D&D (2024) One D&D Cleric and Species playtest survey is live.

[Kinematics]

And so, I originally went with Kind.... but it doesn't work. At least not well. "After you pick your class, pick your kind" sounds awkward, but even worse would be something like "We have an inter-kind marriage". It just... doesn't flow properly.

It works if it's just, "Choose what kind of creature you are", but not as a noun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My initial thought was also that type/subtype didn't work but it really does if they go back to useful type: subtype, subtype like "Humanoid: Elf, fey" for elf & "humanoid: Dwarf, Elemental" or whatever for dwarf.

Maybe, but if you are talking to someone in-game you can't really say "they have an inter-subtype marriage" that's just... bizarre.

As I said, if it were purely game mechanical, then it would work just fine. But the term is going to be used in-game and out-of-game, so it needs to work in multiple contexts.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It works if it's just, "Choose what kind of creature you are", but not as a noun.

Exactly, and I decided off of which one would work best as a noun for in-game discussions.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

"Subtype" is awkward.

But "Type" can work.

Elf, Dwarf, Dragonborn, etcetera, are Types.

Celestial, Fey, Elemental, etcetera are Origins.

Humanoid, Construct, etcetera are Forms.

There seems a way to make these descriptors work systematically.

The Elf Type is a Fey Humanoid.

The Human Type is a Natural Humanoid.

Possibly, Ethereal (Fey, Shadow), Astral (Celestial, Fiend), Elemental (Fire, Water) have specific Suborigins.

Possibly Natural is an Origin with (Ooze, Plant, Beast) as Suborigins.



Something like this. Of course, even using the term Species where Type is, can benefit from the same systematization of the nomenclature.

Again though, that can work in a purely game mechanical way, but it would be beyond weird to have a guy go, "Yeah, my parents had an inter-type marriage" And no one in game is going to talk about "Elf Type" or "Type Elf" with that sort of meaning.

Also, REALLY think it would be kind of icky for the game to say "Elves are Fey Humanoids while Humans are Natural Humanoids". That "natural" language gets used in some really unwholesome ways, so I wouldn't want to encourage it to distinguish between different groups of people.

 

[Yaarel]

Again though, that can work in a purely game mechanical way, but it would be beyond weird to have a guy go, "Yeah, my parents had an inter-type marriage"

When considering the astonishing diversity of fantasy forms of life − or rather forms of consciousness: "My parents have an inter-type marriage." Sounds plausible.

And no one in game is going to talk about "Elf Type" or "Type Elf" with that sort of meaning.

"Which Creature Types are on the moms side?" "They are all the Elf Type."

Also, REALLY think it would be kind of icky for the game to say "Elves are Fey Humanoids while Humans are Natural Humanoids". That "natural" language gets used in some really unwholesome ways, so I wouldn't want to encourage it to distinguish between different groups of people.

Youre right about "Natural".

Humans are Material Humanoids, from the Material Plane.

Elementals are made out of matter too, so that might need some clarification.



Maybe a "Living" Origin and specifically refers to the Creature Types that are analogous to reallife biological "Life", where Ooze, Plant, and Beast are Suborigins.

Humans are Living (Beast) Humanoids.

Genasi are Elemental (Earth, Water, Air, or Fire) Humanoids.

Both Life and Elemental are made out of matter.

 

[Olrox17]

Are we all really still discussing the replacement term for race, while completely not caring about the actual game mechanics introduced? This playtest is screwed.

 

[Kinematics]

On the mechanics side of things, I had issue with how Intimidation interacts with the normalized Influence rules.

First, there's the old issue with tying Intimidation to Charisma. In some senses it works, but in others it really doesn't.

The other Charisma skills — Deception, Persuasion, and Performance — work very much in a positive correlation with the expectations of Charisma. Being charismatic makes people more inclined to like you, believe you, and enjoy being around you. It's easier to convince them to do things your way, they're more likely to say good things about you to others (increasing your reputation), and so forth.

Intimidation is the exact opposite. It's about getting people to fear you. Any reputation to be gained is in you being someone that people don't cross. People don't like you, and don't want to believe your lies. Certainly you're not putting on an entertaining performance on stage.

This is a longstanding complaint about the Intimidation skill, of course. Some suggest changing the stat used to Strength, to be better suited for the brutish fighter types who presumably would be more likely to use sheer presence to influence people in this way.

I actually don't think Strength is a good match. I think, instead, that Wisdom is the best stat to tie to Intimidation. Wisdom is already connected with the Animal Handling and Insight skills, both of which feel like a much closer match to the act of intimidating someone — reading someone's state of mind, and carefully shifting it at a primal/emotional level.

