Ability-Pillar Combinations in the Core Rules

[Minigiant]

I noticed early on that the Strength to Intimidate thing was given as an example to get STR into the Interaction pillar.

But there are other Ability-Pillar interactions.
Currently the only way to put your Intelligence score to use into combat is to be a wizard or convince your DM into some sort of Intelligence improvised action. Same with Charisma and combat. Or Constitution and Interaction.

Currently a high Charisma rouge or fighter has no way of applying the ability to combat outside inserting a module (such as possible module for followers) or hoping the DM makes a judgement that allows Cha as an combat application.

Do you think there should be either some core rules or heavy core examples that use every Ability-Pillar combination that are not based on class?

 

[Blackwarder]

Actually, a high charisma character should just bring a bunch of henchmen along

Warder

 

[Tony Vargas]

There should definitely be something to keep all PCs viable in each of the three pillars. Getting the DM to let you use your best stat in a variety of checks could be one of them. I'm not sure it would be the best, but if we're stuck with an open-ended skill system and resolution by DM fiat, it may be about the best we can hope for.

Anything can be rationalized:

STR combat: obvious; interaction: strong-arm intimidation, flex to impress; exploration: break down doors, carry stuff, clear passages.

CON combat: obvious; interaction: lengthy interrogations, vigorous *ahem* intimacy, interminable negotiations; exploration: long slogs through difficult terrain, staying alert well on watch

DEX combat: obvious; interaction: dancing, juggling, slight of hand, general 'grace'; exploration: reacting to traps and dangers quickly, balancing in difficult circumstances, moving quickly when it matters.

INT combat: knowledge of enemy strength/weaknesses, spells, 'scientific' combat styles, tactical acumen; interaction: encyclopedic knowledge, logical arguments, inductive/deductive take on insight; exploration: area and history knowledge, deciphering inscriptions, solving puzzles.

WIS combat: 'reading' an enemy, spotting danger or opportunity, heal checks, combat styles emphasizing caution and patience; interaction: insight is the biggie - reading and understanding/empathizing with others, making common-sense arguments; exploration: spotting dangers, taking precautions, understanding/experience of environments, common sense.

CHA combat: feinting, feigning death, bluffing/intimidating to force morale checks, flamboyant or deceptive combat styles; interaction: obvious; exploration: keeping up morale, keeping the team on-task.

 

[Minigiant]

Actually, a high charisma character should just bring a bunch of henchmen along

Warder

True. But I don't think followers and henchmen will be part of core. Most likely a module.

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]

Those are great examples.
I'd prefer a class independent feature for every Ability-Pillar. They do not have to be power nor equal. Some abilities could only have one or two core uses in a pillar and have many in another. coughDexteritycough.

Str:
Interaction- using Intimidate physically

Dex:
Interaction- using Bluff nonverbally

Con
Exploration- using Disguise nonverbally, using physical skills like Swim, Climb, Jump for long periods of time
Interaction- using Bluff and Intimidate to fake emotions

Int
Combat- Number of base combat maneuvers
Interaction- Number of languages, using Lore in conversations

Wis
Wisdom is fine

Cha
Combat- Feint attack
Exploration- ????

 

[Ahnehnois]

There should be *some* use for every ability score, which has been a probvlem with D&D.

However, there does not need to be a use for every ability score in every situation.

The guiding principle here should be what makes sense, not what is balanced. In a fist fight, the stronger, tougher, faster combatant should usually win, but a well-placed feint or astonishing feat of perserverence could come into play every now and then. Likewise, in a courtroom, the smartest, most eloquent, most perceptive advocate should usually prevail, but in some cases, physicality might come into play.

Certainly, there is room to insert some non class-based mechanics to expand the uses of ability scores.

 

[Mengu]

If I had to pick one thing I do like about the next iteration, it would be this new approach to how skills are used.

I don't really think we need a rigid structure, it's mostly in the hands of the DM, to decide what each situation calls for. From what I understand of their intention, every skill can be added to nearly every ability check. The skill check will usually coincide with the ability we're used to using, but sometimes, the ability check may add an unusual skill, and sometimes the skill bonus may be added to an unusual ability.

Let's say your rogue has the local vigilante background which gives him training in Intimidate... You want to whip out your rapier and slash a perfect Z on your opponent's shirt, to try and scare him into submission. Your DM may ask for you to make a dexterity check, and allow you to add your intimidate bonus.

Or let's say your warlord has the battle tactician background which gives him training in history. You want to persuade the local hotheaded lord that historically, defending the keep from behind walls has been more successful and yielded less casualties than taking the cavalry out to meet an enemy that outnumbers you in the open field. Your DM may ask for a charisma check to see how well you can influence the lord, and allow you to add your history bonus for a well conceived argument.

To give some other random examples, when the fighter with the city guard background asks if he knows any shortcuts to a location, the DM may ask for an intelligence check and ask him to add his streetwise bonus. When the wizard with religious lore is trying to convince an unfamiliar priest that his wounded warrior companion needs healing, and tries to appeal to the exact religious nature of the priest, the DM may ask for a charisma check, and ask the wizard to add his religion bonus.

So, the way things are setup right now, we can mix and match abilities and skill bonuses to suit the situation in hand. In previous editions, there were many times I was a little stumped by which skill to use, because the task at hand didn't quite jive with the necessary action. It was okay to ask for an acrobatics check to entertain a crowd (or thievery for slight of hand tricks), but it will be much more appropriate to ask for a charisma check to entertain the crowd and add your acrobatics or thievery bonus. I'm half tempted to switch to this approach in my 4e game.