But my question is, do the mechanics of the function change when Charisma is considered "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others?" If so, can you provide examples of such a mechanical change?
Let's look at Gameplay for Charisma
Character A is trying to convince NPC 1 that they should give them a better price on the Healing Potion. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
Character B is playing his lute trying to entertain the group of Mercenaries he's joined up with. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
Character C is trying to convince the wizard standing in front of him that he doesn't have the Stone in his pocket. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
By limiting the Charisma Attribute to "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" you are returning it to what it was believed to be in the first place, a completely useless Attribute. Here is a Psychology Today article on What is Charisma and goes into deeper depth than a "common usage" that you want to use.
Also, without the D&D definition, how, as a DM, do you adjudicate how well a Character interacts with others? Not all Players would be as silver-tongued as the Character they play, but if they put High Stats in their CHA and are skilled in Deception, they can say "This is what I want to do," the DM sets the DC, and the Player rolls the dice.
If one larger animal chases another off, that's not common-usage Charisma. Low-level uses of Intimidation do NOT require "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others."
1st, an animal would not be using the Intimidate skill, which is what is at discussion. Animals operate on Instinct which is entirely different from Skills. If a wolf snaps at a hyena trying to steal its food, there is no chance of the hyena thinking "oh, he doesn't really mean it, I'm fine." Instinct kicks in and the hyena knows next time it will be its throat unless he can be faster.
But let's say it is a big person chasing off another person. The larger person gets up from their chair and charges at the person they are planning on chasing.
DM 1 says it is Str, so you use your Str + Prof. DM 2 say it is Chr, but because of your size, you get Advantage so it's Cha+Prof with 2 rolls.
If the Intimidation check succeeds, the other person runs or cowers in fear depending on how the DM wants to play it. If the Intimidation check fails, the other person doesn't think the large guy is really a threat and just sits there until the bigger person grabs them by the throat.
You don't use "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" to get in someone's face and generate fear. That's like saying Gandhi would have been great at intimidating people into giving them their wallets, or at chasing away feral wolves, because of his incredible charisma. That's just not how the word is used OUTSIDE OF RPG CIRCLES (and one guess as to why RPGers would think "charisma" applies in those situations.)
Gandhi used his Charisma to Intimidate the entire British government. He also managed to convince many of his followers to give up their worldly goods, and convinced others to give their money to help the less fortunate.
You stated that all interactions are social interactions, and seemed to imply that that means all interactions are more appropriately placed in the purview of Charisma. My apologies if that was not your intent.
This is a misinterpretation of my Intent. If you are manhandling someone, that is not a social interaction. If you are magically compelling someone to do something, that is not a social interaction. But, if you are using your Strength to convince someone to do something, that is a social interaction. As such, you could use either your STR or CHA depending on DM preference as displayed above. Anytime a Player could possibly use STR for Intimidation, whether it just being big and imposing, breaking a stone in their hand, tapping the floor with a club, etc, can also be a CHA check with Advantage when you actually have CHA mean something (see above). But all of the examples that you discount as not being relevant to the discussion would never be able to use STR as an alternative. This is why CHA is the Base Attribute. But at this point I concede that you have made up your mind and weren't really looking for Feedback but rather for Confirmation that you are correct.
Have a pleasant time playing your game the way you want to.
Because it uses a definition not found in dictionaries, the main difference being it allows for the use of Charisma in a negative sort of interaction (such as with Intimidation.) I don't believe that was an accident.
An extremely Charismatic politician talks about how a certain type of person is bad and should be eliminated. This not only Inspires hate in their supporters, but also fear in the people they target. These are both negative interactions and in Game Play purposes, it would be Persuasion for his supporters (convincing them to hate) and Intimidation for the targets (causing fear).
You don't use "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" to get in someone's face and generate fear. That's like saying Gandhi would have been great at intimidating people into giving them their wallets, or at chasing away feral wolves, because of his incredible charisma. That's just not how the word is used OUTSIDE OF RPG CIRCLES (and one guess as to why RPGers would think "charisma" applies in those situations.)
Well, "charm that can inspire devotion in others" can absolutely be used to terrify someone. If you're a crazy nutjob like Charles Manson who inspires devotion in others who will do absolutely anything you ask of them... that can be terrifying. Manson never hurt a fly, he had other people do it for him, and that dude was one of the scariest most intimidating people out there... and he was like 5'2". You could punt him.
He wasn't physically scary, his control over his people was scary. The way he talked was scary. You almost felt like he was infecting you when he spoke. Absolutely unnerving. From a small little man. But that fear was because of his ability to inspire devotion.
Know who else fits the classical definition of Charismatic? Hitler. Physically not too scary but oh my god would you shit a brick if you were anywhere near him during his day and he even hinted at something bad coming your way. The fear he could illicit was palpable during his reign. Men and women committed atrocities at his command, his intimidation caused people to forgo their own morality. Had nothing to do with his size. He wasn't physically impressive in the least.
You rip the arms off of someone, I could see that being a Str check for Intimidation. Again, its using Str as the BASE skill that is at issue here. Charisma as a game mechanic can always be used as a basis for Intimidation, although you can choose to use Strength for certain situations. Strength as a game mechanic can not always be used as a basis for Intimidation.
Ah. I see what you're getting at. But I strongly disagree. You cannot always use strength/physique for the basis of Intimidation, I agree with that. But you cannot always use Charisma either.
If one larger animal chases another off, that's not common-usage Charisma. Low-level uses of Intimidation do NOT require "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others."
You bring up animals often in this conversation about Intimidation but interactions with animals generally fall under Animal Handling.
That aside, I'm curious what you mean by "low-level uses" because that separation seems important to what you're driving at. Most of your examples of Intimidation in action aren't the same as what the skill outlines and that you are clarifying as those are "higher-level uses". Can you elaborate on this distinction?
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.
But let's say it is a big person chasing off another person. The larger person gets up from their chair and charges at the person they are planning on chasing.
DM 1 says it is Str, so you use your Str + Prof. DM 2 say it is Chr, but because of your size, you get Advantage so it's Cha+Prof with 2 rolls.
If the Intimidation check succeeds, the other person runs or cowers in fear depending on how the DM wants to play it. If the Intimidation check fails, the other person doesn't think the large guy is really a threat and just sits there until the bigger person grabs them by the throat.
These are good scenarios but it is also important to note that Intimidation attempts require you to have a specific goal that you're attempting to coerce your victim into. In either case, you would also be shouting at the target of your Intimidate to run off, if of course getting them to flee is your goal.
Intimidation. When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the GM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.
It is very similar to bargaining, I'll trade you [not punching your face] for a discount on my healing potions. I'll trade you [Not being cut in half] for you to flee immediately. I'll trade you [not being turned over to the guards] for information about your guild's hideout.
You're presenting a threat and offering to trade the threat-not-happening for your reward.
It really is a series of complex social interactions all happening at once.
Give a threat that target will actually care about.
Sell authenticity of threat.
Convince target that threat is worse than offering the reward.
Ensure they believe you'll accept this exchange in good faith.
If any of those steps fail, you'd fail to intimidate the target into giving you your ideal outcome.
If they have no reason to be afraid of the threat you present.. fail.
If they don't believe you'd follow through with the threat... fail.
If they're not convinced that the threat is worse than giving you your reward... fail.
If they believe you'd not follow through on not-doing-threat... fail.
The ancient silver dragon polymorphed as a humble guard isn't actually afraid of your threat with a poorly crafted shortsword. If the shopkeep doesn't believe you'd punch him in broad daylight he'll tell you to beat it instead of giving you a discount. Or the thugs might stay quiet knowing that giving up their hideout is a death sentence and you're simply threatening them with jail time. Someone might stand and fight instead of fleeing if they thought you would simply chase them down and murder them no matter what they did.
Getting someone to react and getting someone to react the way you want is not the same thing. And the difference is charisma.
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.
An idea I'm playing around with and am interested in seeing what you think of how it would affect game balance:
Any Racial, Class or Feat ability that is not a Spell that has a usage of X times per short rest, can be used additional times, but each time you use it extra before taking a short rest causes a point of Exhaustion. It would not affect abilities that can only be used X times per long rest.
For Example: The Ranger Horizon Walker has Detect Portal, the ability to magically sense the presence of a planar portal. As an action, you detect the distance and direction to the closest planar portal within 1 mile of you. Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest. If you were to use it a second time before taking a short or long rest, you would take a point of Exhaustion. Use it a 3rd time, 2 points, etc.
This would allow the ability to be more versatile in use, but it would come at a cost as the Energy used to perform the ability wears the player out. Thoughts?
