I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Unreasonable weakness's only. Variant skill checks should make sense. Not quite sure how a high charisma would help you blend in since a high charisma makes you stand out. But certainly people who are big and powerful, and lets say have a neutral, chaotic, or evil alignment, should be able to roll intimidation of their strength. In the mafia, both the ruthless personality and the leg breaker are used to intimidate.
I feel it's the same for Climbing, where Dex and Strength should be interchangeable based on the character class (rogue for building walls/ranger for trees and cliffs)
Cha is the default stat for disguising yourself. I think it stands to reason high Cha should allow you to look non-descript as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Im sorry, what?
I mean I guess on a technical level you are correct but at the same time why shouldn't a character that is very personable be able to make a check to find out some information by taking to somebody? Would it be better if they had to make a charisma persuasion check instead of a charisma investigation check? If either is a viable method and the character has proficiencies or expertise with both what difference does it make what sort of check they make?
If the function is the same, why does it matter what stat is rolled. You would always want to use the highest stat likely. I'm not going to ask to use my charisma to climb a mountain, however if I am trying to lure a dangerous animal away from my party, why couldn't I use a charisma animal handling check?
Because animal handling is a Wis based check. The 18 skills were laid out with as fair a distribution over the 5 abilities as possible. Now, you want to have a debate about whether Medicine should be Int based, or if Intimidation should be Str Based, that is reasonable.
But pick one ability for a skill, and then leave it at that. Jumping around allowing players to use something other that what the rules laid out, to gain an advantage, is power-gaming.
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Im sorry, what?
I mean I guess on a technical level you are correct but at the same time why shouldn't a character that is very personable be able to make a check to find out some information by taking to somebody? Would it be better if they had to make a charisma persuasion check instead of a charisma investigation check? If either is a viable method and the character has proficiencies or expertise with both what difference does it make what sort of check they make?
If the function is the same, why does it matter what stat is rolled. You would always want to use the highest stat likely. I'm not going to ask to use my charisma to climb a mountain, however if I am trying to lure a dangerous animal away from my party, why couldn't I use a charisma animal handling check?
Because animal handling is a Wis based check. The 18 skills were laid out with as fair a distribution over the 5 abilities as possible. Now, you want to have a debate about whether Medicine should be Int based, or if Intimidation should be Str Based, that is reasonable.
But pick one ability for a skill, and then leave it at that. Jumping around allowing players to use something other that what the rules laid out, to gain an advantage, is power-gaming.
What's the criterium used for fairness here? I'm kind of struggling to see how Str having one (and arguably a mediocre one at that, not one of the more valuable ones) associated skill is the result of fairness rather than some designer's idea of what's logical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Would it be different if I did the same thing but said i wanted to use a persuasion check?
Are you referring to the wild animal example?
Yes.
I would suggest that if the animal could understand a language that you spoke, then yeah, a Persuasion check based on CHA would be reasonable. Otherwise, no.
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Im sorry, what?
I mean I guess on a technical level you are correct but at the same time why shouldn't a character that is very personable be able to make a check to find out some information by taking to somebody? Would it be better if they had to make a charisma persuasion check instead of a charisma investigation check? If either is a viable method and the character has proficiencies or expertise with both what difference does it make what sort of check they make?
If the function is the same, why does it matter what stat is rolled. You would always want to use the highest stat likely. I'm not going to ask to use my charisma to climb a mountain, however if I am trying to lure a dangerous animal away from my party, why couldn't I use a charisma animal handling check?
Because animal handling is a Wis based check. The 18 skills were laid out with as fair a distribution over the 5 abilities as possible. Now, you want to have a debate about whether Medicine should be Int based, or if Intimidation should be Str Based, that is reasonable.
But pick one ability for a skill, and then leave it at that. Jumping around allowing players to use something other that what the rules laid out, to gain an advantage, is power-gaming.
Horse poopy.
