I dunno, am I making sense? Sometimes I feel that I have a hard time getting my thoughts across.
Yes you are. You're saying that an individual's (amount of) charisma depends on their relation with the people they're dealing with. For a first encounter or a superficial acquaintance sensory perceivable aspects (looks, clothing style, body language, voice, smell) are likely to play a bigger part in the impression one makes. In relationships where people deal with each other continuously or at least repeatedly, physical aspects become less important, while other non physical aspects gain importance (argumentative skills, leadership skills, intelligence, etc)
@Blackraven Your post has me thinking about what effect fame and especially money would have on Charisma
I think you answer your own question regarding fame. Famous people are people we're confronted with a lot (if we let them). So even if they aren't very attractive physically, they still get the chance to become charismatic through mere exposure and by showing us parts of their personality.
As regards money alone (so not combined with fame), I don't see money as part of charisma. It does make people more appealing as a romantic partner for others due to the success, power, and independence associated with money. According to what I've read, especially women seem to appreciate these concepts; (straight) men still admire an attractive physique in a woman more than status, sucess, wealth. Either way, I wouldnt consider money a contributing factor to charisma, but rather a compensating factor for low charisma.
STR combines physical damage and accuracy bonuses. A strong guy isn't more likely to hit in combat, and the extra force his strength provides is already covered by damage. What about DEX? A person who can parkour his way through a group of thugs is a natural archer?
INT covers memorization and the ability to comprehend. Is everyone with a photographic memory a genius too? If I have a guy with a 200 IQ read a book will he be able to recite it back to me verbatim?
What about the 5 senses? Why not turn them into stats. Sight and Sound are used pretty often during adventures, if Looks can be a stat instead of appropriate modifiers,then eyesight and hearing should be stats as well.
Of all the possible extra stats why bother with looks when it is not a primary stat for any class nor is it tied to an important stat like HP?
Edit: BTW, just like looks, money, fame etc, can all be easily covered by circumstance bonuses. A gold digger would give a bonus/penalty to a CHA roll to romance them.
@Blackraven Yeah, that's a pretty accurate summary.
You bring up a good point about female vs male preferences. Charisma seems to operate differently between the two.
It would appear that females value a rich person over an attractive one. One would assume then, that an adjustment should be made for a woman's preference. But is that accurate? I think money would only make a difference when compared to someone poor. Take that same woman, now give her a choice between a rich, ugly person and rich attractive person. If she goes for the rich attractive person, then money would take the backseat to attractiveness.
STR combines physical damage and accuracy bonuses. A strong guy isn't more likely to hit in combat, and the extra force his strength provides is already covered by damage. What about DEX? A person who can parkour his way through a group of thugs is a natural archer?
Actually, strength is a good determining factor for chance to hit. The ability to move a shield out of the way, penetration of armors, crushing straight through parries. Armor like chain mail can actually get holes put through the links by powerful attacks. Even plate can get wholes punched through them, especially by a well placed blow from a warhammer.
For dexterity, this parkour master wouldn't have the pips of a seasoned archer, but he would still have the innate coordination providing what ever bonus that would give.
INT covers memorization and the ability to comprehend. Is everyone with a photographic memory a genius too? If I have a guy with a 200 IQ read a book will he be able to recite it back to me verbatim?
This is a pretty exaggerated example, not sure how much this 200 IQ person could recite back, but probably more than my dumb ass could.
What about the 5 senses? Why not turn them into stats. Sight and Sound are used pretty often during adventures, if Looks can be a stat instead of appropriate modifiers,then eyesight and hearing should be stats as well.
Of all the possible extra stats why bother with looks when it is not a primary stat for any class nor is it tied to an important stat like HP?
You are actually proving my point here. Constitution isn't a primary stat, it's benefit is universal with all classes, as Allure would be. And HP's "importance" is only relevant to the situation at hand, as Allure's benefits would be.
For the record, Charisma is the domain, like Mind and Body. Your question should be, why "Looks and Personality?" Or as I'd like to label them, "Allure and Disposition"
D&D has entire chapters dedicated to combat. HP is, by far, the most important stat in combat. What integral part of D&D would Looks be a major factor off that CHA doesn't cover?
If STR to hit bonuses represent the ability to punch through armor, yet still have bonuses to damage after that, then it should have even more extra damage to unarmored enemies. Yet it doesn't. Someone incredibly strong will hit a person wearing plate mail and one wearing a cotton shirt for the same amount of damage.
