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

[tetrasodium]

So, what you are describing is that we must care that elves are Humanoid type Fey Subtype because it is a mechanic, and if the system doesn't build itself to use that mechanic, it will be replaced with what is needed for a better story.

Problem, the things you described DON'T have mechanical implications and NEVER WILL.

No one is EVER going to make DnD Necromancers use different spells or different materials to animate different humanoids based on their subtype. That would be a nightmare. No one at WOTC is going to build out the medicine skill to the degree that the weight of a specific humanoid will be paired in a chart to the proper measure of medicinal powders, let alone make that DIFFERENT for each sub-type.

This is why I think that using the terminology to define the species in this way would never work. No one is going to naturally want to refer to (Humanoid Type, Subtype Fey, Sub-Subtype Elf, Sub-Sub-Subtype Wood) as they are talking, in or out of character. And if the system wants to use these things and force them to matter, then we are going to potentially get these exact things you are talking about that the VAST VAST majority of people will immediately complain about because all it will be is a giant, useless mess.

No and that's a pretty serious misrepresentation because you are trying to use narrative phrasing in a discussion about a mechanical element within the rules. There are already a bunch of spells and abilities that key differently from target to target based on creature type. Here is a partial list of things that already key off creature type in some way: turn undead, divine sense, lay on hands, divine smite, holy nimbus, channel divinity, favored enemy, Pirmeval Awareness, Grim Harvest, Antilife shell, blight, chill touch, command, commune with nature, Cure wounds, detect evil & good, Forbiddance, Hallow, Heal, Healing word, Hold monster, Holy aura, Magic circle, Mass cure wounds, Mass healing word, Phantasmal force, power word heal, Prayer of healing, Protection from evil & good, raise dead, shapechange, Simulacrum, Spare the dying, Sunbeam, sunburst, divine Word, Planar Binding, etc..

The fact that this tedious list needed to be assembled to prove that things which have keyed off creature type with mechanical implications for multiple editions illustrates why 5e's efforts to streamline & simplify creature type away elsewhere causes problems. When you apply a question like "is this thing narrative fluff or a mechanical thing?" to what the new term for "race" should be the answer is that it is mechanical & as such mechanical concerns should hold heavy sway over what the term is mechanical.

 

[Incenjucar]

Intimidation is a fairly complex thing. Realistically, it should factor in several elements that are not normally considered during gameplay, such as size, build rather than strength (skinny powerhouses, etc.), overall appearance, smell, the way the speak, etc.

Charisma factors in in how effective they are in emphasizing how intimidating they are naturally. An ogre who says something like "Hello little mortal, I shall enjoy feasting on the bones of everyone you have ever loved" in a deep voice while flexing their pecks is going to be more intimidating than an ogre who says "Dur uh, I'mma s-s-s-smash you okay?" with their voice cracking like a teenager while they pick their nose and eat a booger.

 

[RuinousPowers]

Intimidation should be about more than threatening someone with immediate physical violence. It's demanding to see a soldier's commander, blackmailing a guild official, and telling an experienced pit fighter to take a dive. It's not just cracking knuckles and flexing; that's why a human can Intimidate a dragon.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't even allow an intimidation check unless the player has a viable plan for intimidating the opponent. Then I'll set the DC after I hear their plan. You wanna intimidate a dragon? You'd better have a good idea for me to even consider that one!

 

[Yaarel]

I also use Wisdom (Intimidation) skill for MORALE checks to avoid fleeing from battle when Bloodies or other dismaying setback.

 

[Kinematics]

Intimidation should be about more than threatening someone with immediate physical violence. It's demanding to see a soldier's commander, blackmailing a guild official, and telling an experienced pit fighter to take a dive. It's not just cracking knuckles and flexing; that's why a human can Intimidate a dragon.

Ah, yes, the intimidation tactics of the Karen. And it's a legitimate variant. There's a constant mental pressure being applied, and Strength certainly has nothing to do with it; it's force of personality, which I guess would fall under Charisma.

