As for your system... So basically you are getting hit regardless and you either take damage or not. Which is ridiculous still... If you want to be precise then you have to calculate not just armor then...
Just like d&d does it from the get go...
10 and lower is him missing you because of skills.
10 to armor bonus. Is your armor taking it.
Armor bonus to dex bonus is you dodging it.
Shield bonus is you putting a shield in front.
Say a fighter in medium armor with shield and a dex of 14...
15 would be you dodging or parrying or blocking because of reflexes.
A hit of 17 would hit the shield.
And anything above 18 would just hit you.
So basically you are doing a system only for that armor section.
Honestly its way too complicated for no reasons.
Either I did a really bad job explaining my homebrew rules, or you're determined to argue with me about someone else's homebrew.
There are 3 possible results.
The attack roll is equal to or greater than target's AC. The attack hits and bypasses armor entirely. Roll damage and move on.
The attack roll is less than AC, if the nat d20 is equal or less than the armor's AC bonus, then it hits the armor. Roll damage and apply DR.
The attack roll misses entirely.
Steps 1 and 3 are already exactly like normal rules. Only step 2 is different, but is trivially easy to check. There is no need to do any weird calculations like you're tying to do. A low nat d20 hits the armor/cover. Nothing about that is complicated. If your armor gives you +8 AC then a nat d20 of 8 or lower hits the armor.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
And you are trying to convince someone that 5e isnt about what it hits...
The only thing im trying to tell you is that 5e isnt just about calculating armor. Its about looking at what you hit.
Ac isnt just armor. Its everything at once !
You are adding to a system that doesnt just calculate armor but chances to dodge parry or whatever else. Your system may work for full plate because no dexterity is added. But once you calculate dex and shield your system falls apart when it comes to it.
But whatever man... Continu to think ac is just armor. Overall you still did not answer my original question... How about unarmored defense from monk and barb ? No dr because no armor ?
If anything you only convinced me that your system makes characters die easily because they take damage reguardless of roll.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The only thing im trying to tell you is that 5e isnt just about calculating armor. Its about looking at what you hit.
Ac isnt just armor. Its everything at once !
You are adding to a system that doesnt just calculate armor but chances to dodge parry or whatever else. Your system may work for full plate because no dexterity is added. But once you calculate dex and shield your system falls apart when it comes to it.
What are you ranting about? None of this is true. My system is fundamentally simple. Your insistence that anything needs to be calculated or whatever is simple fantasy on your part.
But whatever man... Continu to think ac is just armor. Overall you still did not answer my original question... How about unarmored defense from monk and barb ? No dr because no armor ?
If anything you only convinced me that your system makes characters die easily because they take damage reguardless of roll.
Dude. You are being unnecessarily hostile about a simple homerule that you don't seem to even understand. I'll give explaining it one more try because you're really upset about this yet you don't seem to even understand how it would work... but if this doesn't clear it up for you I'm just going to peace out because this is unnecessary.
Let's showcase it being simple for even a guy with many sources of Ac for you to see it in action better...
Example: A guard has a +2 Dex mod, wears a shield for another +2 and let's say he has a DR8 breastplate (which lets consider giving a +4 ac). Let's make it even more complex and add some extra AC bonuses in here too. Let's give him a +1 ring of protection and a misc. spell effect that adds another +1 AC. Total AC for this guard is 20.
A thug is trying to kill him, and has a +5 to hit with a longsword for 1d8+3 damage....
We still have only 3 possible outcomes.
Thug rolls a 20+ on his attack and our armored guard takes the full 1d8+3 damage. (This step is 100% standard rules here, just like a normal D&D basic rules hit/miss determination)
If nat d20 is a 4 or less, the attack still struck armor, and the armored guard takes 1d8+3, then minus 8 from DR from his breastplate. (this is the only step I add)
Thug entirely misses if not step 1. or step 2. (this step is also100% standard rules, but if you really wanted to verify why it should miss, this is where we skip all those factors you're insisting we need to calculate. But we skip all that math because all that is left is for it to miss and we don't care why it misses.)
All probabilities are accounted for. And they're accounted for in a quick and easy way that doesn't slow down combat in the slightest.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Go ahead explain to me why shield adds a different bonus to AC in 5E then ? why is dexterity added to the AC as well in 5E if its not to calculate your chances of doing something ?
i'll go even further then that... AC is basic to hit mechanicsm from old video games dating all the way back to the 70ies ! where purcentages are added in compensating for parrying dodging and basically any other things. but you thinking AC is just armor... because its called "Armor Class" is a big fat lie in itself.
but go ahead, think whatever you want man, im not the one thinking AC is just armor... you think your system is simple, because "in your mind" it is, but the fact of the matter is, its not simple... you have literally added 4 more steps to a system that is as simple as "roll and see if you got higher then" to a big, if there is this, if there is that, if there this and that. thats literally more then the basic system 5e has. to further explain why your sysem is more complicated to us, and not to you... well... i know how to program in basic, many knows how to program in C++... but the the hell i know what C++ is, i dont understand crap of it. yet people around me tells me its easy because they know it. same with me trying to tell my friends that programming is easy because i know it.
but again, continu to believe what you want and if your system works, then go for it. its your homebrew after all...
but let me explain one single thing about this thread that "I" started. yes because its my thread to begin with. i created this thread to know what people used, because i wanted to up my game and see if there were things i hadn't thought of. your system intrigued me, but after analysing it, i don't think its right, nor that its waranted without unbalancing the game.
and apparently, you didn'T even understand why the game creator created AC in the first place. so building on a system that you dont understand... it seems ridiculous to me.
so, let's move on... anybody else has any homebrew they did to up their games ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Go ahead explain to me why shield adds a different bonus to AC in 5E then ? why is dexterity added to the AC as well in 5E if its not to calculate your chances of doing something ?
i'll go even further then that... AC is basic to hit mechanicsm from old video games dating all the way back to the 70ies ! where purcentages are added in compensating for parrying dodging and basically any other things. but you thinking AC is just armor... because its called "Armor Class" is a big fat lie in itself.
but go ahead, think whatever you want man, im not the one thinking AC is just armor...
