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

[billd91]

I don't think so. I think all of them are Charisma (intimidation) checks, with an adjusted DC and possibly advantage due to creative role-play.

I think the better option is to not be doctrinaire about it. Use Charisma when it's appropriate, Strength when it's appropriate, and apply the proficiency bonus (if present) on either. I mean, if a player has their strong PC do something to exhibit their destructive power in order to intimidate someone else, I'm going with Strength (Intimidate). I mean, it's right there in the PH as an option. Why wouldn't I use it?

 

[SkidAce]

... I mean, it's right there in the PH as an option. Why wouldn't I use it?

Quoted for truth.

 

[Olrox17]

I think the better option is to not be doctrinaire about it. Use Charisma when it's appropriate, Strength when it's appropriate, and apply the proficiency bonus (if present) on either. I mean, if a player has their strong PC do something to exhibit their destructive power in order to intimidate someone else, I'm going with Strength (Intimidate). I mean, it's right there in the PH as an option. Why wouldn't I use it?

Every DM should and will do whatever they want. In this thread, I think we are talking about what each of us wants the RAW of the future 5.5/One D&D PHB to be.

 

[billd91]

Every DM should and will do whatever they want. In this thread, I think we are talking about what each of us wants the RAW of the future 5.5/One D&D PHB to be.

Sure. And since using alternative stats for skills has been around as a variant since 3e, it should definitely be included in OneD&D.

 

[Olrox17]

Sure. And since using alternative stats for skills has been around as a variant since 3e, it should definitely be included in OneD&D.

As a variant/option/module? Sure, no objections.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What if the thugs happen to be strong enough to also be able to do that poker bending trick? Would that "strength intimidation" check be an automatic failure then?

When I say that a PC clearly and visibly more powerful than a target should get a lowered intimidation DC, I'm not referring to strength or size alone.
A wizard may look extremely powerful and threatening to your local thugs, when they decide to fire a huge exploding fireball in the sky above. Is that an Intelligence (Intimidation) check?
A skilled archer may pin someone's hat to the wall with an arrow in the blink of an eye. Is that a Dex (Intimidation) check?
A cleric may walk into a bandit camp surrounded by spooky Spirit Guardians, speaking with a booming voice thanks to the Thaumaturgy cantrip. Is that a Wisdom (Intimidation) check?

Yes Why not?

I don't think so. I think all of them are Charisma (intimidation) checks, with an adjusted DC and possibly advantage due to creative role-play.

That is ok also but I would prefer to make abilities more relevant and to give characters that not have prof (intimidate) a chance. Also why it is fair if you change the DC of the intimidate check to match the fiction does all dms do that? are they encouraged to do it?
I also think that it is conceptually easier to switch the Ability check than to adjust the DC.

 

[Olrox17]

Yes Why not?

Ok, Then I read your position correctly. There's nothing necessarily wrong with allowing creative players to use their best stat for everything (or a lot of things), but it's not my cup of tea, and I wouldn't like it to be the 5.5 RAW for intimidation or anything else.

That is ok also but I would prefer to make abilities more relevant and to give characters that not have prof (intimidate) a chance. Also why it is fair if you change the DC of the intimidate check to match the fiction does all dms do that? are they encouraged to do it?
I also think that it is conceptually easier to switch the Ability check than to adjust the DC.

Easier? Sure, but I believe some interesting granularity is lost in the process. I'll try to explain what I mean by going back to a previous example.

Example: A strong PC with low Charisma tries to intimidate some thugs by bending a metal object with their bare hands.
If you allow the PC to use their 20 Strength instead of their 8 Charisma, well, that's just it. The PC gets an hefty bonus to the roll compared to the default of using Charisma.

What about the approach I suggested, on the other hand? As a DM, I'm privy to information that the PC isn't. What if the "thugs" are actually polymorphed demons? They might not be impressed by the mortal PC's feat of brute force, right? Thus, I would set the DC high, and ask for a Charisma (Intimidation) check.
If, however, the thugs are actually a craven bunch of nobodies, I would still ask for a Charisma (Intimidation) check, but I'd set up a fairly easy DC.

But one important thing is, regardless of the circumstances, the player's conscious choice of assigning a specific score to Charisma would not be bypassed or trivialized.
A high Strength character with a nice 14 Charisma would be better at this intimidation tactic than an high Strength character with a low 8 Charisma. Which I think is good and fair! Brutality backed by a strong charisma should be comparatively more effective, IMO.

 

[Kinematics]

What if the thugs happen to be strong enough to also be able to do that poker bending trick? Would that "strength intimidation" check be an automatic failure then?

Pretty much, yep. Kendra tried to present a credible threat, and that threat failed because it wasn't as credible as she thought it would be. In the same vein, if she'd tried to bend the poker but failed, it would also not be intimidating. Neither case relies on Charisma.

As for stat variations, there are plenty of easy examples.

Str: Bending the enemy's weapon like a twist-tie.
Dex: Having a dagger at his throat faster than he even noticed it was drawn.
Con: Shrugging off an attack that should have seemed incapacitating.
Int: Browbeating a fool for his stupidity, in exacting detail.
Wis: The Mom Voice.
Cha: Describe how you're going to leave him in torturous agony, with lots of grisly detail.

The issue is that the Influence action is explicitly a Charisma check, with possible skills adding to it depending on the action. The Ability Check rule in the playtest document doesn't provide for alternate stat use, and it's not clear whether it would be allowed in the Influence action anyway, given the current rewrite and the fact that Influence is now its own separate action.

But one important thing is, regardless of the circumstances, the player's conscious choice of assigning a specific score to Charisma would not be bypassed or trivialized.

It's not. Charisma still works fine for Persuasion and Deception, along with Performance and Influence's version of Animal Handling. It's only Intimidation that doesn't fit the mold of the other skills. That's why it's problematic (along with the incoherent advantage/disadvantage aspect of Influence), and why trying to force it into that square hole causes issues for people.

 

[Olrox17]

As for stat variations, there are plenty of easy examples.

Yes, I provided some examples myself in a previous post.

It's not. Charisma still works fine for Persuasion and Deception, along with Performance and Influence's version of Animal Handling. It's only Intimidation that doesn't fit the mold of the other skills. That's why it's problematic (along with the incoherent advantage/disadvantage aspect of Influence), and why trying to force it into that square hole causes issues for people.

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of smart players out there with very persuasive (heh) arguments for why they should be allowed to use any stats for Persuasion and Deception, too.
Thing is, I enjoy creativity, and I reward it, just not in ways that completely bypass someone's choice of a dump stat.

 

[SkidAce]

Yes, I provided some examples myself in a previous post.

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of smart players out there with very persuasive (heh) arguments for why they should be allowed to use any stats for Persuasion and Deception, too.
Thing is, I enjoy creativity, and I reward it, just not in ways that completely bypass someone's choice of a dump stat.

I allow STR for intimidate in some situations, not always.

Much like I have used INT for persuasion when the character was explaining why a detailed intricate plan was the better choice for an attack.

I also enjoy creativity and reward it, because we dont do it just to trivialize a dump stat.