If you don't put that much stock into a creature's appearance, then it is very unlikely that one of your players would bother writing "super attractive" as part of their description... That's kind of the point.
Those that do then know its not necessarily having any mechanical impact. If for example a character wants a character with charm or intimidating,, he will have to invest in Charisma, that in return will have mechanical impact.
I don't know you or your players but this would be my MO - there are pros and cons to everything. I would highlight all the cons. You could even have NPCs insist they don't look their age and have one or two of them talk down to the player like a child.
My players and i don't put that much stock into the impact of creature's appearance to get that heavy handed.
If you don't put that much stock into a creature's appearance, then it is very unlikely that one of your players would bother writing "super attractive" as part of their description... That's kind of the point.
No. The point is to enjoy a fantasy and for some, that includes being a very attractive person. I don't know how you play D&D, but I, nor any of my players, have ever tried to use their PC's physical attractiveness to cheat the rules. Ever. I watch a fair amount of D&D streams as well, and almost every PC in them has THE DRIP and the player never assumes that this gives some secret mechanical benefit.
If you are so worried about this, given my own experience, the experience I see others play on streams, and the poll here, I would encourage you to play with the intent to just enjoy the game and not cheat the system.
The point is to enjoy a fantasy and for some, that includes being a very attractive person. I don't know how you play D&D, but I, nor any of my players, have ever tried to use their PC's physical attractiveness to cheat the rules. Ever. I watch a fair amount of D&D streams as well, and almost every PC in them has THE DRIP and the player never assumes that this gives some secret mechanical benefit.
I'm thinking about how many of my recent characters would actually qualify as "super attractive"
Thibere Mauditoile, the fighter/Aberrant Mind sorc stuck in Barovia, definitely would. The references there were actors like Michael B Jordan and Harold Perrineau, and he was very much a ladies (and mans) man from the Dark Domains equivalent of New Orleans (Port d'Elhour in Souragne)
Xheketiel, my current fighter/Runechild sorc in Exandria, has kind of a halfling 'young Gerald Way' thing going for him. He might qualify, not that he really thinks of himself in that way
Mardan Ferres is a rogue and a classic film noir detective type, but a drow. He would be considered on the hotter side
Nessa, my yuan-ti Stars druid, was a magical girl riff who was the lead singer for a band, so yeah, definitely attractive
On the other hand...
the two tabaxi I've played, Chasing Waterfalls (divination wizard) and Green Hill Sunrise (battle master fighter), weren't particularly attractive. One was scrawny, gawky and bookish, with a Matt Smith Dr. Who kind of vibe, and the other was a mangy mercenary
Lakmar, my wildling Astral Arms monk, was downright ugly, to the point that it was hard to tell whether the green patches on his skin were just grass stains or actual moss growing on him
so was Venebriax, my cursed copper dragonborn Circle of the Blighted druid who was essentially the town drunk in a Western/Oregon Trail-inspired campaign. Whatever you think a 'hot dragonborn' might look like, he ain't it
Dane Brightburrow, my halfling Undead warlock, was very much a 'blend into the crowd' sort who just didn't stand out
So it runs about 50/50, but even among the ones that might be classified as "super attractive", there's only two who would even think of leaning into it or making it work to their advantage in a social interaction
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)
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.
It conveys information. It says something about the character's appearance, style, and mannerisms.
No, it says something about how the player expects NPCs to initially react to their character. The most innocuous reading of it is that the character looks intimidating to the player. But again... if that character fails all of their intimidation checks because they have low CHA and no proficiency in intimidation, they are simply not intimidating, and describing that character as intimidating is just inaccurate. Remember, I have little (not no) problem with using "intimidating" as a descriptor if the character actually has a high CHA they can use to intimidate people.
It's also the sort of thing I'd expect to see in a description immediately followed by "but is actually a sweet cinnamon roll". It's a classic trope.
