# One D&D Cleric and Species playtest survey is live.



## darjr (Dec 22, 2022)

Haven’t read it yet.











						Get One D&D Playtest at no cost - D&D Beyond
					






					www.dndbeyond.com


----------



## CleverNickName (Dec 22, 2022)

When it asked me to rank my preferred replacement term for "race," I chose Subtype as my favorite and put Species in last place.  I wasn't going to comment further but I couldn't skip the next question, "Why did you rank that term as your favorite?"   I hope my answer wasn't too snarky to be useful, but it's the honest truth:

"I picked 'Subtype' as my favorite because 'Ancestry' wasn't an option."


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 22, 2022)

I wonder how many people are going to make OGL 1.1 comments in the feedback. Bad timing, that.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 22, 2022)

I picked species and told them I don't care. My biggest feedback was that the combination of divine spark and the new bardic heal in one party made combat trivial at low levels. I told them divine intervention is still problematic, and the nerf to banishment went too far. That's about it. None of the changes were super earth-shattering.


----------



## darjr (Dec 22, 2022)

I'm super glad they are asking for terms!


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 22, 2022)

Did my part. Never got to playtest the cleric but I added my 2 cents in for the Ardling, Goliath and Dragonborn as well as the glossary questions.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 22, 2022)

• Species
• Kind
• Subtype

I can live with any of the three. 

"Species" is the most self-explanatory. 

"Kind" is Medieval and Ancient, and equates to Species. 

"Subtype" can work but hurts my ears and gives the impression that the Type itself is "super" important.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 22, 2022)

I want the Cleric flavor as setting neutral as possible.

Including as cosmologically neutral as possible.


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 22, 2022)

Wonder how much of the new OGL v1.1 will appear in the last comment box?


----------



## darjr (Dec 22, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> Wonder how much of the new OGL v1.1 will appear in the last comment box?



Probably some. Please don’t make this thread another ogl 1.1 thread.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 22, 2022)

I actually chose subtype as 1st place. This makes it purely a specific game term for character creation. Kind is something you can ask for: "what kind of person/creature/humanoid was it?", so I put it on 2nd place.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 22, 2022)

Respect the poll, ANCESTRY.


----------



## aco175 (Dec 23, 2022)

I guess if Type is humanoid or Fey, then Subtype is something I can come around to.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> • Species
> • Kind
> • Subtype
> 
> ...




Dont like any of these, and I told them to just go with Ancestry. lol


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 23, 2022)

after the spending habits reveal during the fireside chat it's surprising that these surveys are still not asking if responders dm & what percentage.  I wonder if that info is still linked & cross indexed from past surveys where it was asked.


----------



## Shiroiken (Dec 23, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> When it asked me to rank my preferred replacement term for "race," I chose Subtype as my favorite and put Species in last place.  I wasn't going to comment further but I couldn't skip the next question, "Why did you rank that term as your favorite?"   I hope my answer wasn't too snarky to be useful, but it's the honest truth:
> 
> "I picked 'Subtype' as my favorite because 'Ancestry' wasn't an option."



I responded with "they all suck." I then proceeded to explain why, and then added Lineage and Ancestry as my preferred options.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 23, 2022)

aco175 said:


> I guess if Type is humanoid or Fey, then Subtype is something I can come around to.



For me, as a 4e-ism,

"Fey" is moreso a Planar Origin.

For example, when _Find Familiar_ summons a Fey Beast, the pet is both a Beast and Fey.



The Planar Origin means something like "what the creature is made out of".

For example, a Material creature is made out of matter.

An Ethereal creature is made out of spirit.

An Astral creature is made out of thought.

Thought is sometimes called "aster", and spirit is sometimes called "ether", especially in the sense of a medium that something is made out of.



From this, Celestial is aster under the influence of Positive Energy, and Fiend is aster under the influence of Negativity.

Similarly, Fey is Positive ether, and Shadow is Negative ether.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 23, 2022)

So, I discovered something interesting. You can string any number of words together with hyphens in the “additional comments” boxes and they’ll all get counted as one word. I think if you were to use this to type a several-hundred-all-hyphenated-word-response you’d probably just get your response thrown out without it ever being read, but it might be useful if you’ve hit the 200-word limit and just need to squeeze an extra couple of words in there.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 23, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> So, I discovered something interesting. You can string any number of words together with hyphens in the “additional comments” boxes and they’ll all get counted as one word. I think if you were to use this to type a several-hundred-all-hyphenated-word-response you’d probably just get your response thrown out without it ever being read, but it might be useful if you’ve hit the 200-word limit and just need to squeeze an extra couple of words in there.



Bypassing form validation on order to submit a longer entry does not guarantee that the database field it is probably getting written to won't simply limit the IMSERT to the number of characters the form tried to benforce.  There is a good chance the excess goes away or even that it simply fails to store the entire text box depending on how the code is written to at re it when you click next


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 23, 2022)

Does anoyne else think it is a bummer that the survey is open till Jan 20th...
I hoped to get a new packet earlier next year...


----------



## aco175 (Dec 23, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> So, I discovered something interesting. You can string any number of words together with hyphens in the “additional comments” boxes and they’ll all get counted as one word. I think if you were to use this to type a several-hundred-all-hyphenated-word-response you’d probably just get your response thrown out without it ever being read, but it might be useful if you’ve hit the 200-word limit and just need to squeeze an extra couple of words in there.



I sometimes wonder if this site needs a 200 word limit on some of the posts.  I find myself skimming a lot on longer posts.  It is a bit rude and a disservice to the poster, but come on man.  At least some have a TLDR.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 23, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Bypassing form validation on order to submit a longer entry does not guarantee that the database field it is probably getting written to won't simply limit the IMSERT to the number of characters the form tried to benforce.  There is a good chance the excess goes away or even that it simply fails to store the entire text box depending on how the code is written to at re it when you click next



It’s not limited by characters though, it’s limited by words.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 23, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not limited by characters though, it’s limited by words.



That doesn't mean that there isn't a db field with a character limit.  Web ui survey crunching & database administrators are often very different groups of folks


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 23, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> That doesn't mean that there isn't a db field with a character limit.  Web ui survey crunching & database administrators are often very different groups of folks



I guess so, but then wouldn’t some responses be at risk of getting cut off if a lot of their 200 words were long ones and/or they used a whole lot of punctuation?


----------



## Oofta (Dec 23, 2022)

aco175 said:


> I sometimes wonder if this site needs a 200 word limit on some of the posts.  I find myself skimming a lot on longer posts.  It is a bit rude and a disservice to the poster, but come on man.  At least some have a TLDR.



I-don't-know-why-you-would-say-that, long-posts-are-perfectly-fine.  It's-not-like-people-ramble-on-and-on, we-have-important-things-to-say!  

Really-wish-I-had-more-to-say-on-this-but-I-haven't-had-time-to-do-the-survey-yet.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 23, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I guess so, but then wouldn’t some responses be at risk of getting cut off if a lot of their 200 words were long ones and/or they used a whole lot of punctuation?



Depends on how it's done.   I don't know the limits on the form but lets say it's a nice round 250 words on the form for purpose of discussion.  Imagine this process:

Alice from the survey crunching research group tells their contact person Bob at their new client that survey responses shouldn't be more than about a page.
Bob tells Cindy in webdev that they need a form with these questions from  Dave's group  but  the survey team says to make sure no answers are more than about a page max.
Cindy starts working on building a form after firing off a ticket to Eddie in serverOps or whatever  saying that she needs a database named survey _xxx with the following fields.
Eddie's team kicks it back saying they need more info about the text fields they need to create
Cindy consults google to see that a page is about 250 words &fires it back saying no more than a page or 250 words.
Eddie's team sighs because they told Cindy they need a number of characters not words or pages.  They too consult google & see that a page is about 1800 characters & that a word is usually considered 5 characters.  They look at Cindy's ticket where it says "_no more than_ A or B" so they set the limit to 1250 characters because you get that from  250*5

Frank uses the eventual form to submit some stuff but is 75 words over, many of the first 250 words he used are more than 5 characters too so his average is already like 6 or 7 characters per word.  He uses the validation defeat mentioned to add 75 more but only the first 15o words even get into the db so the rest never even had a chance.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Dec 23, 2022)

200 words is nowhere near the actual limit if they're using some MySQL-based db, the character limit is probably 65535 characters if it's a text column. But no one wants to read something that's 65535 characters long when there's so many other things to read.


----------



## Lojaan (Dec 23, 2022)

I think "ancestry" will never be an option. The purpose of "species" or "subtype" and the like are to be purely * biological* descriptions. Seperate from background, culture, history etc... Ancestry has all that stuff very much mixed in so is not applicable.

Species was jarring when I first heard it but I'm used to it now. Subtype is pretty decent because it is clearly a game term.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 23, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> 200 words is nowhere near the actual limit if they're using some MySQL-based db, the character limit is probably 65535 characters if it's a text column. But no one wants to read something that's 65535 characters long when there's so many other things to read.



That doesn't mean that nobody uses things like  varchar(max).  There are good reasons for doing so.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 23, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Does anoyne else think it is a bummer that the survey is open till Jan 20th...
> I hoped to get a new packet earlier next year...




 I suspect we will still get the next packet when we get the One D&D SRD.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 23, 2022)

I've said before Origins are the only term broad enough to cover stuff like Autognomes, Warforged, to other weirder things, things were biological terms don't make sense.


----------



## codo (Dec 23, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> I think "ancestry" will never be an option. The purpose of "species" or "subtype" and the like are to be purely * biological* descriptions. Seperate from background, culture, history etc... Ancestry has all that stuff very much mixed in so is not applicable.
> 
> Species was jarring when I first heard it but I'm used to it now. Subtype is pretty decent because it is clearly a game term.



I think all three are fine.  Like you said the important part is that they are all biological not cultural descriptions.

  I still think species is the best choice because it is much more clearly defined and less confusing.  Even if someone has never played D&D or any RPGs at all, if you tell them, "My character is species *__*." they will understand what you are talking about, because species is a common real word term.  "My kind or subtype is* __*." is a lot more vague and confusing.  Kind and subtype are less well defined and use a more specific in-game definition.

Bottom line if you have common real world word, that works for describing game elements, you should use it, instead of defining new in-game jargon.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 23, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I've said before Origins are the only term broad enough to cover stuff like Autognomes, Warforged, to other weirder things, things were biological terms don't make sense.



If reallife scientists would describe new lifeforms that are nonbiological, they would use the term "species". 

Fantasy lifeforms − *Constructs *like Warforged and Autognomes, *Elementals *like Genasi, and *Undead* like Reborn − can graft into the reallife taxonomy as new noncellular "kingdoms" of life.