I think its cool. Its a nice thought. But usually players dont want exaustion at least not level 2 and 3. So that means only 1 extra use most of the time. But i think it wont unbalance the game. Its cool.
As for me im trying to change certain things.
Like countersong from bard has became a reaction instead. Losing an action is too limiting. Barbarian rages are from short rest now instead of long rest. These kind of changes. For now they havent unbalance the game and its cool.
Spell wise... Many have lost concentration. Like shield of faith from cleric and most of the 1 attack smites from paladins. Concentration is too much of a problem because its everywhere. I understand it on crowd control spells but not on instants or buffs. I think concentration as it is actually breaks the game too much. So letting my players actually cast multiple buffs as well as monsters ups the challenge.
Players like my changes for now so i think im on point on them.
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)
But at this point I concede that you have made up your mind and weren't really looking for Feedback but rather for Confirmation that you are correct.
Have a pleasant time playing your game the way you want to.
That's honestly not the case, but if you're convinced of it, fair enough. After reading your first few lines, I was already of the mindset to suggest we just agree to disagree, because you're saying things don't fit the situation when, to my mind, they clearly and obviously do. Your viewpoint on even common-usage charisma is somewhat alien to me, and if we don't even apply the word the same, there's really not much point in continued discussion.
That said, to be fair (and for the sake of anyone else following along,) I'll go ahead and make a final response to your post. I'll try to keep it to simply explaining my position one last time, and not trying to draw further points out of you.
But my question is, do the mechanics of the function change when Charisma is considered "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others?" If so, can you provide examples of such a mechanical change?
Let's look at Gameplay for Charisma
Character A is trying to convince NPC 1 that they should give them a better price on the Healing Potion. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
Character B is playing his lute trying to entertain the group of Mercenaries he's joined up with. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
Character C is trying to convince the wizard standing in front of him that he doesn't have the Stone in his pocket. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
I disagree with each of these. In my mind, the common-usage definition of the word fits well enough, and there would be no mechanical change to the ability's function in my games; Persuasion and Deception would continue along just fine. I can see why you'd not want the change in yours, if that's how you'd treat Charisma under a common-usage definition.
Also, without the D&D definition, how, as a DM, do you adjudicate how well a Character interacts with others? Not all Players would be as silver-tongued as the Character they play, but if they put High Stats in their CHA and are skilled in Deception, they can say "This is what I want to do," the DM sets the DC, and the Player rolls the dice.
I typically don't grade how "well" players interact with NPCs. Unless they're employing Deception, Persuasion or Intimidation (and I may inform them that that's what they will effectively have to do to achieve their goal,) then they simply interact according to character personality, motivations, background, etc.
If one larger animal chases another off, that's not common-usage Charisma. Low-level uses of Intimidation do NOT require "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others."
1st, an animal would not be using the Intimidate skill, which is what is at discussion. Animals operate on Instinct which is entirely different from Skills. If a wolf snaps at a hyena trying to steal its food, there is no chance of the hyena thinking "oh, he doesn't really mean it, I'm fine." Instinct kicks in and the hyena knows next time it will be its throat unless he can be faster.
My point would be that the animal, by definition, IS using Intimidate to achieve a goal. They may not be proficient in the skill, but they are literally intimidating a smaller creature, and if for some strange reason I had to roleplay that happening in front of the party, I'd check the animal stats to see how well the one animal could intimidate the other (or how well the player could a creature.) That's why I'd resort to using Strength (in lieu of physique) instead of Charisma.
But let's say it is a big person chasing off another person. The larger person gets up from their chair and charges at the person they are planning on chasing.
DM 1 says it is Str, so you use your Str + Prof. DM 2 say it is Chr, but because of your size, you get Advantage so it's Cha+Prof with 2 rolls.
If the Intimidation check succeeds, the other person runs or cowers in fear depending on how the DM wants to play it. If the Intimidation check fails, the other person doesn't think the large guy is really a threat and just sits there until the bigger person grabs them by the throat.
Yes, both of those seem like fine ways of handling it.
You don't use "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" to get in someone's face and generate fear. That's like saying Gandhi would have been great at intimidating people into giving them their wallets, or at chasing away feral wolves, because of his incredible charisma. That's just not how the word is used OUTSIDE OF RPG CIRCLES (and one guess as to why RPGers would think "charisma" applies in those situations.)
Gandhi used his Charisma to Intimidate the entire British government. He also managed to convince many of his followers to give up their worldly goods, and convinced others to give their money to help the less fortunate.
This is another point where I think we just have mutually alien understandings of how the word works. If someone walked up to me and said, "Gandhi used his Charisma to Intimidate the Brits," I'd retort, "No, he didn't, what are you talking about?" Was he considered a threat by the British government? Did they (possibly) have a fear of him? I'd agree. Did he himself directly intimidate them using his charisma? No, because that's not how either of those words work. I dare say most people I know (outside of gamers) would find the phrase to be incredibly odd, and rather inaccurate. I expect your experience is different.
(As far as convincing others to be charitable, I see that as an apt usage of Charisma to Persuade them.)
You stated that all interactions are social interactions, and seemed to imply that that means all interactions are more appropriately placed in the purview of Charisma. My apologies if that was not your intent.
This is a misinterpretation of my Intent. If you are manhandling someone, that is not a social interaction. If you are magically compelling someone to do something, that is not a social interaction. But, if you are using your Strength to convince someone to do something, that is a social interaction.
......
I said I wasn't going to try to draw further points from you. I'll stick with that. So I'll just say: if you were to explicitly define it, I'm pretty sure I'd take issue with your definition of "social interaction." But again, my apologies for thinking it was something other than what you're using it as.
@rodthebard i think you should remove intimidation entirely and just use perception instead. Because thats what you do. You put yourself in the shoes of the victim and thus it would be perception based off wisdom. Because in all your exemples all you do is check how the person look and interpret that from the perspective of the victim. So yeah... That would be wisdom perception check from the victim.
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)
I see a difference NPCs being intimidated by a PC and an PC using Intimidation against an NPC.
As a DM, I might have a NPCs walk away, hide, make room for the PC, etc. just because they perceive the PC as scary. This would happen when they perceive the PC as more powerful than them. If they know the 8 Str, 10 Cha PC is a wizard and they think he might turn them into toads, I will roleplay that.
The PC says “Come here!”. The NPC is already scared so the Cha (Intimidation) would determine if the NPC follows the PC’s command or just runs away.
Because it uses a definition not found in dictionaries, the main difference being it allows for the use of Charisma in a negative sort of interaction (such as with Intimidation.) I don't believe that was an accident.
An extremely Charismatic politician talks about how a certain type of person is bad and should be eliminated. This not only Inspires hate in their supporters, but also fear in the people they target. These are both negative interactions and in Game Play purposes, it would be Persuasion for his supporters (convincing them to hate) and Intimidation for the targets (causing fear).
You don't use "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" to get in someone's face and generate fear. That's like saying Gandhi would have been great at intimidating people into giving them their wallets, or at chasing away feral wolves, because of his incredible charisma. That's just not how the word is used OUTSIDE OF RPG CIRCLES (and one guess as to why RPGers would think "charisma" applies in those situations.)
Well, "charm that can inspire devotion in others" can absolutely be used to terrify someone. If you're a crazy nutjob like Charles Manson who inspires devotion in others who will do absolutely anything you ask of them... that can be terrifying. Manson never hurt a fly, he had other people do it for him, and that dude was one of the scariest most intimidating people out there... and he was like 5'2". You could punt him.
I agree that he could be terrifying to anyone who knew what he was capable of, but I find it odd to attribute his fear-generation directly to his Charisma. To me, that gives the impression of him walking up to someone, "projecting charisma," (or "projecting charm and attractiveness," if you will,) and having the person immediately scream in fear and run. Even if we presume Charisma includes some degree of force of will, him directly intimidating someone through it strikes me as odd, and while not impossible, unlikely, provided one had no knowledge of who he was.
That said, even with my houserule, if someone played a Charles Manson-like character, and people knew about him, I'd rule that that foreknowledge would be enough to allow them to use Charisma with Intimidation. Possibly even characters with the Pirate background and their "Bad Reputation" feature.
He wasn't physically scary, his control over his people was scary. The way he talked was scary. You almost felt like he was infecting you when he spoke. Absolutely unnerving. From a small little man. But that fear was because of his ability to inspire devotion.