I don't know what you're complaining about. You're ranting about something entirely unrelated to my homebrew rule. I can't help you work through whatever this issue is you have here. I know AC is a multitude of factors, my system quickly and easily accounts for each and every single one of those factors. You simply fail to be able to see that. You're like a bull seeing red right now and can't even stop and look at what is actually written there and how it works.
you think your system is simple, because "in your mind" it is, but the fact of the matter is, its not simple... you have literally added 4 more steps...
One step. We covered this. I add one step. Compare the nat d20 roll on a miss, if less than armor's AC bonus then apply DR to damage. 1 step. I've given up getting you to understand but you should stop straight up repeatedly claiming false statements like this... this is why I suspect you just can't wrap your head around what I'm saying, because you just keep saying things that are outright not true about what my rule does.
your system intrigued me, but after analysing it, i don't think its right, nor that its waranted without unbalancing the game.
and apparently, you didn'T even understand why the game creator created AC in the first place. so building on a system that you dont understand... it seems ridiculous to me.
I understand AC perfectly. It is an abstract concept that has evolved a little over the editions, but remains largely the same as when it was THAC0. 3e managed to do implement a touch AC in the mix to try to parse some of the issues that using just one abstract AC number causes. Issues like your Tarrasque example attacking with a +17 against a guy in fullplate with a shield's 20 AC. Tarra's chance to hit is so high it will make contact with its attack. That contact is against either the shield or armor on a miss. But the weirdness with this example is that the Tarrasque hits with such force that the shield or armor completely blocks an attack that could instantly obliterate a shield or set of armor as an object. This sort of thing doesn't bother everyone. But if you've ever sat there trying to picture a level 1 human fighter in fullplate and shield just straight up blocking a Tarrasque's bite attack... then Armor as DR is a homebrew for you, because that's the issue it specifically addresses.
Maybe that stuff doesn't bother you, and you just need to keep combat as absolute bare bones as humanly possible. It is totally valid to not want to add any amount of complexity to your game. That I can respect totally.
But that hasn't been your response. Instead you seemed to get hostile and insulting about unrelated issues that had nothing to do with my homebrew rule or anything I'd even said. So either you don't understand what I'm telling you, or you're confusing me for someone else... because you have repeatedly gone off on tangents that have absolutely zero to do with this homerule.
Anyway, just so the record is straight, whether you understand it or don't: My system adds 1 single quick step. It accounts for all aspects of armor class bonuses and modifiers without having to determine intermediary numbers. It is also very balanced across multiple types of armor and monster encounters. What it does change is a slight improvement of armor against small damage hits and a slight loss of effectiveness against large hits. That's it.
Anyway, good luck, I'm out now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Okay I know this isn't exactly a home-brew but I have always wondered this. The Dragonborns, have draconic ancestry and depending upon the ancestry they have they are resistant to a certain damage type. Would it not make more sense if they were completely resistant to the damage type of their ancestry instead of it only reducing damage by half? That is unless I am reading their character page wrong, and that is how they are already written.
Anyone ever played with the idea of variable AC? A simple version would be to subtract 10 from all creatures' AC and use the remainder as a "defense bonus." Then, when a PC is fighting a goblin who would normally have a 15 AC, it would go like this:
Player rolls: "I strike AC 14."
DM rolls and adds 5 to get, say, 12: "Your blade slices across his chest. Roll damage."
Next round
Player rolls: "GREAT! I strike AC 15... I will go ahead and roll damage!"
DM rolls defense and adds 5 to get, say, 19: "While your sword strike seemed well-placed, the goblin learned his lesson from last time and deftly hops back denying you the chance to strike."
Anyone ever played with the idea of variable AC? A simple version would be to subtract 10 from all creatures' AC and use the remainder as a "defense bonus." Then, when a PC is fighting a goblin who would normally have a 15 AC, it would go like this:
Player rolls: "I strike AC 14."
DM rolls and adds 5 to get, say, 12: "Your blade slices across his chest. Roll damage."
Next round
Player rolls: "GREAT! I strike AC 15... I will go ahead and roll damage!"
DM rolls defense and adds 5 to get, say, 19: "While your sword strike seemed well-placed, the goblin learned his lesson from last time and deftly hops back denying you the chance to strike."
I've seen a system like that but it was skewed such that players rolled everything. So players had an attack bonus, and a defense bonus. NPCs just had attack class and armor class. It made players responsible for rolling all the interactions with their characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
New house rule for all my games as of yesterday: the base Ability for Intimidation is now Strength.
Charisma may be used instead in some situations (such as talking through sending stones,) but by default, you do something physical--even just get in the person's face--then say something if need be, and that counts as your Intimidation check. The bonus will be based on Strength and any proficiency or expertise.
Honestly, I've been uncomfortable with the whole Charisma-based Intimidation thing ever since I first saw it in an RPG, and I've justified it to myself across numerous different game systems for years, but I just can't do it anymore. It makes no sense, and never has; you have to INVENT reasons for it to seem reasonable.