Ultimately, "species" means a "kind" and applies to the species of any clade of the taxonomy.


----------



## codo (Dec 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> If reallife scientists would describe new lifeforms that are nonbiological, they would use the term "species".
> 
> Fantasy lifeforms − *Constructs *like Warforged and Autognomes, *Elementals *like Genasi, and *Undead* like Reborn − can graft into the reallife taxonomy as new noncellular "kingdoms" of life.
> 
> Ultimately, "species" means a "kind" and applies to the species of any clade of the taxonomy.



In science fiction it is completely normal to refer to carbon-based species, silicone based species, or even energy based species.  The default terminology is alien species.  In the real world we haven't found any aliens yet, but when scientists are talking about the potential, they use alien species.  When NASA was talking about water on Mars and the potential for life, potential alien species was the phrase they use.


----------



## Shiroiken (Dec 23, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Species was jarring when I first heard it but I'm used to it now. Subtype is pretty decent because it is clearly a game term.



Still hate Species, but if they're not going to use Lineage or Ancestry, I suppose it's probably the best choice. It's still inaccurate and comes off too much as sci-fi for my taste.

Subtype is terrible because it skips over the Creature Type. Since Humanoid is no longer the default, you'd have to use the full Creature Type/Subtype to replace Race. Not only is that a mouthful, but I was already sick of "subclass" and subrace" instead of Archetype and Ethnicity because WotC can't/won't be creative.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 23, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> Still hate Species, but if they're not going to use Lineage or Ancestry, I suppose it's probably the best choice. It's still inaccurate and comes off too much as sci-fi for my taste.
> 
> Subtype is terrible because it skips over the Creature Type. Since Humanoid is no longer the default, you'd have to use the full Creature Type/Subtype to replace Race. Not only is that a mouthful, but I was already sick of "subclass" and subrace" instead of Archetype and Ethnicity because WotC can't/won't be creative.



It they went with the nomenclature of "type", I would prefer:

Type ← Race
Supertype ← Creature Type

(And I would prefer the Planar Origins group separately from the Creature Type.)


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 23, 2022)

Whatever term they land on will be fine - we'll all get used to it quickly and forget that there was a huge argument. If this is the biggest controversy to dog OneD&D, then WotC are in good shape.


----------



## Kinematics (Dec 23, 2022)

I went with Kind as my first choice. Not as, "What is your Kind?" — using the term as an explicit designator — but as in, "What kind of creature are you?" A simple, natural, inoffensive question because it's used as an adjective, not a noun.

I still think Species is the worst possible choice in a fantasy system.


----------



## Baba (Dec 24, 2022)

I’m a bit annoyed that I have to log in to answer the survey, and that there is nothing about privacy in the FAQ. I like Wizards and their product, want them to succeed, and would like to spend my time giving them feedback for free, and they are just about the only company I am willing to do that for. But I don’t want to help them build a profile on me.

I wonder if this survey is even legal to distribute to eu citizens? It’s not anonymous (since you have to log in), it collects personal data (in the broad sense of the GDPR), and it doesn’t provide any information about how that personal data is procesed, like storage period and purposes of processing.

Edit: I started the survey now, and I see they refer to the general Wizards terms of use and Privacy Policy, so it’s probably legal. Still annoying, though.

The original d&d next surveys were anonymous, I think?


----------



## Hriston (Dec 24, 2022)

5th Ed. already has a term for the parenthetical descriptor after a creature's type. It's called a "tag" not a "subtype". I still chose it as my second choice because I prefer it to _species._


----------



## aco175 (Dec 24, 2022)

I was thinking of the word Type and Sub-Type and find I like it more if we need to change from Race.  I was thinking of undead and thought I never say what race of undead is that.  I tend to say what type of undead already.  It may become shorthand instead of saying sub-type.


----------



## darjr (Dec 24, 2022)

Huh? Interesting.
This convo made me realize that a single term may not be best but different ones based upon context would work better.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 24, 2022)

I think that if someone asked me "what species of undead?" I would understand what they mean. Like, we can be pedantic all day long, but ultimately language is an evolving thing and if species (or whatever - I still like "schmorp") becomes the new "race" in D&D, we will all be comfortable with it very quickly. We will intuitively understand what it means in the context of the game and not be worrying about whether an automaton or undead thing can be properly called a species in the biological sense. At worst there would be bout 6 seconds of cognitive dissonance and then we would adjust. Humans are super good at that.


----------



## Charlaquin (Dec 24, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I think that if someone asked me "what species of undead?" I would understand what they mean. Like, we can be pedantic all day long, but ultimately language is an evolving thing and if species (or whatever - I still like "schmorp") becomes the new "race" in D&D, we will all be comfortable with it very quickly. We will intuitively understand what it means in the context of the game and not be worrying about whether an automaton or undead thing can be properly called a species in the biological sense. At worst there would be bout 6 seconds of cognitive dissonance and then we would adjust. Humans are super good at that.



Maybe you will. If they go with species, that’ll never stop bothering me. I’ll _put up_ with it, but I’m certainly not going to get used to it, much less forget it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 24, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I suspect we will still get the next packet when we get the One D&D SRD.



How would that work? The game has to be written first. 

Even if the conspiracy theories abt it being a false playtest are right (and they aren’t, the idea is patently absurd) they wouldn’t make it so blatant as “here’s the srd, but this is totally still a playtest that will determine what the rules are…”


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 24, 2022)

WotC will not use Ancestry or Origin in place of Race because they already use both those terms in the game already in other places and they'd have to re-write all those things to remove them.

My order was Kind, Species, and then Subtype, with my write-in stating I actually preferred 'Kin' because it was a homey, more medieval and fantasy type of word for a group of peoples... but that Kind would be an okay replacement.  I'm fine with Species too and don't really care or am bothered by the "non-biological creature" argument.

I had Subtype last and stated quite succinctly that I don't think it would work because it would just look silly as a Chapter heading in a book.

"To create a character you will select your Class, Background, and Subtype."  What?  Subtype?  A Subtype of what?  What does that mean?  It's referencing something we don't even know.

I basically said I didn't think it'd work for the PHB.  It's fine for the Monster Manual because that's more of a taxonomical tome and that sort of categorization makes sense... but not so much for creating a character.  We need an actual word for the Chapter heading that tells the reader quickly what is in it.  Which is why I also suspect that it'll end up being 'Species'-- that's the word that most people will understand immediately on what the Chapter is about... moreso than Kin or Kind or Lineage or Origin or any of those words.  Yes, it might be more 'scientific' than we might like for a fantasy game... but it's also the most recognizable word for telling us what its referencing.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 24, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> How would that work? The game has to be written first.
> 
> Even if the conspiracy theories abt it being a false playtest are right (and they aren’t, the idea is patently absurd) they wouldn’t make it so blatant as “here’s the srd, but this is totally still a playtest that will determine what the rules are…”




 They will  updated it as they continue development.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 24, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> • Species
> • Kind
> • Subtype
> 
> ...



Humanoid, Fey, Construct, they ARE kinda important right?


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 24, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> I responded with "they all suck." I then proceeded to explain why, and then added Lineage and Ancestry as my preferred options.



And if you have an option is which transitioned or transformed (magically or otherwise) from another option, how does that work? I mean just reincarnation itself doesn't work with either of those as it has no relationship to your ancestors or lineage. Both your options are strictly about your parents - but what if you're not the same as your parents?


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 24, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> *Humanoid*, *Fey*, *Construct*, they ARE kinda important right?



Each of these Types has many Species.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 24, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> They will  updated it as they continue development.



Is there a statement to that effect somewhere? That seems like a lot of extra work for little benefit when they could just wait until the playtest is at least 3/4 done.


----------



## codo (Dec 24, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Is there a statement to that effect somewhere? That seems like a lot of extra work for little benefit when they could just wait until the playtest is at least 3/4 done.



Based on what we have seen so far, its not exactly a lot of work to update from 5e to 1D&D.  It only takes a few minutes to update a subclass from 5E to 1D&D.  A developer could wait until the new rules are almost out to start working on new products, or they could start working on products now and update them before 1D&D is release.  I mean, I guess starting products early is technically more work, but it also gives you a year of extra time to work on _more _products.  Game developers tend to have more than one idea.  They could easily have 10 times the products available for the launch of 1D&D.

I don't mean to be insulting here, but this seems like a strange point to get hung up on.  Is there actually any disadvantage to explaining the terms of the new OGL?  Why not release the info as early as possible?  As a general rule ,I think  being as open and honest as possible is a good thing.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 24, 2022)

codo said:


> Based on what we have seen so far, its not exactly a lot of work to update from 5e to 1D&D.  It only takes a few minutes to update a subclass from 5E to 1D&D.  A developer could wait until the new rules are almost out to start working on new products, or they could start working on products now and update them before 1D&D is release.  I mean, I guess starting products early is technically more work, but it also gives you a year of extra time to work on _more _products.  Game developers tend to have more than one idea.  They could easily have 10 times the products available for the launch of 1D&D.
> 
> I don't mean to be insulting here, but this seems like a strange point to get hung up on.  Is there actually any disadvantage to explaining the terms of the new OGL?  Why not release the info as early as possible?  As a general rule ,I think  being as open and honest as possible is a good thing.



Releasing an SRD early will almost inevitably increase the “it’s not really a playtest” nonsense, for one. 

For another…I’m asking if there has been a statement, or if the poster is just making an assumption. You challenging me on on doing so is much more odd than me doing so. 

Lastly, the OGL and SRD directly relate, but are two distinct documents. They can release the full OGL before there is a complete SRD.


----------



## Azzy (Dec 25, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I suspect we will still get the next packet when we get the One D&D SRD.



That makes no sense. The 5.1 SRD isn't going to drop before 2024.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 25, 2022)

Azzy said:


> That makes no sense. The 5.1 SRD isn't going to drop before 2024.




 I could have sworn it was 2023, I'll just check.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 25, 2022)

Azzy said:


> That makes no sense. The 5.1 SRD isn't going to drop before 2024.




 The new OGL drops in January 2023, I assume the SRD will be apart of that, although this is what I found on the SRD for D&D One:

 "Second, we will update the SRD for One D&D as we complete its development—development that is informed by the results of playtests that we’re conducting with hundreds of thousands of D&D players now"


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 25, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I could have sworn it was 2023, I'll just check.



