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

[Olrox17]

That is fair enough, my main issue is that specifically intimidation should not be just Cha based. It could be Con, Str or more rarely Int based.
it is just one of those things that is very contextual.

Yeah, I understood that your issue was with intimidation, specifically, rather than a general thing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am ok with creative strategies making tasks easier (especially when teamwork is involved!) as I described in previous posts. I am less ok with ignoring the penalties of a character’s dump stat by persuading the DM that your best stat should be totally used instead.
I don’t like the playstyle that is encouraged by making that choice.

Understandable... but at the same time, a character that knows their own weaknesses should know best how to work around them. Or in this case a player should know best how to work around them for their character.

Someone who knows they just aren't persuasive due to natural charm and good looks will be more inclined to use logic and reason to make their cases. So using INT (Persuasion) rather than CHA (Persuasion) isn't merely just a player trying to scam their way past the DM to avoid using their "dump stat"... it makes all the sense that a person like that would use their INT rather than CHA whenever they could.

Likewise... some who is more agile rather than strong but who consistently climbs walls knows how to best use their agility to climb, without needing to just use brute strength. So again... the player suggesting that depending on the type of climb it's perfectly reasonable to have it be a DEX (Athletics) check, rather than STR (Athletics) can be actually realistic, and not just a way of getting around a dump stat.

At the end of the day at least for me... I don't care whether the game makes Variant Ability Scores a core rule or keep it a variant rule, because I'm going to use Variant Ability Scores all the time regardless. But at least it's good to know that not everyone who prefers that style is merely a scammer just trying to get one over on the hapless DM. There's usually a really good reason for it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Understandable... but at the same time, a character that knows their own weaknesses should know best how to work around them. Or in this case a player should know best how to work around them for their character.

Someone who knows they just aren't persuasive due to natural charm and good looks will be more inclined to use logic and reason to make their cases. So using INT (Persuasion) rather than CHA (Persuasion) isn't merely just a player trying to scam their way past the DM to avoid using their "dump stat"... it makes all the sense that a person like that would use their INT rather than CHA whenever they could.

Likewise... some who is more agile rather than strong but who consistently climbs walls knows how to best use their agility to climb, without needing to just use brute strength. So again... the player suggesting that depending on the type of climb it's perfectly reasonable to have it be a DEX (Athletics) check, rather than STR (Athletics) can be actually realistic, and not just a way of getting around a dump stat.

At the end of the day at least for me... I don't care whether the game makes Variant Ability Scores a core rule or keep it a variant rule, because I'm going to use Variant Ability Scores all the time regardless. But at least it's good to know that not everyone who prefers that style is merely a scammer just trying to get one over on the hapless DM. There's usually a really good reason for it.

Using this to bounce off, it is also sometimes the best course for the action described.

A big one I use is Charisma (Investigation) and I know people's first thought is "how can that possibly make sense", but it has been the best fit for when the players say "I want to ask around town and find [insert goal]."

That is a social roll (the biggest part is talking to people) so charisma but without some sort of streetwise skill, what skill would it fall under? You aren't trying to persuade or deceive, you aren't really looking into historical lore or handling animals, the closest analog to my mind was investigating (like detectives knocking on doors). Hence the non-standard pairing.

And it works.

 

[Olrox17]

At the end of the day at least for me... I don't care whether the game makes Variant Ability Scores a core rule or keep it a variant rule, because I'm going to use Variant Ability Scores all the time regardless. But at least it's good to know that not everyone who prefers that style is merely a scammer just trying to get one over on the hapless DM. There's usually a really good reason for it.

I do not ascribe any malicious motives to anyone who wants to use or uses Variant Ability Scores. I do believe their use can engender niche invasion and favour the crafty, persuasive player to an unfair degree.
Taking the example of Dex (Athletics) to scale a wall, is it "realistic"? Potentially yeah, free climbers certainly look the nimble kind rather than powerhouses (although they clearly have massive power in specific muscles). You could make a convincing argument (personally, I would still ask for Str (Athletics), adjusting the DC if your superior Dex clearly provides a benefit in this situation).

Is it really fair to party's high Str Fighter to make Dex even more of a god stat and infringe on his niche? When the less crafty fighter player tries get into the Variant Ability Scores game and attempts some mental gymnastics to convince you he should roll for Strength (Stealth), you'll probably shut him down...and yet, there is at least one hypothetical persuasive argument I could think of that would make that work, the fighter player just didn't think of it.