So... yeah. So far two of the four folks in my campaign have given me feedback, and it's been positive. We'll see how it goes, but out of all the (surprisingly few) 5e houserules I've made, this one seems by far to be the easiest to defend.
@thedungeonmathster its literally an optionnal rule in the dmg workshop. While i love the idea. The problem is that it leaves very lucky players with almost unkillable characters. And unfortunate players unable to ever defend themselves.
Luck cabe a pain in the ass somtimes.
@rodthebard makes no sense? Intimidation to me can be done even by a nobody with barely a muscle. I could imagine it be intelligence based. But physically... Torture is anything but physical. It is mental all the way. Same with intimidation. Honestly... The only reason i felt intimidation was wrongly placed was on barbarian and fighters. But thats not because they do not fit them. It is that people power game and refuse to have a charismatic fighter or barbarian.
To me its the inverse... I could never imagine a fighter brute forcing his intimidation except in rare cases where players were pure evil and just wanted to abuse the lay on hand 1 hp combo. I could leave it as an ok if they pick the guy and squeeze until the guy yields. But honestly thats only one reason for it to be strenght. Aside from that... There is nothing physical in putting yourself in his face. If anything that could even be a performance check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Honestly, I've been uncomfortable with the whole Charisma-based Intimidation thing ever since I first saw it in an RPG, and I've justified it to myself across numerous different game systems for years, but I just can't do it anymore. It makes no sense, and never has; you have to INVENT reasons for it to seem reasonable.
This is the benefit of the "Advantage" system. While Charisma is the force of personality used to perform the Intimidation, bending a crowbar with your bare hands (with a successful STR (Athletics?) check) could you give you Advantage. Using knowledge of the person's past (Int(History) or Wis(Insight)) could give Advantage. Flipping a knife in the persons face (Dex(Acrobatics)) could give Advantage.
Conversely, say the person being Intimidated has a high Insight and can tell that the person doing the Intimidated is not secure (Insight check with DC of (8 + CHA Bonus + Prof in Intimidate)), that would impose Disadvantage on the Intimidation check.
Okay I know this isn't exactly a home-brew but I have always wondered this. The Dragonborns, have draconic ancestry and depending upon the ancestry they have they are resistant to a certain damage type. Would it not make more sense if they were completely resistant to the damage type of their ancestry instead of it only reducing damage by half? That is unless I am reading their character page wrong, and that is how they are already written.
Shaped by draconic gods or the dragons themselves, dragonborn originally hatched from dragon eggs as a unique race, combining the best attributes of dragons and humanoids.
The humanoid portion of the "DNA" is what causes it to be resistance instead of immunity.
My only issue with intimidating is when the skill gets used against a PC. No skills should dictate to a player how their character is feeling about anything. That's entirely the providence of the player to freely decide. The only exception is magical effects which force the issue. I share similar issues with persuasion and in some cases insight or deception. These skills work for NPCs because they're a simple neutral unbiased framework for determining NPCs reactions to stuff. But when directed at PCs it creates a hostile environment where players might resent their autonomy being hedged. They only control one thing in the story, their character, and taking that control from them should never be done lightly.
As for what stat it should use? Strength doesn't make much sense. Terry Crews isn't intimidating, but Anthony Hopkins can be.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I let my players do it either way. If the big musclebound barbarian is trying to get their way, then Strength might replace Charisma. If the Tiefling warlock is trying to scare some thugs, Charisma might work. To me, it depends on 2 things
a). If it makes sense in the current situation
b). How the player roleplays it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
@rodthebard makes no sense? Intimidation to me can be done even by a nobody with barely a muscle. I could imagine it be intelligence based. But physically... Torture is anything but physical. It is mental all the way. Same with intimidation. Honestly... The only reason i felt intimidation was wrongly placed was on barbarian and fighters. But thats not because they do not fit them. It is that people power game and refuse to have a charismatic fighter or barbarian.
To me its the inverse... I could never imagine a fighter brute forcing his intimidation except in rare cases where players were pure evil and just wanted to abuse the lay on hand 1 hp combo. I could leave it as an ok if they pick the guy and squeeze until the guy yields. But honestly thats only one reason for it to be strenght. Aside from that... There is nothing physical in putting yourself in his face. If anything that could even be a performance check.
I agree that there are situations where someone can use words and Charisma to intimidate, which is why I'm allowing it situationally. But when we're talking Intimidation--not Persuasion, not Deception--then physical presence is the primary trait that elicits raw fear, more than mental presence. Mental presence can be a factor, but even then it's NOT the same sort of mental presence that is channeled toward Persuasion or even Deception.
Torture? Well... torture is torture. That's not the same as Intimidation, which occurs before any actual assault begins. (And honestly, if someone wanted to see how effectively they could torture someone, I'd probably have them roll a straight INT check to see how creative and effective they were with it.)
I know D&D 5e simplifies things from older editions, but realistically, when it comes to an act like intimidating someone, size matters--even when all else is equal, the bigger guy is simply going to be more intimidating. I really don't see how that's debatable.
And since I'm not going to turn a PC's height and weight into something other than flavor, then the ability that's the closest, most visible approximation of bulk and capacity to hurt--Strength--is what I'm choosing to go with.
Honestly, I've been uncomfortable with the whole Charisma-based Intimidation thing ever since I first saw it in an RPG, and I've justified it to myself across numerous different game systems for years, but I just can't do it anymore. It makes no sense, and never has; you have to INVENT reasons for it to seem reasonable.
