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

[Chaosmancer]

What if the thugs happen to be strong enough to also be able to do that poker bending trick? Would that "strength intimidation" check be an automatic failure then?

No, but I might increase the DC. It goes from "this is a one-sided beat down" to "she IS as strong as you, is that a good idea to fight her?"

When I say that a PC clearly and visibly more powerful than a target should get a lowered intimidation DC, I'm not referring to strength or size alone.
A wizard may look extremely powerful and threatening to your local thugs, when they decide to fire a huge exploding fireball in the sky above. Is that an Intelligence (Intimidation) check?
A skilled archer may pin someone's hat to the wall with an arrow in the blink of an eye. Is that a Dex (Intimidation) check?
A cleric may walk into a bandit camp surrounded by spooky Spirit Guardians, speaking with a booming voice thanks to the Thaumaturgy cantrip. Is that a Wisdom (Intimidation) check?

I don't think so. I think all of them are Charisma (intimidation) checks, with an adjusted DC and possibly advantage due to creative role-play.

Actually, if someone wanted to shoot a bow to barely miss a target as intimidation, I'd be perfectly fine with it being Dex Intimidation. That's a real good use of it, because it isn't the Archer's personality that is intimidating, it is their speed and accuracy.

Fireball intimidation? Auto-success in many many instances. That was not only impressive, but costly to the player to do. Now, if they needed a roll... I'd say charisma intimidation works, because if they need the roll then they need to sell either the deception ("And this is the LEAST I can do" or put on a good show) Same with the cleric, they would either auto-succeed, or they would need to roll for the showmanship of the intimidation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That is ok also but I would prefer to make abilities more relevant and to give characters that not have prof (intimidate) a chance. Also why it is fair if you change the DC of the intimidate check to match the fiction does all dms do that? are they encouraged to do it?
I also think that it is conceptually easier to switch the Ability check than to adjust the DC.

It may help to think of it as less "lowering the DC" and more "giving a bonus".

Unarmed scrawny man telling you he will kill you, that is harder to take seriously.
Unarmed scrawny man CATCHING HIMSELF ON FIRE then EXPLODING A TABLE while telling you he will kill you... that is much easier to take seriously.

However, for many of us as DMs, it is quicker and easier to adjust the DC than it is to tell the player they have to add a +3, because while you might not think it should make a difference, it often does for how quickly they can handle the roll.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Thing is, I enjoy creativity, and I reward it, just not in ways that completely bypass someone's choice of a dump stat.

Right, but isn't it also respecting their choice of a high stat to let it be used when it makes sense? A guy with animal handling as a proficiency and high strength can likely put on an impressive display by lifting a trained horse, respecting those choices is better than telling them that since it is a show, they must use their charisma (performance) to see how well they lift the horse.

 

[Olrox17]

Right, but isn't it also respecting their choice of a high stat to let it be used when it makes sense? A guy with animal handling as a proficiency and high strength can likely put on an impressive display by lifting a trained horse, respecting those choices is better than telling them that since it is a show, they must use their charisma (performance) to see how well they lift the horse.

I'm not saying animal handling shouldn't work here. If you are strong enough to lift the horse, you are strong enough to lift the horse, and you roll a Wisdom (animal handling) check to see if you can keep the animal calm while doing it.

But I think this is the kind of situation where teamwork shines. A dude lifting a horse can be an impressive feat of strength, but, for maximum effect, I would expect to have someone else on stage to hype the performance up for the public. A charisma/performance guy.
Not too unlike the intimidation example, actually. In my games, if a PC with charisma is also accompanied by beefy, armed and clearly dangerous dudes, that's the best of both worlds: you get the charisma guy's good modifier to the roll, and a credible physical threat to lower the DC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not saying animal handling shouldn't work here. If you are strong enough to lift the horse, you are strong enough to lift the horse, and you roll a Wisdom (animal handling) check to see if you can keep the animal calm while doing it.

But I think this is the kind of situation where teamwork shines. A dude lifting a horse can be an impressive feat of strength, but, for maximum effect, I would expect to have someone else on stage to hype the performance up for the public. A charisma/performance guy.
Not too unlike the intimidation example, actually. In my games, if a PC with charisma is also accompanied by beefy, armed and clearly dangerous dudes, that's the best of both worlds: you get the charisma guy's good modifier to the roll, and a credible physical threat to lower the DC.

Sure, teamwork makes the dream work, but that doesn't mean you always have access to a team to do these things, nor do I really want to encourage having the Charisma character always rolling every single charisma check, and making sure that anyone who might have a social encounter always travels with the charisma character.

 

[Azzy]

As a variant/option/module? Sure, no objections.

Why not as the default?

 

[Yaarel]

Why not as the default?

The default could along the lines of the recent format:

"The Intimidation skill represents a Charisma check, or a check of an other Ability that you and the DM agree is appropriate in the circumstance."

 

[Olrox17]

Why not as the default?

Because I don’t like it
More seriously, I believe that ability scores should all provide some specific, exclusive value.

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.

 

[Azzy]

Because I don’t like it
More seriously, I believe that ability scores should all provide some specific, exclusive value.

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.

Okay. Fair enough.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Because I don’t like it
More seriously, I believe that ability scores should all provide some specific, exclusive value.

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.

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.