That's the updated OGL. OGLs and SRDs are different.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 25, 2022)

codo said:


> Based on what we have seen so far, its not exactly a lot of work to update from 5e to 1D&D.  It only takes a few minutes to update a subclass from 5E to 1D&D.  A developer could wait until the new rules are almost out to start working on new products, or they could start working on products now and update them before 1D&D is release.  I mean, I guess starting products early is technically more work, but it also gives you a year of extra time to work on _more _products.  Game developers tend to have more than one idea.  They could easily have 10 times the products available for the launch of 1D&D.
> 
> I don't mean to be insulting here, but this seems like a strange point to get hung up on.  Is there actually any disadvantage to explaining the terms of the new OGL?  Why not release the info as early as possible?  As a general rule ,I think  being as open and honest as possible is a good thing.



You don't have to update anything, though. If you are making something for 5e, it'll still work with the updated materials because "D&D" (sans edition) will still be the 5e chassis. WotC themselves are publishing a ton of new books this year, before any of the updated material being tested has been settled upon or printed. So those game developers can just keep making stuff.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Dec 25, 2022)

Species is the best I say.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 27, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Does anoyne else think it is a bummer that the survey is open till Jan 20th...
> I hoped to get a new packet earlier next year...



it might be February before we see the next one


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 28, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I've said before Origins are the only term broad enough to cover stuff like Autognomes, Warforged, to other weirder things, things were biological terms don't make sense.



Creature Type: Construct (Warforged) works great for that.

Origins works OK but is still a bit clunky if you started out as one thing, like Mountain Dwarf, and then transformed into another thing, like reincarnated into a halfling. Is your "Origin" really halfling? Sort of. It's the origin of what you look like right now. But it's not how your experiences originated. You may still count yourself a member of the Mountain Dwarf society and be accepted by that society as a Mountain Dwarf. Or you may join a halfling community. Or you might be an outcast from both. But describing it as your origin doesn't seem to work as well as simply describing your current creature type, with origin and heritage and ancestry information being left for a background description.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 28, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> Still hate Species, but if they're not going to use Lineage or Ancestry, I suppose it's probably the best choice. It's still inaccurate and comes off too much as sci-fi for my taste.



And I still don't understand why people like lineage and ancestry, when it's tied strictly to who or what your parents were, not allowing for what you are to be different from what they were. It straight-up doesn't function for the simple existing spell of reincarnation, and gets even worse when it's a new type of thing which is chosen as a transformation from an old type of thing. Why would modern D&D tie the concept of what you are now to what your parents were, knowing the direction of creature types is heading towards making transformations from one type of thing to another type a thing more common over time?


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 28, 2022)

darjr said:


> Huh? Interesting.
> This convo made me realize that a single term may not be best but different ones based upon context would work better.



Well and now you're getting into another field of headaches. Particularly as the game gets more tied in with a database, you want consistent terms for PC designations.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 28, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> And I still don't understand why people like lineage and ancestry, when it's tied strictly to who or what your parents were, not allowing for what you are to be different from what they were. It straight-up doesn't function for the simple existing spell of reincarnation, and gets even worse when it's a new type of thing which is chosen as a transformation from an old type of thing. Why would modern D&D tie the concept of what you are now to what your parents were, knowing the direction of creature types is heading towards making transformations from one type of thing to another type a thing more common over time?



Because what your parents were largely determines what you are in a genetic sense. Ancestry is just as functional as species for that. It’s just a more fantasy sounding word to the sci-fi sounding species. Polymorph and wild shape temporarily change you but reincarnation permanently changes you. The word used for what’s changed in those instances doesn’t really matter beyond what sounds or feels better given the context.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 28, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Because what your parents were largely determines what you are in a genetic sense. Ancestry is just as functional as species for that. It’s just a more fantasy sounding word to the sci-fi sounding species. Polymorph and wild shape temporarily change you but reincarnation permanently changes you. The word used for what’s changed in those instances doesn’t really matter beyond what sounds or feels better given the context.



Right, but the game is drifting towards not necessarily designating you by what your genetics were when you were born. Much like our own society is drifting away from placing higher level importance on what your genetics say you were when you were born. I think the game is going to see more options which the PC transforms into, leaving behind their prior type and becoming a new type totally unrelated to the old type. New forms created by a pact with an otherworldly being, or by powerful magics, etc..

I absolutely agree with you that species sounds more sci-fi than fantasy. It's why I have been advocating for "Creature Type" as the descriptor. "Creature" is fantasy-sounding. It's even ore fantasy-sounding than Ancestry. But it applies even if you're now entirely different than what you were originally born. If you were born a Mountain Dwarf but were reincarnated into a Halfling, your ancestry is Mountain Dwarf but your Creature Type is Halfling. The later however is the relevant term for what you are now, what stat changes and powers apply to your PC, etc.. The former is just something you'd want to describe in your background information.


----------



## Lojaan (Dec 28, 2022)

I think species can totally be fantasy sounding. You just gotta think of it in a ye Olde, alchemist, "origin of the species", type way. The word has been in use since the 16th century after all. I get that's not mediaeval, but that sort of 'Shakespeare era' fits depictions of places like Waterdeep and Balders Gate so the vibe can still fit.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Dec 29, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> Bypassing form validation on order to submit a longer entry does not guarantee that the database field it is probably getting written to won't simply limit the IMSERT to the number of characters the form tried to benforce.  There is a good chance the excess goes away or even that it simply fails to store the entire text box depending on how the code is written to at re it when you click next



[pedantry]True... but CLOBs. Also, NoSQL databases. MongoDB, for example, limits BSON documents to 16 Mb.[/pedantry]

But yes, that's likely the case. It's also weird that the text field has a word limit instead of a character limit UI validation rule.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 31, 2022)

My biggest factor for the term was how it would be used in-character, in-game. 

Sub-type doesn't work. It is too codified as a game term. Sure, if we were ONLY considering it in terms of a game with no RP elements, it would be the best choice, but we aren't. 

And so, I originally went with Kind.... but it doesn't work. At least not well. "After you pick your class, pick your kind" sounds awkward, but even worse would be something like "We have an inter-kind marriage". It just... doesn't flow properly. 

Species isn't great either, I would prefer origin to cover things like warforged and other created beings, but between the three it is actually the most natural to use in the ways that we would use it AFTER character creation.


----------



## tetrasodium (Dec 31, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> My biggest factor for the term was how it would be used in-character, in-game.
> 
> Sub-type doesn't work. It is too codified as a game term. Sure, if we were ONLY considering it in terms of a game with no RP elements, it would be the best choice, but we aren't.
> 
> ...



My initial thought was also that type/subtype didn't work but it really does _if_ they go back to useful type: subtype, subtype like "Humanoid: Elf, fey" for elf & "humanoid: Dwarf, Elemental" or whatever for dwarf.


----------



## Yaarel (Dec 31, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> My biggest factor for the term was how it would be used in-character, in-game.
> 
> Sub-type doesn't work. It is too codified as a game term. Sure, if we were ONLY considering it in terms of a game with no RP elements, it would be the best choice, but we aren't.
> 
> ...



"Subtype" is awkward.

But "Type" can work.

Elf, Dwarf, Dragonborn, etcetera, are *Types*.

Celestial, Fey, Elemental, etcetera are *Origins*.

Humanoid, Construct, etcetera are *Forms*.

There seems a way to make these descriptors work systematically.

The Elf Type is a Fey Humanoid.

The Human Type is a Natural Humanoid.

Possibly, Ethereal (Fey, Shadow), Astral (Celestial, Fiend), Elemental (Fire, Water) have specific Suborigins.

Possibly Natural is an Origin with (Ooze, Plant, Beast) as Suborigins.



Something like this. Of course, even using the term Species where Type is, can benefit from the same systematization of the nomenclature.


----------



## Kinematics (Dec 31, 2022)

Chaosmancer said:


> And so, I originally went with Kind.... but it doesn't work. At least not well. "After you pick your class, pick your kind" sounds awkward, but even worse would be something like "We have an inter-kind marriage". It just... doesn't flow properly.



It works if it's just, "Choose what kind of creature you are", but not as a noun.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 1, 2023)

tetrasodium said:


> My initial thought was also that type/subtype didn't work but it really does _if_ they go back to useful type: subtype, subtype like "Humanoid: Elf, fey" for elf & "humanoid: Dwarf, Elemental" or whatever for dwarf.




Maybe, but if you are talking to someone in-game you can't really say "they have an inter-subtype marriage" that's just... bizarre. 

As I said, if it were _purely _game mechanical, then it would work just fine. But the term is going to be used in-game and out-of-game, so it needs to work in multiple contexts. 

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Kinematics said:


> It works if it's just, "Choose what kind of creature you are", but not as a noun.




Exactly, and I decided off of which one would work best as a noun for in-game discussions. 

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Yaarel said:


> "Subtype" is awkward.
> 
> But "Type" can work.
> 
> ...




Again though, that can work in a *purely *game mechanical way, but it would be beyond weird to have a guy go, "Yeah, my parents had an inter-type marriage" And no one in game is going to talk about "Elf Type" or "Type Elf" with that sort of meaning. 

Also, REALLY think it would be kind of icky for the game to say "Elves are Fey Humanoids while Humans are Natural Humanoids". That "natural" language gets used in some really unwholesome ways, so I wouldn't want to encourage it to distinguish between different groups of people.


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 1, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> Again though, that can work in a *purely *game mechanical way, but it would be beyond weird to have a guy go, "Yeah, my parents had an inter-type marriage"



When considering the astonishing diversity of fantasy forms of life − or rather forms of consciousness: "My parents have an inter-type marriage." Sounds plausible.



Chaosmancer said:


> And no one in game is going to talk about "Elf Type" or "Type Elf" with that sort of meaning.



"Which Creature Types are on the moms side?" "They are all the Elf Type."



Chaosmancer said:


> Also, REALLY think it would be kind of icky for the game to say "Elves are Fey Humanoids while Humans are Natural Humanoids". That "natural" language gets used in some really unwholesome ways, so I wouldn't want to encourage it to distinguish between different groups of people.



Youre right about "Natural".

Humans are Material Humanoids, from the Material Plane.

Elementals are made out of matter too, so that might need some clarification.



Maybe a "Living" Origin and specifically refers to the Creature Types that are analogous to reallife biological "Life", where Ooze, Plant, and Beast are Suborigins.

Humans are Living (Beast) Humanoids.

Genasi are Elemental (Earth, Water, Air, or Fire) Humanoids.

Both Life and Elemental are made out of matter.


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 1, 2023)

Are we all really still discussing the replacement term for race, while completely not caring about the actual game mechanics introduced? This playtest is screwed.


----------



## Kinematics (Jan 1, 2023)

On the mechanics side of things, I had issue with how Intimidation interacts with the normalized Influence rules.