Know who else fits the classical definition of Charismatic? Hitler. Physically not too scary but oh my god would you shit a brick if you were anywhere near him during his day and he even hinted at something bad coming your way. The fear he could illicit was palpable during his reign. Men and women committed atrocities at his command, his intimidation caused people to forgo their own morality. Had nothing to do with his size. He wasn't physically impressive in the least.
Ok. That's a good example, and a good point.
I'll be honest; I haven't been thinking of such characters as THAT this entire time, simply because to my mind, I've discounted them. With "lesser" categories of characters with a similar trait, such as mob bosses, its easier to simply have the mindset, "if no one knows them, they're limited in how much intimidating they can do without words--having them scare random grown men with a glance is just silly." With Manson/Hitler-level characters, the fabled "withering charisma," to coin a phrase, that they're known for was something I've... always been skeptical of (I won't say I flat out refused to believe it.) Now, I have my reasons for being skeptical, and I'm still not inclined to believe it, although I'd rather not get into all that--it's enough for another entire thread on its own. But the point is, regardless of my personal skepticism, I also don't want to simply state that such a degree of "willpower" or "personality" or "charisma" or whatever you want to call it--ability to elicit fear through sheer presence, regardless of stature--is simply not possible in-game. Because you're right: such extreme characters exist, and to demand others not play them, or to chalk it up to something beyond Charisma is unreasonable.
(At the same time, we've already had at least one positive outcome from allowing Strength to be the default ability--it's pretty much turning out how I expected--and I'm loathe to re-limit the "big & burly" characters. I'll definitely give it all more thought, but for now I'm leaning toward just letting players choose STR or CHA for their default, depending on the type of character they have in mind.)
You bring up animals often in this conversation about Intimidation but interactions with animals generally fall under Animal Handling.
Mainly because I don't tend to think of Animal Handling as eliciting fear, although I suppose it could involve that. But to reuse an example, if for some strange reason I had my players observe two wild animals interact, and the outcome was uncertain, I'd roleplay them using the appropriate interaction skills, and... using Animal Handling between them, as opposed to seeing which one was more able to Intimidate the other, strikes me as odd. And if animals can use Intimidate (and I don't see why it would be anything but,) that makes the idea that they typically use Charisma to do so rather suspect.
That aside, I'm curious what you mean by "low-level uses" because that separation seems important to what you're driving at. Most of your examples of Intimidation in action aren't the same as what the skill outlines and that you are clarifying as those are "higher-level uses". Can you elaborate on this distinction?
I'm happy to explain. (I'd been wondering if that distinction had been confusing, but didn't want to get this deep into it unless someone commented on it directly.)
Think of a player character leaning in to whisper in a nobleman NPC's ear that they'd better back off on searching for a comrade, because the character has documents that would prove they're not a legitimate heir, and their life would fall to pieces. Then think of some drunk NPC bullying a waitress at a tavern; the player character walks over, gets in his face, and causes him to shut up and back off without a word. There are of course variations of these, but while they're both examples of Intimidation, I think most people would agree that there's some qualitative difference to them. For convenience, I just lump them into "high-level" and "low-level" Intimidation.
Other examples of high-level intimidation: - Verbally threatening to harm a target's family two islands over if they don't do X - Detailing how you'll slowly torture a target to death if they ever show their face in town again - Insinuating that, sure, this shop looks nice, but it might not look so nice if, you know, you don't pay for someone to protect it from all those arsonists out there - Arguing with an employer over what constitutes fair pay and you suddenly just say "Clovertown," suggesting you know about what he did there
Other examples of low-level intimidation: - Demanding someone hand over what's behind their back, NOW - Chasing away an unwanted animal - Verbally threatening to harm a target's child--whose shoulder your hand is on, right in front of him--if he doesn't do X - Arguing with an employer over what constitutes fair pay and you suddenly just slam your fists on the table while leaning in and growling
Generally, "high-level" intimidation requires some degree of convincing and/or verbal skills, often because of a time delay between the threat and it having an impact. With "low-level" intimidation, there's usually an immediate threat, and the words, if any, hardly matter; physical presence is of greater importance. The reason I even use these categories, is that without fail, in 10 years of playing RPGs (and moreso now,) most uses of Intimidation in most campaigns I've encountered (ones I've run and ones I've been in) have been "low-level," and it seems to be a distinction that matters in this discussion. Perhaps that's unusual, but it's what it is.
Case in point: we currently have a full orc in the party in one of my games, played by a new-ish player. The character is boorish, and generally has a low charisma, so of course the player left his CHA stat at 8. Yet, he wants to play up the uncivilized nature of his character, and frequently attempts to Intimidate others, usually some sort of "low-level" Intimidation. Up until this point, despite being innately proficient in the skill, his actual stat has been only 1 or 2, and his attempts at intimidating have failed more often than not. Seeing this happen--not for the first, or even the fifth, time--to a newer player wanting to play a character who isn't charismatic but who should be reasonably menacing, is part of what drove me to this houserule as a fix. With the houserule in place, his Intimidation is currently at 7, which is far more reasonable. For most of his expected uses of the skill, he should be fine now (although should he try something "high-level," he'll need to be clever/convincing/etc, and will still have to use Charisma--or even INT or WIS--instead of Strength.)
...You guys are still on this? You could just use the varient rule from page 175 of the PHB and be okay with non standard skill checks. Constitution (Athletics) for swimming across a massive lake, Intelligence (Persuasion) for logically convincing someone to follow your battle plan instead of theirs, Strength (Intimidation) for lifting up a large rock and telling someone not to move. Just use whatever skill seems the most relevant to the situation.
the abilities associated with the skills in the book are just the suggested default, if the situation calls for the use of a skill with a different ability, then use the different ability, you don't even need a default option if you on a case by case basis.
Think of a player character leaning in to whisper in a nobleman NPC's ear that they'd better back off on searching for a comrade, because the character has documents that would prove they're not a legitimate heir, and their life would fall to pieces. Then think of some drunk NPC bullying a waitress at a tavern; the player character walks over, gets in his face, and causes him to shut up and back off without a word. There are of course variations of these, but while they're both examples of Intimidation, I think most people would agree that there's some qualitative difference to them. For convenience, I just lump them into "high-level" and "low-level" Intimidation.
So if I'm reading this correct, "high-level" you would judge as CHA based and "low-level" would be STR based.
Is there any way for the "high-level" version to be based on Str? Because you are not making a physical threat, having a high Strength doesn't impact in a meaningful way, and even if you think having a high Strength would give an Advantage, the threat itself is not Strength based.
Now, Is there any way for the "low-level" version to based on Chr? You aren't really making a physical threat, though you are implying one, so if you could make someone believe you could cause physical harm that would work well enough. So a high Chr, medium Str character would still be effective, even though you probably wouldn't get Advantage because you weren't physically imposing.
I know you have your "common-usage" definition, but if you agree that "high-level" Intimidation would fall under Charisma as a "judge of how well you interact with others" then why couldn't a "low-level" Intimidation also fall under Charisma for a person who, while not physically imposing, still has something about them that could scare the crap out of somebody.
This is why Cha is used as the BASE, as has been said before. Because even though you could choose to use Str in some situations, it doesn't work in every situation, but Charisma does.
I also did some number crunching and I found out something interesting just using game mechanics and not worrying about definitions. Say your character had a +2 Str, +0 Chr, and +2 Proficiency and you have a DC target of 10.
If you use Strength as the Basis for an Intimidation, you get +2 for Str and +2 for Prof, but because of your average Charisma, you don't get Advantage, the chance of having a successful encounter would be 70%.(you would only need to roll a 6 or better for success)
If you use Charisma as the Basis for an Intimidation, you get +0 for Chr and +2 for Prof, and because of your above average Strength you do get Advantage because being physically imposing is a benefit, the odds of a successful encounter would be 84%. (while you would need to roll an 8 or better, you have 2 chances to do it)
Now let's say you had a -2 Chr instead. While the Str based would remain the same (unless you wanted to impose Disadvantage for not being charming enough in which case it would have a lower chance as you would have to take the lower roll), the Charisma based version you would get -2 for Chr and +2 for Prof, but still rolling 2 times for your Strength would give you a 75% success. (again, while you would need a 10 or better, you have 2 chances to do it)
So by making it Strength based instead, just based on the numbers and not trying to define anything, you have a lower chance of success instead of Charisma. Now there does come a point where a character with an Extraordinary strength (say +4), then the number even out more, but those are an Extraordinary Character and not a common one, so they would be more rare. Same with a character with an extremely low Charisma (-4).