I still think the advantage/disadvantage on friendly/hostile targets is completely inappropriate, though.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No and that's a pretty serious misrepresentation because you are trying to use narrative phrasing in a discussion about a mechanical element within the rules. There are already a bunch of spells and abilities that key differently from target to target based on creature type. Here is a partial list of things that already key off creature type in some way: turn undead, divine sense, lay on hands, divine smite, holy nimbus, channel divinity, favored enemy, Pirmeval Awareness, Grim Harvest, Antilife shell, blight, chill touch, command, commune with nature, Cure wounds, detect evil & good, Forbiddance, Hallow, Heal, Healing word, Hold monster, Holy aura, Magic circle, Mass cure wounds, Mass healing word, Phantasmal force, power word heal, Prayer of healing, Protection from evil & good, raise dead, shapechange, Simulacrum, Spare the dying, Sunbeam, sunburst, divine Word, Planar Binding, etc..

The fact that this tedious list needed to be assembled to prove that things which have keyed off creature type with mechanical implications for multiple editions illustrates why 5e's efforts to streamline & simplify creature type away elsewhere causes problems. When you apply a question like "is this thing narrative fluff or a mechanical thing?" to what the new term for "race" should be the answer is that it is mechanical & as such mechanical concerns should hold heavy sway over what the term is mechanical.

Hard disagree. The term we use to refer to the different types of humanoids (there are exceptions, but the VAST number of player species are humanoid) is not a mechanical element of the game. It is much more of a narrative element.

Heck, look at your list?

Cares about undead? No One D&D species is an undead. There is likely to never be a pure undead species. (Reborn is the closest we get, but since these abilities care about that, and are common things for classes like clerics or paladins, then it is likely we will never get a species typed as Undead)

Fiends? No One D&D species is a Fiend. The only one that could be is a Tiefling, and look, they are Humanoid. Not Humanoid, Fiend, just humanoid.

Elemental, Abomination, Monstrosity, Beast? None of these are options for playable Species. The ONLY two that have shown up to date are construct and fey. And they are unique exceptions to the otherwise ubiquitous humanoid designation.


So, this is not a mechanical factor that is going to change undead, dragons, or fiends. This is a narrative factor for what we are going to call the various types of humanoids. This option will not effect the things you are talking about AT ALL.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Intimidation should be about more than threatening someone with immediate physical violence. It's demanding to see a soldier's commander, blackmailing a guild official, and telling an experienced pit fighter to take a dive. It's not just cracking knuckles and flexing; that's why a human can Intimidate a dragon.

This is true, but the problem is that threatening someone with immediate physical violence IS PART of intimidation, and the easiest to think of on the spot. Which is why it feels so weird. Very few players will consider demanding to see the soldier's commander because they have insulted them, heck, most who do will roll deception to pass themselves off as VIPs that can demand that sort of reaction. Most people will consider a knife to the neck and a whispered threat though.

And also, the more work you put into knowing WHAT to threaten the enemy with, such as intimidating a dragon by threatening to reveal a fatal weakness to their great rival... the less I want that to be a roll, because they've done the work to make that threat even possible in the first place.

 

[Yaarel]

This is true, but the problem is that threatening someone with immediate physical violence IS PART of intimidation

It is more like, the use of Intimidation requires a "credible threat".

The credible threat can be, "What is your name? I want to speak to your commander."

The credible threat can also be, "Im pretty sure I can take you." In which case, does the character physically appear to be a "credible threat"?

But steering this threat to the benefit of the Intimidator and handling the target adeptly, normally requires social skills, emotional intelligence, Charisma.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But steering this threat to the benefit of the Intimidator and handling the target adeptly, normally requires social skills, emotional intelligence, Charisma.

"normally requires" seems to be making an assumption I don't agree with. I've already shown two examples of a creature using intimidation that does not require high emotional intelligence or social skills. You keep making this "benefit" claim, but you aren't supporting it or explaining what you mean by it.

When a rattlesnake uses its rattle to scare something into not stepping on it and leave them alone, they have successfully used intimidation for their benefit. When a bear stands on its hind legs and roars, causing the wolves to flee so it can steal their kill, it has successfully used intimidation for its benefit. The animal kingdom is full of these examples, and while I'm not saying that this is the end of intimidation, they are the beginning of it.

And as the start of this conversation pointed out, intimidation being treated the same as persuasion feels awkward. It should almost be agnostic towards the state of the target, working equally well against friendly and hostile targets, because it is more about whether or not you have that threat level, not whether or not the person you are threatening likes you or trusts you.