First, there's the old issue with tying Intimidation to Charisma.  In some senses it works, but in others it really doesn't.

The other Charisma skills — Deception, Persuasion, and Performance — work very much in a positive correlation with the expectations of Charisma. Being charismatic makes people more inclined to like you, believe you, and enjoy being around you.  It's easier to convince them to do things your way, they're more likely to say good things about you to others (increasing your reputation), and so forth.

Intimidation is the exact opposite. It's about getting people to fear you. Any reputation to be gained is in you being someone that people don't cross. People don't like you, and don't want to believe your lies. Certainly you're not putting on an entertaining performance on stage.

This is a longstanding complaint about the Intimidation skill, of course. Some suggest changing the stat used to Strength, to be better suited for the brutish fighter types who presumably would be more likely to use sheer presence to influence people in this way. 

I actually don't think Strength is a good match. I think, instead, that Wisdom is the best stat to tie to Intimidation. Wisdom is already connected with the Animal Handling and Insight skills, both of which feel like a much closer match to the act of intimidating someone — reading someone's state of mind, and carefully shifting it at a primal/emotional level.

Of course, this suggests clerics and druids might be some of the best at intimidation. And, well... a priest giving a fiery speech about hell and brimstone seems pretty intimidating to me, as would a grubby woodsman who might turn into a bear and tear my head off at any moment.  So I'd actually be fine with that.  Certainly more so than bards or sorcerers or warlocks trying to be intimidating.  And Wisdom isn't a complete dump stat for warrior types, so as long as they take proficiency in it, it works at an OK level for them, too.

However that's only covering the first half of the problem with Influence.  The other (major) problem is that the latest playtest gives you advantage on influencing Friendly creatures, and disadvantage on influencing Hostile creatures. For Persuasion, Deception, and Animal Handling, that makes sense.  For Intimidation, though, it feels completely backwards. You're not going to use Intimidation on a Friendly creature, and while you'll _want_ to use it on a Hostile creature, now you're at disadvantage? That's nuts.

Honestly, trying to tie any advantage/disadvantage to the Friendly/Neutral/Hostile axis just doesn't make sense for Intimidate. If anything, I'd say you might get advantage/disadvantage based on size and numbers. If you're larger than the creature (or have a trait like Powerful Build that gives you an effective boost to size), or you sufficiently outnumber the target, you can get advantage. If you're smaller or have fewer numbers, you get disadvantage.


I commented on the feedback that I thought this was a problem, but didn't have solid thoughts on how to fix it (or the space to write in something like this).


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 1, 2023)

Intimidation = playing on a targets fears

It doesnt mean being big and strong. It means, making the target paranoid that someone big and strong could catch them at any moment.

Maybe the Intimidator is the one who is big and strong, maybe not.

Maybe the Intimidator makes the target worry that inflation will keep getting higher and higher.

Maybe the Intimidator makes a monarch worry that failing to finance the partys expedition to stop a threat, would mean the threat would invade the realm.

Maybe the Intimidator makes the target think that WotC is gonna ruin D&D.

There are many different kinds of fears that an Intimidator can toy with.

Intimidation is typically a Charisma skill, relating to social skills generally.


----------



## Gorck (Jan 1, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> Intimidation = playing on a targets fears
> 
> It doesnt mean being big and strong. It means, making the target paranoid that someone big and strong could catch them at any moment.
> 
> ...



And yet a big, hulking brute staring at you with a menacing glare while cracking his knuckles can be pretty intimidating.  Hence the Strength (Intimidation) variant in the DMG.  Which makes perfect sense to me.  Some people can intimidate with mere words, some people can intimidate with an unsettling presence, and other people can’t intimidate to save their life.


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 1, 2023)

Gorck said:


> And yet a big, hulking brute staring at you with a menacing glare while cracking his knuckles can be pretty intimidating.  Hence the Strength (Intimidation) variant in the DMG.  Which makes perfect sense to me.  Some people can intimidate with mere words, some people can intimidate with an unsettling presence, and other people can’t intimidate to save their life.



Even the brute needs Charisma to benefit from being a menace.

Otherwise a dangerous nuisance gets the opposite of cooperation.

A brute with a high Charisma is oneself the "credible threat". So there is some convenience when wielding the Intimidation skill.


----------



## Greg Benage (Jan 2, 2023)

Gorck said:


> And yet a big, hulking brute staring at you with a menacing glare while cracking his knuckles can be pretty intimidating.




Sounds like someone with no particular aptitude for intimidation taking plays straight out of the two-bit thug’s playbook. 

Al Swearengen from Deadwood is my idea of a character with a good Charisma and probably expertise in the skill. Or Tony Soprano, if you prefer. They may not be especially likable, but they have presence and force of personality for days. They both had a way of using over the top sarcasm or obviously feigned courtesy as a thin veneer over barely constrained violence that was very effective.

Way more effective IMO than a brute glowering and cracking his knuckles.

Having the option to swap out ability scores is cool, though. That way people can run it however they like.


----------



## MockingBird (Jan 2, 2023)

Greg Benage said:


> Sounds like someone with no particular aptitude for intimidation taking plays straight out of the two-bit thug’s playbook.
> 
> Al Swearengen from Deadwood is my idea of a character with a good Charisma and probably expertise in the skill. Or Tony Soprano, if you prefer. They may not be especially likable, but they have presence and force of personality for days. They both had a way of using over the top sarcasm or obviously feigned courtesy as a thin veneer over barely constrained violence that was very effective.
> 
> ...



I second Al Swearengen as a great example of charismatic intimidation.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 2, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> When considering the astonishing diversity of fantasy forms of life − or rather forms of consciousness: "My parents have an inter-type marriage." Sounds plausible.




Sure, and it is just as plausible that  children at school will make custom messages for their maternal units. But realistically, it sounds weird to phrase it that way.



Yaarel said:


> "Which Creature Types are on the moms side?" "They are all the Elf Type."




Which sounds like they are in a video game. Sorry, it just does.



Yaarel said:


> Youre right about "Natural".
> 
> Humans are Material Humanoids, from the Material Plane.
> 
> ...




I guess I don't see what use this is. Sure, it would be like phylum, class and order, but that stuff is only useful in a scientific manner. For the VAST majority of game time, this type of organizing structure would never be used.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 2, 2023)

Kinematics said:


> On the mechanics side of things, I had issue with how Intimidation interacts with the normalized Influence rules.
> 
> First, there's the old issue with tying Intimidation to Charisma.  In some senses it works, but in others it really doesn't.
> 
> ...




This is all a very good point, but I also have a secondary concern as well. 

Do you need to even roll intimidation most of the time? I don't think a fighter in scale mail, wielding a dozen different implements of death, who has killed more monsters than he has teeth, really needs to TRY to intimidate Joe the Farmer. If Joe has any sense, he is scared. 

Alternatively, a fighter without an impressive reputation isn't really going to intimidate Dark Lord Loza, Vampire and Blood Prince of the Shadow Empire, because he is the type of villain who intimidates others, not one who is intimidated. A good example of this conundrum comes from Hulk in the MCU. None of the villains are ever scared of Hulk, even when they should be, because them being scared ruins the moment, but you don't need to show that the waitress is scared of him. 

I could see tying it to any number of stats, depending on how you are intimidating someone, but I think the larger question comes in with.. how do we want to USE this ability? Deception and Puersuasion like you noted are generally more useful tools, applicable to a wider set of situations. But is the goal to intimidate only in combat contexts? Only when you are stronger? Usually when you are weaker as a bluff? We can imagine how we want our characters to be scary, but how do we as DMs want people using Intimidation? What is the goal?


----------



## tetrasodium (Jan 2, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> Sure, and it is just as plausible that  children at school will make custom messages for their maternal units. But realistically, it sounds weird to phrase it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who people phrase things depends on the context.  A necromancer setting up the ritual circles on their first zombies is going to be reading the _"creature type: elf, fey"_ entry in their intro to basic necromancy if the raw materials they have to work with is an elf.  Likewise a magewright herbalist looking up _"creature type elf, fey" _rather than the _"creature type: faerie, fey"_ one just below it when double checking the dosage for digitalis needed for a weak & thready pulse.  Meanwhile an elven refugee from Cyre is going to fill out "elf" "elven" or maybe "elf, fey" in the paperwork where it says race species lineage type or whatever it happens to say when trying to get admitted to a refugee camp .


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 2, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> Even the brute needs Charisma to benefit from being a menace.




I disagree. Let's take a Gnoll Packlord. They have a -1 to charisma and no skill in intimidation. So they are, purely mechanically, less scary than a farmer. 

However if a 7 foot monster, smelling of rot and death and looking like this 





Puts a dagger to the throat of Dale the Turnip Farmer, Dale is going to be PLENTY intimidated. He is going to beg for his life and do what the giant murder monster wants, in hopes of getting out of this alive. Sure, maybe the City Watch Leader is made of sterner stuff, but the idea that that monster is less intimidating than any commoner because it has a -1 Charisma makes no sense.



Yaarel said:


> Otherwise a dangerous nuisance gets the opposite of cooperation.
> 
> A brute with a high Charisma is oneself the "credible threat". So there is some convenience when wielding the Intimidation skill.




But I think you are burying the lead with your phrasing. Someone capable of casually murdering you with their bare hands (any person with a 16 strength) is not a "dangerous Nuisance" they are a credible threat to your life. Which makes their ability to intimidate being tied to their ability to be liked kind of weird. You don't need to have a strong sense of self or the ability to lead others into battle to be scary and dangerous. Many scary and dangerous people are not charismatic, but that doesn't make them LESS intimidating.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 2, 2023)

tetrasodium said:


> Who people phrase things depends on the context.  A necromancer setting up the ritual circles on their first zombies is going to be reading the _"creature type: elf, fey"_ entry in their intro to basic necromancy if the raw materials they have to work with is an elf.  Likewise a magewright herbalist looking up _"creature type elf, fey" _rather than the _"creature type: faerie, fey"_ one just below it when double checking the dosage for digitalis needed for a weak & thready pulse.  Meanwhile an elven refugee from Cyre is going to fill out "elf" "elven" or maybe "elf, fey" in the paperwork where it says race species lineage type or whatever it happens to say when trying to get admitted to a refugee camp .




But do we really care what the magewright herbalist is looking up in their book? Even if it is a player character, they aren't going care how the patient is categorized, they are going to care about the dosage. 

How is the Necromancer's scene changed by looking up "Elf" compared to "Creature type, Wood Elf, Fey"? Like, if I was playing a necromancer I'm not going to ask my DM to refer to the entry in purely scientific terms, heck, I KNOW the spell doesn't change based on it being an Elf or a Dwarf, so I'm already hamming it up by even bringing it up. 