Yes, I'd agree that Charisma is mostly that. And I agree that that confidence can work wonders when persuading, or even deceiving someone. Heck, if the ability was just Willpower, using it for Intimidation would be much more tenable.
But in real life, charisma is of secondary importance when it comes to eliciting fear. Frankly, appearing physically invalid can often destroy one's ability to project oneself as a threat (which is the usual mechanism behind intimidating someone, unless you're, say, threatening to destroy their reputation with the king... which would be an acceptable situation to use Charisma.) As a default, the first thing people tend to react to in regards to contemplating their physical security is someone's physical traits, not their mental ones.
As for what stat it should use? Strength doesn't make much sense. Terry Crews isn't intimidating, but Anthony Hopkins can be.
I'll... respectfully disagree. Maybe if one has watched Hopkins in a movie (I haven't,) one might get that feeling. But for the average person who's never seen either of them pretending to be a killer (which would be Performance in lieu of Intimidation anyway, IMO,) bumping into Terry Crews on the street and bumping into Anthony Hopkins are going to generate different reactions, and the reactions rooted in fear are going to be directed toward the big muscle-bound guy far more often than the white-haired old man. Not that old people can't project an intimidating aura... but that's more being proficient at the skill than having an innate capacity they may not even realize they have.
I do agree that Strength isn't an ideal base for the skill... but Charisma is worse. And since there's no Physique attribute, the logical choice to my mind is either Strength or Constitution, and Strength seems the better option mechanically.
Story time!
I've known only a few extremely charismatic people. One was a friend of mine, a guy who befriended everyone, could get away with stuff that would get others socially ostracized, and could talk his way out of most every situation. He also knew quite a bit of martial arts, and was demonstrably skilled with it.
He approached me one day, frustrated that his pitch to be a bouncer at his friend's bar was dismissed by the friend. He couldn't understand why someone who could take care of himself physically--and presumably, anyone who started trouble--wouldn't be given the job on the spot.
I had to point out the obvious--he was somewhat on the small side of average physically, and he looked a bit like a "pretty boy" (although I phrased that differently.) Simply put: despite all his charisma, he just wasn't immediately intimidating. Sure, maybe after a demonstration, or some choice words, he could present himself as someone a rowdy drunk needed to listen to, or else. But that was work which any huge, bulky man simply didn't need to do... and the big guy would be intimidating patrons into compliance often BEFORE trouble occurred, reducing potential liabilities. And if it were a big guy who ALSO knew martial arts, and could lay on the verbal smack as well? There's just no way my friend could have competed. Yes, he could be intimidating--but via secondary means only.
Bottom line regarding the Intimidation skill's base ability: I'll believe Charisma is a better default choice than a physical trait like Strength, when I see bars hiring old guys with scathing looks and erudite prose instead of hiring big, bulky jocks to keep order in their establishments.
I agree that there are situations where someone can use words and Charisma to intimidate, which is why I'm allowing it situationally. But when we're talking Intimidation--not Persuasion, not Deception--then physical presence is the primary trait that elicits raw fear, more than mental presence. Mental presence can be a factor, but even then it's NOT the same sort of mental presence that is channeled toward Persuasion or even Deception.
Intimidation in D&D is used to get something out of the opposing party, exactly the same way Persuasion and Deception are; the difference is the means.
Being physically imposing is only important if you're in a tavern brawl situation, where everyone's mainly unarmed, so your strength is the main factor in how much harm you can inflict. As soon as weapons, armor and magic are involved or you start threatening people's friends, family or business instead of immediate physical harm, strength stops being a critical factor, and the interaction becomes a matter of how well you can convince the other side that you can and will do them harm if they don't comply.
Yes, I'd agree that Charisma is mostly that. And I agree that that confidence can work wonders when persuading, or even deceiving someone. Heck, if the ability was just Willpower, using it for Intimidation would be much more tenable.
But in real life, charisma is of secondary importance when it comes to eliciting fear. Frankly, appearing physically invalid can often destroy one's ability to project oneself as a threat (which is the usual mechanism behind intimidating someone, unless you're, say, threatening to destroy their reputation with the king... which would be an acceptable situation to use Charisma.) As a default, the first thing people tend to react to in regards to contemplating their physical security is someone's physical traits, not their mental ones.
Only if both sides are unarmed. But if I really want something out of you, I'm probably prepared to do far worse than rough you up barehanded, so I'm either armed, or it's not you I plan on hurting.
If I hold you at gunpoint (or knifepoint, or swordpoint) in a dark alley, it really doesn't matter how strong I am or how strong you are. Do you believe I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet?
If I threaten your friends and family, it really doesn't matter how physically imposing I am. Do you think my goons can harm them, and how you sure are you that you can keep them safe 24/7?
If I threaten to shut down your business, it really doesn't matter if I have any capacity do you or your family physical harm at all. All that matters is that I could ruin your livelihood.
See, it's not about being physically imposing, because people can be hurt in so many other ways. It's about convincing the other side that you'll follow through.
And sure, there are situations where the threat really is "big guy will smash your face", but I don't think they come up as often.
I agree that there are situations where someone can use words and Charisma to intimidate, which is why I'm allowing it situationally. But when we're talking Intimidation--not Persuasion, not Deception--then physical presence is the primary trait that elicits raw fear, more than mental presence. Mental presence can be a factor, but even then it's NOT the same sort of mental presence that is channeled toward Persuasion or even Deception.
Intimidation in D&D is used to get something out of the opposing party, exactly the same way Persuasion and Deception are; the difference is the means.