I think we may be more in agreement than you think. You see, that expectation from you is the same for me, if they want to use "intimidating" as a descriptor at all. It tells me that the player is not seeking mechanical benefits. It's when that qualifier is missing that you give the impression that you are attempting to circumvent your actual skill in intimidation. I understand that not everyone is gifted with being able to describe someone objectively for a similar effect. That's why I'd work with them to come up with more objective descriptors.
"I have this idea of a halfling wizard that looks intimidating, but is actually a softy at heart."
"Ok, what if they have a large scar across their face from an experiment gone wrong that makes it look like they are always scowling? Tattoos of skulls and daggers that they got against their will before they were thrown out of some organization for being too nice? What if they naturally have red eyes and slightly enlarged canines by some fluke of biology?"
There is no less narrative opportunity here for the player or DM, if they are both fine with these "circumstantial bonuses". In fact, perhaps even more opportunity because they aren't pigeonholed into thinking that those (previously undefined) features MUST be intimidating to everyone. Maybe those red eyes and fangs can be used to lower the persuasion DC against a fiend. Maybe the DM can even be enigmatic about it if you don't know that you're dealing with a fiend. Plenty of emergent role-play available here.
I will also push back a bit on the "narrative devices that an author uses all the time" to convey things like this. An author has 100% control over every character in their story. A player in an RPG... does not. A player has control over how their character acts, looks, and speaks. The DM (and the dice) has control over how NPCs respond to those things. I looked through the example descriptions in the 2014 basic rules (I didn't find any in the 2024 ones) and none of them use subjective/presumptive words. The 2024 rules do have example descriptor word suggestions for high and low stats and all of them are non-presumptive except for high charisma... you know, the stat that is used to influence how people respond to you.
Honestly, I think this conversation has mostly run its course. As someone pointed out before, the superlative is part of the problem for the OP's question. If all the player wants is for their character to be "pretty" (by whatever standards they have in their head), then... done. It's the default assumption for the hero of a story anyway. To which point, there's no real reason to write it. Just try to avoid subjective descriptors without qualifiers. Really try to avoid descriptors with presumptions about how NPCs will react to you. Absolutely try to avoid descriptors with presumptions that are literally tied to actual stats/skills in the game if you do not have the stats/skills to back that up.
This question came up, and I thought I would see what people thought: Can we play characters who are conventionally super attractive?
Yes. In fact, I see no reason NOT to allow it. Beauty is not Charisma, and no DM worth his salt will allow a player to just say, "My character's really attractive" and allow that to effectively turn their CHA of 8 into an 18.
If anything, it might affect roleplaying (as many other subjective traits might,) but personally I'd go out of my way to ensure that anything that's potentially a positive that results from a character's attractiveness is at some point balanced out by the negatives (being stalked, people refusing to take you seriously, standing out in a crowd when you're trying to blend in, etc.) And vice versa.
Now, if you want to play that a CHA of 18 is due to the character being really attractive, that's a different story; it can work just fine, so I'd have no problem with that myself. (Or, having a CHA of 8 be due to the character's sheer ugliness, rather than just bad manners or bland personality.)
I would ask the player to explain why exactly it is they want the character to be "super attractive." If it's purely cosmetic and simply how they imagine the character to look then I guess it's harmless. But allowing any player to have a character that is extremely attractive could get real creepy real fast. We are playing roles here. And I am not so sure I would trust a dude at my table who insisted that his character be allowed to be "super attractive." Not if he couldn't convince me this wasn't for his own gratification.
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.
I don't want to go into my 4 years of psychology, but you are 100% wrong in that belief. There have been multiple studies on this, and looks have a significate impact on where or not people even see you, yet alone do things for you.
I don't want to go into my 4 years of psychology, but you are 100% wrong in that belief. There have been multiple studies on this, and looks have a significate impact on where or not people even see you, yet alone do things for you.
There is little doubt looks play some role in the influence someone might have on others. But some of the most charismatic leaders of the past who swayed millions to believe some of the most insane things people have ever believed were no lookers.
Perhaps it is more of a modern phenomenon that people place more stock in people's looks. Which would come as no surprise given the media's idolatry of celebrities.