Whenever Kevin Sorbo’s Hercules would casually bend something and toss it aside his character was most definitely making a Strength (Intimidation) check. When Kal Droggo casually walked onto his enemy’s blade to prove how badass he was, we was most definitely making a Constitution (Intimidation) check. Whenever Xena, Warrior Princess would flip her sword around for a minute before a fight, she was most assuredly making a Dexterity (Intimidation) check. And if I could remember the thing tickling at the back of my mind (probably a Dr. Spock or Khan or something else from Star Trek, maybe Data) I would have an example of an Intelligence (Intimidation) check for you too.
Would it be different if I did the same thing but said i wanted to use a persuasion check?
Are you referring to the wild animal example?
Yes.
I would suggest that if the animal could understand a language that you spoke, then yeah, a Persuasion check based on CHA would be reasonable. Otherwise, no.
I fail to see the difference if I can use a stat and proficiency that I am better suited for if it fills the same function. At that point, mechanically, the only thing that is changed is the name of the thing.
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Im sorry, what?
I mean I guess on a technical level you are correct but at the same time why shouldn't a character that is very personable be able to make a check to find out some information by taking to somebody? Would it be better if they had to make a charisma persuasion check instead of a charisma investigation check? If either is a viable method and the character has proficiencies or expertise with both what difference does it make what sort of check they make?
If the function is the same, why does it matter what stat is rolled. You would always want to use the highest stat likely. I'm not going to ask to use my charisma to climb a mountain, however if I am trying to lure a dangerous animal away from my party, why couldn't I use a charisma animal handling check?
Because animal handling is a Wis based check. The 18 skills were laid out with as fair a distribution over the 5 abilities as possible. Now, you want to have a debate about whether Medicine should be Int based, or if Intimidation should be Str Based, that is reasonable.
But pick one ability for a skill, and then leave it at that. Jumping around allowing players to use something other that what the rules laid out, to gain an advantage, is power-gaming.
What's the criterium used for fairness here? I'm kind of struggling to see how Str having one (and arguably a mediocre one at that, not one of the more valuable ones) associated skill is the result of fairness rather than some designer's idea of what's logical.
I understand that the sense of fairness can seem nebulous. What I object to is that the criteria can be expanded to an entire galaxy of potential ability checks that circumvent the intent of the rules. The Str based Intimidation roll is just one of them.
Say a player is a Rogue. I love playing Rogues. My Halfling Scout, at 4th level picks up Squat Nimbleness, and that gives him 9 skills, with Expertise in 4 of them (thanks 3rd level feature). My char also has Insight and Persuasion from the Guild Merchant Background. He is a skill monkey. That is OK, because that class is designed to work with that many skills. That is one of the main reasons to play a Rogue. To excel in non-combat situations.
Now, if my DM suddenly says "Mr Fighter, you can make a Intimidation roll using your Str bonus to intimidate a shop-keeper", when I am trying to use my Insight and Persuasion to negotiate with the ship-keeper, I am going to be very annoyed, as it steps all over the uniqueness of my character. The Fighter class is designed to have specific strengths and I assume weaknesses. The same can be said for a Rogue.
As soon as we get into this area of Cha based stealth moves, or Str based Intimidation rolls, or Int based Medicine rolls, or Cha based animal handling rolls, we are blurring all the lines of the uniqueness of each char.
Not using the rules and making it up = power gaming
What isn't apparently power gaming Vince?
Variant skills checks is a RAW rule, optional but still RAW. To sit here and say that the skills are laid out in "fairness" when the people who wrote the rules literally in the book say "But you can use different scores if you want" is the silliest argument.
Using Stealth (Dex) to blend into a crowd is no more viable than using Stealth (CHA) - I mean even Ezio uses is CHA to not be scene by guards. If Animal Handling (WIS) can be swapped out with Persuasion (CHA), then your argument about balance falls. Because the only difference between Animal Handling (CHA) or Persuasion (CHA) is if the PC has proficiency. and if they can just use Persuasion (CHA) to investigate a clue rather than Investigation (CHA) you are merely asking them players to "power game" more as they try to persuade their way through everything.
