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.
This doesn't clarify the fairness argument any, but I'll move on (though I'll say Animal Handling should, IMO obviously, be a Cha based skill and likely the only reason it isn't is that that wouldn't gel with Druids and Rangers favoring Wis over Cha - not sure what's 'fair' about that).
Your example suggests that having an intimidating fighter in the party diminishes the uniqueness of your skillful negotiator rogue, despite the two characters involved being completely different and acting in a completely different manner. I really don't see how that makes sense. Moreover, personally I'd require a display of that strength would be in order for the intimidation and a smooth-tongued conversation for the persuasion - which would only illustrate the uniqueness of the characters even more.
It's just silly to make hiding in plain sight by using the crowd Dex-based. Being nimble doesn't let you blend in. At the same time, trying to disappear among the masses is an interesting, non-standard tactical choice on the player's part. Why would I not encourage that? This is the exact kind of thing I hope to see, because it makes for good sessions and creative play.
Honestly, I see only positives to using alternative ability/skill pairings whenever appropriate (which is still going to be a minority of cases, but hopefully not a negligibly small minority)..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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?
Any player who comes up with a plausible way to try (that actually has a chance of success) gets to make that attempt. In the case of figuring out what an arcane item is or does without any arcane experience, it's probably going to be unlikely any attempt is possible - though I'd enjoy a creative idea proving me wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
The players tell the DM what their character does. Only then does the DM tell them what kind of roll to make, if any.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
The players should be allowed to ask, "Can I try to use this ability here?" I wouldn't object to them asking.
In fact just the other night, my party came back from the Astral Sea on a small catamaran that they had been controlling in the Astral by willpower, but in the mortal world that is not possible, and none of them know how to sail. There are 5 PCs, so I had prepped 5 ship positions that needed manning (Captain, Sailing Master, etc...), and then abilities that go with each one. They don't have training, so I had them make raw ability checks with no proficiency bonus. The high-INT Eldritch Knight, took over as Captain. She is a former soldier in the Roman army and veteran of multiple past actions, asked if she could use her experience of having been on ships, heard captains giving orders, watched sailors in action, etc., would there be some skill she could use to help her out? I have no problem with this -- players know their characters, and it was a reasonable idea. I told her to make a history check, and if she passed it, I would give her advantage on the Int-roll for the Captain's duties. She rolled a nat 1, LOL -- but that is not the point. The point is, I think it is fine for players to ask if a skill might apply here, or suggest a possible way their abilities could work with their skills. As long as they don't argue with me if I say no -- and I try to find a way to say yes if it is at all reasonable (like this one was).
Again, luckily I have good players so they don't usually come up with stuff that doesn't make sense for their characters.
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.
I think as a DM we should work with the players to help them come up with creative ways to use their characters' abilities. Will they always succeed? No. But if I can find a way to make it into a roll, even a high-DC one, I will allow it.
Sometimes I will tell them the DC ahead of time so they know, if I say "Nope," I didn't just say roll and pre-decide it would fail.
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.
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.
The players should be allowed to ask, "Can I try to use this ability here?" I wouldn't object to them asking.
In fact just the other night, my party came back from the Astral Sea on a small catamaran that they had been controlling in the Astral by willpower, but in the mortal world that is not possible, and none of them know how to sail. There are 5 PCs, so I had prepped 5 ship positions that needed manning (Captain, Sailing Master, etc...), and then abilities that go with each one. They don't have training, so I had them make raw ability checks with no proficiency bonus. The high-INT Eldritch Knight, took over as Captain. She is a former soldier in the Roman army and veteran of multiple past actions, asked if she could use her experience of having been on ships, heard captains giving orders, watched sailors in action, etc., would there be some skill she could use to help her out? I have no problem with this -- players know their characters, and it was a reasonable idea. I told her to make a history check, and if she passed it, I would give her advantage on the Int-roll for the Captain's duties. She rolled a nat 1, LOL -- but that is not the point. The point is, I think it is fine for players to ask if a skill might apply here, or suggest a possible way their abilities could work with their skills. As long as they don't argue with me if I say no -- and I try to find a way to say yes if it is at all reasonable (like this one was).
Again, luckily I have good players so they don't usually come up with stuff that doesn't make sense for their characters.