Frankly, I think you are too hung up on what the word means and not enough interested in what it does in the game. Don't like Charisma...how about Presence? What matters is that as a function of the game, it allows the DM to have some method of determining how well you interact with others. If the DM wants you to have the information the NPC has, he can ignore the dice roll (or make it a low DC) so that no matter what you do, he gives it to you. If he wants some agency in determining it, however, there need to be rules that govern it. Same thing with swimming across a river...the DM can just say "Even though the current is strong, you manage to cross the river with little difficulty." But if he wants there to be a random chance, he sets the DC and you roll the dice with an Athletics check. Unlike PC's who have Free Agency to follow what they want, an NPC has to have some constraints. As a player, if you have a Gnome character and an NPC Goliath threatens you with violence unless you give him all of your gold, you get to make the choice. Unless the DM has a reason for the NPC Gnome to act that way towards your Goliath PC, there needs to be someway to determine what the NPC does. And that is, regardless of how you choose to define it, the purpose of the Charisma Attribute.
@griz_behr thats where i disagree... I think even players needs constraints. Imagine a player thinking he is perfect. The others want him to follow the plan but he doesnt care. Imagine your players wanting to keep secrets but being forced to get away from the table because that player is always knowing and using what he hears around the table to play his character. There are tons of exemples of why freedom to do whatever you want as a player is a bad idea if there is no constraint. Asking them to roll is not just because there is a chance. It is also to make them remember that there are rules.
Otherwise youd have players telling i shoot an arrow and it goes through the monsters eye ignoring his resistances because eyes. Same with players ignoring stats and suddently that 5 intellect barbarian is convincing is friends that his master plan is the best while that truly his a master plan that a high level wizard would pull.
To me... Immersion is best. But i cant have immersion if whatever i do my players have no fear of anything.whatever my npc says my players always knows when those npcs are lying. And between players its far from being a game. It is often just a "who will yield first without any yielding from no one" it can become ridiculous.
So the question is... Why should there be rules for npc but not for players ? Its uncalled for.
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)
You misunderstand. I'm talking about being free to make their own decisions on what their character does. If they say, I shoot an arrow through the eye, they are free to try. It doesn't mean they will succeed. They still have to make the attack roll with a high DC to do so and they may get lucky. If the DM tells the PC that they see the 20' tall giant standing above them and they feel that it is going to squash them like a bug, the player gets to decide what kind of reaction they have, unless there is a spell effect. Do they run away in fear or do they gird their loins and charge forward? Unless there is a magical effect, the DM doesn't tell the player that their character runs away. If a player decides that a character is keeping secrets from the other characters, that is a valid role-playing choice. Depending on the group playing, that may piss off other players, but that is a player issue and should be addressed, not a character issue. If a player is having his character do things because of information the player has, but the character doesn't, that is a player meta-gaming and should be addressed. The player is a mechanical engineer playing a 5 Int character says that they design a combustion engine, as DM you tell they can try and then make the DC so high that there is no chance of succeeding (Ability Checks a natural 20 is not a success so if you make the DC 100, there is no way to succeed). The best phrase Critical Role introduced to the game of D&D was not "How do you want to do this?" It was "You can certainly try."
Using your shoot an arrow in the eye example, while the AC to hit the creature is 19, the DM decides that the DC to hit the eye specifically is 30 because of the size of the target. The player rolls a 17, adds their adjustments and gets a final of 28, it doesn't hit the DC to hit the eye, but it still hits the creature.
The one thing the DM should never do without the use of Magic is take the agency away from the players, otherwise the DM is just telling a story instead of all of them together doing so. If the NPC spell caster successfully uses Command against the character and tells them to drop their sword, they do so. But if the NPC successfully Intimidates the character, the DM can tell them they have the urge to drop their sword, the Player still gets to decide if they choose to do so. If they decide not to, the NPC attempts to carry out their threat and whatever happens next occurs. If the NPC attacks, the DM may give them Advantage on the attack roll that first round because of their successful Intimidation check.
If a character is an ass, that is a valid role-playing choice. If a player is an ass, others won't want to play with them.
Players not rolling against other players is as whacko an idea as rolling without role play.
Imagine something much less farfetched for gnome barbarian with 5 intellect... "Lets all stack them into the door and lets all ready our weapons at the first one showing up." would you let a player do this without some of rolls if you know this was said in game.
Even there... What about players planning out of game and then acting as such in game ? Im not talking about 1 player here... Im talking most of my players. When they metagame i tell them. I "address" the situation. But what about them thinking they cannot do stuff without my conscent because i force them to play stats they cant understand ?
Not everyone knows what a tricep is. Not everyone knows what parkour is all about and that player trying to wall run up the well hes in. may not understand why his acrobatics is not working. Thats what im talking about.
What about the barbarian gnome who is torturing the human warlock yet the human warlock decides he has no reactions whatsoever because he cant take a gnome seriously ? Hes being tortured yet because player vs player there shouldnt be any rollings ?
Thats what im talking. Putting rules only for npcs and monsters is bullshit.
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)
Imagine something much less farfetched for gnome barbarian with 5 intellect... "Lets all stack them into the door and lets all ready our weapons at the first one showing up." would you let a player do this without some of rolls if you know this was said in game.
Fairly simplistic plan, so I'd allow them to try it. The NPC's could decide not to do that, attacking anything they could see from distance if they can. If it were a more complex plan, I may require him to make an Int check to see if he effectively conveys his plan correctly. If the Players decide that they understand him regardless, that is a different issue and has more with the DM trying to make them understand that they are playing characters, not themselves.
Not everyone knows what a tricep is. Not everyone knows what parkour is all about and that player trying to wall run up the well hes in. may not understand why his acrobatics is not working. Thats what im talking about.
If he makes an Acrobatics check that fails and doesn't understand why, that is something the DM needs to try and explain to the Player better.
What about the barbarian gnome who is torturing the human warlock yet the human warlock decides he has no reactions whatsoever because he cant take a gnome seriously ? Hes being tortured yet because player vs player there shouldnt be any rollings ?
I'm assuming the torture is causing damage, so even if the warlock doesn't take him seriously, eventually he will take so much damage that he dies. So he has a choice to make...give in or withstand the torture until he's dead. If the Gnome makes his Intimidation check and you tell the Warlock that he believes that the Gnome is going to torture him to death and he still chooses to not take him seriously, that is the Player's choice in how the Character reacts.
I'm only talking about when a Player has to decide how his Character Reacts. If you are doing a tug-of-war, having the Players make Contesting Athletic rolls makes total sense. But if one player is standing before a target and the other player is shooting an arrow at the apple on his head, it is up to the Player to decide if the Character stay, flinches, ducks, runs, whatever. As a DM, it is up to you to give them the information, such as "You look at the arrow pointed at you and it seems it is too low to effectively hit the apple instead of your face", but you should leave it up to the Player to take in that information and decide how the Character reacts to it.
It sounds like the problem you have is the players not taking the rolls they have to play seriously. All of the examples you gave here are about the Players, not the Characters. If the Players want the Characters to try something, give them the opportunity. If it's something completely out of the range of possibility for the Character, the DM assigns a DC that is appropriate. If the Players want the Characters to do something that the Characters would have no knowledge of, even if the Players do, it is up to the DM to explain that the Character doesn't know how to do it. If you play in a world where guns don't exist and a player wants to make one, you could have them make an Int check to see if they can figure out how to do it. If, however, they want to make an AR-15 without first going through flintlocks, muskets, rifles, repeating rifles, standing machine guns, tommy guns, then it is up to the DM to explain that the technology doesn't exist. If they still insist, make the DC so high that there is no way to succeed.
Imagine something much less farfetched for gnome barbarian with 5 intellect... "Lets all stack them into the door and lets all ready our weapons at the first one showing up." would you let a player do this without some of rolls if you know this was said in game.
Fairly simplistic plan, so I'd allow them to try it. The NPC's could decide not to do that, attacking anything they could see from distance if they can. If it were a more complex plan, I may require him to make an Int check to see if he effectively conveys his plan correctly. If the Players decide that they understand him regardless, that is a different issue and has more with the DM trying to make them understand that they are playing characters, not themselves.
Not everyone knows what a tricep is. Not everyone knows what parkour is all about and that player trying to wall run up the well hes in. may not understand why his acrobatics is not working. Thats what im talking about.
If he makes an Acrobatics check that fails and doesn't understand why, that is something the DM needs to try and explain to the Player better.
What about the barbarian gnome who is torturing the human warlock yet the human warlock decides he has no reactions whatsoever because he cant take a gnome seriously ? Hes being tortured yet because player vs player there shouldnt be any rollings ?
