D&D 5E Getting rid of bad skill proficiencies

[Don Durito]

I don't allow alternate abilities with Intimidate because I just don't feel it makes a lot of sense. (But then I don't like the intimidate skill generally).

In 5E functionality is supposed to be primarily determined by abilities scores not skills. Intimidation is a function of Charisma - the skill just allows an added proficiency bonus.

I realised after a while that a lot of the situations in which one might roll Str(Intimidate) are usually situations where a roll is not necessary. If the barbarian with a bloody axe is looming over a goblin, then he is intimidating - he doesn't need to roll. I wouldn't 100% say never, but it's hard to think of a situation where a roll is actually needed, but force of personality is not the more important factor.

In any case, I'd much prefer (And think it is more in keeping with the way 5e is designed) to sometimes allow Cha(Athletics).

 

[iserith]

That's the way it seems supposed to work - but the game is not that consistent - hardcoding skills into the game in a lot of places - Athletics for example for grappling.

This is why when I used background proficiencies it just seemed pointless at times. "Roll Strength" and the the player discusses what they can use for Athletics, which became after a time "Roll Strength plus whatever you use for Athletics".

The game is written so that the player can't decide what skill proficiency they're applying, but they can ask the DM if it does. I just skip that step on the assumption that I agree with the player already. There isn't enough that's "hardcoded" in my experience to really mess with that paradigm too much. We all know what those are at my table (e.g. grappling, surprise, certain wilderness/travel tasks, etc.).

 

[jgsugden]

I don't think about skills in terms of which applies.

I think about how proficient the PC would be given their skills, background, recent history, etc... Then, I tell the player what ability to roll and whether to add half proficiency, full proficiency or double proficiency. If they have one or more skills (or background, experience, etc...) that are highly relevant, they'll get to use proficiency or expertise per their character sheet. If they don't, they might get half of the proficiency bonus if they have a reason to know something about what is going on, but not necessary be skilled at it.

 

[ChaosOS]

So, one thing I'll say about socials is I think game devs are in a rut by always relying on Diplomancy, Scarymancy, and Liemancy. Rather, I think a better distribution would be based on Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - the three classic methods of persuasion, because at the end of the day that's what this is about: Getting NPCs to do things you want. Then, being fair, making threats, or bluffing are ways to use those three methods. I don't have great names for these, but what I've tried is

• Charisma (Appeal) - Pathos. Tugging on heart strings or other "irrational" methods of persuasion, where you're relying on instinctual and unconscious responses by the audience.
• Intelligence (Debate) - Logos. Rationally explaining why a certain course of action should be taken after conscientious consideration.
• Charisma (Impress) - Ethos. Getting people to believe that you're the real deal and a source of authority or otherwise someone to listen to.

 

[Gradine]

Sure, that works too. Point is, in both cases the things the proficiency is used for and the things the tool is used for have a lot of overlap, and might be best served by consolidating.

Yes, I agree that is a problem. I just think that making the distinction between the two proficiencies clearer is a better solution to the problem than merging them in this case.

Not sure why you're quoting me here?

 

[Don Durito]

So, one thing I'll say about socials is I think game devs are in a rut by always relying on Diplomancy, Scarymancy, and Liemancy. Rather, I think a better distribution would be based on Ethos, Pathos, and Logos - the three classic methods of persuasion, because at the end of the day that's what this is about: Getting NPCs to do things you want. Then, being fair, making threats, or bluffing are ways to use those three methods. I don't have great names for these, but what I've tried is

• Charisma (Appeal) - Pathos. Tugging on heart strings or other "irrational" methods of persuasion, where you're relying on instinctual and unconscious responses by the audience.
• Intelligence (Debate) - Logos. Rationally explaining why a certain course of action should be taken after conscientious consideration.
• Charisma (Impress) - Ethos. Getting people to believe that you're the real deal and a source of authority or otherwise someone to listen to.

This is a nice approach. I would possibly add Wisdom (Empathy) - combine Insight with the ability to act on what you can gain from Insight. Then you have at least one approach for each one of the three mental attributes.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I am so sick of Intimidation being only charisma. That bulky dude with the massive club isn't scary because he can give a speech, he's scary because he can knock my brains out and eat a sandwich over my corpse like it was another Tuesday.

I think charisma is the appropriate stat because being strong isn't scary, unless you have the will to actually back up your threats.

If I don't believe you are willing to go through with it then it doesn't matter how much you wave a club or juggle a dagger across your knuckles. I'm not intimidated.

Also, I wouldn't merge Survival with Nature. Survival covers how to build shelters, how to find fresh water, how to preserve food, how to navigate. None of these are tied to the academic study of nature.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not sure why you're quoting me here?

Hmm... No idea, it was @Crimson Longinus who posted the words in the quotes, and with the new quote system there’s no need to copy and paste quote tags... Maybe there was a quote of yours left over in my text from a draft post and somehow the forum merged Crimson’s text with your quote tag? Weird.

 

[Istbor]

I think charisma is the appropriate stat because being strong isn't scary, unless you have the will to actually back up your threats.

If I don't believe you are willing to go through with it then it doesn't matter how much you wave a club or juggle a dagger across your knuckles. I'm not intimidated.

Also, I wouldn't merge Survival with Nature. Survival covers how to build shelters, how to find fresh water, how to preserve food, how to navigate. None of these are tied to the academic study of nature.

So if someone can feather a target from 150ft away with a bow, or can chop an orc in half with one swing, does this in front of you, and says you are next. But doesn't say it with sufficient conviction because they rolled a 10 on their intimidate, it would give you no pause?

Dumb.

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Don Durito]

So if someone can feather a target from 150ft away with a bow, or can chop an orc in half with one swing, does this in front of you, and says you are next. But doesn't say it with sufficient conviction because they rolled a 10 on their intimidate, it would give you no pause?

Dumb.

Actions speak louder than words.

Is this an argument for using Strength for Intimidate or for not having to roll the dice in situations where there is no need for a die roll?