Yes and no. I think it's more accurate to say that Intimidation in D&D is used to prompt a desired action from an opposing party. And the difference in the means between Perception/Deception and Intimidation--that difference being invoking simple fear, rather than invoking reason, avarice or misunderstanding--is huge. It makes all the difference in the world.
Being physically imposing is only important if you're in a tavern brawl situation, where everyone's mainly unarmed, so your strength is the main factor in how much harm you can inflict. As soon as weapons, armor and magic are involved or you start threatening people's friends, family or business instead of immediate physical harm, strength stops being a critical factor, and the interaction becomes a matter of how well you can convince the other side that you can and will do them harm if they don't comply.
I don't see the presence of arms mattering that much. Take a guy with a knife, and a guy with just his bare hands. Even replace the knife with a shortsword. If the unarmed guy is big enough, and the armed guy is small enough, the bigger guy will still be more intimidating to most people. It's not logical, but that's the point--it's just an innate response to the person's physical presence. Logic might be used to overcome the initial reaction, but the bigger guy simply has an edge that the smaller guy does not.
And again, I agree that more complicated forms of intimidation can reasonably make use of Charisma. But the rubber-meets-the-road bare minimal interaction, the default, is that size matters. Even when making vague threats about abstract forms of indirect harm, size influences the situation. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. (And of course, if both sides are armed, the bigger guy still has the edge in intimidation.)
If I hold you at gunpoint (or knifepoint, or swordpoint) in a dark alley, it really doesn't matter how strong I am or how strong you are. Do you believe I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet?
I think this just makes my point, honestly. When dealing with a firearm--a tool that's deadly regardless of the physique of the wielder--then size isn't going to be nearly as important. But for most situations in most campaigns (firearms usually being absent,) physique still matters. Even between two guys holding you at sword point, you're going to be more intimidated by the one who looks like he can cleave your head off with one swing, as opposed to the little guy who looks like if you just kick him hard enough, you might have a chance of shoving him down and making your escape.
If I threaten your friends and family, it really doesn't matter how physically imposing I am. Do you think my goons can harm them, and how you sure are you that you can keep them safe 24/7?
But that's my argument--it DOES matter, even in that situation. I'd imagine most of us have witnessed (similar) such things in real life. If two people are making the same threats, even vague, abstract ones, the bigger guy typically gets better results. Yes, when dealing with such abstractions, it may not make sense, since physical harm isn't the issue. So it's not necessarily a logical response. But it doesn't matter--that's just how humans tend to react.
Again, the above situation is one where I feel Charisma might be reasonable to use to determine the outcome. But even then, if it's two characters attempting the same tactic, and the only difference is that one has a higher Strength, I'm going to rule that the one with the higher Strength is more effective.
If the core determinant of one's ability to intimidate was truly charisma, THAT is what people would spend their resources on when attempting to purchase intimidation services in real life. Wasting it on useless traits would simply hurt their business. But it's not charisma that is seen as an absolute minimum standard for providing such services--at a minimum, people expect the people they pay money to for intimidation purposes to be physically imposing. The reason is because, on a base, subconscious level, intimidation starts with physique.
The third of my four players has expressed a dislike in my new Strength-based Intimidation houserule; I had suspected he might, but had hoped he'd at least think it was a wash.
I don't feel threatened if a muscle-bound, charisma-less thug threatens my reputation. That's Charisma (Intimidation).
I think the Player's Handbook does a great job of offering DMs the ability to swap an ability's core skill to fit the situation-- But I don't think flat-out swapping Intimidation from Charisma to Strength is accurate. I let the player describe what they're doing, if they're trying to threaten someone with their physique and power, absolutely Strength (Intimidation) makes sense. But that's not all Intimidation is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Either I did a really bad job explaining my homebrew rules, or you're determined to argue with me about someone else's homebrew.
There are 3 possible results.
Steps 1 and 3 are already exactly like normal rules. Only step 2 is different, but is trivially easy to check. There is no need to do any weird calculations like you're tying to do. A low nat d20 hits the armor/cover. Nothing about that is complicated. If your armor gives you +8 AC then a nat d20 of 8 or lower hits the armor.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
And you are trying to convince someone that 5e isnt about what it hits...
The only thing im trying to tell you is that 5e isnt just about calculating armor. Its about looking at what you hit.
Ac isnt just armor. Its everything at once !
You are adding to a system that doesnt just calculate armor but chances to dodge parry or whatever else. Your system may work for full plate because no dexterity is added. But once you calculate dex and shield your system falls apart when it comes to it.
But whatever man... Continu to think ac is just armor. Overall you still did not answer my original question... How about unarmored defense from monk and barb ? No dr because no armor ?
If anything you only convinced me that your system makes characters die easily because they take damage reguardless of roll.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
What are you ranting about? None of this is true. My system is fundamentally simple. Your insistence that anything needs to be calculated or whatever is simple fantasy on your part.
Dude. You are being unnecessarily hostile about a simple homerule that you don't seem to even understand. I'll give explaining it one more try because you're really upset about this yet you don't seem to even understand how it would work... but if this doesn't clear it up for you I'm just going to peace out because this is unnecessary.
Let's showcase it being simple for even a guy with many sources of Ac for you to see it in action better...
Example: A guard has a +2 Dex mod, wears a shield for another +2 and let's say he has a DR8 breastplate (which lets consider giving a +4 ac). Let's make it even more complex and add some extra AC bonuses in here too. Let's give him a +1 ring of protection and a misc. spell effect that adds another +1 AC. Total AC for this guard is 20.