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Im sorry, what?
I mean I guess on a technical level you are correct but at the same time why shouldn't a character that is very personable be able to make a check to find out some information by taking to somebody? Would it be better if they had to make a charisma persuasion check instead of a charisma investigation check? If either is a viable method and the character has proficiencies or expertise with both what difference does it make what sort of check they make?
If the function is the same, why does it matter what stat is rolled. You would always want to use the highest stat likely. I'm not going to ask to use my charisma to climb a mountain, however if I am trying to lure a dangerous animal away from my party, why couldn't I use a charisma animal handling check?
Because animal handling is a Wis based check. The 18 skills were laid out with as fair a distribution over the 5 abilities as possible. Now, you want to have a debate about whether Medicine should be Int based, or if Intimidation should be Str Based, that is reasonable.
But pick one ability for a skill, and then leave it at that. Jumping around allowing players to use something other that what the rules laid out, to gain an advantage, is power-gaming.
What's the criterium used for fairness here? I'm kind of struggling to see how Str having one (and arguably a mediocre one at that, not one of the more valuable ones) associated skill is the result of fairness rather than some designer's idea of what's logical.
I understand that the sense of fairness can seem nebulous. What I object to is that the criteria can be expanded to an entire galaxy of potential ability checks that circumvent the intent of the rules. The Str based Intimidation roll is just one of them.
Say a player is a Rogue. I love playing Rogues. My Halfling Scout, at 4th level picks up Squat Nimbleness, and that gives him 9 skills, with Expertise in 4 of them (thanks 3rd level feature). My char also has Insight and Persuasion from the Guild Merchant Background. He is a skill monkey. That is OK, because that class is designed to work with that many skills. That is one of the main reasons to play a Rogue. To excel in non-combat situations.
Now, if my DM suddenly says "Mr Fighter, you can make a Intimidation roll using your Str bonus to intimidate a shop-keeper", when I am trying to use my Insight and Persuasion to negotiate with the ship-keeper, I am going to be very annoyed, as it steps all over the uniqueness of my character. The Fighter class is designed to have specific strengths and I assume weaknesses. The same can be said for a Rogue.
As soon as we get into this area of Cha based stealth moves, or Str based Intimidation rolls, or Int based Medicine rolls, or Cha based animal handling rolls, we are blurring all the lines of the uniqueness of each char.
And that is wrong.
Well characters that have all those skills are bad.
But you say it is against the "Intent of the rules" yet the book literally tells you to use them if you want. Variant skills are some left field homebrew - they are a variant option IN THE BOOK. They are by your definition RAW.
And guess what that fighter who tries to intimidate the shop keep by roll of force is not stepping on your toes. You were tryin to be nice and coy. You said you were using Per and Insight, they used Intimidation something you were not using. But I guess your rogue doesn't use weapons in battle right? Because that is stepping on the fighters territory.
Not to mention the NPC will react very differently when a persuasion fails, or an intimidation (CHA) fails, OR an intimidation (STR). One of them involved physical movements to scare the shop keep - that failure would surely get t he guards called. Where a simply threat via words would get you kicked out of the shop.
The skills are arranged in a way that made logic. But Clerics SUCK as religion unless they put stats in INT, same with druids and Nature. I mean a cleric is the embodiment of religion yet they are lucky if they get a +6 to the skill but top end games.
Allowing alternate uses for skill checks isn’t powergaming, it’s making it possible for the game to progress even when the characters don’t have the “proper” tools at hand. If overcoming the next challenge hinges on a successful *blank* roll in a party where no one is *blanky* then the adventure either ends right there or the DM allows the players to get creative with the improper tools that they do have.