I completely agree with you, Aslong as the PC can come up with a way that is logical, specific checks can be used where normally a different check was supposed to be rolled. A few ideas for these are: If you want to climb up onto a house and the house has another one next to it, the PC can ask if they can use their acrobatics to jump in between the walls of the two houses up to the top. At this point you have made a valid argument on what you want to do and the DM can allow it depending on things like how much distance there is between the two houses and set a DC depending on that.
Another one is if a person wants to check for traps but is not good in investigating and asks if they can use perception to check for specific details that can hint to there being a trap. The DM can then give them the option to do that instead of an investigation check but if the trap doesn't leave any hints behind that you can perceive or if the hints are extremely hard to see then the DC will be way higher then a normal investigation check or pretty much impossible for that character to make.
It all depends is it viable and can the players find a good reason for it. If they have the DM can allow it but also point out specific details like what you are trying to do is way harder then doing it the normal way so the DC is higher. Also the DM can also just say that you cannot do it and at that point you should accept it even though you don't like it sometimes.
Obviously having dexterity is important for climbing, but it's not sufficient. If you have very little functional strength (maybe you've been bedridden for months, maybe you're elderly) no amount of coordination and balance is going to get you up a cliff face. That's why Strength is a better default.
Ability checks only come into play if success isn't guaranteed. Depending on what's being climbed, the weather conditions and the DM's judgement there could be multiple ways to approach the challenge, calling for different ability checks.
You can't be dexterous if you ain't strong. But it's a different kind of strength. You can't have an 18 dex and not have some kind of functional strength or else how are you getting those damage bonuses on your Bow? Ever Shoot a bow? you need strength. Acrobats? ever do a pull up? you need strength. Grapple. Ever Tap someone twice your size? Toss someone? You need strength. IT is way easier to climb being light than being strong. any climber will back that up. THey also havwe very strong hands. BUt a 145 lb mountain climber that can scale a cliff barehanded isn't the type of strong that an 18 strength is meant to translate too. I feel like that's written by nerds who watch Andre the giant carry two people up a rope and think somewhere thats a real thing. Or Conan scaling the side of the temple barehanded. That's not real.
I would think that a negative modifier in Charisma would be a PLUS to intimidation in combination with a Strength Intimidation check. "The Teifling death knight grabs the kobold by the neck and slowly begins to squeeze, his horrid scars (8 charisma), repulsive features and glowing fire flamed eyes (Thaumaturgy) burning with hate as he says "Tell me where the hidden entrance is"...
Using other stats to intimidate aside, I want to point out that Charisma is not about how pretty you are. It's about the force of your personality and degree to which you make an impression on others. Negative charisma isn't best represented by "repulsively ugly"; it's supposed to be "forgettable" or "not worth a second glance." Thus someone with naturally low charisma is not going to be good at traditional intimidation (and IMO should probably be at least a bit worse at Intimidation based on other stats as well - if the 'natural' ability score modifier is negative, I'd apply as a penalty it to the check regardless of the ability used).
As for subbing in other stats to skills, in my experience when some players are given the ability to use STR for Intimidation, Animal Handling, Performance, and so forth, their roleplaying can degrade to "I use my muscles" for every challenge. I think it's a really good tool, but I also prefer to save it for exceptional cases.
My response would be "Describe what you're trying to do and I'll tell you what skill it uses".
Sure, but sometimes players, especially experienced ones, will ask the question like this: "Is there any way that my History knowledge could work here, given my background knowing X, Y, and Z?" or "Is there some way I can check body language to see if he's lying, maybe make an Insight check?"
I'm not going to grouse about it just because they couch their RP in some game terms. Savvy players know the rules, and 3 of my players have been DMs before, so I don't mind if they ask if they can make an Insight check or a Persuasion check... as long as they don't say "I'm making an Insight check" without me calling for it.
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.
Most skills IRL require a mix of abilities. Animal handling involves body language (Cha) as well as wisdom, Stealthy movelment involves the wisdom to place place your feet where you wont make a noise the abilty to breath silently even if you have just been exerting yourself (con) as much as placing that foot on the ground in such a way that it is silent. In fact it could well be argues that hiding while stationary does not use dex at all but rather the ability to make yourself not visible in your surrounding cover (wisdom or intelligence) and well as to control your breathing (con). In reality you need all of the abilities but have climbing Athletics (average of strength and Dex), swimming accross a river athletics (average of strength and con) etc would just make it far to complex to be written in the rules so the rules give a "usual" abilty for each skill but give the DM the option to use a different skill where appropriate.