I'm assuming the torture is causing damage, so even if the warlock doesn't take him seriously, eventually he will take so much damage that he dies. So he has a choice to make...give in or withstand the torture until he's dead. If the Gnome makes his Intimidation check and you tell the Warlock that he believes that the Gnome is going to torture him to death and he still chooses to not take him seriously, that is the Player's choice in how the Character reacts.
I'm only talking about when a Player has to decide how his Character Reacts. If you are doing a tug-of-war, having the Players make Contesting Athletic rolls makes total sense. But if one player is standing before a target and the other player is shooting an arrow at the apple on his head, it is up to the Player to decide if the Character stay, flinches, ducks, runs, whatever. As a DM, it is up to you to give them the information, such as "You look at the arrow pointed at you and it seems it is too low to effectively hit the apple instead of your face", but you should leave it up to the Player to take in that information and decide how the Character reacts to it.
It sounds like the problem you have is the players not taking the rolls they have to play seriously. All of the examples you gave here are about the Players, not the Characters. If the Players want the Characters to try something, give them the opportunity. If it's something completely out of the range of possibility for the Character, the DM assigns a DC that is appropriate. If the Players want the Characters to do something that the Characters would have no knowledge of, even if the Players do, it is up to the DM to explain that the Character doesn't know how to do it. If you play in a world where guns don't exist and a player wants to make one, you could have them make an Int check to see if they can figure out how to do it. If, however, they want to make an AR-15 without first going through flintlocks, muskets, rifles, repeating rifles, standing machine guns, tommy guns, then it is up to the DM to explain that the technology doesn't exist. If they still insist, make the DC so high that there is no way to succeed.
I would handle all of these examples the same way as Griz_Behr has described. As well, especially the 2nd example. It's really the DM's responsibility in that case.
You guys make it feel like you never had any troubles dealing with players choices... Sorry i can never believe that. Whatever... Im sure you had the same troubles.
Sorry but players ignoring stats happens all the time and reguardless of you explaining it or not it wont change anything. Because thats how players wanna play it.
Sorry. But im never gonna change an already skewed game around players to give them much more without doing the same for npc and monsters. And yes my npcs do have stats and levels.
Based on your experiences... Im quite sure you never had true open world and are easily just forcing players into your stories. While me... My players can literally decide to skip all stories and my world wont care. It will go forward with or without them. Stories just dont work for them unless its their character story.
Just so you know one of my friend game is poking the kobold paladin for 3 hours. Thats his fun !
So no... I sincerely doubt that you never experienced characters ignoring stats.
Btw... The warlock did die. Told the player that he succeeded at killing his character. Congratulation you gained nothing lost everything. Looked at me heres my next character.
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)
It's called roleplaying. Just like if an orc barbarian rolling a natural 20 on a strength check to lift a 1 million pound door, that will never succeed. So if a character tries to get another character to try to reveal parts of their roleplaying, just because they roll a natural 20 on any charisma check doesn't mean the backstory is revealed. My players focus on the roleplaying and take the roll into account in terms of how the scene plays out, but as I said, a natural 20 on any check does not guarantee success, so when it comes to social player interactions, I just let them handle it how they want to and ignore their stats, unless they want to do so.
I just let them handle it how they want to and ignore their stats, unless they want to do so.
And this is exactly what i hate because this is the biggest meta game of them all.
Basically that bard can persuade everyone to comply but cannot ever do it against his friends cause they know hes full of bullshit even if he says the truth. Sorry but that to me is the biggest hole. To me thats a big lack of immersion.
What i do instead is require in all cases to have roleplay to base the thing on. Then i ask the player to roll their dices and give me the numbers based on the skill of their choice. Then i say things like hes hidding something or hes clear with you. Or stuff like that.
Works much better this way cause it stays immersive and if i see a player meta game and ignore the rolls then ill tell him that he cant.
Im all for the yes and... But metagaming like that i cannot allow.
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)
I just let them handle it how they want to and ignore their stats, unless they want to do so.
And this is exactly what i hate because this is the biggest meta game of them all.
Basically that bard can persuade everyone to comply but cannot ever do it against his friends cause they know hes full of bullshit even if he says the truth. Sorry but that to me is the biggest hole. To me thats a big lack of immersion.
What i do instead is require in all cases to have roleplay to base the thing on. Then i ask the player to roll their dices and give me the numbers based on the skill of their choice. Then i say things like hes hidding something or hes clear with you. Or stuff like that.
Works much better this way cause it stays immersive and if i see a player meta game and ignore the rolls then ill tell him that he cant.
Im all for the yes and... But metagaming like that i cannot allow.
If players roll an insight check against other players, I have them roll deception checks even if they are telling the truth and then narrate based on the rolls. That being said, how can I say that Player X would reveal his deepest darkest secret to some random stranger he just met, even if they met months ago just because he rolled a 20 and has a +9 to persuasion? That doesn't make any sense to me, especially if you consider that situation in real life, that doesn't make sense.
In terms of balancing the game, if a 1 is strictly role playing and no dice, and a 10 is use dice for everything, my DM style is probably a 3 or 4, whereas I think you are higher on that scale, and there's nothing wrong with that, I think DMs have their own styles.
But I am interested to hear how that scene would play out in a game you're DMing. In this scenario, let's say Player X murdered a bunch of people as a part of a cult that he and his parents were involved in. He left in his teen years and now is trying every day to repent for his actions while burying them deep down. He hasn't told a soul about what happens. Session 1 or 10 (you can give different answers to both if that matters), Player Y, a bard, with expertise in persuasion maybe asks in a late night campfire for everyone to give up a secret they've never told anyone, their deepest secret. The Player Y rolls a 20 on persuasion and Player X rolls whatever it is you tell him to roll, and let's say he rolls a 1.
What do you do in this situation? - No judgement, I'm just genuinely curious since we have different styles. For me, in my style, I would still leave that up to the Player X to reveal whatever he wishes, but to take the rolls into account.
Let's look at Gameplay for Charisma
Character A is trying to convince NPC 1 that they should give them a better price on the Healing Potion. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
Character B is playing his lute trying to entertain the group of Mercenaries he's joined up with. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
Character C is trying to convince the wizard standing in front of him that he doesn't have the Stone in his pocket. "Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" doesn't really seem to fit in this situation. However, using the D&D Definition of being a measure of your ability to interact effectively with others does.
By limiting the Charisma Attribute to "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" you are returning it to what it was believed to be in the first place, a completely useless Attribute. Here is a Psychology Today article on What is Charisma and goes into deeper depth than a "common usage" that you want to use.
Also, without the D&D definition, how, as a DM, do you adjudicate how well a Character interacts with others? Not all Players would be as silver-tongued as the Character they play, but if they put High Stats in their CHA and are skilled in Deception, they can say "This is what I want to do," the DM sets the DC, and the Player rolls the dice.
1st, an animal would not be using the Intimidate skill, which is what is at discussion. Animals operate on Instinct which is entirely different from Skills. If a wolf snaps at a hyena trying to steal its food, there is no chance of the hyena thinking "oh, he doesn't really mean it, I'm fine." Instinct kicks in and the hyena knows next time it will be its throat unless he can be faster.
But let's say it is a big person chasing off another person. The larger person gets up from their chair and charges at the person they are planning on chasing.
DM 1 says it is Str, so you use your Str + Prof.
DM 2 say it is Chr, but because of your size, you get Advantage so it's Cha+Prof with 2 rolls.
If the Intimidation check succeeds, the other person runs or cowers in fear depending on how the DM wants to play it. If the Intimidation check fails, the other person doesn't think the large guy is really a threat and just sits there until the bigger person grabs them by the throat.
Gandhi used his Charisma to Intimidate the entire British government. He also managed to convince many of his followers to give up their worldly goods, and convinced others to give their money to help the less fortunate.
This is a misinterpretation of my Intent. If you are manhandling someone, that is not a social interaction. If you are magically compelling someone to do something, that is not a social interaction. But, if you are using your Strength to convince someone to do something, that is a social interaction. As such, you could use either your STR or CHA depending on DM preference as displayed above. Anytime a Player could possibly use STR for Intimidation, whether it just being big and imposing, breaking a stone in their hand, tapping the floor with a club, etc, can also be a CHA check with Advantage when you actually have CHA mean something (see above). But all of the examples that you discount as not being relevant to the discussion would never be able to use STR as an alternative. This is why CHA is the Base Attribute. But at this point I concede that you have made up your mind and weren't really looking for Feedback but rather for Confirmation that you are correct.