If overcoming the next challenge hinges on a successful *blank* roll in a party where no one is *blanky* then the adventure either ends right there or the DM allows the players to get creative with the improper tools that they do have.
I agree but... why'd the DM set up a challenge nobody in the party had the tools or skills to tackle in the first place?
Even if it's a published adventure, the DM ought to read through it ahead of time and, knowing nobody has "Aracana" (or whatever), come up with an alternative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If overcoming the next challenge hinges on a successful *blank* roll in a party where no one is *blanky* then the adventure either ends right there or the DM allows the players to get creative with the improper tools that they do have.
I agree but... why'd the DM set up a challenge nobody in the party had the tools or skills to tackle in the first place?
Even if it's a published adventure, the DM ought to read through it ahead of time and, knowing nobody has "Aracana" (or whatever), come up with an alternative.
Sure, but at the same time some things just require X to do it.
However, campaigns should not be ended because someone couldn't do an Athletics check - but that is a different topic.
You’re coming at it from a player saying “I wanna make an intimidation check, but I wanna use Strength instead of Cha because it’s higher.” To which, as a DM I might say “how,” and depending on their answer I may very well say “you can certainly try.” But frankly, if the players are doing that constantly then they’re breaking my balls. The more accurate way to envision it would be for they Barbarian player to say that their character got bored of listening to the Rogue blahblah at the shopkeep. So their character walks up behind the Rogue still trying to swindle haggle with the shopkeep, pick up something heavy and metal and bend it while looking pointedly at the shopkeep. (Like B.A. would do standing behind Faceman while the Col. and Murdock were off somewhere else.) That’s when the DM says, okay, make an intimidation roll but use strength instead of charisma.
I'm a huge proponent of variant skill checks; Strength (Intimidation) for flexing your muscles to show how scary you are, or Charisma (Investigation) for asking around for clues. My personal favourite is Charisma (Stealth) to blend in with a crowd
The problem with your favourite is that it steps all over the Halfling Lightfoot sub-species feature of Naturally Stealthy: You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
What you are talking about are doing away with the rules in order to remove each char's weaknesses, by substituting a stronger ability into a skill check. That is just another form of power-gaming.
Im sorry, what?
I mean I guess on a technical level you are correct but at the same time why shouldn't a character that is very personable be able to make a check to find out some information by taking to somebody? Would it be better if they had to make a charisma persuasion check instead of a charisma investigation check? If either is a viable method and the character has proficiencies or expertise with both what difference does it make what sort of check they make?
If the function is the same, why does it matter what stat is rolled. You would always want to use the highest stat likely. I'm not going to ask to use my charisma to climb a mountain, however if I am trying to lure a dangerous animal away from my party, why couldn't I use a charisma animal handling check?
Because animal handling is a Wis based check. The 18 skills were laid out with as fair a distribution over the 5 abilities as possible. Now, you want to have a debate about whether Medicine should be Int based, or if Intimidation should be Str Based, that is reasonable.
But pick one ability for a skill, and then leave it at that. Jumping around allowing players to use something other that what the rules laid out, to gain an advantage, is power-gaming.
Horse poopy.
Whenever Kevin Sorbo’s Hercules would casually bend something and toss it aside his character was most definitely making a Strength (Intimidation) check. When Kal Droggo casually walked onto his enemy’s blade to prove how badass he was, we was most definitely making a Constitution (Intimidation) check. Whenever Xena, Warrior Princess would flip her sword around for a minute before a fight, she was most assuredly making a Dexterity (Intimidation) check. And if I could remember the thing tickling at the back of my mind (probably a Dr. Spock or Khan or something else from Star Trek, maybe Data) I would have an example of an Intelligence (Intimidation) check for you too.
Ooh ooh! Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes was constantly making Intelligence based Intimidation Checks!!!
And Doctor Who!! All of them!! (But Smith did it best.)
If overcoming the next challenge hinges on a successful *blank* roll in a party where no one is *blanky* then the adventure either ends right there or the DM allows the players to get creative with the improper tools that they do have.