In short, depending on your players, allowing Variant Ability Scores might indeed create a "scammy" playstyle that I don't like, even if nobody at the table is a scammy person, simply because it's natural to try and get an advantage too when you saw somebody else got it (possibly infringing on your niche in the process).

Obviously, if it works well for your gaming group, it works well for your gaming group. If it's fun, keep it up. Would I want it to be the default rule for 5.5? No. As an option? Sure.

 

[Amrûnril]

Non-standard ability-skill pairings can work against PCs just as easily as it can work for them. If identifying a rare disease requires an Intelligence (Medicine) check, the Cleric may suddenly find themself feeling a lot less confident. I also find that getting into the habit of thinking of abilities and proficiences separately makes it easier to incorporate tool proficiencies into ability checks (since tools don't have default ability scores in the way skills do).

If players are doing mental gymnastics to get the DM to call the specific checks they want, that's not really a variant ability scores issue. It can happen just as easily with players wanting to roll Acrobatics instead of Athletics or Deception instead of Persuasion. Either way, the solution will require evaluating things on a case-by-case basis and emphasizing that different approaches may have different DCs or yield different results.

Regarding Intimidation specifically, I do think Charisma makes sense as the most commonly used ability score. Even when threatening violence, your willingess to follow through on that threat may be more in question than your physical ability to do so.

 

[Mistwell]

Its going to take some getting used to hearing a dwarf say "The long line of my species watches over me and inspires me with their strength to wield the Hammer of the Dwarven Lords" instead of heritage, ancestors, or bloodline.

Hyperbolic example aside, a proper word to replace race should fill mechanically and narratively...and I dont think we will find a perfect fit, it will likley skew one way or the other...and we will deal with any inconsistencies as they arise.

I mean, the descriptive indication of your type is a game rule, not a setting element. The dwarf can say race or people, and the yuan-ti can say species, or whatever

It's one reason I advocate for Creature Type: Humanoid (Mountain Dwarf). Just don't use a narrative word for this descriptor, just as that Mountain Dwarf likely doesn't call themselves a Rogue, or Fighter, or Cleric but instead a swashbuckler or warrior or scion or whatever.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do not ascribe any malicious motives to anyone who wants to use or uses Variant Ability Scores. I do believe their use can engender niche invasion and favour the crafty, persuasive player to an unfair degree.
Taking the example of Dex (Athletics) to scale a wall, is it "realistic"? Potentially yeah, free climbers certainly look the nimble kind rather than powerhouses (although they clearly have massive power in specific muscles). You could make a convincing argument (personally, I would still ask for Str (Athletics), adjusting the DC if your superior Dex clearly provides a benefit in this situation).

Is it really fair to party's high Str Fighter to make Dex even more of a god stat and infringe on his niche? When the less crafty fighter player tries get into the Variant Ability Scores game and attempts some mental gymnastics to convince you he should roll for Strength (Stealth), you'll probably shut him down...and yet, there is at least one hypothetical persuasive argument I could think of that would make that work, the fighter player just didn't think of it.

In short, depending on your players, allowing Variant Ability Scores might indeed create a "scammy" playstyle that I don't like, even if nobody at the table is a scammy person, simply because it's natural to try and get an advantage too when you saw somebody else got it (possibly infringing on your niche in the process).

Obviously, if it works well for your gaming group, it works well for your gaming group. If it's fun, keep it up. Would I want it to be the default rule for 5.5? No. As an option? Sure.

I think part of it for me is, "what do I see more often". And the thing I see more often is not players attempting be crafty and persuasive. What I see more often is players shutting down because they don't have good numbers. The person with a -1 Charisma much of the time, unless they are going for clowning and making a fool of themselves, doesn't participate in the social rolls. They just hang back and let the person with the high charisma do it.

An exception to this are things like when the climbing rules are misused (mandatory annoucement, climbing does not require a check unless it is an extreme situation) and the players are not given a choice, and they MUST roll to progress the story. This is rather rarer these days, but I often ended up in situations where we had to climb a cliff, and failure meant we didn't climb the cliff, and so we just had the strongest person rolling more and more often, because we couldn't progress without getting up the cliff. And it is a nightmare for everyone, not a fun time.

And in both of those instances, I much prefer people finding an alternative that uses theirs strengths as best they can, rather than either shutting down or forcing a failure. Now, this doesn't mean I allow EVERYTHING, obviously not, but if a player has a fun way to engage with the story, instead of sitting there on their phone because they feel that they cannot meaningfully contribute, I'll take that every time. Especially since it is most common in investigations and social encounters, which everyone sort of wants to be a part of, since they are such a large section of the game.

