D&D (2024) How would you change skills in 5.5e

[Vaalingrade]

Skill

browbeat? Is that the headbutt skill? Or just intimidation

If it's the former, you have my support!

 

[Minigiant]

Skill

browbeat? Is that the headbutt skill? Or just intimidation

Browbeat is Str Intimidation.

 

[Tonguez]

This is what we call descriptive roleplaying, and in fact its even in the 5e DMG.

You don't have to write and act out a rousing speech to play, but you ought to say your character gives a rousing speech, and then the DM can call for a roll as appropriate.

The issue with the rp first approach in dnd is that I can act out a rousing speech, that stirs the emotions and ought to persuade the listeners and then the DM calls fir a roll and it fails. My RP is meaningless because of arbitary chance.
Which is why rolling first then roleplaying the results is better in DnD.
Unless you have a way that rewards RP in a non arbitary way

 

[CreamCloud0]

Browbeat is Str Intimidation.

Honestly I wouldn’t mind if intimidation became a STR skill, I mean yes I understand that not all intimidation is done through physical threat but having both persuasion and intimidation be CHA skills feels redundant to me plus it gives the sorely lacking STR stat a new skill use

Speaking of which, I feel like Athletics could be split in half, something like might and stamina to specialise in tge types of actions what can be taken with each, might being short-burst shows of strength like lifting a fallen tree or making a jump while stamina is for longer slower tasks like swimming and climbing or dragging a cart.

 

[Yaarel]

Intimidation can be responsible of "morale checks".

Some kinds of morale checks are about quality of life, like good food available.

But other kinds of morale are about holding ones own when things get ugly, and being a tough example.



Intimidation can be about being tough and showing mettle in a positive sense − more than playing on fears or bullying.

 

[Minigiant]

Honestly I wouldn’t mind if intimidation became a STR skill, I mean yes I understand that not all intimidation is done through physical threat but having both persuasion and intimidation be CHA skills feels redundant to me plus it gives the sorely lacking STR stat a new skill use

Intimidation being STR by default doesn't make sense in D&D as G&D has a LOT of humainoid vs Giant monster interaction.

Your buff muscles on your 6 foot frame will not impress a 10 foot giant no matter how big your muscles are.

That's why I'd prefer a new skill.

Intimidation which is Charisma based and limited by Language
Browbeat which is Strength based and limited by Size

Speaking of which, I feel like Athletics could be split in half, something like might and stamina to specialise in tge types of actions what can be taken with each, might being short-burst shows of strength like lifting a fallen tree or making a jump while stamina is for longer slower tasks like swimming and climbing or dragging a cart.

Endurance skill. Bring it back from 4e.

That's the problem with 5e skills. The "DM decides which ability mod to add to a dkill check only works if you design it that way from the start."

Either 5.5e adds new skills or secondary ability scores for every skill proficiency is suggested loudly to DMs.

 

[Tonguez]

Intimidation being STR by default doesn't make sense in D&D as G&D has a LOT of humainoid vs Giant monster interaction.

Your buff muscles on your 6 foot frame will not impress a 10 foot giant no matter how big your muscles are.

the wolverine is proof enough that being an intimidating and savage combatant doesnt depend on size, and Str in DnD isnt just muscle bulk.

That's the problem with 5e skills. The "DM decides which ability mod to add to a dkill check only works if you design it that way from the start."

You could always let the players apply their own stat-skill combinations based on how they see their characters acting and interacting with the world.

Infact at the most extreme I’ve thought about a system where there are no defined skills at all and players declare what they are good at freeform

Intimidation can be responsible of "morale checks".

Some kinds of morale checks are about quality of life, like good food available.

But other kinds of morale are about holding ones own when things get ugly, and being a tough example.



Intimidation can be about being tough and showing mettle in a positive sense − more than playing on fears or bullying.

I like the Morale idea. Maybe call it Resolve rather than intimidation, like Batman the character is so Resolute that they have intense willpower - increased Morale to the point of being scary

 

[Minigiant]

the wolverine is proof enough that being an intimidating and savage combatant doesnt depend on size, and Str in DnD isnt just muscle bulk.

The wolverine is still within the category of its challengers.

And it's scariness is based on how it' act, it's Charisma. That's my point.

Charisma based Intimidation is not limited by size.
Strength based intimidation is.

You could always let the players apply their own stat-skill combinations based on how they see their characters acting and interacting with the world.

Infact at the most extreme I’ve thought about a system where there are no defined skills at all and players declare what they are good at freeform

Sure

But the 5e DMG not PHB doesn't offer nearly enough examples to go Skilless nor Choose your own Ability. Most DMs and Players won't be able to do it on their own in a fair manner.

Either D&D has to devote a whole chapter to skill use or it needs more skills with the different skill+ability combinations.

Without the paragraph of the difference between a Nature (Int) check and a Nature (Wis) check, most people would know how to differentiate them.

 

[Emberashh]

The issue with the rp first approach in dnd is that I can act out a rousing speech, that stirs the emotions and ought to persuade the listeners and then the DM calls fir a roll and it fails. My RP is meaningless because of arbitary chance.
Which is why rolling first then roleplaying the results is better in DnD.
Unless you have a way that rewards RP in a non arbitary way

Yes, thats called descriptive roleplaying. It doesn't preempt the result like acting does, and has the added benefit of not being an egregious ask for those who aren't comfortable with active roleplaying, ie acting.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I prefer the player either using descriptive roleplaying or active roleplaying before I, as DM, make the decision on whether or not a roll is required. I'm not a fan of the I make a persuasion check? without providing any further detail from the player.