D&D tends to take place in worlds that resemble historical time periods usually from the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance. With some exceptions. Beauty was a thing. Poets were abundant. But other things tended to be prioritized over whether or not someone was even attractive least of all worthy listening to.
If beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder—and unless I missed it how has a joke not been made about beholders?—...
... what does it even mean for a character to be "super attractive"?
To whom?
I like what someone else said when they said they would have the player's character find itself attractive. Like Narcissus it would catch glimpses of its own reflection and acknowledge what it considered to be its own attractiveness.
But whether or not others found it attractive?
There are celebrities considered to be attractive they I don't find even remotely attractive.
It's subjective. So it's a pretty meaningless word to accord to a character without further description and some narrative context about how the character has many suitors or something.
I don't want to go into my 4 years of psychology, but you are 100% wrong in that belief. There have been multiple studies on this, and looks have a significate impact on where or not people even see you, yet alone do things for you.
There is little doubt looks play some role in the influence someone might have on others. But some of the most charismatic leaders of the past who swayed millions to believe some of the most insane things people have ever believed were no lookers.
Perhaps it is more of a modern phenomenon that people place more stock in people's looks. Which would come as no surprise given the media's idolatry of celebrities.
D&D tends to take place in worlds that resemble historical time periods usually from the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance. With some exceptions. Beauty was a thing. Poets were abundant. But other things tended to be prioritized over whether or not someone was even attractive least of all worthy listening to.
"Lookers" by who's judgement, ours with the modern plastic face being sold to us as what is attractive, or in the past when other features were considered attractive. People think oh hey "Super Model" hot is some fixed point, some set definition. It literally changes every ten years. Marilyn Monroe was considered super hot in her era, and if you look an untouched up pictures or original copies of her movies and pictures you will notice that she looks nothing like the models on covers of fashion magazines today. She would be too short, and too fat to even be considered.
[Redacted]
I dare you to find one world leader who was popular during their time gaining power that was considered ugly by his peers.
I don't want to go into my 4 years of psychology, but you are 100% wrong in that belief. There have been multiple studies on this, and looks have a significate impact on where or not people even see you, yet alone do things for you.
There is little doubt looks play some role in the influence someone might have on others. But some of the most charismatic leaders of the past who swayed millions to believe some of the most insane things people have ever believed were no lookers.
Perhaps it is more of a modern phenomenon that people place more stock in people's looks. Which would come as no surprise given the media's idolatry of celebrities.
I do think that modern society (particularly the West) puts too much emphasis on looks. But that said, it seems clear to me that IRL, being attractive (by local standards) usually still provides a number of obvious and subtle advantages to the attractive person nowadays, and I can only imagine even more so in the past.
Between modern makeup, clothing quality, and general health and hygiene, I have a hard time believing that a 21st-century European woman, who matched the ideal of attractiveness of, say, the 16th century, would be treated as anything less than royalty by the average European commoner from back then.
This would probably make for an interesting discussion in a separate thread.
Stepping in a little as this topic has gone on for 9 pages and people are beginning to get heated and pushing off topic, just to remind of some rules and points:
Guidelines for a peaceful community:
Post thoughtfully. If there is doubt of whether a contribution is acceptable or not, especially during the heat of debate, err on the side of caution. Moderators are always available to assist with questions or advise on rules alignment before a post is made.
We are each responsible for our own posts. Be wary of how your post may read to others, as moderation will be performed against the impact it has. Not only is what you say important but also how you say it.
Differences are welcome on D&D Beyond. Users will have varying opinions, points of view, experiences, and values. While we may not always agree, these differences are what contribute to making the community great. It is important to remain mindful of others and respect contrasting commentary, up to and including the conclusion of discussions before they escalate to rule violations.
