Striking Appearance

[TheNaga]

How beautiful is a female with a Striking Appearance: +6/+6d6?  I know the succubus has Striking Appearance: +6/+6d6.

Also how beautiful is a female with a Striking Appearance: +3/+3d6 and one with Striking Appearance: +4/+4d6?

[Hyper-Man]

I would compare that to a character with a 30 Presence.  It has a similar if somewhat more limited potential effect within the rules.  A 30 PRE is usually considered the maximum possible for a normal human so +6d6 Striking Appearance seems like it's crossing the line into pure super/divine/etc..

[mhd]

That just brings up the question about how someone with 30 PRE would look, and this probably varies even more than "Striking Appearance", where at least we know that it's a visual thing. Tolkien's Balrog isn't in my spank bank.

 

But beauty, being in the eye of the beholder, is rather subjective. I don't think we can just say that "+6d6 equals Monica Bellucci while you're hopped up on aphrodisiacs". Given the "human limits" thing, we might say that anything beyond +2d6 is probably very rare. +3d6 would then be famous models/actresses/etc., i.e. people who make a living by their looks, +4d6 is Helen of Troy and beyond that it's close to a supernatural compulsion.

[Greywind]

Methos says that Helen wasn't that attractive.

[NuSoardGraphite]

+1D6: Cute

+2D6: Pretty

+3D6: Gorgeous (the more pretty hollywood actresses fall into this category like the above mentioned Monica Bellucci, Scarlett Johansen, Halley Berry etc)

+4D6: Beautiful (Legendary beauty known the world over. Marilyn Monroe, Iman, Cindy Crawford, Audrey Hepburn)

+5D6: Unearthly beauty (The most beautiful of comic book heroes and heroines fall into this category, the quintessential example of which is Wonder Woman)

+6D6: Divine Beauty (obviously angelic beings, goddesses like Artemis, Freyja, Blodeuwedd etc.)

 

For the record, I would place Aphrodite and other goddesses of beauty at around +8D6 (or more)

[bigbywolfe]

I dont think I've ever seen Wonder Woman built with more than +3d6, though that is usually in addition to a 30 PRE.

[Lucius]

How beautiful is a female with a Striking Appearance: +6/+6d6?  I know the succubus has Striking Appearance: +6/+6d6.

Also how beautiful is a female with a Striking Appearance: +3/+3d6 and one with Striking Appearance: +4/+4d6?

If Striking Appearance is defined as "terrifying" or "numinous aura" or "commanding voice" or "sheathed in sorcerous flames that inspire fascination and awe" then the female may not be "beautiful" at all.

 

But as a general rule, each +1d6 is double the number of millihelens. So a female with +6d6 Striking Appearnce is 64 times as lovely as she would be otherwise.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

A palindromedary, having two faces, would automatically get at least +1d6 for being able to launch twice as many ships

[NuSoardGraphite]

I dont think I've ever seen Wonder Woman built with more than +3d6, though that is usually in addition to a 30 PRE.

Yeah, with a 30 PRE, she wouldn't need much more than +1D6 or +2D6. Me, I would probably rate WW at 25 PRE with a +4D6 Striking Appearance (great beauty).

 

I miss Comliness

[mhd]

Personally I'd give the more "statuesque" women (and men) a higher PRE and lower +SA, whereas it's the opposite for the "merely" cute, sexy and/or voluptuous.

[Beast]

For me Pre has nothing to do with looks

It is how one carries ones self and reacts to stress

 

Striking appearance took over the old Comliness Stat

each level of SA is around 5pts of Com

So your 6+/+6d6 would equal a 40 Com

Back in 5th ed and before Com could be used as a complementary roll to most Pre skills where looks could make a difference
In 6th you just add the level of SA to the Pre based Skill roll if looks could make a difference

I would compare that to a character with a 30 Presence.  It has a similar if somewhat more limited potential effect within the rules.  A 30 PRE is usually considered the maximum possible for a normal human so +6d6 Striking Appearance seems like it's crossing the line into pure super/divine/etc..

