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

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure, but this distinction doesn't mean much in practical play. Lemme explain:

If you play a brutish Fighter, and your DM tells you you need to use Charisma if you threaten to leak their secrets, you... simply switch to threatening them with bodily harm if that allows you to use an ability score you're actually good at. You might have wanted to play mind games, but then you realize that's not what you do well, so you instead rip off the arms of the other prisoner to show the target what you're capable off, or something.

Of course, then there's the greater question of "what type of character and personality do I want to play?"

If you dump Charisma, there you have your answer. You're simply not going to cajole answers out of people. You have to make them so scared of you they tell you what you need to know, which can be an unsavory business.

You made that choice, not in the moment, but back when when you put 8 into Charisma and 18 into Strength.

But at least now the game offers you a choice.

Imagine a game where Charisma is the only possible ability score for Intimidation skill checks. This game becomes a game where the traditional fighter gives up on Intimidation altogether, because who takes a skill you're going to suck at? More importantly, it doesn't feel especially realistic. And it sets a bad precedent that the only people good at Intimidation are also good at entertaining at the local tavern and romancing the ladies.

Intimidation just isn't a good fit for a "Charisma-only" solution.

It makes plenty of practical sense to allow Fighters to use Strength for Intimidation checks, since that signals to players that Intimidation is one of the skill you might want to pick up for your Fighter, with no need to become "charismatic" in general.

Yes. Sometimes strength is warranted for intimidation. Sometimes dex is warranted to entertain people.

 

[CapnZapp]

None of that matters. You are just confusing things with trying to turn every different kind of muscle use into strength. The game appropriately separates out muscles that produce agility into dex, and muscles that produce stamina and physique into con, because that simplifies things.

If this is an attempt to justify the earlier topic, that it's natural and good and right that rogues should not be able to jump and climb without wasting points in Strength, the I call naughty word.

Let's agree that Gygax needed to draw some distinctions. He chose to single out Strength as one ability and Dexterity as another.

He could have made a dozen other choices, like thousands of games have shown. These alternative solutions are just as valid as the one D&D uses.

Each such choice funnels some actions into one ability and not into another. In the case of D&D it gets wonky if you try to be inflexible and say you need both Strength and Dexterity.

Much better to think of Strength as the Fighter's physical ability and Dexterity as the Rogue's physical ability.

 

[Pauln6]

Most bouncers are not using charisma to stop people pushing into a venue. The threat of violence is implied by their great strength and reputation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If this is an attempt to justify the earlier topic, that it's natural and good and right that rogues should not be able to jump and climb without wasting points in Strength, the I call naughty word.

Let's agree that Gygax needed to draw some distinctions. He chose to single out Strength as one ability and Dexterity as another.

He could have made a dozen other choices, like thousands of games have shown. These alternative solutions are just as valid as the one D&D uses.

Good point.

Each such choice funnels some actions into one ability and not into another.

Here it starts getting wonky. If a line is drawn, at least use those lines.
Maybe have a certain overlap. That is good. But a rogue with expertise in athletics easily leaves the fighter behind when climbing. At least if the rogue did not totally dump str.
Are there situations where str, can be comoletetely substituted with dex? Yes. Probably. But not all. Also there should be benefits for anyone investing in both scores. Why have two score if one is as good as the other.
Or why have str, if dex does everything str does and more. This is why we have so many threads how overpowered dex is. Because everyone is allowed to use dex for everything.

In the case of D&D it gets wonky if you try to be inflexible and say you need both Strength and Dexterity.

You don't need both. Thieves and monks have special abilities to use dex in place of str sometimes. And special movement options that will help them climb and jump. So class fantasy is held up even without high str.

Much better to think of Strength as the Fighter's physical ability and Dexterity as the Rogue's physical ability.

This is a good thinking and true for most situations. If you really want this, you should do as @Horwath suggested and combine STR with CON. Maybe change the HP formula a bit so CON is less important here. And DEX and STR can both be used to move in any dimension.

And now you can have rogues that are great at everything related movement even if they dump STR/CON, but they pay for that with a little bit less toughness (especially con saves).
But they are better at mental things.

Or rogues who have both dex and str/con who are tougher.

And when we are reducing one stat, I'd also probably remove wisdom as a stat. Casters that get by with knowledge (priests, druids and wizards) just use int. Knowledge and perception is int now.
Everything else goes to charisma. Resisting charms and fear. Everything that has to do with people.

 

[Mistwell]

Imagine a game where Charisma is the only possible ability score for Intimidation skill checks.

You mean, imagine the default game?

This game becomes a game where the traditional fighter gives up on Intimidation altogether, because who takes a skill you're going to suck at?

When I play a rogue with an 8 strength, I choose Athletics every time as a proficient skill. I find it's just too useful to have a negative -2 at it rather than what becomes a +1 fairly quickly in the game.

Fighters get fewer skill choices though.

More importantly, it doesn't feel especially realistic. And it sets a bad precedent that the only people good at Intimidation are also good at entertaining at the local tavern and romancing the ladies.

Intimidation just isn't a good fit for a "Charisma-only" solution.

It makes plenty of practical sense to allow Fighters to use Strength for Intimidation checks, since that signals to players that Intimidation is one of the skill you might want to pick up for your Fighter, with no need to become "charismatic" in general.

I understand the theory behind allowing strength, but it isn't always the appropriate stat either. I gave the example and in those instances, strength for intimidation doesn't work while the default rule that charisma is the stat does work.