And someone can be naturally coordinated with bows yet without being able to naturally do acrobatics.
D&D allows PCs to have stats beyond what normal humans have, exagerrated examples are fair game. Does my 20 INT PC have super IQ comprehension and memorization? If so does a 18 INT human have the genius level IQ, nearly instant comprehension and photographic memory all at once? If not then why not separate INT. STR? DEX?
Listen is a WIS skill, which also covers common sense. Are you saying all incredibly wise people have peak human hearing? Or that the wisest people in the world have perfect eyesight?
So again why Looks? Why separate it from CHA and make it a prime stat when STR, DEX, INT, WIS are composed of stuff like memorization, comprehension, physical damage, physical accuracy, ranged damage, evasion, common sense, will power, intuition which have just as much reason to be turned into stats as Looks?
Most oldschool d&d scenarios and modules do take charisma as beauty. I can't remember how many times I read about a npc's description that, for example:Katya is the local mayor's young daughter, she has dark, flowing long hair and piercing, green eyes. She is exceptionally beautiful (charisma score of 17) OR another example:Haphur, the secluded mage of the village is a balding, middle aged man with a crooked, large nose. He looks like a toad. (Cha 7)
Also in monster manual nymphs have 25 charisma, they are the epitome of beauty, not leadership or social skills. Infact, they are so beautiful that if one sees a Nymph disrobing or naked, it is save or die of longing desire.
Ofcourse, it is not entirely based on beauty, but in order for an average looking man to have high charisma he must be one hell of a leader, a true master of words and social skills, and have great presence or natural charm. I still believe an ugly person can't have the highest charisma score, at best, if he has good presence and grace he can have average to middle high charisma, but even that is a stretch.
Being an ugly guy myself, I still think charisma score in d&d is largely based on looks. I have read somewhere that beautiful people play the life on 'easy' mode, while ugly ones play it on 'hard' difficulty.
Of course HP is by far the most important stat... in combat. Looks would be a factor in everything that the other half of Charisma didn't cover, out of combat.
Yeah, someone wearing a cotton shirt would take more damage, and this is represented well in game with how long they would last in a fight compared to wearing plate.
Anyone that is naturally coordinated at anything, is naturally coordinated in everything else. Someone with high natural coordination can more quickly pick up acrobatics, or anything that requires a range of motion, more so than a clumsy person. The only thing I think that is misrepresented in the game would be cross bows (and guns if they existed), since all you do there is point and shoot. In that case, Strength would have more effect on accuracy as that would allow one to steady the weapon for longer. (This actually would have a small effect on how long you could keep a bow drawn as well.)
I'm pretty sure that genius level IQ would have better photographic memory, and memorization than me. So yes, to answer your question. INT, STR, DEX, WIS... all are already split up.
Yeah, not my fault how badly Listen and Spot were represented in 3E, but so what? At least those checks where there, and I thoroughly enjoyed their presence.
No, "stuff like memorization, comprehension, physical damage, physical accuracy, ranged damage, evasion, common sense, will power, intuition" Are already represented decent enough by their parent attribute, and two of these are separate stats in 3E (reflex save, will save.)
I think the concept you are struggling with here, is how fundamentally different looks are vs personality. Which is why I think they would do better on their own. They are fundamentally different, but affect the same aspects of human relations, only in very different ways.
Well, here we are, still at a stalemate. Really, I seriously doubt that you are going to change my mind. So again, you have your stance, I have mine, done and done.
Combat is a huge part of D&D. As I've said again and again, look at the core books and try to compare how much material is related to combat to material not related to combat. So stat that affects the most important number in Combat is justified thanks to how much focus D&D gives to Combat.
What does Looks relate to? How much focus does D&D give to situations where a separate Looks stat would actually matter? How would a separate Looks stat as opposed to appropriate modifiers to CHA rolls?
Yeah, someone wearing a cotton shirt would take more damage, and this is represented well in game with how long they would last in a fight compared to wearing plate.
It isn't represented properly with STR. You're saying more STR means the ability to punch through armor (hence negate the AC protection provided by armor) and when they punch through it deal more damage.
However when a high STR character attacks an unarmored opponent it deals just as much damage to that enemy as it would to an enemy in full plate. That is far from accurate. If we're going to be accurate about how Looks is so different from Personality, then we might as well be accurate about how STR will affect unarmored enemies.