 

[Olrox17]

I think part of it for me is, "what do I see more often". And the thing I see more often is not players attempting be crafty and persuasive. What I see more often is players shutting down because they don't have good numbers. The person with a -1 Charisma much of the time, unless they are going for clowning and making a fool of themselves, doesn't participate in the social rolls. They just hang back and let the person with the high charisma do it.

I understand. You see, that's not a bug to me, but rather a feature, if handled sensibly.
I do want the high Cha characters with social proficiencies to engage more freely and liberally in conversation, because they built their characters to do so, and I don't want low cha characters to yoink their rightful spotlight. Again, that's were teamwork shines: the crafty low cha character with a good idea can help the high cha one on the task.

An exception to this are things like when the climbing rules are misused (mandatory annoucement, climbing does not require a check unless it is an extreme situation)

True, true.

and the players are not given a choice, and they MUST roll to progress the story. This is rather rarer these days, but I often ended up in situations where we had to climb a cliff, and failure meant we didn't climb the cliff, and so we just had the strongest person rolling more and more often, because we couldn't progress without getting up the cliff. And it is a nightmare for everyone, not a fun time.

Some of my best set pieces ever involved climbing, ironically enough. The one I remember most fondly was a long chase scene, were the party was desperately trying to shake off a red dragon (far stronger than them) while traversing a canyon. While a lot of different skills were used in the process, Strength (Athletics) was certainly given a lot of spotlight, and the strong characters were allowed to be awesome badasses, and carried the party (literally, in a few instances). Very proud of that one, the players' enthusiasm was so off the charts that one of them made a commemorative fake movie title card for it.

And in both of those instances, I much prefer people finding an alternative that uses theirs strengths as best they can, rather than either shutting down or forcing a failure. Now, this doesn't mean I allow EVERYTHING, obviously not, but if a player has a fun way to engage with the story, instead of sitting there on their phone because they feel that they cannot meaningfully contribute, I'll take that every time. Especially since it is most common in investigations and social encounters, which everyone sort of wants to be a part of, since they are such a large section of the game.

Agreed in spirit, not in method. As I said before about the Str (intimidation) example, if a character flexes his muscles at a pack of thugs and, according to my judgement, it would make sense for those thugs to be impresses by that, I will lower the DC, even considerably. I'll still ask for a Charisma check, though.
You want maximum efficiency? Flex your muscles while your actually charismatic buddy threatens the thugs.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I understand. You see, that's not a bug to me, but rather a feature, if handled sensibly.
I do want the high Cha characters with social proficiencies to engage more freely and liberally in conversation, because they built their characters to do so, and I don't want low cha characters to yoink their rightful spotlight. Again, that's were teamwork shines: the crafty low cha character with a good idea can help the high cha one on the task.

I generally don't have to worry about spotlight hogs, but this line of logic often leads to this idea that allowing the high charisma character to "shine" during social encounters is fine, because then the high strength low charisma characters will "shine" during combat.... but that is false. A bard with Expertise in Persuasion and access to Hypnotic Pattern is massively impactful in social encounters AND redefines combat encounters. Meanwhile Rune Knight can be impressive during combat, but has nothing to do during a social encounter.

I'm fine with social characters to be more free to act in social encounters, but alternatively, I want non-social characters to have a chance to do something other than say that they perform the help action.

I think we are both in agreement, just with different concerns and priorities. I've rarely if ever seen these "crafty" players you are so worried about, because generally the only time those low cha characters get involved is when they get swept up in the story, and I have seen that moment in their eyes when they realize "Oh god, I [bleeped] up, now I have to roll, and I can't reliably make this roll" which is a shame, because then they feel like getting swept up in the story was a mistake.

Some of my best set pieces ever involved climbing, ironically enough. The one I remember most fondly was a long chase scene, were the party was desperately trying to shake off a red dragon (far stronger than them) while traversing a canyon. While a lot of different skills were used in the process, Strength (Athletics) was certainly given a lot of spotlight, and the strong characters were allowed to be awesome badasses, and carried the party (literally, in a few instances). Very proud of that one, the players' enthusiasm was so off the charts that one of them made a commemorative fake movie title card for it.

Very nice

Agreed in spirit, not in method. As I said before about the Str (intimidation) example, if a character flexes his muscles at a pack of thugs and, according to my judgement, it would make sense for those thugs to be impresses by that, I will lower the DC, even considerably. I'll still ask for a Charisma check, though.
You want maximum efficiency? Flex your muscles while your actually charismatic buddy threatens the thugs.