A thug is trying to kill him, and has a +5 to hit with a longsword for 1d8+3 damage....
We still have only 3 possible outcomes.
All probabilities are accounted for. And they're accounted for in a quick and easy way that doesn't slow down combat in the slightest.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Go ahead explain to me why shield adds a different bonus to AC in 5E then ? why is dexterity added to the AC as well in 5E if its not to calculate your chances of doing something ?
i'll go even further then that... AC is basic to hit mechanicsm from old video games dating all the way back to the 70ies !
where purcentages are added in compensating for parrying dodging and basically any other things.
but you thinking AC is just armor... because its called "Armor Class" is a big fat lie in itself.
but go ahead, think whatever you want man, im not the one thinking AC is just armor...
you think your system is simple, because "in your mind" it is, but the fact of the matter is, its not simple... you have literally added 4 more steps to a system that is as simple as "roll and see if you got higher then" to a big, if there is this, if there is that, if there this and that. thats literally more then the basic system 5e has. to further explain why your sysem is more complicated to us, and not to you... well... i know how to program in basic, many knows how to program in C++... but the the hell i know what C++ is, i dont understand crap of it. yet people around me tells me its easy because they know it. same with me trying to tell my friends that programming is easy because i know it.
but again, continu to believe what you want and if your system works, then go for it. its your homebrew after all...
but let me explain one single thing about this thread that "I" started. yes because its my thread to begin with.
i created this thread to know what people used, because i wanted to up my game and see if there were things i hadn't thought of.
your system intrigued me, but after analysing it, i don't think its right, nor that its waranted without unbalancing the game.
and apparently, you didn'T even understand why the game creator created AC in the first place.
so building on a system that you dont understand... it seems ridiculous to me.
so, let's move on...
anybody else has any homebrew they did to up their games ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I don't know what you're complaining about. You're ranting about something entirely unrelated to my homebrew rule. I can't help you work through whatever this issue is you have here. I know AC is a multitude of factors, my system quickly and easily accounts for each and every single one of those factors. You simply fail to be able to see that. You're like a bull seeing red right now and can't even stop and look at what is actually written there and how it works.
One step. We covered this. I add one step. Compare the nat d20 roll on a miss, if less than armor's AC bonus then apply DR to damage. 1 step. I've given up getting you to understand but you should stop straight up repeatedly claiming false statements like this... this is why I suspect you just can't wrap your head around what I'm saying, because you just keep saying things that are outright not true about what my rule does.
I understand AC perfectly. It is an abstract concept that has evolved a little over the editions, but remains largely the same as when it was THAC0. 3e managed to do implement a touch AC in the mix to try to parse some of the issues that using just one abstract AC number causes. Issues like your Tarrasque example attacking with a +17 against a guy in fullplate with a shield's 20 AC. Tarra's chance to hit is so high it will make contact with its attack. That contact is against either the shield or armor on a miss. But the weirdness with this example is that the Tarrasque hits with such force that the shield or armor completely blocks an attack that could instantly obliterate a shield or set of armor as an object. This sort of thing doesn't bother everyone. But if you've ever sat there trying to picture a level 1 human fighter in fullplate and shield just straight up blocking a Tarrasque's bite attack... then Armor as DR is a homebrew for you, because that's the issue it specifically addresses.
Maybe that stuff doesn't bother you, and you just need to keep combat as absolute bare bones as humanly possible. It is totally valid to not want to add any amount of complexity to your game. That I can respect totally.
But that hasn't been your response. Instead you seemed to get hostile and insulting about unrelated issues that had nothing to do with my homebrew rule or anything I'd even said. So either you don't understand what I'm telling you, or you're confusing me for someone else... because you have repeatedly gone off on tangents that have absolutely zero to do with this homerule.
Anyway, just so the record is straight, whether you understand it or don't: My system adds 1 single quick step. It accounts for all aspects of armor class bonuses and modifiers without having to determine intermediary numbers. It is also very balanced across multiple types of armor and monster encounters. What it does change is a slight improvement of armor against small damage hits and a slight loss of effectiveness against large hits. That's it.
Anyway, good luck, I'm out now.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Okay I know this isn't exactly a home-brew but I have always wondered this. The Dragonborns, have draconic ancestry and depending upon the ancestry they have they are resistant to a certain damage type. Would it not make more sense if they were completely resistant to the damage type of their ancestry instead of it only reducing damage by half? That is unless I am reading their character page wrong, and that is how they are already written.
Wow, just like a paladin to be self-righteous.
Anyone ever played with the idea of variable AC? A simple version would be to subtract 10 from all creatures' AC and use the remainder as a "defense bonus." Then, when a PC is fighting a goblin who would normally have a 15 AC, it would go like this:
I've seen a system like that but it was skewed such that players rolled everything. So players had an attack bonus, and a defense bonus. NPCs just had attack class and armor class. It made players responsible for rolling all the interactions with their characters.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
New house rule for all my games as of yesterday: the base Ability for Intimidation is now Strength.
Charisma may be used instead in some situations (such as talking through sending stones,) but by default, you do something physical--even just get in the person's face--then say something if need be, and that counts as your Intimidation check. The bonus will be based on Strength and any proficiency or expertise.
Honestly, I've been uncomfortable with the whole Charisma-based Intimidation thing ever since I first saw it in an RPG, and I've justified it to myself across numerous different game systems for years, but I just can't do it anymore. It makes no sense, and never has; you have to INVENT reasons for it to seem reasonable.