It would be like insisting that we have to refer to creatures as Canis Lupis Gigante in game, instead of as Dire Wolf. We could, there is a space for refering to creatures by their scienitific names... but does it come up often enough to make any difference in the game without forcing it? I don't think so. Especially since I have never run a game where it came up.


----------



## tetrasodium (Jan 2, 2023)

Intimidate is in a class of its own as far as skills go.    A Znir pact gnoll necromancer animating the Dale the turnip farmer to demand the paperwork in Dale's own dead & ragged voice from Ivan the city watch commander while a hypothetical gnoll pack leader is holding  Ivan  down in the growing puddle of Dale's blood.  The attribute is _always_ going to depend on the action being taken to intimidate.  The Necromancer may not have said a word& may not even be visible to Ivan but is being pretty darned intimidating.


----------



## tetrasodium (Jan 2, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> *But do we really care* what the magewright herbalist is looking up in their book? Even if it is a player character, they aren't going care how the patient is categorized, they are going to care about the dosage.
> 
> How is the Necromancer's scene changed by looking up "Elf" compared to "Creature type, Wood Elf, Fey"? Like, if I was playing a necromancer I'm not going to ask my DM to refer to the entry in purely scientific terms, heck, I KNOW the spell doesn't change based on it being an Elf or a Dwarf, so I'm already hamming it up by even bringing it up.
> 
> It would be like insisting that we have to refer to creatures as Canis Lupis Gigante in game, instead of as Dire Wolf. We could, there is a space for refering to creatures by their scienitific names... but does it come up often enough to make any difference in the game without forcing it? I don't think so. Especially since I have never run a game where it came up.



Yes.  Yes we do.  We care because creature type is a mechanical thing & when a system is built to incorporate a well fleshed out mechanic rather than a narrative flourish  it's less likely to be forgotten & hijacked in chapter  N of xxx guide to yyy or whatever because it makes a better story to reinvent or simplt forget a narrative first named taxonomy in a way that conflicts with the initial design paradigm.  A


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 2, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> I disagree. Let's take a Gnoll Packlord. They have a -1 to charisma and no skill in intimidation. So they are, purely mechanically, less scary than a farmer.
> 
> However if a 7 foot monster, smelling of rot and death and looking like this
> 
> ...



Tell that to King Kong.

Tell that to Frankenstein.

Tell that to any low-Charisma threat.

Dangerous nuance gains noncooperation.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 2, 2023)

Its going to take some getting used to hearing a dwarf say "The long line of my species watches over me and inspires me with their strength to wield the Hammer of the Dwarven Lords" instead of heritage, ancestors, or bloodline.

Hyperbolic example aside, a proper word to replace race should fill mechanically and narratively...and I dont think we will find a perfect fit, it will likley skew one way or the other...and we will deal with any inconsistencies as they arise.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 2, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> Tell that to King Kong.
> 
> Tell that to Frankenstein.
> 
> ...



Sure, but King Kong is still intimidating.


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 2, 2023)

SkidAce said:


> Sure, but King Kong is still intimidating.



Intimidation means getting something the Intimidator wants − not galvanizing an entire army against the Intimidator.

Pitchforks and torches means, failed Charisma (Intimidation) check.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 2, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> Intimidation means getting something the Intimidator wants − not galvanizing an entire army against the Intimidator.
> 
> Pitchforks and torches means, failed Intimidation (Charisma) check.



Not always, I could intimidate to cause someone to flee, surrender, rat out a friend.

Its not Persuasion after all, IMO.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 2, 2023)

Ever been Intimidated by a bully?  They didnt need Charisma.

Just different ways of looking at it, not right or wrong.


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 2, 2023)

SkidAce said:


> Ever been Intimidated by a bully?  They didnt need Charisma.



My experience has been different.

It was difficult to take the bullies seriously.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Jan 2, 2023)

Strength other ability scores can be used for different skills. I think using Strength for Intimidate is a given example.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jan 2, 2023)

SkidAce said:


> Ever been Intimidated by a bully?  They didnt need Charisma.
> 
> Just different ways of looking at it, not right or wrong.



I  think that the issue people are running into is the difference between D&D jargon and natural English use of the word. 
Intimidate in D&D isn't necessarily just scaring someone. It is scaring someone into doing something specific that you want.

A low-charisma thug is someone people tend to ignore, until they actually break something or hurt someone, whereupon people may run away or call the watch on them or similar. 
Part of the problem in visualising a low-charisma character trying to intimidate is that most intimidation examples people think of are from television/movies, where the person portraying the intimidator is not low-charisma.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 2, 2023)

I could dig Subtype, if they made Creature Type more of a big deal mechanically and flavorfully.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 2, 2023)

I gave them my two cents. There were only a few things I found significantly dissatisfying. Prepping spells to number of slots. Ardlings. Flying dragonborn (but no flying flyer ardlings?). Goliath growth offering distinct benefits from enlarge. Being able to swing a halberd at someone who has you grappled without disadvantage. Stuff like that.
I even took a shot at needing a DC 15 Dex (stealth) check to hide and how it impacts group stealth options though hit wasn't specifically a topic of the survey.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 2, 2023)

tetrasodium said:


> Yes.  Yes we do.  We care because creature type is a mechanical thing & when a system is built to incorporate a well fleshed out mechanic rather than a narrative flourish  it's less likely to be forgotten & hijacked in chapter  N of xxx guide to yyy or whatever because it makes a better story to reinvent or simplt forget a narrative first named taxonomy in a way that conflicts with the initial design paradigm.  A




So, what you are describing is that we must care that elves are Humanoid type Fey Subtype because it is a mechanic, and if the system doesn't build itself to use that mechanic, it will be replaced with what is needed for a better story. 

Problem, the things you described DON'T have mechanical implications and NEVER WILL. 

No one is EVER going to make DnD Necromancers use different spells or different materials to animate different humanoids based on their subtype. That would be a nightmare. No one at WOTC is going to build out the medicine skill to the degree that the weight of a specific humanoid will be paired in a chart to the proper measure of medicinal powders, let alone make that DIFFERENT for each sub-type.

This is why I think that using the terminology to define the species in this way would never work. No one is going to naturally want to refer to (Humanoid Type, Subtype Fey, Sub-Subtype Elf, Sub-Sub-Subtype Wood) as they are talking, in or out of character. And if the system wants to use these things and force them to matter, then we are going to potentially get these exact things you are talking about that the VAST VAST majority of people will immediately complain about because all it will be is a giant, useless mess.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 2, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> Tell that to King Kong.




The monster famously so scary that the army was brought in to fight it? That could be considered the origin of the idea of the "800-lbs Gorilla in the room"? Yeah, pretty sure he does get what he wants.



Yaarel said:


> Tell that to Frankenstein.




Doctor Frankenstein was a pathetic man. His creation was uglier than sin, but well-spoken and articulate. So, you are likely refering to the movie version of "ugggggh" practically a zombie Frankenstien's monster... which is still plenty terrifying. Could easily clear a room.



Yaarel said:


> Tell that to any low-Charisma threat.
> 
> Dangerous nuance gains noncooperation.




So, since you named two famous horror monsters, maybe you need to re-evaluate your terms? What you seem to be getting at is that non-verbal entities can't articulate what they want, and therefore won't get it. But that doesn't address the point ANYONE else is making. 

Let's try again with another low charisma example. Heck, we'll give low intelligence too. Hill Giant comes to a farm, sees two farmhands. It says "Give Cow". Now, maybe you decide that the Hill Giant is just a Dangerous Nuisance and the farmhands don't cooperate. So he smashes one of them into a bloody smear and says "Give Cow!" 

That other famrhand is intimidated. They are scared witless. They probably were scared witless BEFORE their friend was killed. This is just how people would react to that threat. There would be cooperation here, because it turns out that people want to live. 

Now, maybe you want to say that there would be non-cooperation. Those farms and villages wouldn't suffer under that Giant's hunger forever, some scrappy young hero would rise up and deal with the threat. Well, the same thing was true of Strahd, and turns out he has a really high charisma, so if that is non-cooperation, then EVERY monster is just a "Dangerous Nuisance" and not a real threat.


----------



## tetrasodium (Jan 3, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> So, what you are describing is that we must care that elves are Humanoid type Fey Subtype because it is a mechanic, and if the system doesn't build itself to use that mechanic, it will be replaced with what is needed for a better story.
> 
> Problem, the things you described DON'T have mechanical implications and NEVER WILL.
> 
> ...



No and that's a pretty serious misrepresentation because you are trying to use _narrative_ phrasing in a discussion about a _mechanical_ element within the rules.  There are _already_ a bunch of spells and abilities that key differently from target to target based on creature type. *Here is a partial list of things that already key off creature type in some way:* turn undead, divine sense, lay on hands, divine smite, holy nimbus, channel divinity, favored enemy, Pirmeval Awareness, Grim Harvest,  Antilife shell, blight, chill touch, command, commune with nature, Cure wounds, detect evil & good, Forbiddance, Hallow, Heal, Healing word, Hold monster, Holy aura, Magic circle, Mass cure wounds, Mass healing word, Phantasmal force, power word heal, Prayer of healing, Protection from evil & good, raise dead, shapechange, Simulacrum, Spare the dying, Sunbeam, sunburst, divine Word, Planar Binding, etc..

The fact that this tedious list needed to be assembled to prove that things which have keyed off creature type with mechanical implications for multiple editions illustrates why 5e's efforts to streamline & simplify creature type away elsewhere causes problems.  When you apply a question like "_is this thing narrative fluff or a mechanical thing?_" to what the new term for "race" should be the answer is that it is mechanical & as such mechanical concerns should hold heavy sway over what the term is mechanical.


----------



## Incenjucar (Jan 3, 2023)

Intimidation is a fairly complex thing. Realistically, it should factor in several elements that are not normally considered during gameplay, such as size, _build_ rather than strength (skinny powerhouses, etc.), overall appearance, smell, the way the speak, etc.

Charisma factors in in how effective they are in _emphasizing_ how intimidating they are naturally. An ogre who says something like "Hello little mortal, I shall enjoy feasting on the bones of everyone you have ever loved" in a deep voice while flexing their pecks is going to be more intimidating than an ogre who says "Dur uh, I'mma s-s-s-smash you okay?" with their voice cracking like a teenager while they pick their nose and eat a booger.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Jan 3, 2023)

Intimidation should be about more than threatening someone with immediate physical violence. It's demanding to see a soldier's commander, blackmailing a guild official, and telling an experienced pit fighter to take a dive. It's not just cracking knuckles and flexing; that's why a human can Intimidate a dragon.