BioWiz has said it as a few others have. If you can present a reasonable cause to perform X check using Y modifier, then the DM will most likely allow it. If you say "I'm rolling Intimidation using Strength" there is a good chance I won't refer to my notes and you will simply fail it. A player who says "I stand and loom over him, glaring down with as much anger as I can manage to get into my look, before asking..." I might get a Str checked Intimidation, or even Con, if you're just glaring down at him (how BIG BAD AND UGLY are you?) Climbing, to address the specific initial post, I may allow an Acrobatics, if there's cause...a rope, drainpipe, jutting window sills, etc. Plain old climbing with everyday handholds and footholds, I will look for flat Strength, as it's the one that best fits. Strength in your hands (fingers) feet, arms, all of it. Crossing a chasm using a rope, you could do either, Acrobatics or Athletics, since you could try to tightrope/squirrel crawl it or just hand over hand power cross it.
It's situational and I don't have issue with allowing a player to try something if their idea and the "logic" behind it makes sense, So far as the persuasion/smooth talker being "stepped on" by the intimidation, keep in mind the intimidations will likely only work the once, Smooth talking and swinging a deal will pave the way for future dealings. Don't be so shorts sighted and narrow minded when considering approaches that you overlook the negative and positive after effects each path might offer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
You are missing an important part of the core loop of roleplaying games - the consequences.
The players tell the GM the desired outcome and the method. The GM determines and narrates the actual outcome and the consequences.
That fighter may have intimidated the shopkeeper to give them a lower price (your desired outcome) but the consequnce is different. The shopkeeper is now sullen, scared of the party, and resentful. Maybe they go report the party to the guards. Maybe they badmouth the party to the local guild or to other merchants (resulting in higher prices later). Maybe they don't offer information that they might have otherwise.
Your rogue and the fighter still have their uniqueness, because their actions, while achieving the same outcome, have different consequences.
For another example, consider opening a door. Your rogue could pick the lock. The fighter could kick the door down. Both achieve the same outcome (opening the door) but have different consequences (picking the lock takes longer but is silent and leaves the door able to be locked again afterwards, kicking the door is quick but makes a lot of noise and permanently damages the door).
BioWiz has said it as a few others have. If you can present a reasonable cause to perform X check using Y modifier, then the DM will most likely allow it. If you say "I'm rolling Intimidation using Strength" there is a good chance I won't refer to my notes and you will simply fail it. A player who says "I stand and loom over him, glaring down with as much anger as I can manage to get into my look, before asking..." I might get a Str checked Intimidation, or even Con, if you're just glaring down at him (how BIG BAD AND UGLY are you?) Climbing, to address the specific initial post, I may allow an Acrobatics, if there's cause...a rope, drainpipe, jutting window sills, etc. Plain old climbing with everyday handholds and footholds, I will look for flat Strength, as it's the one that best fits. Strength in your hands (fingers) feet, arms, all of it. Crossing a chasm using a rope, you could do either, Acrobatics or Athletics, since you could try to tightrope/squirrel crawl it or just hand over hand power cross it.
It's situational and I don't have issue with allowing a player to try something if their idea and the "logic" behind it makes sense, So far as the persuasion/smooth talker being "stepped on" by the intimidation, keep in mind the intimidations will likely only work the once, Smooth talking and swinging a deal will pave the way for future dealings. Don't be so shorts sighted and narrow minded when considering approaches that you overlook the negative and positive after effects each path might offer.
I definitely would not attempt an intimidation check strength based for anything other than threatening a life to get the information I want regardless of some consequence. I am assuming anyone allowing a strength based intimidation check realizes the character is playing the role of Brute. Afraid of a bear and it's growl? Yes? why? because its big and scary. Not the same as being afraid of the a drow cleric. it's obviously a different kind of intimidation. The strength check is to say "I will bash your head in with one blow if you don't answer". And as far as possible consequences, the victim pooping his pants and passing out may make for a fun way to fail.
I think the bending the bar thing is a perfect example. Being scary is one way to be intimidating and being charismatic is another. We fear big, dangerous things. Bears don't need to charisma to make you poop your pants. They are big as hell and can tear you to pieces and one roar and a charge you you get it. You are now their bi&ch.
And I say yes to the example. Everyone gets a shot. Why? Because jumping over a trap everyone made it but me cause I rolled a 1. A ONE!!! I fell in and took four hit points damage. I will never live that down. The rogue failed a jump everyone else passed....
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.
Well I would assume that's a disguise or performance roll so I get it now.