I agree but... why'd the DM set up a challenge nobody in the party had the tools or skills to tackle in the first place?
Even if it's a published adventure, the DM ought to read through it ahead of time and, knowing nobody has "Aracana" (or whatever), come up with an alternative.
The wonderful thing about 5e, unlike many other systems, is that every character can be successful at any skill so the dice have to really have it in for your party for failure from all members. As well, the general advice is to have three or more solutions to every problem so that such a situation does not occur. Functionally though, what is the difference between the DM creating several discrete solutions, having the party fail all of them and then start getting creative or the DM having only one solution that the party fails so they have to start looking for creative solutions? At some point, the entire party is going to fail a challenge they face so what is the DM going to do then?
I say the DM needs to accommodate the party and the tools that they have to create success in some way, even when it seems contrived to do so or that they are coddling the players or tacitly supporting poor choices. Otherwise everyone gets to make a new character for a new campaign; this one is over since Vince cannot abide by the so-called powergaming that would allow it to continue. Seems a silly hill on which to kill your game is all, and definitely not a thing I would ever consider powergaming.
You’re coming at it from a player saying “I wanna make an intimidation check, but I wanna use Strength instead of Cha because it’s higher.” To which, as a DM I might say “how,” and depending on their answer I may very well say “you can certainly try.” But frankly, if the players are doing that constantly then they’re breaking my balls. The more accurate way to envision it would be for they Barbarian player to say that their character got bored of listening to the Rogue blahblah at the shopkeep. So their character walks up behind the Rogue still trying to swindle haggle with the shopkeep, pick up something heavy and metal and bend it while looking pointedly at the shopkeep. (Like B.A. would do standing behind Faceman while the Col. and Murdock were off somewhere else.) That’s when the DM says, okay, make an intimidation roll but use strength instead of charisma.
Let's look at this from another angle.
Say the group finds some item that sure looks magical, or has some kind of reference to the Arcane. Assume no one in the party has the Arcana skill (the Wizard got eaten by a Grue in the previous room).
Do you allow every single player to have a go at figuring out the significance of the item, or do you limit the group to one roll by the player best equipped to make the check? The same goes for Investigation checks for a potential trap, or while looking for a opening mechanism for a hidden door, or perception rolls for finding the door in the first place, or soothing the heart of a savage beast?
You’re coming at it from a player saying “I wanna make an intimidation check, but I wanna use Strength instead of Cha because it’s higher.” To which, as a DM I might say “how,” and depending on their answer I may very well say “you can certainly try.” But frankly, if the players are doing that constantly then they’re breaking my balls. The more accurate way to envision it would be for they Barbarian player to say that their character got bored of listening to the Rogue blahblah at the shopkeep. So their character walks up behind the Rogue still trying to swindle haggle with the shopkeep, pick up something heavy and metal and bend it while looking pointedly at the shopkeep. (Like B.A. would do standing behind Faceman while the Col. and Murdock were off somewhere else.) That’s when the DM says, okay, make an intimidation roll but use strength instead of charisma.
Let's look at this from another angle.
Say the group finds some item that sure looks magical, or has some kind of reference to the Arcane. Assume no one in the party has the Arcana skill (the Wizard got eaten by a Grue in the previous room).
Do you allow every single player to have a go at figuring out the significance of the item, or do you limit the group to one roll by the player best equipped to make the check? The same goes for Investigation checks for a potential trap, or while looking for a opening mechanism for a hidden door, or perception rolls for finding the door in the first place, or soothing the heart of a savage beast?
Again just saying, its not really your problem to solve, its the players problem to solve. The rule in general is that one player makes a check, others might help to get a bonus... If they fail, they will have to solve the problem in some other way. Sometimes they wont find a solution and will simply have to live with the failure.