While challenging ideas or debating thoughts are acceptable, attacking the people or groups holding them is not. (Harassment)
Directing insulting/offensive messages to other users or otherwise demonstrating the intent to insult and/or create dissent is prohibited, as well as messaging not deemed to be courteous or respectful. (Flaming)
As for this topic, I do not wish to lock the thread as there have been respectful and thoughtful discussions on the pros and cons of allowing such and how it interacts with gameplay. To summarize some points to get us back on track (But taking off my mod hat for these):
If it doesn’t affect anything mechanically, it’s just fun flavour. D&D is often escapism and power fantasy and we like imagining many of our heroes as attractive.
Don’t allow players to try and abuse the concept of being ‘super attractive’ to gain mechanical bonuses where there are none, or push RP in a way that will make the group uncomfortable.
Attractiveness is subjective, and there are more interesting ways to describe your character than simply ‘attractive’ and you can’t make another person to find your PC attractive. It also means trying to make it mechanical will fall into issues of defining attractiveness.
Putting mod hat back on- Some lines of discussion that do not seem helpful and have derailed the thread:
“If there’s not mechanics for it / has not mechanical effect, you shouldn’t RP it” This goes against much of the philosophy of the game, and also would include things such as gender, sex, colouration, height, weight, PC name, personal taste in food, so on. You can discuss whether something could/should have a mechanical effect.
Insisting that people need to be able to define what ‘super attractive’ is before they can talk about it. It will be subjective, but there are many shorthands used such as beautiful, handsome, cute, so on, used in writing. It will depend on context and social norms, but this seems just the point of ‘it’s subjective’ but then also trying to shut down the conversation. Getting hung up on ‘super’ attractive isn’t going to help the conversation.
Charisma is not appearance in 5e. There is an interesting discussion on how being confident and likable can make you appear more attractive, and how being attractive can make you seem more likable but in 5e Charisma is not appearance, and introducing a mechanic between them is a choice you are making, not part of the game for everyone.
Discussing real people and their perceived attractiveness or not in detail. It’s notable many of the examples coming up are women, and that some comments have dipped a little close to being insulting or objectifying, but this goes for real people of any gender- let’s not talk about people in that way. This includes also disparaging professions connected to physical appearance, such as modelling.
And just realising now this had been quite for 5 days. <.<
I've been watching this thread and thinking how I would handle such a situation. I would use this against the player, honestly. Just to be petty and make a point.
I would allow them to be super attractive...to themselves. For example, they catch a glimpse of their reflection in a reflective wall or floor and miss a turn in combat due to being distracted by their own attractiveness.
Being "super attractive" takes work. A lot of it. Periodically deduct gold from their account to cover things like grooming, haircuts, and etc.
Have the other players treat them like they are full of themselves. Or have them try their luck on getting freebies using their "super attractiveness" just to have NPCs be like, "I know your type. Not happening."
Have that player try their hand at accepting quests for the party. Just to be met with quizzical eyebrows, even outright laughter. Example:
"You're not an adventurer. This is for the folks that aren't afraid to get their hands dirty."
Always being second guessed because they don't look the part. As a matter of fact, they are so attractive, it makes everyone else suspicious of their motives/capabilities. Put them in the position of constantly having to prove themselves.
I don't know you or your players but this would be my MO - there are pros and cons to everything. I would highlight all the cons. You could even have NPCs insist they don't look their age and have one or two of them talk down to the player like a child.
I get what you’re saying, but unless they’re bitter incels, people don’t typically react to super attractive people that way unless the attractive person is really full of themself (and sometimes not even then). I would just make it clear to the player that they’re not getting any mechanical benefit from being super attractive and otherwise let NPCs react to them based on how they rp their character rather than their perceived attractiveness.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).
These are all terrible ideas rooted in a "player vs DM" mindset. No thanks
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)
My players and i don't put that much stock into the impact of creature's appearance to get that heavy handed.
If you don't put that much stock into a creature's appearance, then it is very unlikely that one of your players would bother writing "super attractive" as part of their description... That's kind of the point.
I think the poll says a lot.