The thing is though, then their action is meaningless. The bard with a 10 strength flexing for the thugs is more likely to intimidate them than the Goliath Barbarian with an 18 strength. Even as you lower the DC, the difference between a 1d20-1 and a 1d20+10 is 11 pts. You aren't generally going to reduce the DC by that much.

And, your choice of terms reflects a viewpoint. You keep talking about efficiency, about crafty players, phrasing the entire conversation in terms of this player who seems like they are trying to manipulate the DM and the game. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a player who has seen that scene in the movies a dozen times and thinks "Awesome! I can do that thing I thought of when I made my character!"

They are trying to recreate a moment from a book or a TV show, which was never a moment created to subvert some system. The system is just there from the game, and getting in the way of the story. Not always, but sometimes. They want the story beat, not efficiency.

 

[Olrox17]

I generally don't have to worry about spotlight hogs, but this line of logic often leads to this idea that allowing the high charisma character to "shine" during social encounters is fine, because then the high strength low charisma characters will "shine" during combat.... but that is false. A bard with Expertise in Persuasion and access to Hypnotic Pattern is massively impactful in social encounters AND redefines combat encounters. Meanwhile Rune Knight can be impressive during combat, but has nothing to do during a social encounter.

I'm fine with social characters to be more free to act in social encounters, but alternatively, I want non-social characters to have a chance to do something other than say that they perform the help action.

I think we are both in agreement, just with different concerns and priorities. I've rarely if ever seen these "crafty" players you are so worried about, because generally the only time those low cha characters get involved is when they get swept up in the story, and I have seen that moment in their eyes when they realize "Oh god, I [bleeped] up, now I have to roll, and I can't reliably make this roll" which is a shame, because then they feel like getting swept up in the story was a mistake.

I would like 5e to have more overall balance among the classes, and have actually taken steps in that direction via home rules, but discussing that would be pretty off topic.

Interestingly, I don't even allow the standard Help action (boring auto-advantage) unless you are proficient in the skill being used (something the One D&D playtest is also doing). However I allow "non-standard" help when a creative idea is proposed, and generally lower the DC as a result.
I do not use crafty as an insult, I like crafty players. I just think that, as a DM, I need to be careful how I reward them, so other (possibly less crafty or simply less experienced) players don't get overshadowed.

The thing is though, then their action is meaningless. The bard with a 10 strength flexing for the thugs is more likely to intimidate them than the Goliath Barbarian with an 18 strength. Even as you lower the DC, the difference between a 1d20-1 and a 1d20+10 is 11 pts. You aren't generally going to reduce the DC by that much.

And, your choice of terms reflects a viewpoint. You keep talking about efficiency, about crafty players, phrasing the entire conversation in terms of this player who seems like they are trying to manipulate the DM and the game. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a player who has seen that scene in the movies a dozen times and thinks "Awesome! I can do that thing I thought of when I made my character!"

They are trying to recreate a moment from a book or a TV show, which was never a moment created to subvert some system. The system is just there from the game, and getting in the way of the story. Not always, but sometimes. They want the story beat, not efficiency.

I wouldn't expect a bard with 10 strength and +10 to intimidate (thanks to charisma and maybe expertise?) to try intimidation by muscle flexing. If they choose that route, I'd probably increase the DC (unless they were intimidating an halfling child or something). I'd expect them to try intimidation by subtle coercion, with a DC decrease if they actually manage to uncover enough information about the target ("Isn't your family living in a farm just left of the city gates? What a nice, cozy home it is!").

And, well, should the Goliath Barbarian with 8 cha and no intimidation prof be as good at the job than the bard with high Charisma, proficiency and maybe expertise? Heck no, imo. Lowering the DC allows the untrained low cha Barbarian to be adequate at the task, which I believe is more than fair, and ultimately kinda numerically the same as allowing him to use Strength...but:

• the calculation happens on the DM's side of the screen, as it should for reasons I explained here;
• if the barbarian player happened to invest a 12 in Cha instead of an 8, it gets a better bonus, which, I believe, is fair and logical.

Finally, I do not come from an adversarial DM mindset, if that is what you're suspecting. I am a mechanically minded player and DM. The story is important to me, but I've always believed that a good story isn't enough to fix unfun gameplay, while on the contrary, good mechanics will always improve one's enjoyment the story.
EDIT: I realized that I've been illustrating my position on Alternate Ability Scores for a while now, and spent a lot of virtual words doing so. Perhaps a change of topic would be best?