----------



## Clint_L (Jan 3, 2023)

I don't even allow an intimidation check unless the player has a viable plan for intimidating the opponent. Then I'll set the DC after I hear their plan. You wanna intimidate a dragon? You'd better have a good idea for me to even consider that one!


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 3, 2023)

I also use Wisdom (Intimidation) skill for MORALE checks to avoid fleeing from battle when Bloodies or other dismaying setback.


----------



## Kinematics (Jan 3, 2023)

RuinousPowers said:


> Intimidation should be about more than threatening someone with immediate physical violence. *It's demanding to see a soldier's commander*, blackmailing a guild official, and telling an experienced pit fighter to take a dive. It's not just cracking knuckles and flexing; that's why a human can Intimidate a dragon.



Ah, yes, the intimidation tactics of the Karen.  And it's a legitimate variant.  There's a constant mental pressure being applied, and Strength certainly has nothing to do with it; it's force of personality, which I guess would fall under Charisma.

I still think the advantage/disadvantage on friendly/hostile targets is completely inappropriate, though.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 3, 2023)

tetrasodium said:


> No and that's a pretty serious misrepresentation because you are trying to use _narrative_ phrasing in a discussion about a _mechanical_ element within the rules.  There are _already_ a bunch of spells and abilities that key differently from target to target based on creature type. *Here is a partial list of things that already key off creature type in some way:* turn undead, divine sense, lay on hands, divine smite, holy nimbus, channel divinity, favored enemy, Pirmeval Awareness, Grim Harvest,  Antilife shell, blight, chill touch, command, commune with nature, Cure wounds, detect evil & good, Forbiddance, Hallow, Heal, Healing word, Hold monster, Holy aura, Magic circle, Mass cure wounds, Mass healing word, Phantasmal force, power word heal, Prayer of healing, Protection from evil & good, raise dead, shapechange, Simulacrum, Spare the dying, Sunbeam, sunburst, divine Word, Planar Binding, etc..
> 
> The fact that this tedious list needed to be assembled to prove that things which have keyed off creature type with mechanical implications for multiple editions illustrates why 5e's efforts to streamline & simplify creature type away elsewhere causes problems.  When you apply a question like "_is this thing narrative fluff or a mechanical thing?_" to what the new term for "race" should be the answer is that it is mechanical & as such mechanical concerns should hold heavy sway over what the term is mechanical.




Hard disagree. The term we use to refer to the different types of humanoids (there are exceptions, but the VAST number of player species are humanoid) is not a mechanical element of the game. It is much more of a narrative element. 

Heck, look at your list? 

Cares about undead? No One D&D species is an undead. There is likely to never be a pure undead species. (Reborn is the closest we get, but since these abilities care about that, and are common things for classes like clerics or paladins, then it is likely we will never get a species typed as Undead) 

Fiends? No One D&D species is a Fiend. The only one that could be is a Tiefling, and look, they are Humanoid. Not Humanoid, Fiend, just humanoid. 

Elemental, Abomination, Monstrosity, Beast? None of these are options for playable Species. The ONLY two that have shown up to date are construct and fey. And they are unique exceptions to the otherwise ubiquitous humanoid designation.


So, this is not a mechanical factor that is going to change undead, dragons, or fiends. This is a narrative factor for what we are going to call the various types of humanoids. This option will not effect the things you are talking about AT ALL.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 3, 2023)

RuinousPowers said:


> Intimidation should be about more than threatening someone with immediate physical violence. It's demanding to see a soldier's commander, blackmailing a guild official, and telling an experienced pit fighter to take a dive. It's not just cracking knuckles and flexing; that's why a human can Intimidate a dragon.




This is true, but the problem is that threatening someone with immediate physical violence IS PART of intimidation, and the easiest to think of on the spot. Which is why it feels so weird. Very few players will consider demanding to see the soldier's commander because they have insulted them, heck, most who do will roll deception to pass themselves off as VIPs that can demand that sort of reaction. Most people will consider a knife to the neck and a whispered threat though. 

And also, the more work you put into knowing WHAT to threaten the enemy with, such as intimidating a dragon by threatening to reveal a fatal weakness to their great rival... the less I want that to be a roll, because they've done the work to make that threat even possible in the first place.


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 3, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> This is true, but the problem is that threatening someone with immediate physical violence IS PART of intimidation



It is more like, the use of Intimidation requires a "credible threat".

The credible threat can be, "What is your name? I want to speak to your commander."

The credible threat can also be, "Im pretty sure I can take you." In which case, does the character physically appear to be a "credible threat"?

But steering this threat to the benefit of the Intimidator and handling the target adeptly, normally requires social skills, emotional intelligence, Charisma.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 3, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> But steering this threat to the benefit of the Intimidator and handling the target adeptly, normally requires social skills, emotional intelligence, Charisma.




"normally requires" seems to be making an assumption I don't agree with. I've already shown two examples of a creature using intimidation that does not require high emotional intelligence or social skills. You keep making this "benefit" claim, but you aren't supporting it or explaining what you mean by it. 

When a rattlesnake uses its rattle to scare something into not stepping on it and leave them alone, they have successfully used intimidation for their benefit. When a bear stands on its hind legs and roars, causing the wolves to flee so it can steal their kill, it has successfully used intimidation for its benefit. The animal kingdom is full of these examples, and while I'm not saying that this is the end of intimidation, they are the beginning of it. 

And as the start of this conversation pointed out, intimidation being treated the same as persuasion feels awkward. It should almost be agnostic towards the state of the target, working equally well against friendly and hostile targets, because it is more about whether or not you have that threat level, not whether or not the person you are threatening likes you or trusts you.


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 3, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> When a rattlesnake uses its rattle to scare something into not stepping on it and leave them alone, they have successfully used intimidation for their benefit.



In reallife, my response to a rattlesnake was cut off its head with a shovel.

(Seriously, there was a drought and the rattlesnakes came to the river that passed thru a ranch were a danger to the lives of the humans at the ranch. If they were out in nature I would never harm it.)


----------



## tetrasodium (Jan 3, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> In reallife, my response to a rattlesnake was cut off its head with a shovel.
> 
> (Seriously, there was a drought and the rattlesnakes came to the river that passed thru a ranch were a danger to the lives of the humans at the ranch. If they were out in nature I would never harm it.)



 I'm genuinely curious to hear about how offices, stores, restaurants, & bars tend to handle your shovel toting.  What percentage of your time spent outdoors would you say have you equipped with a shovel?


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 3, 2023)

tetrasodium said:


> I'm genuinely curious to hear about how offices, stores, restaurants, & bars tend to handle your shovel toting.  What percentage of your time spent outdoors would you say have you equipped with a shovel?



It was at a ranch. There was a shovel nearby.

Actually, my friend shot the rattlesnake first with a rifle. But it kept wriggling, and it wasnt clear that the snake was dead, and I didnt want the rattlesnake to suffer longer. Hence making sure.

The point is. To be a dangerous nuisance is the opposite of a successful Charisma (Intimidation) check.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 3, 2023)

Yaarel said:


> In reallife, my response to a rattlesnake was cut off its head with a shovel.
> 
> (Seriously, there was a drought and the rattlesnakes came to the river that passed thru a ranch were a danger to the lives of the humans at the ranch. If they were out in nature I would never harm it.)




Congratulations on a successful insight roll. Do you believe that every human being on the planet would have had the same reaction? What about other mammals? Do you believe rattles evolved for rattlesnakes as a way to tell predators to kill them? Would you try and use that shovel to kill the bear in my other example? 

Yes, turns out that humans with our higher level intellect and reasoning can occasionally react differently than nature intended, because we have incredible foresight. Just because you used that doesn't mean that rattlesnakes aren't using a form of intimidation. After all, you literally killed it BECAUSE it was a threat, not because it wasn't scary.


----------



## John Lloyd1 (Jan 3, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> Congratulations on a successful insight roll. Do you believe that every human being on the planet would have had the same reaction? What about other mammals? Do you believe rattles evolved for rattlesnakes as a way to tell predators to kill them? Would you try and use that shovel to kill the bear in my other example?
> 
> Yes, turns out that humans with our higher level intellect and reasoning can occasionally react differently than nature intended, because we have incredible foresight. Just because you used that doesn't mean that rattlesnakes aren't using a form of intimidation. After all, you literally killed it BECAUSE it was a threat, not because it wasn't scary.



I'm just sorry for the poor snake. In Australia the native snakes are protected.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 4, 2023)

John Lloyd1 said:


> I'm just sorry for the poor snake. In Australia the native snakes are protected.



But who's protected from the native snakes?


----------



## John Lloyd1 (Jan 4, 2023)

Azzy said:


> But who's protected from the native snakes?



Those who pass the wisdom saving throw (against panicking) or pass a survival check to notice the snake before they get too close!


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 4, 2023)

I’m afraid we may be conflating CR and intimidation, to a degree.
If T-Rexes still existed, I would stay the heck away from them even if they just walked around silently, no need for them to roar or be scary, because a T-Rex is obviously of a much higher CR than a regular unarmed human.

Now, intimidation tactics do exist in the animal kingdom, evolved strategies meant to make a creature look more dangerous than it actually is.
I believe that this is what the intimidation skill should be about: a successful check makes somebody appear more dangerous than it actually is, a failed check does the opposite.

A classic example of a failed check would be the low-cha 20th level monk sitting in a bar, getting harassed by hooligans. When the monk tries to shoo the low-insight hooligans away, he fails the check and then has to wipe the floor with them in the resulting fight. The low cha monk failed to telegraph his actual power, and a pointless fight is the consequence.

About using strength or wisdom or whatever else instead of cha for intimidation: I wouldn’t.
Give the creatures that have natural intimidating features proficiency and expertise with intimidation, it’ll compensate for their subpar charisma.
State in the intimidation rules that if a player is clearly and visibly more powerful than the intimidation target, the DC for the skill check is lowered.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 4, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> I’m afraid we may be conflating CR and intimidation, to a degree.
> If T-Rexes still existed, I would stay the heck away from them even if they just walked around silently, no need for them to roar or be scary, because a T-Rex is obviously of a much higher CR than a regular unarmed human.
> 
> Now, intimidation tactics do exist in the animal kingdom, evolved strategies meant to make a creature look more dangerous than it actually is.
> ...



OK


Olrox17 said:


> About using strength or wisdom or whatever else instead of cha for intimidation: I wouldn’t.



Disagree, instead of monks in your above example, take Vampire Slayers, not Buffy, she does social very well, take Kendra, does not do social very well but knows that it is a weak spot of hers. So the thugs are harassing her and she wants to avoid the fight. So instead of talking her way out of the fight she walks over to the fireplace, picks up the poker and ties it into a knot. 