Most people (74.1%) don't see an issue with people wanting to play someone pretty while a small number (23.5%) think that someone wanting to be pretty are wanting to cheat the system. And a very very small number of people (2.5%) don't think anyone should be pretty in D&D at all.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No reason you can't have a D&D campaign start at a Beauty Pageant that gets interrupted by an invading demon who kidnaps the local prince and the best contenders decide to get together to rescue the Prince for their own chance to become the princess. Honestly, the only decent reason for blocking people from playing certain things is if they get disruptive to the party/other player's fun with it but that is usually a player issue, not a character concept issue.
Those that do then know its not necessarily having any mechanical impact. If for example a character wants a character with charm or intimidating,, he will have to invest in Charisma, that in return will have mechanical impact.
No. The point is to enjoy a fantasy and for some, that includes being a very attractive person. I don't know how you play D&D, but I, nor any of my players, have ever tried to use their PC's physical attractiveness to cheat the rules. Ever. I watch a fair amount of D&D streams as well, and almost every PC in them has THE DRIP and the player never assumes that this gives some secret mechanical benefit.
If you are so worried about this, given my own experience, the experience I see others play on streams, and the poll here, I would encourage you to play with the intent to just enjoy the game and not cheat the system.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I'm thinking about how many of my recent characters would actually qualify as "super attractive"
On the other hand...
So it runs about 50/50, but even among the ones that might be classified as "super attractive", there's only two who would even think of leaning into it or making it work to their advantage in a social interaction
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)
No, it says something about how the player expects NPCs to initially react to their character. The most innocuous reading of it is that the character looks intimidating to the player. But again... if that character fails all of their intimidation checks because they have low CHA and no proficiency in intimidation, they are simply not intimidating, and describing that character as intimidating is just inaccurate. Remember, I have little (not no) problem with using "intimidating" as a descriptor if the character actually has a high CHA they can use to intimidate people.
I think we may be more in agreement than you think. You see, that expectation from you is the same for me, if they want to use "intimidating" as a descriptor at all. It tells me that the player is not seeking mechanical benefits. It's when that qualifier is missing that you give the impression that you are attempting to circumvent your actual skill in intimidation. I understand that not everyone is gifted with being able to describe someone objectively for a similar effect. That's why I'd work with them to come up with more objective descriptors.
"I have this idea of a halfling wizard that looks intimidating, but is actually a softy at heart."
"Ok, what if they have a large scar across their face from an experiment gone wrong that makes it look like they are always scowling? Tattoos of skulls and daggers that they got against their will before they were thrown out of some organization for being too nice? What if they naturally have red eyes and slightly enlarged canines by some fluke of biology?"
There is no less narrative opportunity here for the player or DM, if they are both fine with these "circumstantial bonuses". In fact, perhaps even more opportunity because they aren't pigeonholed into thinking that those (previously undefined) features MUST be intimidating to everyone. Maybe those red eyes and fangs can be used to lower the persuasion DC against a fiend. Maybe the DM can even be enigmatic about it if you don't know that you're dealing with a fiend. Plenty of emergent role-play available here.
I will also push back a bit on the "narrative devices that an author uses all the time" to convey things like this. An author has 100% control over every character in their story. A player in an RPG... does not. A player has control over how their character acts, looks, and speaks. The DM (and the dice) has control over how NPCs respond to those things. I looked through the example descriptions in the 2014 basic rules (I didn't find any in the 2024 ones) and none of them use subjective/presumptive words. The 2024 rules do have example descriptor word suggestions for high and low stats and all of them are non-presumptive except for high charisma... you know, the stat that is used to influence how people respond to you.
Honestly, I think this conversation has mostly run its course. As someone pointed out before, the superlative is part of the problem for the OP's question. If all the player wants is for their character to be "pretty" (by whatever standards they have in their head), then... done. It's the default assumption for the hero of a story anyway. To which point, there's no real reason to write it. Just try to avoid subjective descriptors without qualifiers. Really try to avoid descriptors with presumptions about how NPCs will react to you. Absolutely try to avoid descriptors with presumptions that are literally tied to actual stats/skills in the game if you do not have the stats/skills to back that up.