[NuSoardGraphite]

For me Pre has nothing to do with looks

It is how one carries ones self and reacts to stress

 

Striking appearance took over the old Comliness Stat

each level of SA is around 5pts of Com

So your 6+/+6d6 would equal a 40 Com

Back in 5th ed and before Com could be used as a complementary roll to most Pre skills where looks could make a difference

In 6th you just add the level of SA to the Pre based Skill roll if looks could make a difference

Indeed. this is why i much prefer comliness to striking appearance. for striking appearance to be built properly it needs to include both bonuses for PRE attacks and bonuses for interaction skills like conversation, pesuasion, seduction and intimidation (for frightening appearance)

[bigbywolfe]

Indeed. this is why i much prefer comliness to striking appearance. for striking appearance to be built properly it needs to include both bonuses for PRE attacks and bonuses for interaction skills like conversation, pesuasion, seduction and intimidation (for frightening appearance)

Um, it does.  All of those interaction skills you just listed are based on PRE and Striking Appearance can give bonuses for any of them.

 

EDIT:

6E1 pg 115

 

 

+1 with Interaction Skill Rolls and +1d6

with Presence Attacks versus all characters

for 3 Character Points;

+1/1d6 only versus a specific group of

characters for 2 Character Points

 

I'm not trying to start the COM wars all over, but you just said in order to be built properly it would have to do exactly what the book says it does...

[NuSoardGraphite]

Um, it does.  All of those interaction skills you just listed are based on PRE and Striking Appearance can give bonuses for any of them.

EDIT:

6E1 pg 115

I'm not trying to start the COM wars all over, but you just said in order to be built properly it would have to do exactly what the book says it does...

Ah ok. i thought it was just to PRE attacks. still havent absorbed enough of the sixth edition yet. i'm too happy with the 5th to bother...

[Beast]

I liked Com because it could give you an "In the eye of the beholder"effect
Where "Bring me the pretty one" might not be the the one with the 30 Com but the 15 Com ,because of the luck of the roll
Now "Bring me the pretty one" means who has the highest SA

[megaplayboy]

I like the millihelens idea.  If you posit HoT(Helen of Troy) at +10d6 SA, then a woman of normal appearance rates 1 mH, x2 for every level of SA. 

BTW, the max "legendary" PRE is 50.  max PRE with NCM is 20, 25 with Age 40+, 30 with Age 60+.  If HoT has beauty rivaling Aphrodite, then +10 SA is not as absurd as it sounds.

 

In a more general sense, female SA as  feminine beauty would be "how much does this woman stand out in a crowd?  How much of an impact does she have(a second glance, staring, stammering or mouths hanging open, etc.)?"

At 1 level, added to a 10 PRE, perhaps this is someone who would get a second glance and a few stares. e.g. the most attractive woman in a group of 5-10 women

At 2 levels, they might get a lot of stares and make a few men a little discombobulated. e.g. the most attractive woman in a group of 20-30 women

At 3 levels, I think you're getting into the territory of someone whose living is heavily dependent on looking really good: models, actors, musical performers, bodybuilders/fitness models, pro athletes, etc.

At 4 levels, this is your "generic" movie star or supermodel

At 5+, I think you're into iconic/legendary beauty territory, or perhaps someone with superhuman or supernatural powers of attraction

[psyber624]

I prefer a simpler approach. Since SA's main emphasis is modifying Interaction/Presence rolls anything over 3d6 is basically beyond human norms. +3 to a skill roll is a HUGE modifier in this game so should represent someone so incredibly beautiful that Persuasion/Charm/etc. is practically guaranteed to work (and thats without any actual "skill" at those abilities.

 

Someone with 3 levels of SA basically has the ability to turn normal human beings into drooling pushovers JUST with the power of their beauty.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I prefer a simpler approach. Since SA's main emphasis is modifying Interaction/Presence rolls anything over 3d6 is basically beyond human norms. +3 to a skill roll is a HUGE modifier in this game so should represent someone so incredibly beautiful that Persuasion/Charm/etc. is practically guaranteed to work (and thats without any actual "skill" at those abilities.

 

Someone with 3 levels of SA basically has the ability to turn normal human beings into drooling pushovers JUST with the power of their beauty.

Exactly. With the bonuses to interaction skills +3-+4 should be the maximum of "normal". Anything above that would be almost supernatural in quality. That's why I think +6 level is basically god-like.

[megaplayboy]

I think it depends on how one is defining "human" levels.  In a semi-realistic("realistic" in an RPG is a bit of an oxymoron, imho) game, perhaps 2 or 3 levels is the upper bound, since a stat of 20-25 would be fairly extraordinary.  In a "cinematic realism" setting(your average action film, e.g.), semi-legendary stats and feats aren't unheard of, and 4 or even 5 levels might be the upper bound.  In a pulp, high fantasy, superspies/superagents, wild martial arts type of setting, who knows what the upper bound of "human" might be?  Krillin from Dragon Ball Z is technically a human being, but he's ridiculously fast, strong and tough, way beyond even "legendary" human levels.  Greek mythology, aka the Helen of Troy era, might also qualify. 

[NuSoardGraphite]

I think it depends on how one is defining "human" levels.  In a semi-realistic("realistic" in an RPG is a bit of an oxymoron, imho) game, perhaps 2 or 3 levels is the upper bound, since a stat of 20-25 would be fairly extraordinary.  In a "cinematic realism" setting(your average action film, e.g.), semi-legendary stats and feats aren't unheard of, and 4 or even 5 levels might be the upper bound.  In a pulp, high fantasy, superspies/superagents, wild martial arts type of setting, who knows what the upper bound of "human" might be?  Krillin from Dragon Ball Z is technically a human being, but he's ridiculously fast, strong and tough, way beyond even "legendary" human levels.  Greek mythology, aka the Helen of Troy era, might also qualify.

 

Of course, but it's all relative if you scale accordingly. i set what is "human" for my campaigns and that goes across all genres. then if within the bounds of the genre i'm working with, a character exceeds what is considered normal for human beings, then they qualify for the higher bonuses. i dont necessarily limit pc's to the human norms unless i'm playing a realistic campaign (which i mostly do not do) i just warn my players that taking characteristics and abilities of a super-human level will make them stand out amongst the masses (which heroic pc's should do anyway)

 

I also tend to scale my normal humans according to the power level of the heroic characters i'm emulating, not necesarily the other way around. for example, in DBZ, most players would think "hmm...normal human max is 20, so Goku needs a STR of 40 to compete with that".

 

Not me. i think "hmmm...the normal human falls into a range of 8-12 with 10 being average. Goku could probably start with a STR of 30 in his non-powered up form and be good to go" and then i would scale everyone accordingly. and as far as Kirillin goes, he ranks close to human maximums (20 str, 18 dex, 20 con, etc) and that would make him significantly superior to 99% of the human population he encounters. Very, very impressive compared to normal people, but ultimately still human.

 

(I know Goku is way stronger than STR 30. he starts closer to STR 50 and goes up from there into the hundreds at SSJ-4. but thats when you end up leaving playability behind for the sake of accuracy)

 

So for striking appearance, in all my genres +4 would be the normal "human max" with anything above that being supernatural in nature.

[Narf the Mouse]

Presense Attack. At +6d6 SA and 10 PRE, you have an 8d6 PA. That gives you an average roll of 28, or 18 over 10 PRE. This is enough that, if you have a relevant SA, you can shout "Stop right there, criminal scum!" and most thugs will pause for at least a half-phase, and probably surrender.

 

If the presense attack is based on beauty, there'll be a lot of headslaps, and people wanting autographs.

 

Edit: Actually, given the relative PA levels, the character would be a walking marriage-breaker of a mind-control level.