Is that not using Strength for an intimidation check?


Olrox17 said:


> Give the creatures that have natural intimidating features proficiency and expertise with intimidation, it’ll compensate for their subpar charisma.
> State in the intimidation rules that if a player is clearly and visibly more powerful than the intimidation target, the DC for the skill check is lowered.


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 4, 2023)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Disagree, instead of monks in your above example, take Vampire Slayers, not Buffy, she does social very well, take Kendra, does not do social very well but knows that it is a weak spot of hers. So the thugs are harassing her and she wants to avoid the fight. So instead of talking her way out of the fight she walks over to the fireplace, picks up the poker and ties it into a knot.
> 
> Is that not using Strength for an intimidation check?



What if the thugs happen to be strong enough to also be able to do that poker bending trick? Would that "strength intimidation" check be an automatic failure then?

When I say that a PC clearly and visibly more powerful than a target should get a lowered intimidation DC, I'm not referring to strength or size alone.
A wizard may look extremely powerful and threatening to your local thugs, when they decide to fire a huge exploding fireball in the sky above. Is that an Intelligence (Intimidation) check?
A skilled archer may pin someone's hat to the wall with an arrow in the blink of an eye. Is that a Dex (Intimidation) check?
A cleric may walk into a bandit camp surrounded by spooky Spirit Guardians, speaking with a booming voice thanks to the Thaumaturgy cantrip. Is that a Wisdom (Intimidation) check?

I don't think so. I think all of them are Charisma (intimidation) checks, with an adjusted DC and possibly advantage due to creative role-play.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 4, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> I don't think so. I think all of them are Charisma (intimidation) checks, with an adjusted DC and possibly advantage due to creative role-play.



I think the better option is to not be doctrinaire about it. Use Charisma when it's appropriate, Strength when it's appropriate, and apply the proficiency bonus (if present) on either. I mean, if a player has their strong PC do something to exhibit their destructive power in order to intimidate someone else, I'm going with Strength (Intimidate). I mean, it's right there in the PH as an option. Why wouldn't I use it?


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 4, 2023)

billd91 said:


> ... I mean, it's right there in the PH as an option. Why wouldn't I use it?



Quoted for truth.


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 4, 2023)

billd91 said:


> I think the better option is to not be doctrinaire about it. Use Charisma when it's appropriate, Strength when it's appropriate, and apply the proficiency bonus (if present) on either. I mean, if a player has their strong PC do something to exhibit their destructive power in order to intimidate someone else, I'm going with Strength (Intimidate). I mean, it's right there in the PH as an option. Why wouldn't I use it?



Every DM should and will do whatever they want. In this thread, I think we are talking about what each of us wants the RAW of the future 5.5/One D&D PHB to be.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 4, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> Every DM should and will do whatever they want. In this thread, I think we are talking about what each of us wants the RAW of the future 5.5/One D&D PHB to be.



Sure. And since using alternative stats for skills has been around as a variant since 3e, it should definitely be included in OneD&D.


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 4, 2023)

billd91 said:


> Sure. And since using alternative stats for skills has been around as a variant since 3e, it should definitely be included in OneD&D.



As a variant/option/module? Sure, no objections.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 4, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> What if the thugs happen to be strong enough to also be able to do that poker bending trick? Would that "strength intimidation" check be an automatic failure then?
> 
> When I say that a PC clearly and visibly more powerful than a target should get a lowered intimidation DC, I'm not referring to strength or size alone.
> A wizard may look extremely powerful and threatening to your local thugs, when they decide to fire a huge exploding fireball in the sky above. Is that an Intelligence (Intimidation) check?
> ...



Yes Why not?


Olrox17 said:


> I don't think so. I think all of them are Charisma (intimidation) checks, with an adjusted DC and possibly advantage due to creative role-play.



That is ok also but I would prefer to make abilities more relevant and to give characters that not have prof (intimidate) a chance. Also why it is fair if you change the DC of the intimidate check to match the fiction does all dms do that? are they encouraged to do it?
I also think that it is conceptually easier to switch the Ability check than to adjust the DC.


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 4, 2023)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Yes Why not?



Ok, Then I read your position correctly. There's nothing necessarily wrong with allowing creative players to use their best stat for everything (or a lot of things), but it's not my cup of tea, and I wouldn't like it to be the 5.5 RAW for intimidation or anything else.


UngainlyTitan said:


> That is ok also but I would prefer to make abilities more relevant and to give characters that not have prof (intimidate) a chance. Also why it is fair if you change the DC of the intimidate check to match the fiction does all dms do that? are they encouraged to do it?
> I also think that it is conceptually easier to switch the Ability check than to adjust the DC.



Easier? Sure, but I believe some interesting granularity is lost in the process. I'll try to explain what I mean by going back to a previous example.

Example: A strong PC with low Charisma tries to intimidate some thugs by bending a metal object with their bare hands.
If you allow the PC to use their 20 Strength instead of their 8 Charisma, well, that's just it. The PC gets an hefty bonus to the roll compared to the default of using Charisma.

What about the approach I suggested, on the other hand? As a DM, I'm privy to information that the PC isn't. What if the "thugs" are actually polymorphed demons? They might not be impressed by the mortal PC's feat of brute force, right? Thus, I would set the DC high, and ask for a Charisma (Intimidation) check.
If, however, the thugs are actually a craven bunch of nobodies, I would still ask for a Charisma (Intimidation) check, but I'd set up a fairly easy DC.

But one important thing is, regardless of the circumstances,_ the player's conscious choice of assigning a specific score to Charisma would not be bypassed or trivialized_.
A high Strength character with a nice 14 Charisma would be better at this intimidation tactic than an high Strength character with a low 8 Charisma. Which I think is good and fair! Brutality backed by a strong charisma _should_ be comparatively more effective, IMO.


----------



## Kinematics (Jan 4, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> What if the thugs happen to be strong enough to also be able to do that poker bending trick? Would that "strength intimidation" check be an automatic failure then?



Pretty much, yep. Kendra tried to present a credible threat, and that threat failed because it wasn't as credible as she thought it would be.  In the same vein, if she'd tried to bend the poker but failed, it would also not be intimidating. Neither case relies on Charisma.

As for stat variations, there are plenty of easy examples.

Str: Bending the enemy's weapon like a twist-tie.
Dex: Having a dagger at his throat faster than he even noticed it was drawn.
Con: Shrugging off an attack that should have seemed incapacitating.
Int: Browbeating a fool for his stupidity, in exacting detail.
Wis: The Mom Voice.
Cha: Describe how you're going to leave him in torturous agony, with lots of grisly detail.

The issue is that the Influence action is explicitly a Charisma check, with possible skills adding to it depending on the action.  The Ability Check rule in the playtest document doesn't provide for alternate stat use, and it's not clear whether it would be allowed in the Influence action anyway, given the current rewrite and the fact that Influence is now its own separate action.



Olrox17 said:


> But one important thing is, regardless of the circumstances,_ the player's conscious choice of assigning a specific score to Charisma would not be bypassed or trivialized_.



It's not. Charisma still works fine for Persuasion and Deception, along with Performance and Influence's version of Animal Handling.  It's only Intimidation that doesn't fit the mold of the other skills.  That's why it's problematic (along with the incoherent advantage/disadvantage aspect of Influence), and why trying to force it into that square hole causes issues for people.


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 4, 2023)

Kinematics said:


> As for stat variations, there are plenty of easy examples.



Yes, I provided some examples myself in a previous post.


Kinematics said:


> It's not. Charisma still works fine for Persuasion and Deception, along with Performance and Influence's version of Animal Handling.  It's only Intimidation that doesn't fit the mold of the other skills.  That's why it's problematic (along with the incoherent advantage/disadvantage aspect of Influence), and why trying to force it into that square hole causes issues for people.



Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of smart players out there with very persuasive (heh) arguments for why they should be allowed to use any stats for Persuasion and Deception, too.
Thing is, I enjoy creativity, and I reward it, just not in ways that completely bypass someone's choice of a dump stat.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 4, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> Yes, I provided some examples myself in a previous post.
> 
> Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of smart players out there with very persuasive (heh) arguments for why they should be allowed to use any stats for Persuasion and Deception, too.
> Thing is, I enjoy creativity, and I reward it, just not in ways that completely bypass someone's choice of a dump stat.



I allow STR for intimidate in some situations, not always.

Much like I have used INT for persuasion when the character was explaining why a detailed intricate plan was the better choice for an attack.

I also enjoy creativity and reward it, because we dont do it just to trivialize a dump stat.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 4, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> What if the thugs happen to be strong enough to also be able to do that poker bending trick? Would that "strength intimidation" check be an automatic failure then?




No, but I might increase the DC. It goes from "this is a one-sided beat down" to "she IS as strong as you, is that a good idea to fight her?"



Olrox17 said:


> When I say that a PC clearly and visibly more powerful than a target should get a lowered intimidation DC, I'm not referring to strength or size alone.
> A wizard may look extremely powerful and threatening to your local thugs, when they decide to fire a huge exploding fireball in the sky above. Is that an Intelligence (Intimidation) check?
> A skilled archer may pin someone's hat to the wall with an arrow in the blink of an eye. Is that a Dex (Intimidation) check?
> A cleric may walk into a bandit camp surrounded by spooky Spirit Guardians, speaking with a booming voice thanks to the Thaumaturgy cantrip. Is that a Wisdom (Intimidation) check?
> ...




Actually, if someone wanted to shoot a bow to _barely_ miss a target as intimidation, I'd be perfectly fine with it being Dex Intimidation. That's a real good use of it, because it isn't the Archer's personality that is intimidating, it is their speed and accuracy. 

Fireball intimidation? Auto-success in many many instances. That was not only impressive, but costly to the player to do. Now, if they needed a roll... I'd say charisma intimidation works, because if they need the roll then they need to sell either the deception ("And this is the LEAST I can do" or put on a good show) Same with the cleric, they would either auto-succeed, or they would need to roll for the showmanship of the intimidation.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 4, 2023)

UngainlyTitan said:


> That is ok also but I would prefer to make abilities more relevant and to give characters that not have prof (intimidate) a chance. Also why it is fair if you change the DC of the intimidate check to match the fiction does all dms do that? are they encouraged to do it?
> I also think that it is conceptually easier to switch the Ability check than to adjust the DC.




It may help to think of it as less "lowering the DC" and more "giving a bonus". 

Unarmed scrawny man telling you he will kill you, that is harder to take seriously. 
Unarmed scrawny man CATCHING HIMSELF ON FIRE then EXPLODING A TABLE while telling you he will kill you... that is much easier to take seriously. 