Anyone that is naturally coordinated at anything,
Eye-Hand Coordination (which is important for shooting) but limb coordination is relative less important compared to how different types of coordination matter for moving around well.
I'm pretty sure that genius level IQ would have better photographic memory, and memorization than me. So yes, to answer your question. INT, STR, DEX, WIS... all are already split up.
I'm talking about people with photographic memory, are they all automatically geniuses? Does everyone who reads at an incredible fast pace and retain what they read have the ability to easily comprehend what they read?
No, "stuff like memorization, comprehension, physical damage, physical accuracy, ranged damage, evasion, common sense, will power, intuition" Are already represented decent enough by their parent attribute, and two of these are separate stats in 3E (reflex save, will save.)
There is no special stat for common sense, at best it's just a WIS roll.
There is no system in the game that properly separates STRs To Hit and Damage bonuses when fighting armored/unarmored foes. No system that separates DEXs different types of coordination in terms of natural ability. Not system to separate natural memory from comprehension for INT .
So why Looks? As opposed to all of this?
I know Looks is separate from Personality, I'm talking about why it's so important that it should be separate when Looks can just be a circumstantial bonus. Just like how a person with average INT but photographic memory gets a circumstantial modifier to INT rolls where the ability to memorize something comes into play. Or when a blind person receives circumstantial rolls to Spot or Sense Motive (since they'd have a hard time detecting some body language)
"It would appear that females value a rich person over an attractive one"
Guys, you really need to be careful when you write an oversimplification and generalization like this one. Or some ladies will be rightfully pissed off.
@Tresset 's previous avatar clearly showed any creature can be charismatic, no matter how he (she) looks like.
To me, charisma means an ability to attract.
To be truly charismatic, you need to be able to not only impress, charm, and listen to a group of people, but you should be a person who is good at engaging others and always has something interesting to say, so people will naturally gravitate toward you.
A truly charismatic person should be able to make people laugh without trying too hard. Part of being a person who everyone wants to be around is engaging a group of people in laughter and jokes.
To have true charisma, you should be able to talk to anyone about any topic, and be a good and attentive listener.
Charisma isn't the same thing as confidence, but appearing confident can make you more charismatic because your confidence will put others at ease and inspire faith in your abilities.
Your body language can say a lot about how you feel about yourself, and can help you seem more approachable to others.
@Zyzzogeton You are starting to repeat yourself. I can only respond to your points the same way as in my previous post, so you can look there for my rebuttals.
Guys, you really need to be careful when you write an oversimplification and generalization like this one. Or some ladies will be rightfully pissed off.
Fair enough. I agree that such delicate observations probably shouldn't be discussed in an open forum such as this. Thanks for pointing that out, and my apologies to any offended.
And your rebuttals don't address the issues I raised
For the STR issue you mention that low AC means unarmored enemies die quickly. But that isn't what I'm talking about. You said High STR's To Hit Bonus is its ability to hit through armor's defenses because there's more force.
That does not account for where that force goes when fighting an unarmored enemy.
For DEX you lump all types of coordination into just one category. That does not account to how there are separate types of coordination.
For INT you keep saying higher INT people will memorize better. But that does not account for people with photographic memory but average Intelligence.
For WIS you say D&D did Spot and Listen wrong, so why would it matter that they also did Looks wrong too?
For CON you keep saying "in combat" like combat isn't a huge thing in D&D. It is a huge thing. So what factor of D&D makes Looks so important to warrant its own stat?
Of all these issues with the different stats, why Looks when it can exist as a circumstantial modifier?
@Zyzzogeton What issues? IMO, the game does a good enough job at depicting Strength on towards Wisdom. I only wish it had a better system with the interaction with others.
For CON you keep saying "in combat" like combat isn't a huge thing in D&D. It is a huge thing. So what factor of D&D makes Looks so important to warrant its own stat?
You make it sound like D&D is nothing but combat. BG isn't some paltry hack and slash game. It's a grand adventure filled with tons of dialogue text and personal interactions.
I've become especially baffled by your stance on this after reading a post of yours in the latest Wisdom thread. If I may quote:
It's like how STR, CON, and DEX reflect a Body stat but separate aspects of it. Seperating the stats makes things simpler so that it doesn't take forever to figure out if something with 18 Body has 20 HP and +5 to Damage or 10 HP and +10 to Damage. Same goes for INT and WIS. Does someone with 18 Mind get extra spells from their God because he really knows how to adher to that God's guidelines or is just really, really, really, smart?