 

[Mistwell]

Most bouncers are not using charisma to stop people pushing into a venue. The threat of violence is implied by their great strength and reputation.

Eh in my experience, which isn't all that extensive, they use charisma more often. Bouncers persuade people to not make a scene, to understand the rules and why they are the way they are, to get a cab or Uber rather than drive home if they leave drunk, and those sorts of things more than strength. Just being strong is enough for some situations but not for a lot of things the bouncer encounters.

 

[Maxperson]

If this is an attempt to justify the earlier topic, that it's natural and good and right that rogues should not be able to jump and climb without wasting points in Strength, the I call naughty word.

Let's say the rogue rolled a 12 for strength. The rogue puts expertise in athletics and stealth. The rogue at 1st level, the putz level, has +5 to his climbing ability which is fantastically good at 1st level and improves quite nicely in a bounded system where most of the DCs. will be 10 or 15.

As for jumping, 12 feet automatically is some good stuff and you can push farther with an athletics check.

 

[James Gasik]

Let's say the rogue rolled a 12 for strength. The rogue puts expertise in athletics and stealth. The rogue at 1st level, the putz level, has +5 to his climbing ability which is fantastically good at 1st level and improves quite nicely in a bounded system where most of the DCs. will be 10 or 15.

As for jumping, 12 feet automatically is some good stuff and you can push farther with an athletics check.

You might be able to push farther with an Athletics check. How much farther? At what DC? Ask your DM, because nobody knows, lol.

 

[Maxperson]

You might be able to push farther with an Athletics check. How much farther? At what DC? Ask your DM, because nobody knows, lol.

That's absolutely true!!! I have yet to see a DM who says you can't do it, but the methods vary considerably since there is literally no guidance on it at all. lol

 

[tetrasodium]

That's absolutely true!!! I have yet to see a DM who says you can't do it, but the methods vary considerably since there is literally no guidance on it at all. lol

The black hole there is especially frustrating as a GM given how past editions were quite clear on it with values that actually make sense with a game based on 5ft squares

Spoiler: the 4e rule

Jump
Make an Athletics check to jump vertically to reach a
dangling rope or a high ledge or to jump horizontally
to leap across a pit, a patch of difficult terrain, a low
wall, or some other obstacle.

High Jump: Part of a move action.
✦ Distance Jumped Vertically: Make an Athletics
check and divide your check result by 10 (round
down). This is the number of feet you can leap up.
The result determines the height that your feet clear
with a jump. To determine if you can reach some-
thing while leaping, add your character’s height plus
one-third rounded down (a 6-foot-tall character
would add 8 feet to the final distance, and a 4-foot-
tall character would add 5 feet).
✦ Running Start: If you move at least 2 squares
before making the jump, divide your check result by
5, not 10.
✦ Uses Movement: Count the number of squares you
jump as part of your move. If you run out of move-
ment, you fall. You can end your first move in midair
if you double move (page 284).

Example: Marc, a 6-foot-tall human, attempts
a high jump to catch a rope dangling 12 feet over-
head. His check result is 26. With a running start,
he leaps the distance (26 ÷ 5 = 5 feet, plus his height
and one-third for a final reach of 13 feet). If Marc
leaps from a standing position, he can’t quite reach
the end of the rope (26 ÷ 10 = 2 feet for a final reach
of 10 feet).

Long Jump: Part of a move action.
✦ Distance Jumped Horizontally: Make an Athlet-
ics check and divide your check result by 10 (don’t
round the result). This is the number of squares you
can leap across. You land in the square determined
by your result. If you end up over a pit or a chasm,
you fall and lose the rest of your move action.
✦ Distance Cleared Vertically: The vertical distance you
clear is equal to one-quarter of the distance you jumped
horizontally. If you could not clear the vertical distance
of an obstacle along the way, you hit the obstacle, fall
prone, and lose the rest of your move action.
✦ Running Start: If you move at least 2 squares
before making the jump, divide your check result by
5, not 10.
✦ Uses Movement: Count the number of squares you
jump as part of your move. If you run out of move-
ment, you fall. You can end your first move in midair
if you double move (page 284).

Example: Marc attempts a long jump to clear a
5-foot-high wall of thorns and the 10-foot-wide pit
beyond it. His check result is 24. With a running start,
he easily jumps the distance (24 ÷ 5 = 4.8 squares or
24 feet) and clears the wall (24 ÷ 4 = 6 feet). If Marc
jumps from a standing position, he can’t quite make
it across the pit (24 ÷ 10 = 2.4 squares or 12 feet) and
doesn’t clear the wall (12 ÷ 4 = 3 feet). He hits the wall
of thorns and falls prone before reaching the pit.

Spoiler: the absurdly simple 3.5 rule

Long Jump Distance Jump DC1
5 feet 5
10 feet 10
15 feet 15
20 feet 20
25 feet 25
30 feet 30
1 Requires a 20-foot running start. Without a running start, double the
DC.




Creature Size Vertical Reach
Colossal 128 ft.
Gargantuan 64 ft.
Huge 32 ft.
Large 16 ft.
Medium 8 ft.
Small 4 ft.
Tiny 2 ft.
Diminutive 1 ft.
Fine 1/2 ft.
To be fair I did not copy the text explaining concepts like vertical & horizontal, There was also a couple edge cases mentioned like a reflex save to grab the edge after a jump doesn't clear & such