[Lucius]

I liked Com because it could give you an "In the eye of the beholder"effect

Where "Bring me the pretty one" might not be the the one with the 30 Com but the 15 Com ,because of the luck of the roll

Now "Bring me the pretty one" means who has the highest SA

I think it's funny that this is the exact opposite of what I have read from other people who liked COM. Usually, the complaint is that in the good old days "the pretty one" would always be the one with the higher COM score and what they miss is the absolute hierarchical certainty of "who is the fairest one of all" that they say doesn't exist with Striking Appearance but does with COM.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

If you notice what's missing, is that a striking disappearance?

[Sean Waters]

Striking appearance means your appearance is striking, not that you are beautiful.  Having said that, you can define SA as 'beauty', but I doubt that is really enough for most purposes.  It is a lot more than simple looks.

 

The point is that it is not an absolute scale.  Someone with +3d6 SA is generally going to be more striking than someone with +2d6 SA, but not always and not to everyone.

 

Moreover it is probably worth noting that in 'reality' someone being really good looking (whatever that means to you) is good for first impressions, but, over time, probably has less and less effect.

 

What you ought to do, if you can be bothered with the book-keeping, is roll PRE+SA when two characters first meet to decide what their relative levels of attraction/influence are, and record that number to use every time (possibly with a tendency towards a neutral result over time - say per step on the time chart acting as a modifier to the original roll).  If you find someone really attractive now, the chances are you will next time you meet too.  Equally, if you instantly dislike someone you will probably not feel any better toward them next time you meet, but over time, if they keep showing that they are basically decent, you are not going to keep reacting badly to them.  Having said that, there are always exceptions...it is complicated.

 

Also you need to ensure that lots of PRE and SA does not mean that the character gets to go whatever they want whenever they want.  It is not mind control.  If they are after something unreasonable, impose massive penalties.

 

One other caveat: social interaction should not simply be a matter of dice rolls, certainly not with recurring NPCs.

[Vondy]

How beautiful is a female with a Striking Appearance: +6/+6d6?  I know the succubus has Striking Appearance: +6/+6d6.

Also how beautiful is a female with a Striking Appearance: +3/+3d6 and one with Striking Appearance: +4/+4d6?

 

I think its less important to focus on "how beautiful" as a linear scale of "mirror, mirror on the wall" and start looking at what the modifier does to the bell curve. A +1/-1 can skew odds in a real way, while a +4/-4 can have a very dramatic effect. A modifier of +6/-6 is actually astronomical. This is one of the issues I have with some of the massive modifiers shown in the books for skill rolls in 5E and beyond - especially those related to the power skill and those stemming from AP costs. They don't respect the scale of the curve and lead to unnecessarily high skill rolls to offset penalties on a bell-curve that can be radically impacted by smaller modifiers. Here's the thing, striking appearance isn't really how attractive a character is. Its how much impact a characters appearance has on interaction rolls during play. You could have a truly beautiful or hideous character and not buy striking appearance if you don't want to skew their interaction rolls one way or the other.

[Tasha]

I think its less important to focus on "how beautiful" as a linear scale of "mirror, mirror on the wall" and start looking at what the modifier does to the bell curve. A +1/-1 can skew odds in a real way, while a +4/-4 can have a very dramatic effect. A modifier of +6/-6 is actually astronomical. This is one of the issues I have with some of the massive modifiers shown in the books for skill rolls in 5E and beyond - especially those related to the power skill and those stemming from AP costs. They don't respect the scale of the curve and lead to unnecessarily high skill rolls to offset penalties on a bell-curve that can be radically impacted by smaller modifiers. Here's the thing, striking appearance isn't really how attractive a character is. Its how much impact a characters appearance has on interaction rolls during play. You could have a truly beautiful or hideous character and not buy striking appearance if you don't want to skew their interaction rolls one way or the other.

 

I think you have just blown the minds of the "I miss Comliness" Crowd.

[James Gillen]

+1d6: Good Looking

+2d6: Really Good Looking

+3d6: Really, REALLY Good Looking