So... yeah. So far two of the four folks in my campaign have given me feedback, and it's been positive. We'll see how it goes, but out of all the (surprisingly few) 5e houserules I've made, this one seems by far to be the easiest to defend.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
@thedungeonmathster its literally an optionnal rule in the dmg workshop. While i love the idea. The problem is that it leaves very lucky players with almost unkillable characters. And unfortunate players unable to ever defend themselves.
Luck cabe a pain in the ass somtimes.
@rodthebard makes no sense? Intimidation to me can be done even by a nobody with barely a muscle. I could imagine it be intelligence based. But physically... Torture is anything but physical. It is mental all the way. Same with intimidation. Honestly... The only reason i felt intimidation was wrongly placed was on barbarian and fighters. But thats not because they do not fit them. It is that people power game and refuse to have a charismatic fighter or barbarian.
To me its the inverse... I could never imagine a fighter brute forcing his intimidation except in rare cases where players were pure evil and just wanted to abuse the lay on hand 1 hp combo. I could leave it as an ok if they pick the guy and squeeze until the guy yields. But honestly thats only one reason for it to be strenght. Aside from that... There is nothing physical in putting yourself in his face. If anything that could even be a performance check.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It makes sense when you consider that charisma is how confident and strong-willed you are. A meek, submissive person is less likely to intimidate well.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This is the benefit of the "Advantage" system. While Charisma is the force of personality used to perform the Intimidation, bending a crowbar with your bare hands (with a successful STR (Athletics?) check) could you give you Advantage. Using knowledge of the person's past (Int(History) or Wis(Insight)) could give Advantage. Flipping a knife in the persons face (Dex(Acrobatics)) could give Advantage.
Conversely, say the person being Intimidated has a high Insight and can tell that the person doing the Intimidated is not secure (Insight check with DC of (8 + CHA Bonus + Prof in Intimidate)), that would impose Disadvantage on the Intimidation check.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
Shaped by draconic gods or the dragons themselves, dragonborn originally hatched from dragon eggs as a unique race, combining the best attributes of dragons and humanoids.
The humanoid portion of the "DNA" is what causes it to be resistance instead of immunity.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
My only issue with intimidating is when the skill gets used against a PC. No skills should dictate to a player how their character is feeling about anything. That's entirely the providence of the player to freely decide. The only exception is magical effects which force the issue. I share similar issues with persuasion and in some cases insight or deception. These skills work for NPCs because they're a simple neutral unbiased framework for determining NPCs reactions to stuff. But when directed at PCs it creates a hostile environment where players might resent their autonomy being hedged. They only control one thing in the story, their character, and taking that control from them should never be done lightly.
As for what stat it should use? Strength doesn't make much sense. Terry Crews isn't intimidating, but Anthony Hopkins can be.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I let my players do it either way. If the big musclebound barbarian is trying to get their way, then Strength might replace Charisma. If the Tiefling warlock is trying to scare some thugs, Charisma might work. To me, it depends on 2 things
a). If it makes sense in the current situation
b). How the player roleplays it.
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
Check out my Expanded Signature
I agree that there are situations where someone can use words and Charisma to intimidate, which is why I'm allowing it situationally. But when we're talking Intimidation--not Persuasion, not Deception--then physical presence is the primary trait that elicits raw fear, more than mental presence. Mental presence can be a factor, but even then it's NOT the same sort of mental presence that is channeled toward Persuasion or even Deception.
Torture? Well... torture is torture. That's not the same as Intimidation, which occurs before any actual assault begins. (And honestly, if someone wanted to see how effectively they could torture someone, I'd probably have them roll a straight INT check to see how creative and effective they were with it.)
I know D&D 5e simplifies things from older editions, but realistically, when it comes to an act like intimidating someone, size matters--even when all else is equal, the bigger guy is simply going to be more intimidating. I really don't see how that's debatable.
And since I'm not going to turn a PC's height and weight into something other than flavor, then the ability that's the closest, most visible approximation of bulk and capacity to hurt--Strength--is what I'm choosing to go with.
Yes, I'd agree that Charisma is mostly that. And I agree that that confidence can work wonders when persuading, or even deceiving someone. Heck, if the ability was just Willpower, using it for Intimidation would be much more tenable.
But in real life, charisma is of secondary importance when it comes to eliciting fear. Frankly, appearing physically invalid can often destroy one's ability to project oneself as a threat (which is the usual mechanism behind intimidating someone, unless you're, say, threatening to destroy their reputation with the king... which would be an acceptable situation to use Charisma.) As a default, the first thing people tend to react to in regards to contemplating their physical security is someone's physical traits, not their mental ones.
I'll... respectfully disagree. Maybe if one has watched Hopkins in a movie (I haven't,) one might get that feeling. But for the average person who's never seen either of them pretending to be a killer (which would be Performance in lieu of Intimidation anyway, IMO,) bumping into Terry Crews on the street and bumping into Anthony Hopkins are going to generate different reactions, and the reactions rooted in fear are going to be directed toward the big muscle-bound guy far more often than the white-haired old man. Not that old people can't project an intimidating aura... but that's more being proficient at the skill than having an innate capacity they may not even realize they have.
I do agree that Strength isn't an ideal base for the skill... but Charisma is worse. And since there's no Physique attribute, the logical choice to my mind is either Strength or Constitution, and Strength seems the better option mechanically.
Story time!
I've known only a few extremely charismatic people. One was a friend of mine, a guy who befriended everyone, could get away with stuff that would get others socially ostracized, and could talk his way out of most every situation. He also knew quite a bit of martial arts, and was demonstrably skilled with it.