Yes. In fact, I see no reason NOT to allow it. Beauty is not Charisma, and no DM worth his salt will allow a player to just say, "My character's really attractive" and allow that to effectively turn their CHA of 8 into an 18.
If anything, it might affect roleplaying (as many other subjective traits might,) but personally I'd go out of my way to ensure that anything that's potentially a positive that results from a character's attractiveness is at some point balanced out by the negatives (being stalked, people refusing to take you seriously, standing out in a crowd when you're trying to blend in, etc.) And vice versa.
Now, if you want to play that a CHA of 18 is due to the character being really attractive, that's a different story; it can work just fine, so I'd have no problem with that myself. (Or, having a CHA of 8 be due to the character's sheer ugliness, rather than just bad manners or bland personality.)
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
I chose It's complicated ...
I would ask the player to explain why exactly it is they want the character to be "super attractive." If it's purely cosmetic and simply how they imagine the character to look then I guess it's harmless. But allowing any player to have a character that is extremely attractive could get real creepy real fast. We are playing roles here. And I am not so sure I would trust a dude at my table who insisted that his character be allowed to be "super attractive." Not if he couldn't convince me this wasn't for his own gratification.
I don't want to go into my 4 years of psychology, but you are 100% wrong in that belief. There have been multiple studies on this, and looks have a significate impact on where or not people even see you, yet alone do things for you.
here is a famous event done by a designer in the 80s. https://youtu.be/ZvIuymFVn5A?si=PVGhPzPAfk4bHfuN
There is little doubt looks play some role in the influence someone might have on others. But some of the most charismatic leaders of the past who swayed millions to believe some of the most insane things people have ever believed were no lookers.
Perhaps it is more of a modern phenomenon that people place more stock in people's looks. Which would come as no surprise given the media's idolatry of celebrities.
D&D tends to take place in worlds that resemble historical time periods usually from the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance. With some exceptions. Beauty was a thing. Poets were abundant. But other things tended to be prioritized over whether or not someone was even attractive least of all worthy listening to.
If beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder—and unless I missed it how has a joke not been made about beholders?—...
... what does it even mean for a character to be "super attractive"?
To whom?
I like what someone else said when they said they would have the player's character find itself attractive. Like Narcissus it would catch glimpses of its own reflection and acknowledge what it considered to be its own attractiveness.
But whether or not others found it attractive?
There are celebrities considered to be attractive they I don't find even remotely attractive.
It's subjective. So it's a pretty meaningless word to accord to a character without further description and some narrative context about how the character has many suitors or something.
"Lookers" by who's judgement, ours with the modern plastic face being sold to us as what is attractive, or in the past when other features were considered attractive. People think oh hey "Super Model" hot is some fixed point, some set definition. It literally changes every ten years. Marilyn Monroe was considered super hot in her era, and if you look an untouched up pictures or original copies of her movies and pictures you will notice that she looks nothing like the models on covers of fashion magazines today. She would be too short, and too fat to even be considered.
[Redacted]
I dare you to find one world leader who was popular during their time gaining power that was considered ugly by his peers.
I do think that modern society (particularly the West) puts too much emphasis on looks. But that said, it seems clear to me that IRL, being attractive (by local standards) usually still provides a number of obvious and subtle advantages to the attractive person nowadays, and I can only imagine even more so in the past.
Between modern makeup, clothing quality, and general health and hygiene, I have a hard time believing that a 21st-century European woman, who matched the ideal of attractiveness of, say, the 16th century, would be treated as anything less than royalty by the average European commoner from back then.
This would probably make for an interesting discussion in a separate thread.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorStepping in a little as this topic has gone on for 9 pages and people are beginning to get heated and pushing off topic, just to remind of some rules and points:
Guidelines for a peaceful community:
As for this topic, I do not wish to lock the thread as there have been respectful and thoughtful discussions on the pros and cons of allowing such and how it interacts with gameplay. To summarize some points to get us back on track (But taking off my mod hat for these):
Putting mod hat back on- Some lines of discussion that do not seem helpful and have derailed the thread:
And just realising now this had been quite for 5 days. <.<
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support