But ultimately, it is up to the DM to adjudicate. The players don't tell the DM "I am making skill roll X using ability Y". The DM tells the players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cha is the default stat for disguising yourself. I think it stands to reason high Cha should allow you to look non-descript as well.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Because animal handling is a Wis based check. The 18 skills were laid out with as fair a distribution over the 5 abilities as possible. Now, you want to have a debate about whether Medicine should be Int based, or if Intimidation should be Str Based, that is reasonable.
But pick one ability for a skill, and then leave it at that. Jumping around allowing players to use something other that what the rules laid out, to gain an advantage, is power-gaming.
Would it be different if I did the same thing but said i wanted to use a persuasion check?
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Are you referring to the wild animal example?
What's the criterium used for fairness here? I'm kind of struggling to see how Str having one (and arguably a mediocre one at that, not one of the more valuable ones) associated skill is the result of fairness rather than some designer's idea of what's logical.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I would suggest that if the animal could understand a language that you spoke, then yeah, a Persuasion check based on CHA would be reasonable. Otherwise, no.
Horse poopy.
Whenever Kevin Sorbo’s Hercules would casually bend something and toss it aside his character was most definitely making a Strength (Intimidation) check. When Kal Droggo casually walked onto his enemy’s blade to prove how badass he was, we was most definitely making a Constitution (Intimidation) check. Whenever Xena, Warrior Princess would flip her sword around for a minute before a fight, she was most assuredly making a Dexterity (Intimidation) check. And if I could remember the thing tickling at the back of my mind (probably a Dr. Spock or Khan or something else from Star Trek, maybe Data) I would have an example of an Intelligence (Intimidation) check for you too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I fail to see the difference if I can use a stat and proficiency that I am better suited for if it fills the same function. At that point, mechanically, the only thing that is changed is the name of the thing.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I understand that the sense of fairness can seem nebulous. What I object to is that the criteria can be expanded to an entire galaxy of potential ability checks that circumvent the intent of the rules. The Str based Intimidation roll is just one of them.
Say a player is a Rogue. I love playing Rogues. My Halfling Scout, at 4th level picks up Squat Nimbleness, and that gives him 9 skills, with Expertise in 4 of them (thanks 3rd level feature). My char also has Insight and Persuasion from the Guild Merchant Background. He is a skill monkey. That is OK, because that class is designed to work with that many skills. That is one of the main reasons to play a Rogue. To excel in non-combat situations.
Now, if my DM suddenly says "Mr Fighter, you can make a Intimidation roll using your Str bonus to intimidate a shop-keeper", when I am trying to use my Insight and Persuasion to negotiate with the ship-keeper, I am going to be very annoyed, as it steps all over the uniqueness of my character. The Fighter class is designed to have specific strengths and I assume weaknesses. The same can be said for a Rogue.
As soon as we get into this area of Cha based stealth moves, or Str based Intimidation rolls, or Int based Medicine rolls, or Cha based animal handling rolls, we are blurring all the lines of the uniqueness of each char.
And that is wrong.
Using the rules = power gaming
Not using the rules and making it up = power gaming
What isn't apparently power gaming Vince?
Variant skills checks is a RAW rule, optional but still RAW. To sit here and say that the skills are laid out in "fairness" when the people who wrote the rules literally in the book say "But you can use different scores if you want" is the silliest argument.
Using Stealth (Dex) to blend into a crowd is no more viable than using Stealth (CHA) - I mean even Ezio uses is CHA to not be scene by guards. If Animal Handling (WIS) can be swapped out with Persuasion (CHA), then your argument about balance falls. Because the only difference between Animal Handling (CHA) or Persuasion (CHA) is if the PC has proficiency. and if they can just use Persuasion (CHA) to investigate a clue rather than Investigation (CHA) you are merely asking them players to "power game" more as they try to persuade their way through everything.
Well characters that have all those skills are bad.
