D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[CapnZapp]

I feel Intimidation is ALWAYS a Charisma check.

I let the player choose between Strength and Charisma.

You don't need to be the face guy (=put points in Charisma) to "persuade" people to cooperate. You don't need to be eloquent or witty in order to threaten people with extreme amounts of pain unless they do what they're told.

I understand intimidation is a kind of "presence", but requiring you to put points in Charisma means you become good at lots of other stuff. And you shouldn't need to be good at holding speeches or smooching the ladies just to be able to physically intimidate people.

Therefore, I think the best solution, game mechanics wise, is to allow Strength for Intimidation checks. It allows the Warrior archetype to pull off intimidation which suits that niche.

Of course, if your DM rules that you can get what you want even without Intimidation then I'm okay with keeping it as Charisma.

If Intimidation is the alternative you choose when you don't want to act like a complete psychopath and perform feats of extreme torture, then okay, let Intimidation be a Charisma thing, and you can also get what you want by calmly explaining to the captive you're going to cut them into very thin slices very slowly until they talk.

So I guess I'm saying that I see Intimidation as the "social" skill you use so you don't have to resort to despicable acts of physical brutality. And since you shouldn't need to be a ladies man or a bard or a politician in order to pull that off if you're a mountainous murder machine, I allow either Strength or Charisma, player's choice.

Not having to bring torture into the game, and having warriors be competent in making defeated people spill their guts (metaphorically speaking) just pragmatically makes it a better game.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ok, but my point is that the same situation also applied in 3.X!

No. You are missing ignoring or unaware of the difference between the amount of risk free movement 5e's opportunity attacks allow and 3.5 attacks of opportunity allowed.

 

[Vikingkingq]

No. You are missing ignoring or unaware of the difference between the amount of risk free movement 5e's opportunity attacks allow and 3.5 attacks of opportunity allowed.

I'm saying if the distances between enemy creatures in both cases are what you describe, then I don't see why you'd need to Tumble in 3.5 rather than walk around, since you're out of OA range.

 

[Pauln6]

I am making a distinction between Dex (Acrobatics) being used to jump versus being used to keep your balance on rough terrain after you jump.

I have not been paying full attention to all the conversations but skills have been almost entirely divorced from combat, even more so in 5.5. I think they are moving more towards strength saves rather than athletics checks for shoving etc. Dodging is not linked to acrobatics. The mobile feat has no skill requirements etc. Skill checks can be used in combat sometimes though.

So I suppose my question is more around what you propose within the bounds that we already have. Jumping distance is determined by the strength score. Are you proposing that Acrobatics and Athletics should be used to increase jumping distance? I agree with that, and it would make more sense if Acrobatics increased the distance more than Athletics to give strong characters a reason to be trained in it.

As far as tumbling (other than through an occupied square), this is now largely fluff. If you aren't leaving your enemy's reach, it's up to you to describe whether you are fighting to reposition or dodging/feinting your way into a better position. The Mobile feat doesn't specify any acrobatic skills so, again, it's up to the player to fluff how this works but is clearly the best way to emulate tumbling around. It costs no extra movement to pass through an occupied square, and no opportunity attacks as long as you have attacked your opponent in melee.

A rogue also has the option to dodge and use their bonus action to dash away (a better option if being targeted by ranged weapons) or withdraw and use their bonus action to dash away (a better option if faced with melee opportunity attacks).

So there seem to be many ways to emulate being an acrobat, just with fluff. I am more interested in knowing specifically how you would prefer to tweak the rules and what, specifically, you would like to achieve.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm saying if the distances between enemy creatures in both cases are what you describe, then I don't see why you'd need to Tumble in 3.5 rather than walk around, since you're out of OA range.

OA is a (useless) 5e mechanic designed to remove the very tactical elements that made the difference. It was not the rule in 3.5

 

[Vikingkingq]

So I suppose my question is more around what you propose within the bounds that we already have. Jumping distance is determined by the strength score. Are you proposing that Acrobatics and Athletics should be used to increase jumping distance? I agree with that, and it would make more sense if Acrobatics increased the distance more than Athletics to give strong characters a reason to be trained in it.

Needed a sec to check what I had been originally arguing, because it's been a while. So here I suggested that you could use Acrobatics to increase jumping distance instead of Athletics, keeping in mind that this would be while using Step of the Wind. And earlier I suggested allowing Step of the Wind to let you do an Acrobatics check as part of your movement instead of as an action.

 

[Mistwell]

I let the player choose between Strength and Charisma.

While I am more flexible than some with this, I don't think a blanket "player chooses" is right for our games. It really depends on what you're doing. Sure, if you're intimidating them with a threat of pain or death, then strength works. But if you're intimidating them with embarrassment or leaking their secrets or something other than direct physical harm, I just don't see how strength can be the right ability score for that situation. We've had a situation where a PC was trying to intimidate someone by use of a sending spell concerning a political power play - that NPC on the other end would not have cared how physically strong they were and more than they would have cared how dexterous they were.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Right, I think the choice requires a roleplaying justification that explains how you are going about it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

While I am more flexible than some with this, I don't think a blanket "player chooses" is right for our games. It really depends on what you're doing. Sure, if you're intimidating them with a threat of pain or death, then strength works. But if you're intimidating them with embarrassment or leaking their secrets or something other than direct physical harm, I just don't see how strength can be the right ability score for that situation. We've had a situation where a PC was trying to intimidate someone by use of a sending spell concerning a political power play - that NPC on the other end would not have cared how physically strong they were and more than they would have cared how dexterous they were.

personally that feels like it would be persuasion to me? though it does raise the question of where does persuasion end and intimidation begin? even with the blackmail aspect in that example it IMO leans to convincing someone through logic and words rather than posing as a danger and a threat.

 

[Mistwell]

personally that feels like it would be persuasion to me? though it does raise the question of where does persuasion end and intimidation begin? even with the blackmail aspect in that example it IMO leans to convincing someone through logic and words rather than posing as a danger and a threat.

Persuasion is "when you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature."

Threats are intimidation.