Which is my sentiment exactly concerning Charisma. Is this person really good looking, or just great to be around?
This makes me wonder now if the game had the proper Allure and Disposition rolls, and someone suggested that they be merged into a single stat Charisma, would you agree, because, you know, combat is a huge part of the game? More so, apparently, than personal interactions from your point of view.
And sorry, I wont be responding to you if your argument boils down to "No, because if Charisma is perfected than everything else must mimic real life!" Frankly, I tire from this over-analyzed debate over such a simple proposition. Now that I think about it, I wont be responding to any more on this period. If you feel that you need to have the last word, then have it. This thread is about Charisma, not the inherent mechanics of D&D. I've expressed my opinion, and you've yours. I hereby state that I am refraining from further hijacking of this thread, unless engaged in discussion exclusive to the topic at hand.
I'm not saying D&D is all about combat, but you make it out like combat is a minor thing in D&D. It's not. You also make it out like interactions where looks is a huge part of is a major thing in D&D. HP is a major part of combat which is a major part of D&D. So CON being a stat with no core class attached to it is justified.
What major part of D&D does a Looks stat cover?
If STR and DEX do good job of covering their respective areas then I can say the same thing for CHA.
The need to separate INT and WIS comes from the classes that rely on them. A singular MIND stat won't fly because Mages use the Intelligence aspect of MIND while Clerics use the Wisdom aspect. Hence INT and WIS. What class relies on Looks? Paladins, Bards, Sorcs all rely on Presence. Just like there's no need to separate Memorization and Comprehension for INT, there's no need to separate Looks from CHA because just like Fame/Money/whatever else affects people's reaction to someone, these can all be done using circumstantial rolls to CHA and CHA skills.
I don't think that it can be static categorized by any generic distribution. I think that someone might have factors on both sides of the coin that contribute. I don't think it is all one sided or the other, nor do I think that all factors are considered in those two categories.
What about circumstance? An otherwise mediocre leader type may rise to the top in extreme circumstances whereas otherwise he would have been a nobody. Being in the right (or wrong) place at the right time can galvanize people behind a leader. Proper promotion is another factor. Someone with an 18 Charisma who lives in a cave in the woods isn't going to lead anyone. There are loads of other factors to consider.
Comments
As regards money alone (so not combined with fame), I don't see money as part of charisma. It does make people more appealing as a romantic partner for others due to the success, power, and independence associated with money. According to what I've read, especially women seem to appreciate these concepts; (straight) men still admire an attractive physique in a woman more than status, sucess, wealth. Either way, I wouldnt consider money a contributing factor to charisma, but rather a compensating factor for low charisma.
STR combines physical damage and accuracy bonuses. A strong guy isn't more likely to hit in combat, and the extra force his strength provides is already covered by damage. What about DEX? A person who can parkour his way through a group of thugs is a natural archer?
INT covers memorization and the ability to comprehend. Is everyone with a photographic memory a genius too? If I have a guy with a 200 IQ read a book will he be able to recite it back to me verbatim?
What about the 5 senses? Why not turn them into stats. Sight and Sound are used pretty often during adventures, if Looks can be a stat instead of appropriate modifiers,then eyesight and hearing should be stats as well.
Of all the possible extra stats why bother with looks when it is not a primary stat for any class nor is it tied to an important stat like HP?
Edit: BTW, just like looks, money, fame etc, can all be easily covered by circumstance bonuses. A gold digger would give a bonus/penalty to a CHA roll to romance them.
You bring up a good point about female vs male preferences. Charisma seems to operate differently between the two.
It would appear that females value a rich person over an attractive one. One would assume then, that an adjustment should be made for a woman's preference. But is that accurate? I think money would only make a difference when compared to someone poor. Take that same woman, now give her a choice between a rich, ugly person and rich attractive person. If she goes for the rich attractive person, then money would take the backseat to attractiveness. Actually, strength is a good determining factor for chance to hit. The ability to move a shield out of the way, penetration of armors, crushing straight through parries. Armor like chain mail can actually get holes put through the links by powerful attacks. Even plate can get wholes punched through them, especially by a well placed blow from a warhammer.
For dexterity, this parkour master wouldn't have the pips of a seasoned archer, but he would still have the innate coordination providing what ever bonus that would give. This is a pretty exaggerated example, not sure how much this 200 IQ person could recite back, but probably more than my dumb ass could. This is actually done already. Spot and Listen. You are actually proving my point here. Constitution isn't a primary stat, it's benefit is universal with all classes, as Allure would be. And HP's "importance" is only relevant to the situation at hand, as Allure's benefits would be. For the record, Charisma is the domain, like Mind and Body. Your question should be, why "Looks and Personality?" Or as I'd like to label them, "Allure and Disposition"
If STR to hit bonuses represent the ability to punch through armor, yet still have bonuses to damage after that, then it should have even more extra damage to unarmored enemies. Yet it doesn't. Someone incredibly strong will hit a person wearing plate mail and one wearing a cotton shirt for the same amount of damage.
And someone can be naturally coordinated with bows yet without being able to naturally do acrobatics.
D&D allows PCs to have stats beyond what normal humans have, exagerrated examples are fair game. Does my 20 INT PC have super IQ comprehension and memorization? If so does a 18 INT human have the genius level IQ, nearly instant comprehension and photographic memory all at once? If not then why not separate INT. STR? DEX?
Listen is a WIS skill, which also covers common sense. Are you saying all incredibly wise people have peak human hearing? Or that the wisest people in the world have perfect eyesight?
So again why Looks? Why separate it from CHA and make it a prime stat when STR, DEX, INT, WIS are composed of stuff like memorization, comprehension, physical damage, physical accuracy, ranged damage, evasion, common sense, will power, intuition which have just as much reason to be turned into stats as Looks?
Also in monster manual nymphs have 25 charisma, they are the epitome of beauty, not leadership or social skills. Infact, they are so beautiful that if one sees a Nymph disrobing or naked, it is save or die of longing desire.
Ofcourse, it is not entirely based on beauty, but in order for an average looking man to have high charisma he must be one hell of a leader, a true master of words and social skills, and have great presence or natural charm. I still believe an ugly person can't have the highest charisma score, at best, if he has good presence and grace he can have average to middle high charisma, but even that is a stretch.
Being an ugly guy myself, I still think charisma score in d&d is largely based on looks. I have read somewhere that beautiful people play the life on 'easy' mode, while ugly ones play it on 'hard' difficulty.
Yeah, someone wearing a cotton shirt would take more damage, and this is represented well in game with how long they would last in a fight compared to wearing plate.
Anyone that is naturally coordinated at anything, is naturally coordinated in everything else. Someone with high natural coordination can more quickly pick up acrobatics, or anything that requires a range of motion, more so than a clumsy person. The only thing I think that is misrepresented in the game would be cross bows (and guns if they existed), since all you do there is point and shoot. In that case, Strength would have more effect on accuracy as that would allow one to steady the weapon for longer. (This actually would have a small effect on how long you could keep a bow drawn as well.)
I'm pretty sure that genius level IQ would have better photographic memory, and memorization than me. So yes, to answer your question. INT, STR, DEX, WIS... all are already split up.
Yeah, not my fault how badly Listen and Spot were represented in 3E, but so what? At least those checks where there, and I thoroughly enjoyed their presence.
No, "stuff like memorization, comprehension, physical damage, physical accuracy, ranged damage, evasion, common sense, will power, intuition" Are already represented decent enough by their parent attribute, and two of these are separate stats in 3E (reflex save, will save.)
I think the concept you are struggling with here, is how fundamentally different looks are vs personality. Which is why I think they would do better on their own. They are fundamentally different, but affect the same aspects of human relations, only in very different ways.
Well, here we are, still at a stalemate. Really, I seriously doubt that you are going to change my mind. So again, you have your stance, I have mine, done and done.
What does Looks relate to? How much focus does D&D give to situations where a separate Looks stat would actually matter? How would a separate Looks stat as opposed to appropriate modifiers to CHA rolls? It isn't represented properly with STR. You're saying more STR means the ability to punch through armor (hence negate the AC protection provided by armor) and when they punch through it deal more damage.
However when a high STR character attacks an unarmored opponent it deals just as much damage to that enemy as it would to an enemy in full plate. That is far from accurate. If we're going to be accurate about how Looks is so different from Personality, then we might as well be accurate about how STR will affect unarmored enemies. Eye-Hand Coordination (which is important for shooting) but limb coordination is relative less important compared to how different types of coordination matter for moving around well. I'm talking about people with photographic memory, are they all automatically geniuses? Does everyone who reads at an incredible fast pace and retain what they read have the ability to easily comprehend what they read? There is no special stat for common sense, at best it's just a WIS roll.