Of course, this suggests clerics and druids might be some of the best at intimidation. And, well... a priest giving a fiery speech about hell and brimstone seems pretty intimidating to me, as would a grubby woodsman who might turn into a bear and tear my head off at any moment. So I'd actually be fine with that. Certainly more so than bards or sorcerers or warlocks trying to be intimidating. And Wisdom isn't a complete dump stat for warrior types, so as long as they take proficiency in it, it works at an OK level for them, too.

However that's only covering the first half of the problem with Influence. The other (major) problem is that the latest playtest gives you advantage on influencing Friendly creatures, and disadvantage on influencing Hostile creatures. For Persuasion, Deception, and Animal Handling, that makes sense. For Intimidation, though, it feels completely backwards. You're not going to use Intimidation on a Friendly creature, and while you'll want to use it on a Hostile creature, now you're at disadvantage? That's nuts.

Honestly, trying to tie any advantage/disadvantage to the Friendly/Neutral/Hostile axis just doesn't make sense for Intimidate. If anything, I'd say you might get advantage/disadvantage based on size and numbers. If you're larger than the creature (or have a trait like Powerful Build that gives you an effective boost to size), or you sufficiently outnumber the target, you can get advantage. If you're smaller or have fewer numbers, you get disadvantage.


I commented on the feedback that I thought this was a problem, but didn't have solid thoughts on how to fix it (or the space to write in something like this).

 

[Yaarel]

Intimidation = playing on a targets fears

It doesnt mean being big and strong. It means, making the target paranoid that someone big and strong could catch them at any moment.

Maybe the Intimidator is the one who is big and strong, maybe not.

Maybe the Intimidator makes the target worry that inflation will keep getting higher and higher.

Maybe the Intimidator makes a monarch worry that failing to finance the partys expedition to stop a threat, would mean the threat would invade the realm.

Maybe the Intimidator makes the target think that WotC is gonna ruin D&D.

There are many different kinds of fears that an Intimidator can toy with.

Intimidation is typically a Charisma skill, relating to social skills generally.

 

[Gorck]

Intimidation = playing on a targets fears

It doesnt mean being big and strong. It means, making the target paranoid that someone big and strong could catch them at any moment.

Maybe the Intimidator is the one who is big and strong, maybe not.

Maybe the Intimidator makes the target that inflation will keep getting higher and higher.

Maybe the Intimidator makes a monarch worry that failing to finance the partys expedition to stop a threat, would mean the treat would invade the realm.

Maybe the Intimidator makes the target think that WotC is gonna ruin D&D.

There are many different kinds of fears that an Intimidator can toy with.

Intimidation is typically a Charisma skill, relating to social skills generally.

And yet a big, hulking brute staring at you with a menacing glare while cracking his knuckles can be pretty intimidating. Hence the Strength (Intimidation) variant in the DMG. Which makes perfect sense to me. Some people can intimidate with mere words, some people can intimidate with an unsettling presence, and other people can’t intimidate to save their life.

 

[Yaarel]

And yet a big, hulking brute staring at you with a menacing glare while cracking his knuckles can be pretty intimidating. Hence the Strength (Intimidation) variant in the DMG. Which makes perfect sense to me. Some people can intimidate with mere words, some people can intimidate with an unsettling presence, and other people can’t intimidate to save their life.

Even the brute needs Charisma to benefit from being a menace.

Otherwise a dangerous nuisance gets the opposite of cooperation.

A brute with a high Charisma is oneself the "credible threat". So there is some convenience when wielding the Intimidation skill.

 

[Greg Benage]

And yet a big, hulking brute staring at you with a menacing glare while cracking his knuckles can be pretty intimidating.

Sounds like someone with no particular aptitude for intimidation taking plays straight out of the two-bit thug’s playbook.

Al Swearengen from Deadwood is my idea of a character with a good Charisma and probably expertise in the skill. Or Tony Soprano, if you prefer. They may not be especially likable, but they have presence and force of personality for days. They both had a way of using over the top sarcasm or obviously feigned courtesy as a thin veneer over barely constrained violence that was very effective.

Way more effective IMO than a brute glowering and cracking his knuckles.

Having the option to swap out ability scores is cool, though. That way people can run it however they like.

 

[MockingBird]

Sounds like someone with no particular aptitude for intimidation taking plays straight out of the two-bit thug’s playbook.

Al Swearengen from Deadwood is my idea of a character with a good Charisma and probably expertise in the skill. Or Tony Soprano, if you prefer. They may not be especially likable, but they have presence and force of personality for days. They both had a way of using over the top sarcasm or obviously feigned courtesy as a thin veneer over barely constrained violence that was very effective.

Way more effective IMO than a brute glowering and cracking his knuckles.

Having the option to swap out ability scores is cool, though. That way people can run it however they like.

I second Al Swearengen as a great example of charismatic intimidation.