Have a pleasant time playing your game the way you want to.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
Well, "charm that can inspire devotion in others" can absolutely be used to terrify someone. If you're a crazy nutjob like Charles Manson who inspires devotion in others who will do absolutely anything you ask of them... that can be terrifying. Manson never hurt a fly, he had other people do it for him, and that dude was one of the scariest most intimidating people out there... and he was like 5'2". You could punt him.
He wasn't physically scary, his control over his people was scary. The way he talked was scary. You almost felt like he was infecting you when he spoke. Absolutely unnerving. From a small little man. But that fear was because of his ability to inspire devotion.
Know who else fits the classical definition of Charismatic? Hitler. Physically not too scary but oh my god would you shit a brick if you were anywhere near him during his day and he even hinted at something bad coming your way. The fear he could illicit was palpable during his reign. Men and women committed atrocities at his command, his intimidation caused people to forgo their own morality. Had nothing to do with his size. He wasn't physically impressive in the least.
You bring up animals often in this conversation about Intimidation but interactions with animals generally fall under Animal Handling.
That aside, I'm curious what you mean by "low-level uses" because that separation seems important to what you're driving at. Most of your examples of Intimidation in action aren't the same as what the skill outlines and that you are clarifying as those are "higher-level uses". Can you elaborate on this distinction?
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.
These are good scenarios but it is also important to note that Intimidation attempts require you to have a specific goal that you're attempting to coerce your victim into. In either case, you would also be shouting at the target of your Intimidate to run off, if of course getting them to flee is your goal.
It is very similar to bargaining, I'll trade you [not punching your face] for a discount on my healing potions. I'll trade you [Not being cut in half] for you to flee immediately. I'll trade you [not being turned over to the guards] for information about your guild's hideout.
You're presenting a threat and offering to trade the threat-not-happening for your reward.
It really is a series of complex social interactions all happening at once.
If any of those steps fail, you'd fail to intimidate the target into giving you your ideal outcome.
The ancient silver dragon polymorphed as a humble guard isn't actually afraid of your threat with a poorly crafted shortsword. If the shopkeep doesn't believe you'd punch him in broad daylight he'll tell you to beat it instead of giving you a discount. Or the thugs might stay quiet knowing that giving up their hideout is a death sentence and you're simply threatening them with jail time. Someone might stand and fight instead of fleeing if they thought you would simply chase them down and murder them no matter what they did.
Getting someone to react and getting someone to react the way you want is not the same thing. And the difference is charisma.
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.
An idea I'm playing around with and am interested in seeing what you think of how it would affect game balance:
Any Racial, Class or Feat ability that is not a Spell that has a usage of X times per short rest, can be used additional times, but each time you use it extra before taking a short rest causes a point of Exhaustion. It would not affect abilities that can only be used X times per long rest.
For Example: The Ranger Horizon Walker has Detect Portal, the ability to magically sense the presence of a planar portal. As an action, you detect the distance and direction to the closest planar portal within 1 mile of you. Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest. If you were to use it a second time before taking a short or long rest, you would take a point of Exhaustion. Use it a 3rd time, 2 points, etc.
This would allow the ability to be more versatile in use, but it would come at a cost as the Energy used to perform the ability wears the player out. Thoughts?
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I think its cool. Its a nice thought. But usually players dont want exaustion at least not level 2 and 3. So that means only 1 extra use most of the time. But i think it wont unbalance the game. Its cool.
As for me im trying to change certain things.
Like countersong from bard has became a reaction instead. Losing an action is too limiting. Barbarian rages are from short rest now instead of long rest. These kind of changes. For now they havent unbalance the game and its cool.
Spell wise... Many have lost concentration. Like shield of faith from cleric and most of the 1 attack smites from paladins. Concentration is too much of a problem because its everywhere. I understand it on crowd control spells but not on instants or buffs. I think concentration as it is actually breaks the game too much. So letting my players actually cast multiple buffs as well as monsters ups the challenge.
Players like my changes for now so i think im on point on them.
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)
That's honestly not the case, but if you're convinced of it, fair enough. After reading your first few lines, I was already of the mindset to suggest we just agree to disagree, because you're saying things don't fit the situation when, to my mind, they clearly and obviously do. Your viewpoint on even common-usage charisma is somewhat alien to me, and if we don't even apply the word the same, there's really not much point in continued discussion.
That said, to be fair (and for the sake of anyone else following along,) I'll go ahead and make a final response to your post. I'll try to keep it to simply explaining my position one last time, and not trying to draw further points out of you.
I disagree with each of these. In my mind, the common-usage definition of the word fits well enough, and there would be no mechanical change to the ability's function in my games; Persuasion and Deception would continue along just fine. I can see why you'd not want the change in yours, if that's how you'd treat Charisma under a common-usage definition.
I typically don't grade how "well" players interact with NPCs. Unless they're employing Deception, Persuasion or Intimidation (and I may inform them that that's what they will effectively have to do to achieve their goal,) then they simply interact according to character personality, motivations, background, etc.
My point would be that the animal, by definition, IS using Intimidate to achieve a goal. They may not be proficient in the skill, but they are literally intimidating a smaller creature, and if for some strange reason I had to roleplay that happening in front of the party, I'd check the animal stats to see how well the one animal could intimidate the other (or how well the player could a creature.) That's why I'd resort to using Strength (in lieu of physique) instead of Charisma.
Yes, both of those seem like fine ways of handling it.
This is another point where I think we just have mutually alien understandings of how the word works. If someone walked up to me and said, "Gandhi used his Charisma to Intimidate the Brits," I'd retort, "No, he didn't, what are you talking about?" Was he considered a threat by the British government? Did they (possibly) have a fear of him? I'd agree. Did he himself directly intimidate them using his charisma? No, because that's not how either of those words work. I dare say most people I know (outside of gamers) would find the phrase to be incredibly odd, and rather inaccurate. I expect your experience is different.
(As far as convincing others to be charitable, I see that as an apt usage of Charisma to Persuade them.)
......
I said I wasn't going to try to draw further points from you. I'll stick with that. So I'll just say: if you were to explicitly define it, I'm pretty sure I'd take issue with your definition of "social interaction." But again, my apologies for thinking it was something other than what you're using it as.
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
@rodthebard i think you should remove intimidation entirely and just use perception instead. Because thats what you do. You put yourself in the shoes of the victim and thus it would be perception based off wisdom. Because in all your exemples all you do is check how the person look and interpret that from the perspective of the victim. So yeah... That would be wisdom perception check from the victim.
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 see a difference NPCs being intimidated by a PC and an PC using Intimidation against an NPC.
As a DM, I might have a NPCs walk away, hide, make room for the PC, etc. just because they perceive the PC as scary. This would happen when they perceive the PC as more powerful than them. If they know the 8 Str, 10 Cha PC is a wizard and they think he might turn them into toads, I will roleplay that.
The PC says “Come here!”. The NPC is already scared so the Cha (Intimidation) would determine if the NPC follows the PC’s command or just runs away.
I agree that he could be terrifying to anyone who knew what he was capable of, but I find it odd to attribute his fear-generation directly to his Charisma. To me, that gives the impression of him walking up to someone, "projecting charisma," (or "projecting charm and attractiveness," if you will,) and having the person immediately scream in fear and run. Even if we presume Charisma includes some degree of force of will, him directly intimidating someone through it strikes me as odd, and while not impossible, unlikely, provided one had no knowledge of who he was.
That said, even with my houserule, if someone played a Charles Manson-like character, and people knew about him, I'd rule that that foreknowledge would be enough to allow them to use Charisma with Intimidation. Possibly even characters with the Pirate background and their "Bad Reputation" feature.
Ok. That's a good example, and a good point.
I'll be honest; I haven't been thinking of such characters as THAT this entire time, simply because to my mind, I've discounted them. With "lesser" categories of characters with a similar trait, such as mob bosses, its easier to simply have the mindset, "if no one knows them, they're limited in how much intimidating they can do without words--having them scare random grown men with a glance is just silly." With Manson/Hitler-level characters, the fabled "withering charisma," to coin a phrase, that they're known for was something I've... always been skeptical of (I won't say I flat out refused to believe it.) Now, I have my reasons for being skeptical, and I'm still not inclined to believe it, although I'd rather not get into all that--it's enough for another entire thread on its own. But the point is, regardless of my personal skepticism, I also don't want to simply state that such a degree of "willpower" or "personality" or "charisma" or whatever you want to call it--ability to elicit fear through sheer presence, regardless of stature--is simply not possible in-game. Because you're right: such extreme characters exist, and to demand others not play them, or to chalk it up to something beyond Charisma is unreasonable.
(At the same time, we've already had at least one positive outcome from allowing Strength to be the default ability--it's pretty much turning out how I expected--and I'm loathe to re-limit the "big & burly" characters. I'll definitely give it all more thought, but for now I'm leaning toward just letting players choose STR or CHA for their default, depending on the type of character they have in mind.)
Mainly because I don't tend to think of Animal Handling as eliciting fear, although I suppose it could involve that. But to reuse an example, if for some strange reason I had my players observe two wild animals interact, and the outcome was uncertain, I'd roleplay them using the appropriate interaction skills, and... using Animal Handling between them, as opposed to seeing which one was more able to Intimidate the other, strikes me as odd. And if animals can use Intimidate (and I don't see why it would be anything but,) that makes the idea that they typically use Charisma to do so rather suspect.
I'm happy to explain. (I'd been wondering if that distinction had been confusing, but didn't want to get this deep into it unless someone commented on it directly.)
Think of a player character leaning in to whisper in a nobleman NPC's ear that they'd better back off on searching for a comrade, because the character has documents that would prove they're not a legitimate heir, and their life would fall to pieces. Then think of some drunk NPC bullying a waitress at a tavern; the player character walks over, gets in his face, and causes him to shut up and back off without a word. There are of course variations of these, but while they're both examples of Intimidation, I think most people would agree that there's some qualitative difference to them. For convenience, I just lump them into "high-level" and "low-level" Intimidation.
Other examples of high-level intimidation:
- Verbally threatening to harm a target's family two islands over if they don't do X
- Detailing how you'll slowly torture a target to death if they ever show their face in town again
- Insinuating that, sure, this shop looks nice, but it might not look so nice if, you know, you don't pay for someone to protect it from all those arsonists out there
- Arguing with an employer over what constitutes fair pay and you suddenly just say "Clovertown," suggesting you know about what he did there
Other examples of low-level intimidation:
- Demanding someone hand over what's behind their back, NOW
- Chasing away an unwanted animal
- Verbally threatening to harm a target's child--whose shoulder your hand is on, right in front of him--if he doesn't do X
- Arguing with an employer over what constitutes fair pay and you suddenly just slam your fists on the table while leaning in and growling
Generally, "high-level" intimidation requires some degree of convincing and/or verbal skills, often because of a time delay between the threat and it having an impact. With "low-level" intimidation, there's usually an immediate threat, and the words, if any, hardly matter; physical presence is of greater importance. The reason I even use these categories, is that without fail, in 10 years of playing RPGs (and moreso now,) most uses of Intimidation in most campaigns I've encountered (ones I've run and ones I've been in) have been "low-level," and it seems to be a distinction that matters in this discussion. Perhaps that's unusual, but it's what it is.
Case in point: we currently have a full orc in the party in one of my games, played by a new-ish player. The character is boorish, and generally has a low charisma, so of course the player left his CHA stat at 8. Yet, he wants to play up the uncivilized nature of his character, and frequently attempts to Intimidate others, usually some sort of "low-level" Intimidation. Up until this point, despite being innately proficient in the skill, his actual stat has been only 1 or 2, and his attempts at intimidating have failed more often than not. Seeing this happen--not for the first, or even the fifth, time--to a newer player wanting to play a character who isn't charismatic but who should be reasonably menacing, is part of what drove me to this houserule as a fix. With the houserule in place, his Intimidation is currently at 7, which is far more reasonable. For most of his expected uses of the skill, he should be fine now (although should he try something "high-level," he'll need to be clever/convincing/etc, and will still have to use Charisma--or even INT or WIS--instead of Strength.)
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
...You guys are still on this? You could just use the varient rule from page 175 of the PHB and be okay with non standard skill checks. Constitution (Athletics) for swimming across a massive lake, Intelligence (Persuasion) for logically convincing someone to follow your battle plan instead of theirs, Strength (Intimidation) for lifting up a large rock and telling someone not to move. Just use whatever skill seems the most relevant to the situation.
the abilities associated with the skills in the book are just the suggested default, if the situation calls for the use of a skill with a different ability, then use the different ability, you don't even need a default option if you on a case by case basis.
So if I'm reading this correct, "high-level" you would judge as CHA based and "low-level" would be STR based.
Is there any way for the "high-level" version to be based on Str? Because you are not making a physical threat, having a high Strength doesn't impact in a meaningful way, and even if you think having a high Strength would give an Advantage, the threat itself is not Strength based.
Now, Is there any way for the "low-level" version to based on Chr? You aren't really making a physical threat, though you are implying one, so if you could make someone believe you could cause physical harm that would work well enough. So a high Chr, medium Str character would still be effective, even though you probably wouldn't get Advantage because you weren't physically imposing.
I know you have your "common-usage" definition, but if you agree that "high-level" Intimidation would fall under Charisma as a "judge of how well you interact with others" then why couldn't a "low-level" Intimidation also fall under Charisma for a person who, while not physically imposing, still has something about them that could scare the crap out of somebody.
This is why Cha is used as the BASE, as has been said before. Because even though you could choose to use Str in some situations, it doesn't work in every situation, but Charisma does.
I also did some number crunching and I found out something interesting just using game mechanics and not worrying about definitions. Say your character had a +2 Str, +0 Chr, and +2 Proficiency and you have a DC target of 10.
If you use Strength as the Basis for an Intimidation, you get +2 for Str and +2 for Prof, but because of your average Charisma, you don't get Advantage, the chance of having a successful encounter would be 70%.(you would only need to roll a 6 or better for success)
If you use Charisma as the Basis for an Intimidation, you get +0 for Chr and +2 for Prof, and because of your above average Strength you do get Advantage because being physically imposing is a benefit, the odds of a successful encounter would be 84%. (while you would need to roll an 8 or better, you have 2 chances to do it)
Now let's say you had a -2 Chr instead. While the Str based would remain the same (unless you wanted to impose Disadvantage for not being charming enough in which case it would have a lower chance as you would have to take the lower roll), the Charisma based version you would get -2 for Chr and +2 for Prof, but still rolling 2 times for your Strength would give you a 75% success. (again, while you would need a 10 or better, you have 2 chances to do it)
So by making it Strength based instead, just based on the numbers and not trying to define anything, you have a lower chance of success instead of Charisma. Now there does come a point where a character with an Extraordinary strength (say +4), then the number even out more, but those are an Extraordinary Character and not a common one, so they would be more rare. Same with a character with an extremely low Charisma (-4).
Frankly, I think you are too hung up on what the word means and not enough interested in what it does in the game. Don't like Charisma...how about Presence? What matters is that as a function of the game, it allows the DM to have some method of determining how well you interact with others. If the DM wants you to have the information the NPC has, he can ignore the dice roll (or make it a low DC) so that no matter what you do, he gives it to you. If he wants some agency in determining it, however, there need to be rules that govern it. Same thing with swimming across a river...the DM can just say "Even though the current is strong, you manage to cross the river with little difficulty." But if he wants there to be a random chance, he sets the DC and you roll the dice with an Athletics check. Unlike PC's who have Free Agency to follow what they want, an NPC has to have some constraints. As a player, if you have a Gnome character and an NPC Goliath threatens you with violence unless you give him all of your gold, you get to make the choice. Unless the DM has a reason for the NPC Gnome to act that way towards your Goliath PC, there needs to be someway to determine what the NPC does. And that is, regardless of how you choose to define it, the purpose of the Charisma Attribute.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
@griz_behr thats where i disagree... I think even players needs constraints. Imagine a player thinking he is perfect. The others want him to follow the plan but he doesnt care. Imagine your players wanting to keep secrets but being forced to get away from the table because that player is always knowing and using what he hears around the table to play his character. There are tons of exemples of why freedom to do whatever you want as a player is a bad idea if there is no constraint. Asking them to roll is not just because there is a chance. It is also to make them remember that there are rules.
Otherwise youd have players telling i shoot an arrow and it goes through the monsters eye ignoring his resistances because eyes. Same with players ignoring stats and suddently that 5 intellect barbarian is convincing is friends that his master plan is the best while that truly his a master plan that a high level wizard would pull.
To me... Immersion is best. But i cant have immersion if whatever i do my players have no fear of anything.whatever my npc says my players always knows when those npcs are lying. And between players its far from being a game. It is often just a "who will yield first without any yielding from no one" it can become ridiculous.
So the question is... Why should there be rules for npc but not for players ? Its uncalled for.
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)
You misunderstand. I'm talking about being free to make their own decisions on what their character does. If they say, I shoot an arrow through the eye, they are free to try. It doesn't mean they will succeed. They still have to make the attack roll with a high DC to do so and they may get lucky. If the DM tells the PC that they see the 20' tall giant standing above them and they feel that it is going to squash them like a bug, the player gets to decide what kind of reaction they have, unless there is a spell effect. Do they run away in fear or do they gird their loins and charge forward? Unless there is a magical effect, the DM doesn't tell the player that their character runs away. If a player decides that a character is keeping secrets from the other characters, that is a valid role-playing choice. Depending on the group playing, that may piss off other players, but that is a player issue and should be addressed, not a character issue. If a player is having his character do things because of information the player has, but the character doesn't, that is a player meta-gaming and should be addressed. The player is a mechanical engineer playing a 5 Int character says that they design a combustion engine, as DM you tell they can try and then make the DC so high that there is no chance of succeeding (Ability Checks a natural 20 is not a success so if you make the DC 100, there is no way to succeed). The best phrase Critical Role introduced to the game of D&D was not "How do you want to do this?" It was "You can certainly try."
Using your shoot an arrow in the eye example, while the AC to hit the creature is 19, the DM decides that the DC to hit the eye specifically is 30 because of the size of the target. The player rolls a 17, adds their adjustments and gets a final of 28, it doesn't hit the DC to hit the eye, but it still hits the creature.
The one thing the DM should never do without the use of Magic is take the agency away from the players, otherwise the DM is just telling a story instead of all of them together doing so. If the NPC spell caster successfully uses Command against the character and tells them to drop their sword, they do so. But if the NPC successfully Intimidates the character, the DM can tell them they have the urge to drop their sword, the Player still gets to decide if they choose to do so. If they decide not to, the NPC attempts to carry out their threat and whatever happens next occurs. If the NPC attacks, the DM may give them Advantage on the attack roll that first round because of their successful Intimidation check.
If a character is an ass, that is a valid role-playing choice. If a player is an ass, others won't want to play with them.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
This is where you dont understand my point...
Players not rolling against other players is as whacko an idea as rolling without role play.
Imagine something much less farfetched for gnome barbarian with 5 intellect... "Lets all stack them into the door and lets all ready our weapons at the first one showing up." would you let a player do this without some of rolls if you know this was said in game.
Even there... What about players planning out of game and then acting as such in game ? Im not talking about 1 player here... Im talking most of my players. When they metagame i tell them. I "address" the situation. But what about them thinking they cannot do stuff without my conscent because i force them to play stats they cant understand ?
Not everyone knows what a tricep is. Not everyone knows what parkour is all about and that player trying to wall run up the well hes in. may not understand why his acrobatics is not working. Thats what im talking about.
What about the barbarian gnome who is torturing the human warlock yet the human warlock decides he has no reactions whatsoever because he cant take a gnome seriously ? Hes being tortured yet because player vs player there shouldnt be any rollings ?
Thats what im talking. Putting rules only for npcs and monsters is bullshit.
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)
Fairly simplistic plan, so I'd allow them to try it. The NPC's could decide not to do that, attacking anything they could see from distance if they can. If it were a more complex plan, I may require him to make an Int check to see if he effectively conveys his plan correctly. If the Players decide that they understand him regardless, that is a different issue and has more with the DM trying to make them understand that they are playing characters, not themselves.
If he makes an Acrobatics check that fails and doesn't understand why, that is something the DM needs to try and explain to the Player better.
I'm assuming the torture is causing damage, so even if the warlock doesn't take him seriously, eventually he will take so much damage that he dies. So he has a choice to make...give in or withstand the torture until he's dead. If the Gnome makes his Intimidation check and you tell the Warlock that he believes that the Gnome is going to torture him to death and he still chooses to not take him seriously, that is the Player's choice in how the Character reacts.
I'm only talking about when a Player has to decide how his Character Reacts. If you are doing a tug-of-war, having the Players make Contesting Athletic rolls makes total sense. But if one player is standing before a target and the other player is shooting an arrow at the apple on his head, it is up to the Player to decide if the Character stay, flinches, ducks, runs, whatever. As a DM, it is up to you to give them the information, such as "You look at the arrow pointed at you and it seems it is too low to effectively hit the apple instead of your face", but you should leave it up to the Player to take in that information and decide how the Character reacts to it.
It sounds like the problem you have is the players not taking the rolls they have to play seriously. All of the examples you gave here are about the Players, not the Characters. If the Players want the Characters to try something, give them the opportunity. If it's something completely out of the range of possibility for the Character, the DM assigns a DC that is appropriate. If the Players want the Characters to do something that the Characters would have no knowledge of, even if the Players do, it is up to the DM to explain that the Character doesn't know how to do it. If you play in a world where guns don't exist and a player wants to make one, you could have them make an Int check to see if they can figure out how to do it. If, however, they want to make an AR-15 without first going through flintlocks, muskets, rifles, repeating rifles, standing machine guns, tommy guns, then it is up to the DM to explain that the technology doesn't exist. If they still insist, make the DC so high that there is no way to succeed.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I would handle all of these examples the same way as Griz_Behr has described. As well, especially the 2nd example. It's really the DM's responsibility in that case.
Published Subclasses
You guys make it feel like you never had any troubles dealing with players choices... Sorry i can never believe that. Whatever... Im sure you had the same troubles.
Sorry but players ignoring stats happens all the time and reguardless of you explaining it or not it wont change anything. Because thats how players wanna play it.
Sorry. But im never gonna change an already skewed game around players to give them much more without doing the same for npc and monsters. And yes my npcs do have stats and levels.
Based on your experiences... Im quite sure you never had true open world and are easily just forcing players into your stories. While me... My players can literally decide to skip all stories and my world wont care. It will go forward with or without them. Stories just dont work for them unless its their character story.
Just so you know one of my friend game is poking the kobold paladin for 3 hours. Thats his fun !
So no... I sincerely doubt that you never experienced characters ignoring stats.
Btw... The warlock did die. Told the player that he succeeded at killing his character. Congratulation you gained nothing lost everything. Looked at me heres my next character.
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's called roleplaying. Just like if an orc barbarian rolling a natural 20 on a strength check to lift a 1 million pound door, that will never succeed. So if a character tries to get another character to try to reveal parts of their roleplaying, just because they roll a natural 20 on any charisma check doesn't mean the backstory is revealed. My players focus on the roleplaying and take the roll into account in terms of how the scene plays out, but as I said, a natural 20 on any check does not guarantee success, so when it comes to social player interactions, I just let them handle it how they want to and ignore their stats, unless they want to do so.
Published Subclasses
And this is exactly what i hate because this is the biggest meta game of them all.
Basically that bard can persuade everyone to comply but cannot ever do it against his friends cause they know hes full of bullshit even if he says the truth. Sorry but that to me is the biggest hole. To me thats a big lack of immersion.
What i do instead is require in all cases to have roleplay to base the thing on. Then i ask the player to roll their dices and give me the numbers based on the skill of their choice. Then i say things like hes hidding something or hes clear with you. Or stuff like that.
Works much better this way cause it stays immersive and if i see a player meta game and ignore the rolls then ill tell him that he cant.
Im all for the yes and... But metagaming like that i cannot allow.
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)
If players roll an insight check against other players, I have them roll deception checks even if they are telling the truth and then narrate based on the rolls. That being said, how can I say that Player X would reveal his deepest darkest secret to some random stranger he just met, even if they met months ago just because he rolled a 20 and has a +9 to persuasion? That doesn't make any sense to me, especially if you consider that situation in real life, that doesn't make sense.
In terms of balancing the game, if a 1 is strictly role playing and no dice, and a 10 is use dice for everything, my DM style is probably a 3 or 4, whereas I think you are higher on that scale, and there's nothing wrong with that, I think DMs have their own styles.
But I am interested to hear how that scene would play out in a game you're DMing. In this scenario, let's say Player X murdered a bunch of people as a part of a cult that he and his parents were involved in. He left in his teen years and now is trying every day to repent for his actions while burying them deep down. He hasn't told a soul about what happens. Session 1 or 10 (you can give different answers to both if that matters), Player Y, a bard, with expertise in persuasion maybe asks in a late night campfire for everyone to give up a secret they've never told anyone, their deepest secret. The Player Y rolls a 20 on persuasion and Player X rolls whatever it is you tell him to roll, and let's say he rolls a 1.
What do you do in this situation? - No judgement, I'm just genuinely curious since we have different styles. For me, in my style, I would still leave that up to the Player X to reveal whatever he wishes, but to take the rolls into account.
Published Subclasses