He approached me one day, frustrated that his pitch to be a bouncer at his friend's bar was dismissed by the friend. He couldn't understand why someone who could take care of himself physically--and presumably, anyone who started trouble--wouldn't be given the job on the spot.
I had to point out the obvious--he was somewhat on the small side of average physically, and he looked a bit like a "pretty boy" (although I phrased that differently.) Simply put: despite all his charisma, he just wasn't immediately intimidating. Sure, maybe after a demonstration, or some choice words, he could present himself as someone a rowdy drunk needed to listen to, or else. But that was work which any huge, bulky man simply didn't need to do... and the big guy would be intimidating patrons into compliance often BEFORE trouble occurred, reducing potential liabilities. And if it were a big guy who ALSO knew martial arts, and could lay on the verbal smack as well? There's just no way my friend could have competed. Yes, he could be intimidating--but via secondary means only.
Bottom line regarding the Intimidation skill's base ability: I'll believe Charisma is a better default choice than a physical trait like Strength, when I see bars hiring old guys with scathing looks and erudite prose instead of hiring big, bulky jocks to keep order in their establishments.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Intimidation in D&D is used to get something out of the opposing party, exactly the same way Persuasion and Deception are; the difference is the means.
Being physically imposing is only important if you're in a tavern brawl situation, where everyone's mainly unarmed, so your strength is the main factor in how much harm you can inflict. As soon as weapons, armor and magic are involved or you start threatening people's friends, family or business instead of immediate physical harm, strength stops being a critical factor, and the interaction becomes a matter of how well you can convince the other side that you can and will do them harm if they don't comply.
Only if both sides are unarmed. But if I really want something out of you, I'm probably prepared to do far worse than rough you up barehanded, so I'm either armed, or it's not you I plan on hurting.
If I hold you at gunpoint (or knifepoint, or swordpoint) in a dark alley, it really doesn't matter how strong I am or how strong you are. Do you believe I'll kill you if you don't give me your wallet?
If I threaten your friends and family, it really doesn't matter how physically imposing I am. Do you think my goons can harm them, and how you sure are you that you can keep them safe 24/7?
If I threaten to shut down your business, it really doesn't matter if I have any capacity do you or your family physical harm at all. All that matters is that I could ruin your livelihood.
See, it's not about being physically imposing, because people can be hurt in so many other ways. It's about convincing the other side that you'll follow through.
And sure, there are situations where the threat really is "big guy will smash your face", but I don't think they come up as often.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Yes and no. I think it's more accurate to say that Intimidation in D&D is used to prompt a desired action from an opposing party. And the difference in the means between Perception/Deception and Intimidation--that difference being invoking simple fear, rather than invoking reason, avarice or misunderstanding--is huge. It makes all the difference in the world.
I don't see the presence of arms mattering that much. Take a guy with a knife, and a guy with just his bare hands. Even replace the knife with a shortsword. If the unarmed guy is big enough, and the armed guy is small enough, the bigger guy will still be more intimidating to most people. It's not logical, but that's the point--it's just an innate response to the person's physical presence. Logic might be used to overcome the initial reaction, but the bigger guy simply has an edge that the smaller guy does not.
And again, I agree that more complicated forms of intimidation can reasonably make use of Charisma. But the rubber-meets-the-road bare minimal interaction, the default, is that size matters. Even when making vague threats about abstract forms of indirect harm, size influences the situation. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. (And of course, if both sides are armed, the bigger guy still has the edge in intimidation.)
I think this just makes my point, honestly. When dealing with a firearm--a tool that's deadly regardless of the physique of the wielder--then size isn't going to be nearly as important. But for most situations in most campaigns (firearms usually being absent,) physique still matters. Even between two guys holding you at sword point, you're going to be more intimidated by the one who looks like he can cleave your head off with one swing, as opposed to the little guy who looks like if you just kick him hard enough, you might have a chance of shoving him down and making your escape.
But that's my argument--it DOES matter, even in that situation. I'd imagine most of us have witnessed (similar) such things in real life. If two people are making the same threats, even vague, abstract ones, the bigger guy typically gets better results. Yes, when dealing with such abstractions, it may not make sense, since physical harm isn't the issue. So it's not necessarily a logical response. But it doesn't matter--that's just how humans tend to react.
Again, the above situation is one where I feel Charisma might be reasonable to use to determine the outcome. But even then, if it's two characters attempting the same tactic, and the only difference is that one has a higher Strength, I'm going to rule that the one with the higher Strength is more effective.
If the core determinant of one's ability to intimidate was truly charisma, THAT is what people would spend their resources on when attempting to purchase intimidation services in real life. Wasting it on useless traits would simply hurt their business. But it's not charisma that is seen as an absolute minimum standard for providing such services--at a minimum, people expect the people they pay money to for intimidation purposes to be physically imposing. The reason is because, on a base, subconscious level, intimidation starts with physique.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
The third of my four players has expressed a dislike in my new Strength-based Intimidation houserule; I had suspected he might, but had hoped he'd at least think it was a wash.
One more to get feedback from.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
I don't feel threatened if a muscle-bound, charisma-less thug threatens my reputation. That's Charisma (Intimidation).
I think the Player's Handbook does a great job of offering DMs the ability to swap an ability's core skill to fit the situation-- But I don't think flat-out swapping Intimidation from Charisma to Strength is accurate. I let the player describe what they're doing, if they're trying to threaten someone with their physique and power, absolutely Strength (Intimidation) makes sense. But that's not all Intimidation is.