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 don't know about charisma for animals because very snakey people can be charismatic but that Doesn't mean it works for animals, who can sense a more pure form of beauty, AKA wisdom. Rangers are solitary people who don't like other humanoids generally and do not like humanoid society for its love of deception, and animals live in this more honest world. If anything, charism can be viewed quite the opposite of wisdom for animal handling.
I think a lot of the problem is that Intimidation either doesn't make sense at all, or is badly explained.
The basic logic of intimidation is that you want to convince your target that the cost of resisting is greater than the cost of giving you what you want. As the target, I have to guess at the following:
How likely is it that you'll actually try to harm me? (you might be unwilling to pay the costs of attacking me)
How effective are you likely to do if you do decide to harm me?
What does it cost me to prevent you from harming me?
What other options to prevent you from harming me do I have? (running away yelling for the guards is actually usually a failure).
A demonstration of force is relevant to (2), and is something that strength can reasonably do (as can other stats), but the others are all best interpreted as charisma or just situational modifiers.
SO a LOT of great opinions on this thread and conversations. Being That for my fighter, I have a low charisma, I decided to add Intimidation as a proficiency, so that there is a reasonable explanation for using strength when performing an intimidation check, as I don't have the personaility to perform any other charisma checks, but I am one, big, scary Tiefling dude. I think that's the most reasonable outlook and ofcourse I will automatically fail if I try to intimidate from behind a cell in my underwear where I am no threat.
As far as Jump, maybe if my DM agrees I will add Athletics to roll with DEX on jump and climb ONLY . Of course carrying a boulder or knocking down doors is out of the question (as far as using athletics for that), and will be a strength check as normal.
I think these are fair "offers" and of course I understand the DM has every right to handle things how he sees fit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This doesn't clarify the fairness argument any, but I'll move on (though I'll say Animal Handling should, IMO obviously, be a Cha based skill and likely the only reason it isn't is that that wouldn't gel with Druids and Rangers favoring Wis over Cha - not sure what's 'fair' about that).
Your example suggests that having an intimidating fighter in the party diminishes the uniqueness of your skillful negotiator rogue, despite the two characters involved being completely different and acting in a completely different manner. I really don't see how that makes sense. Moreover, personally I'd require a display of that strength would be in order for the intimidation and a smooth-tongued conversation for the persuasion - which would only illustrate the uniqueness of the characters even more.
It's just silly to make hiding in plain sight by using the crowd Dex-based. Being nimble doesn't let you blend in. At the same time, trying to disappear among the masses is an interesting, non-standard tactical choice on the player's part. Why would I not encourage that? This is the exact kind of thing I hope to see, because it makes for good sessions and creative play.
Honestly, I see only positives to using alternative ability/skill pairings whenever appropriate (which is still going to be a minority of cases, but hopefully not a negligibly small minority)..
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Any player who comes up with a plausible way to try (that actually has a chance of success) gets to make that attempt. In the case of figuring out what an arcane item is or does without any arcane experience, it's probably going to be unlikely any attempt is possible - though I'd enjoy a creative idea proving me wrong.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The players tell the DM what their character does. Only then does the DM tell them what kind of roll to make, if any.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The players should be allowed to ask, "Can I try to use this ability here?" I wouldn't object to them asking.
In fact just the other night, my party came back from the Astral Sea on a small catamaran that they had been controlling in the Astral by willpower, but in the mortal world that is not possible, and none of them know how to sail. There are 5 PCs, so I had prepped 5 ship positions that needed manning (Captain, Sailing Master, etc...), and then abilities that go with each one. They don't have training, so I had them make raw ability checks with no proficiency bonus. The high-INT Eldritch Knight, took over as Captain. She is a former soldier in the Roman army and veteran of multiple past actions, asked if she could use her experience of having been on ships, heard captains giving orders, watched sailors in action, etc., would there be some skill she could use to help her out? I have no problem with this -- players know their characters, and it was a reasonable idea. I told her to make a history check, and if she passed it, I would give her advantage on the Int-roll for the Captain's duties. She rolled a nat 1, LOL -- but that is not the point. The point is, I think it is fine for players to ask if a skill might apply here, or suggest a possible way their abilities could work with their skills. As long as they don't argue with me if I say no -- and I try to find a way to say yes if it is at all reasonable (like this one was).
Again, luckily I have good players so they don't usually come up with stuff that doesn't make sense for their characters.
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.
