Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Olrox17" data-source="post: 8877531" data-attributes="member: 6801397">Ok, Then I read your position correctly. There's nothing necessarily wrong with allowing creative players to use their best stat for everything (or a lot of things), but it's not my cup of tea, and I wouldn't like it to be the 5.5 RAW for intimidation or anything else.Easier? Sure, but I believe some interesting granularity is lost in the process. I'll try to explain what I mean by going back to a previous example.Example: A strong PC with low Charisma tries to intimidate some thugs by bending a metal object with their bare hands.If you allow the PC to use their 20 Strength instead of their 8 Charisma, well, that's just it. The PC gets an hefty bonus to the roll compared to the default of using Charisma.What about the approach I suggested, on the other hand? As a DM, I'm privy to information that the PC isn't. What if the &quot;thugs&quot; are actually polymorphed demons? They might not be impressed by the mortal PC's feat of brute force, right? Thus, I would set the DC high, and ask for a Charisma (Intimidation) check.If, however, the thugs are actually a craven bunch of nobodies, I would still ask for a Charisma (Intimidation) check, but I'd set up a fairly easy DC.But one important thing is, regardless of the circumstances, the player's conscious choice of assigning a specific score to Charisma would not be bypassed or trivialized.A high Strength character with a nice 14 Charisma would be better at this intimidation tactic than an high Strength character with a low 8 Charisma. Which I think is good and fair! Brutality backed by a strong charisma should be comparatively more effective, IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Olrox17, post: 8877531, member: 6801397"] Ok, Then I read your position correctly. There's nothing necessarily wrong with allowing creative players to use their best stat for everything (or a lot of things), but it's not my cup of tea, and I wouldn't like it to be the 5.5 RAW for intimidation or anything else. Easier? Sure, but I believe some interesting granularity is lost in the process. I'll try to explain what I mean by going back to a previous example. Example: A strong PC with low Charisma tries to intimidate some thugs by bending a metal object with their bare hands. If you allow the PC to use their 20 Strength instead of their 8 Charisma, well, that's just it. The PC gets an hefty bonus to the roll compared to the default of using Charisma. What about the approach I suggested, on the other hand? As a DM, I'm privy to information that the PC isn't. What if the "thugs" are actually polymorphed demons? They might not be impressed by the mortal PC's feat of brute force, right? Thus, I would set the DC high, and ask for a Charisma (Intimidation) check. If, however, the thugs are actually a craven bunch of nobodies, I would still ask for a Charisma (Intimidation) check, but I'd set up a fairly easy DC. But one important thing is, regardless of the circumstances,[I] the player's conscious choice of assigning a specific score to Charisma would not be bypassed or trivialized[/I]. A high Strength character with a nice 14 Charisma would be better at this intimidation tactic than an high Strength character with a low 8 Charisma. Which I think is good and fair! Brutality backed by a strong charisma [I]should[/I] be comparatively more effective, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification