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

[Yaarel]

Sure, but King Kong is still intimidating.

Intimidation means getting something the Intimidator wants − not galvanizing an entire army against the Intimidator.

Pitchforks and torches means, failed Charisma (Intimidation) check.

 

[SkidAce]

Intimidation means getting something the Intimidator wants − not galvanizing an entire army against the Intimidator.

Pitchforks and torches means, failed Intimidation (Charisma) check.

Not always, I could intimidate to cause someone to flee, surrender, rat out a friend.

Its not Persuasion after all, IMO.

 

[SkidAce]

Ever been Intimidated by a bully? They didnt need Charisma.

Just different ways of looking at it, not right or wrong.

 

[Yaarel]

Ever been Intimidated by a bully? They didnt need Charisma.

My experience has been different.

It was difficult to take the bullies seriously.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Strength other ability scores can be used for different skills. I think using Strength for Intimidate is a given example.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Ever been Intimidated by a bully? They didnt need Charisma.

Just different ways of looking at it, not right or wrong.

I think that the issue people are running into is the difference between D&D jargon and natural English use of the word.
Intimidate in D&D isn't necessarily just scaring someone. It is scaring someone into doing something specific that you want.

A low-charisma thug is someone people tend to ignore, until they actually break something or hurt someone, whereupon people may run away or call the watch on them or similar.
Part of the problem in visualising a low-charisma character trying to intimidate is that most intimidation examples people think of are from television/movies, where the person portraying the intimidator is not low-charisma.

 

[Parmandur]

I could dig Subtype, if they made Creature Type more of a big deal mechanically and flavorfully.

 

[billd91]

I gave them my two cents. There were only a few things I found significantly dissatisfying. Prepping spells to number of slots. Ardlings. Flying dragonborn (but no flying flyer ardlings?). Goliath growth offering distinct benefits from enlarge. Being able to swing a halberd at someone who has you grappled without disadvantage. Stuff like that.
I even took a shot at needing a DC 15 Dex (stealth) check to hide and how it impacts group stealth options though hit wasn't specifically a topic of the survey.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes. Yes we do. We care because creature type is a mechanical thing & when a system is built to incorporate a well fleshed out mechanic rather than a narrative flourish it's less likely to be forgotten & hijacked in chapter N of xxx guide to yyy or whatever because it makes a better story to reinvent or simplt forget a narrative first named taxonomy in a way that conflicts with the initial design paradigm. A

So, what you are describing is that we must care that elves are Humanoid type Fey Subtype because it is a mechanic, and if the system doesn't build itself to use that mechanic, it will be replaced with what is needed for a better story.

Problem, the things you described DON'T have mechanical implications and NEVER WILL.

No one is EVER going to make DnD Necromancers use different spells or different materials to animate different humanoids based on their subtype. That would be a nightmare. No one at WOTC is going to build out the medicine skill to the degree that the weight of a specific humanoid will be paired in a chart to the proper measure of medicinal powders, let alone make that DIFFERENT for each sub-type.

This is why I think that using the terminology to define the species in this way would never work. No one is going to naturally want to refer to (Humanoid Type, Subtype Fey, Sub-Subtype Elf, Sub-Sub-Subtype Wood) as they are talking, in or out of character. And if the system wants to use these things and force them to matter, then we are going to potentially get these exact things you are talking about that the VAST VAST majority of people will immediately complain about because all it will be is a giant, useless mess.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Tell that to King Kong.

The monster famously so scary that the army was brought in to fight it? That could be considered the origin of the idea of the "800-lbs Gorilla in the room"? Yeah, pretty sure he does get what he wants.

Tell that to Frankenstein.

Doctor Frankenstein was a pathetic man. His creation was uglier than sin, but well-spoken and articulate. So, you are likely refering to the movie version of "ugggggh" practically a zombie Frankenstien's monster... which is still plenty terrifying. Could easily clear a room.

Tell that to any low-Charisma threat.

Dangerous nuance gains noncooperation.

So, since you named two famous horror monsters, maybe you need to re-evaluate your terms? What you seem to be getting at is that non-verbal entities can't articulate what they want, and therefore won't get it. But that doesn't address the point ANYONE else is making.

Let's try again with another low charisma example. Heck, we'll give low intelligence too. Hill Giant comes to a farm, sees two farmhands. It says "Give Cow". Now, maybe you decide that the Hill Giant is just a Dangerous Nuisance and the farmhands don't cooperate. So he smashes one of them into a bloody smear and says "Give Cow!"

That other famrhand is intimidated. They are scared witless. They probably were scared witless BEFORE their friend was killed. This is just how people would react to that threat. There would be cooperation here, because it turns out that people want to live.

Now, maybe you want to say that there would be non-cooperation. Those farms and villages wouldn't suffer under that Giant's hunger forever, some scrappy young hero would rise up and deal with the threat. Well, the same thing was true of Strahd, and turns out he has a really high charisma, so if that is non-cooperation, then EVERY monster is just a "Dangerous Nuisance" and not a real threat.