But you say it is against the "Intent of the rules" yet the book literally tells you to use them if you want. Variant skills are some left field homebrew - they are a variant option IN THE BOOK. They are by your definition RAW.
And guess what that fighter who tries to intimidate the shop keep by roll of force is not stepping on your toes. You were tryin to be nice and coy. You said you were using Per and Insight, they used Intimidation something you were not using. But I guess your rogue doesn't use weapons in battle right? Because that is stepping on the fighters territory.
Not to mention the NPC will react very differently when a persuasion fails, or an intimidation (CHA) fails, OR an intimidation (STR). One of them involved physical movements to scare the shop keep - that failure would surely get t he guards called. Where a simply threat via words would get you kicked out of the shop.
The skills are arranged in a way that made logic. But Clerics SUCK as religion unless they put stats in INT, same with druids and Nature. I mean a cleric is the embodiment of religion yet they are lucky if they get a +6 to the skill but top end games.
Allowing alternate uses for skill checks isn’t powergaming, it’s making it possible for the game to progress even when the characters don’t have the “proper” tools at hand. If overcoming the next challenge hinges on a successful *blank* roll in a party where no one is *blanky* then the adventure either ends right there or the DM allows the players to get creative with the improper tools that they do have.
I agree but... why'd the DM set up a challenge nobody in the party had the tools or skills to tackle in the first place?
Even if it's a published adventure, the DM ought to read through it ahead of time and, knowing nobody has "Aracana" (or whatever), come up with an alternative.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Sure, but at the same time some things just require X to do it.
However, campaigns should not be ended because someone couldn't do an Athletics check - but that is a different topic.
Snetterton,
You’re coming at it from a player saying “I wanna make an intimidation check, but I wanna use Strength instead of Cha because it’s higher.” To which, as a DM I might say “how,” and depending on their answer I may very well say “you can certainly try.” But frankly, if the players are doing that constantly then they’re breaking my balls. The more accurate way to envision it would be for they Barbarian player to say that their character got bored of listening to the Rogue blahblah at the shopkeep. So their character walks up behind the Rogue still trying to
swindlehaggle with the shopkeep, pick up something heavy and metal and bend it while looking pointedly at the shopkeep. (Like B.A. would do standing behind Faceman while the Col. and Murdock were off somewhere else.) That’s when the DM says, okay, make an intimidation roll but use strength instead of charisma.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ooh ooh! Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes was constantly making Intelligence based Intimidation Checks!!!
And Doctor Who!! All of them!! (But Smith did it best.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The wonderful thing about 5e, unlike many other systems, is that every character can be successful at any skill so the dice have to really have it in for your party for failure from all members. As well, the general advice is to have three or more solutions to every problem so that such a situation does not occur. Functionally though, what is the difference between the DM creating several discrete solutions, having the party fail all of them and then start getting creative or the DM having only one solution that the party fails so they have to start looking for creative solutions? At some point, the entire party is going to fail a challenge they face so what is the DM going to do then?
I say the DM needs to accommodate the party and the tools that they have to create success in some way, even when it seems contrived to do so or that they are coddling the players or tacitly supporting poor choices. Otherwise everyone gets to make a new character for a new campaign; this one is over since Vince cannot abide by the so-called powergaming that would allow it to continue. Seems a silly hill on which to kill your game is all, and definitely not a thing I would ever consider powergaming.
Let's look at this from another angle.
Say the group finds some item that sure looks magical, or has some kind of reference to the Arcane. Assume no one in the party has the Arcana skill (the Wizard got eaten by a Grue in the previous room).
Do you allow every single player to have a go at figuring out the significance of the item, or do you limit the group to one roll by the player best equipped to make the check? The same goes for Investigation checks for a potential trap, or while looking for a opening mechanism for a hidden door, or perception rolls for finding the door in the first place, or soothing the heart of a savage beast?
But ultimately, it is up to the DM to adjudicate. The players don't tell the DM "I am making skill roll X using ability Y". The DM tells the players.