My response in that situation is "Try it and find out"
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."
Agreed.
I think as a DM we should work with the players to help them come up with creative ways to use their characters' abilities. Will they always succeed? No. But if I can find a way to make it into a roll, even a high-DC one, I will allow it.
Sometimes I will tell them the DC ahead of time so they know, if I say "Nope," I didn't just say roll and pre-decide it would fail.
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.
My response would be "Describe what you're trying to do and I'll tell you what skill it uses".
I completely agree with you, Aslong as the PC can come up with a way that is logical, specific checks can be used where normally a different check was supposed to be rolled.
A few ideas for these are:
If you want to climb up onto a house and the house has another one next to it, the PC can ask if they can use their acrobatics to jump in between the walls of the two houses up to the top. At this point you have made a valid argument on what you want to do and the DM can allow it depending on things like how much distance there is between the two houses and set a DC depending on that.
Another one is if a person wants to check for traps but is not good in investigating and asks if they can use perception to check for specific details that can hint to there being a trap. The DM can then give them the option to do that instead of an investigation check but if the trap doesn't leave any hints behind that you can perceive or if the hints are extremely hard to see then the DC will be way higher then a normal investigation check or pretty much impossible for that character to make.
It all depends is it viable and can the players find a good reason for it. If they have the DM can allow it but also point out specific details like what you are trying to do is way harder then doing it the normal way so the DC is higher. Also the DM can also just say that you cannot do it and at that point you should accept it even though you don't like it sometimes.
You can't be dexterous if you ain't strong. But it's a different kind of strength. You can't have an 18 dex and not have some kind of functional strength or else how are you getting those damage bonuses on your Bow? Ever Shoot a bow? you need strength. Acrobats? ever do a pull up? you need strength. Grapple. Ever Tap someone twice your size? Toss someone? You need strength. IT is way easier to climb being light than being strong. any climber will back that up. THey also havwe very strong hands. BUt a 145 lb mountain climber that can scale a cliff barehanded isn't the type of strong that an 18 strength is meant to translate too. I feel like that's written by nerds who watch Andre the giant carry two people up a rope and think somewhere thats a real thing. Or Conan scaling the side of the temple barehanded. That's not real.
Using other stats to intimidate aside, I want to point out that Charisma is not about how pretty you are. It's about the force of your personality and degree to which you make an impression on others. Negative charisma isn't best represented by "repulsively ugly"; it's supposed to be "forgettable" or "not worth a second glance." Thus someone with naturally low charisma is not going to be good at traditional intimidation (and IMO should probably be at least a bit worse at Intimidation based on other stats as well - if the 'natural' ability score modifier is negative, I'd apply as a penalty it to the check regardless of the ability used).
As for subbing in other stats to skills, in my experience when some players are given the ability to use STR for Intimidation, Animal Handling, Performance, and so forth, their roleplaying can degrade to "I use my muscles" for every challenge. I think it's a really good tool, but I also prefer to save it for exceptional cases.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Sure, but sometimes players, especially experienced ones, will ask the question like this: "Is there any way that my History knowledge could work here, given my background knowing X, Y, and Z?" or "Is there some way I can check body language to see if he's lying, maybe make an Insight check?"
I'm not going to grouse about it just because they couch their RP in some game terms. Savvy players know the rules, and 3 of my players have been DMs before, so I don't mind if they ask if they can make an Insight check or a Persuasion check... as long as they don't say "I'm making an Insight check" without me calling for it.
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.
Most skills IRL require a mix of abilities. Animal handling involves body language (Cha) as well as wisdom, Stealthy movelment involves the wisdom to place place your feet where you wont make a noise the abilty to breath silently even if you have just been exerting yourself (con) as much as placing that foot on the ground in such a way that it is silent. In fact it could well be argues that hiding while stationary does not use dex at all but rather the ability to make yourself not visible in your surrounding cover (wisdom or intelligence) and well as to control your breathing (con). In reality you need all of the abilities but have climbing Athletics (average of strength and Dex), swimming accross a river athletics (average of strength and con) etc would just make it far to complex to be written in the rules so the rules give a "usual" abilty for each skill but give the DM the option to use a different skill where appropriate.