There is no system in the game that properly separates STRs To Hit and Damage bonuses when fighting armored/unarmored foes. No system that separates DEXs different types of coordination in terms of natural ability. Not system to separate natural memory from comprehension for INT .
So why Looks? As opposed to all of this?
I know Looks is separate from Personality, I'm talking about why it's so important that it should be separate when Looks can just be a circumstantial bonus. Just like how a person with average INT but photographic memory gets a circumstantial modifier to INT rolls where the ability to memorize something comes into play. Or when a blind person receives circumstantial rolls to Spot or Sense Motive (since they'd have a hard time detecting some body language)
"It would appear that females value a rich person over an attractive one"
Guys, you really need to be careful when you write an oversimplification and generalization like this one.
Or some ladies will be rightfully pissed off.
To me, charisma means an ability to attract.
To be truly charismatic, you need to be able to not only impress, charm, and listen to a group of people, but you should be a person who is good at engaging others and always has something interesting to say, so people will naturally gravitate toward you.
A truly charismatic person should be able to make people laugh without trying too hard. Part of being a person who everyone wants to be around is engaging a group of people in laughter and jokes.
To have true charisma, you should be able to talk to anyone about any topic, and be a good and attentive listener.
Charisma isn't the same thing as confidence, but appearing confident can make you more charismatic because your confidence will put others at ease and inspire faith in your abilities.
Your body language can say a lot about how you feel about yourself, and can help you seem more approachable to others.
For the STR issue you mention that low AC means unarmored enemies die quickly. But that isn't what I'm talking about. You said High STR's To Hit Bonus is its ability to hit through armor's defenses because there's more force.
That does not account for where that force goes when fighting an unarmored enemy.
For DEX you lump all types of coordination into just one category. That does not account to how there are separate types of coordination.
For INT you keep saying higher INT people will memorize better. But that does not account for people with photographic memory but average Intelligence.
For WIS you say D&D did Spot and Listen wrong, so why would it matter that they also did Looks wrong too?
For CON you keep saying "in combat" like combat isn't a huge thing in D&D. It is a huge thing. So what factor of D&D makes Looks so important to warrant its own stat?
Of all these issues with the different stats, why Looks when it can exist as a circumstantial modifier?
What issues? IMO, the game does a good enough job at depicting Strength on towards Wisdom. I only wish it had a better system with the interaction with others. You make it sound like D&D is nothing but combat. BG isn't some paltry hack and slash game. It's a grand adventure filled with tons of dialogue text and personal interactions.
I've become especially baffled by your stance on this after reading a post of yours in the latest Wisdom thread. If I may quote: Which is my sentiment exactly concerning Charisma. Is this person really good looking, or just great to be around?
This makes me wonder now if the game had the proper Allure and Disposition rolls, and someone suggested that they be merged into a single stat Charisma, would you agree, because, you know, combat is a huge part of the game? More so, apparently, than personal interactions from your point of view.
And sorry, I wont be responding to you if your argument boils down to "No, because if Charisma is perfected than everything else must mimic real life!" Frankly, I tire from this over-analyzed debate over such a simple proposition. Now that I think about it, I wont be responding to any more on this period. If you feel that you need to have the last word, then have it. This thread is about Charisma, not the inherent mechanics of D&D. I've expressed my opinion, and you've yours. I hereby state that I am refraining from further hijacking of this thread, unless engaged in discussion exclusive to the topic at hand.
What major part of D&D does a Looks stat cover?
If STR and DEX do good job of covering their respective areas then I can say the same thing for CHA.
The need to separate INT and WIS comes from the classes that rely on them. A singular MIND stat won't fly because Mages use the Intelligence aspect of MIND while Clerics use the Wisdom aspect. Hence INT and WIS. What class relies on Looks? Paladins, Bards, Sorcs all rely on Presence. Just like there's no need to separate Memorization and Comprehension for INT, there's no need to separate Looks from CHA because just like Fame/Money/whatever else affects people's reaction to someone, these can all be done using circumstantial rolls to CHA and CHA skills.
What about circumstance? An otherwise mediocre leader type may rise to the top in extreme circumstances whereas otherwise he would have been a nobody. Being in the right (or wrong) place at the right time can galvanize people behind a leader. Proper promotion is another factor. Someone with an 18 Charisma who lives in a cave in the woods isn't going to lead anyone. There are loads of other factors to consider.