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

[Chaosmancer]

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 agree, different discussion. The ideas are related though, parts of the same system and so they pull and push on each other.

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.

I never said it was an insult, just noting the usage as it seems to give a certain viewpoint. Understanding the bias we bring to a conversation is hard, but it can also help us understand where disagreement arises.

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.

You seem to have hit on exactly my point, though I wasn't sure if you would increase the DC or not. But a Bard who doesn't have strength will never attempt to use strength to intimidate. Their strength is largely irrelevant to their plans and actions. And they can ALSO get a DC decrease, as you note, for being as you have phrased "crafty".

And we aren't talking about the Goliath being as good at intimidation in general as the bard, but instead of the Goliath being good at using strength and size to intimidate. Notably, even if we laid out the numbers and used the Goliath's strength, they are only getting a +4 compared to the Bard's +10 (+4 cha, level 5 with Expertise so +6 from prof). So the Bard is still better, but the Goliath has ONE avenue that they can use when it is appropriate.

And yes, if you decide to lower the DC by 5, then you have numerically done the same thing as letting them use their strength... but feel-wise, you haven't. Because you normally don't tell them how many points the DC is lowered by, and you may not even tell them it has been lowered (that is a table specific thing, so I can't assume) but they are still rolling a die with a negative, not a die with a positive. Even if the math is identical, the feel of the roll is different.

A player who rolls with their best mod, but fails anyways likely feels something along the lines of "I tried my best, but it wasn't enough. Just bad luck I guess." It feels like they did everything they could, and so it is easier to accept the failure. But someone who rolls with their worst mod and fails feels like "What did I expect, of course I failed, I'm not built to succeed at these things." and even worse, if they succeed, it feels like a fluke. It doesn't feel like clever play was rewarded, but that the dice just happened to be high enough for them to counter-act their bad ability.

DC 10 with a 1d20-1 just feels worse than a DC 15 with a 1d20+4, even though they are the same math. This is also why earlier I spoke about giving players bonuses instead of lowering the DC. Because then the player feels that bonus more keenly, it has effected their side of the equation, not your side, and so psychologically, it feels more impactful.

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.

I don't consider this adversarial at all, however, I have noticed certain trends in thoughts about the "other side" so to speak. For example, I just recently encountered a video from a year ago where a youtuber sought to address problems they saw in WoTC's adventure design by giving more narrative powers and more options to the DM. This makes perfect sense.... if you assume a DM like that youtuber, who has decades of experience DMing and a solid consistent friend-group they run for who they know the limits and desires of intimately. However, it would be a nightmare for DMs who are only on their first year of DMing, and rely on those adventures to give them structure and direction. The sort of DMs who need far more consideration. But, that youtuber doesn't imagine DMs like that, because they are a DM, so they imagine DMs like themselves and other DMs in their circle who are highly experienced. And if they do consider new DMs then they reason that those DMs have access to experienced DMs to help guide them through the problems they encounter, because that is the situation around them.

I find this same sort of thing often with DMs who think about players. Quite often on this site I've found people who consider players as masters of the system who seek to bend the rules of play to manipulate towards the outcome they want. Likely, because they themselves are highly experienced DMs who also play, and they can imagine themselves doing that. This isn't a condemnation, just an observation, because I've spent a long time working with new players for a few months at a time, before groups around me crumble. That has given me a different set of biases, and a different thrust to my views. I far more often see players who struggle to match the story they want to how they can achieve that story, and so I have found many ways to ease that transistion. Since very few of them get to the point of trying to always engineer success forever (which is not much different than anyone playing, very few people try to intentionally fail) I don't run into the problems you predict.

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?

We can if you want. I just like discussing.