BioWiz has said it as a few others have. If you can present a reasonable cause to perform X check using Y modifier, then the DM will most likely allow it. If you say "I'm rolling Intimidation using Strength" there is a good chance I won't refer to my notes and you will simply fail it. A player who says "I stand and loom over him, glaring down with as much anger as I can manage to get into my look, before asking..." I might get a Str checked Intimidation, or even Con, if you're just glaring down at him (how BIG BAD AND UGLY are you?) Climbing, to address the specific initial post, I may allow an Acrobatics, if there's cause...a rope, drainpipe, jutting window sills, etc. Plain old climbing with everyday handholds and footholds, I will look for flat Strength, as it's the one that best fits. Strength in your hands (fingers) feet, arms, all of it. Crossing a chasm using a rope, you could do either, Acrobatics or Athletics, since you could try to tightrope/squirrel crawl it or just hand over hand power cross it.
It's situational and I don't have issue with allowing a player to try something if their idea and the "logic" behind it makes sense, So far as the persuasion/smooth talker being "stepped on" by the intimidation, keep in mind the intimidations will likely only work the once, Smooth talking and swinging a deal will pave the way for future dealings. Don't be so shorts sighted and narrow minded when considering approaches that you overlook the negative and positive after effects each path might offer.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
You are missing an important part of the core loop of roleplaying games - the consequences.
The players tell the GM the desired outcome and the method. The GM determines and narrates the actual outcome and the consequences.
That fighter may have intimidated the shopkeeper to give them a lower price (your desired outcome) but the consequnce is different. The shopkeeper is now sullen, scared of the party, and resentful. Maybe they go report the party to the guards. Maybe they badmouth the party to the local guild or to other merchants (resulting in higher prices later). Maybe they don't offer information that they might have otherwise.
Your rogue and the fighter still have their uniqueness, because their actions, while achieving the same outcome, have different consequences.
For another example, consider opening a door. Your rogue could pick the lock. The fighter could kick the door down. Both achieve the same outcome (opening the door) but have different consequences (picking the lock takes longer but is silent and leaves the door able to be locked again afterwards, kicking the door is quick but makes a lot of noise and permanently damages the door).
I definitely would not attempt an intimidation check strength based for anything other than threatening a life to get the information I want regardless of some consequence. I am assuming anyone allowing a strength based intimidation check realizes the character is playing the role of Brute. Afraid of a bear and it's growl? Yes? why? because its big and scary. Not the same as being afraid of the a drow cleric. it's obviously a different kind of intimidation. The strength check is to say "I will bash your head in with one blow if you don't answer". And as far as possible consequences, the victim pooping his pants and passing out may make for a fun way to fail.
I think the bending the bar thing is a perfect example. Being scary is one way to be intimidating and being charismatic is another. We fear big, dangerous things. Bears don't need to charisma to make you poop your pants. They are big as hell and can tear you to pieces and one roar and a charge you you get it. You are now their bi&ch.
And I say yes to the example. Everyone gets a shot. Why? Because jumping over a trap everyone made it but me cause I rolled a 1. A ONE!!! I fell in and took four hit points damage. I will never live that down. The rogue failed a jump everyone else passed....
Well I would assume that's a disguise or performance roll so I get it now.
I don't know about charisma for animals because very snakey people can be charismatic but that Doesn't mean it works for animals, who can sense a more pure form of beauty, AKA wisdom. Rangers are solitary people who don't like other humanoids generally and do not like humanoid society for its love of deception, and animals live in this more honest world. If anything, charism can be viewed quite the opposite of wisdom for animal handling.
I think a lot of the problem is that Intimidation either doesn't make sense at all, or is badly explained.
The basic logic of intimidation is that you want to convince your target that the cost of resisting is greater than the cost of giving you what you want. As the target, I have to guess at the following:
A demonstration of force is relevant to (2), and is something that strength can reasonably do (as can other stats), but the others are all best interpreted as charisma or just situational modifiers.
SO a LOT of great opinions on this thread and conversations. Being That for my fighter, I have a low charisma, I decided to add Intimidation as a proficiency, so that there is a reasonable explanation for using strength when performing an intimidation check, as I don't have the personaility to perform any other charisma checks, but I am one, big, scary Tiefling dude. I think that's the most reasonable outlook and ofcourse I will automatically fail if I try to intimidate from behind a cell in my underwear where I am no threat.
As far as Jump, maybe if my DM agrees I will add Athletics to roll with DEX on jump and climb ONLY . Of course carrying a boulder or knocking down doors is out of the question (as far as using athletics for that), and will be a strength check as normal.
I think these are fair "offers" and of course I understand the DM has every right to handle things how he sees fit.