However, for many of us as DMs, it is quicker and easier to adjust the DC than it is to tell the player they have to add a +3, because while you might not think it should make a difference, it often does for how quickly they can handle the roll.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 4, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> Thing is, I enjoy creativity, and I reward it, just not in ways that completely bypass someone's choice of a dump stat.




Right, but isn't it also respecting their choice of a high stat to let it be used when it makes sense? A guy with animal handling as a proficiency and high strength can likely put on an impressive display by lifting a trained horse, respecting those choices is better than telling them that since it is a show, they must use their charisma (performance) to see how well they lift the horse.


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 4, 2023)

Chaosmancer said:


> Right, but isn't it also respecting their choice of a high stat to let it be used when it makes sense? A guy with animal handling as a proficiency and high strength can likely put on an impressive display by lifting a trained horse, respecting those choices is better than telling them that since it is a show, they must use their charisma (performance) to see how well they lift the horse.



I'm not saying animal handling shouldn't work here. If you are strong enough to lift the horse, you are strong enough to lift the horse, and you roll a Wisdom (animal handling) check to see if you can keep the animal calm while doing it.

But I think this is the kind of situation where teamwork shines. A dude lifting a horse can be an impressive feat of strength, but, for maximum effect, I would expect to have someone else on stage to hype the performance up for the public. A charisma/performance guy.
Not too unlike the intimidation example, actually. In my games, if a PC with charisma is also accompanied by beefy, armed and clearly dangerous dudes, that's the best of both worlds: you get the charisma guy's good modifier to the roll, and a credible physical threat to lower the DC.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Jan 5, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> I'm not saying animal handling shouldn't work here. If you are strong enough to lift the horse, you are strong enough to lift the horse, and you roll a Wisdom (animal handling) check to see if you can keep the animal calm while doing it.
> 
> But I think this is the kind of situation where teamwork shines. A dude lifting a horse can be an impressive feat of strength, but, for maximum effect, I would expect to have someone else on stage to hype the performance up for the public. A charisma/performance guy.
> Not too unlike the intimidation example, actually. In my games, if a PC with charisma is also accompanied by beefy, armed and clearly dangerous dudes, that's the best of both worlds: you get the charisma guy's good modifier to the roll, and a credible physical threat to lower the DC.




Sure, teamwork makes the dream work, but that doesn't mean you always have access to a team to do these things, nor do I really want to encourage having the Charisma character always rolling every single charisma check, and making sure that anyone who might have a social encounter always travels with the charisma character.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 5, 2023)

Olrox17 said:


> As a variant/option/module? Sure, no objections.



Why not as the default?


----------



## Yaarel (Friday at 12:26 AM)

Azzy said:


> Why not as the default?



The default could along the lines of the recent format:

"The Intimidation skill represents a Charisma check, or a check of an other Ability that you and the DM agree is appropriate in the circumstance."


----------



## Olrox17 (Friday at 9:01 AM)

Azzy said:


> Why not as the default?



Because I don’t like it 
More seriously, I believe that ability scores should all provide some specific, exclusive value. 

I am ok with creative strategies making tasks easier (especially when teamwork is involved!) as I described in previous posts. I am less ok with ignoring the penalties of a character’s dump stat by persuading the DM that your best stat should be _totally_ used instead.
I don’t like the playstyle that is encouraged by making that choice.


----------



## Azzy (Friday at 12:52 PM)

Olrox17 said:


> Because I don’t like it
> More seriously, I believe that ability scores should all provide some specific, exclusive value.
> 
> I am ok with creative strategies making tasks easier (especially when teamwork is involved!) as I described in previous posts. I am less ok with ignoring the penalties of a character’s dump stat by persuading the DM that your best stat should be _totally_ used instead.
> I don’t like the playstyle that is encouraged by making that choice.



Okay. Fair enough.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Friday at 1:02 PM)

Olrox17 said:


> Because I don’t like it
> More seriously, I believe that ability scores should all provide some specific, exclusive value.
> 
> I am ok with creative strategies making tasks easier (especially when teamwork is involved!) as I described in previous posts. I am less ok with ignoring the penalties of a character’s dump stat by persuading the DM that your best stat should be _totally_ used instead.
> I don’t like the playstyle that is encouraged by making that choice.



That is fair enough, my main issue is that specifically intimidation should not be just Cha based. It could be Con, Str or more rarely Int based. 
it is just one of those things that is very contextual.


----------



## Olrox17 (Friday at 3:43 PM)

UngainlyTitan said:


> That is fair enough, my main issue is that specifically intimidation should not be just Cha based. It could be Con, Str or more rarely Int based.
> it is just one of those things that is very contextual.



Yeah, I understood that your issue was with intimidation, specifically, rather than a general thing.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Friday at 5:13 PM)

Olrox17 said:


> I am ok with creative strategies making tasks easier (especially when teamwork is involved!) as I described in previous posts. I am less ok with ignoring the penalties of a character’s dump stat by persuading the DM that your best stat should be _totally_ used instead.
> I don’t like the playstyle that is encouraged by making that choice.



Understandable... but at the same time, a character that knows their own weaknesses should know best how to work around them.  Or in this case a player should know best how to work around them for their character.

Someone who knows they just aren't persuasive due to natural charm and good looks will be more inclined to use logic and reason to make their cases.  So using INT (Persuasion) rather than CHA (Persuasion) isn't merely just a player trying to scam their way past the DM to avoid using their "dump stat"... it makes all the sense that a person like that _would_ use their INT rather than CHA whenever they could.

Likewise... some who is more agile rather than strong but who consistently climbs walls knows how to best use their agility to climb, without needing to just use brute strength.  So again... the player suggesting that depending on the type of climb it's perfectly reasonable to have it be a DEX (Athletics) check, rather than STR (Athletics) can be actually realistic, and not just a way of getting around a dump stat.

At the end of the day at least for me... I don't care whether the game makes Variant Ability Scores a core rule or keep it a variant rule, because I'm going to use Variant Ability Scores all the time regardless.  But at least it's good to know that not everyone who prefers that style is merely a scammer just trying to get one over on the hapless DM.  There's usually a really good reason for it.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Friday at 11:28 PM)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Understandable... but at the same time, a character that knows their own weaknesses should know best how to work around them.  Or in this case a player should know best how to work around them for their character.
> 
> Someone who knows they just aren't persuasive due to natural charm and good looks will be more inclined to use logic and reason to make their cases.  So using INT (Persuasion) rather than CHA (Persuasion) isn't merely just a player trying to scam their way past the DM to avoid using their "dump stat"... it makes all the sense that a person like that _would_ use their INT rather than CHA whenever they could.
> 
> ...




Using this to bounce off, it is also sometimes the best course for the action described. 

A big one I use is Charisma (Investigation) and I know people's first thought is "how can that possibly make sense", but it has been the best fit for when the players say "I want to ask around town and find [insert goal]."

That is a social roll (the biggest part is talking to people) so charisma but without some sort of streetwise skill, what skill would it fall under? You aren't trying to persuade or deceive, you aren't really looking into historical lore or handling animals, the closest analog to my mind was investigating (like detectives knocking on doors). Hence the non-standard pairing. 

And it works.


----------



## Olrox17 (Saturday at 9:43 AM)

DEFCON 1 said:


> At the end of the day at least for me... I don't care whether the game makes Variant Ability Scores a core rule or keep it a variant rule, because I'm going to use Variant Ability Scores all the time regardless.  But at least it's good to know that not everyone who prefers that style is merely a scammer just trying to get one over on the hapless DM.  There's usually a really good reason for it.



I do not ascribe any malicious motives to anyone who wants to use or uses Variant Ability Scores. I do believe their use can engender niche invasion and favour the crafty, persuasive player to an unfair degree.
Taking the example of Dex (Athletics) to scale a wall, is it "realistic"? Potentially yeah, free climbers certainly look the nimble kind rather than powerhouses (although they clearly have massive power in specific muscles). You could make a convincing argument (personally, I would still ask for Str (Athletics), adjusting the DC if your superior Dex clearly provides a benefit in this situation).

Is it really fair to party's high Str Fighter to make Dex even more of a god stat and infringe on his niche? When the less crafty fighter player tries get into the Variant Ability Scores game and attempts some mental gymnastics to convince you he should roll for Strength (Stealth), you'll probably shut him down...and yet, there is at least one hypothetical persuasive argument I could think of that would make that work, the fighter player just didn't think of it.

In short, depending on your players, allowing Variant Ability Scores might indeed create a "scammy" playstyle that I don't like, even if nobody at the table is a scammy person, simply because it's natural to try and get an advantage too when you saw somebody else got it (possibly infringing on your niche in the process).

Obviously, if it works well for your gaming group, it works well for your gaming group. If it's fun, keep it up. Would I want it to be the default rule for 5.5? No. As an option? Sure.


----------



## Amrûnril (Saturday at 4:29 PM)

Non-standard ability-skill pairings can work against PCs just as easily as it can work for them. If identifying a rare disease requires an Intelligence (Medicine) check, the Cleric may suddenly find themself feeling a lot less confident. I also find that getting into the habit of thinking of abilities and proficiences separately makes it easier to incorporate tool proficiencies into ability checks (since tools don't have default ability scores in the way skills do).

If players are doing mental gymnastics to get the DM to call the specific checks they want, that's not really a variant ability scores issue. It can happen just as easily with players wanting to roll Acrobatics instead of Athletics or Deception instead of Persuasion. Either way, the solution will require evaluating things on a case-by-case basis and emphasizing that different approaches may have different DCs or yield different results. 

Regarding Intimidation specifically, I do think Charisma makes sense as the most commonly used ability score. Even when threatening violence, your willingess to follow through on that threat may be more in question than your physical ability to do so.


----------



## Mistwell (Saturday at 4:37 PM)

SkidAce said:


> Its going to take some getting used to hearing a dwarf say "The long line of my species watches over me and inspires me with their strength to wield the Hammer of the Dwarven Lords" instead of heritage, ancestors, or bloodline.
> 
> Hyperbolic example aside, a proper word to replace race should fill mechanically and narratively...and I dont think we will find a perfect fit, it will likley skew one way or the other...and we will deal with any inconsistencies as they arise.



I mean, the descriptive indication of your type is a game rule, not a setting element. The dwarf can say race or people, and the  yuan-ti can say species, or whatever 

It's one reason I advocate for Creature Type: Humanoid (Mountain Dwarf). Just don't use a narrative word for this descriptor, just as that Mountain Dwarf likely doesn't call themselves a Rogue, or Fighter, or Cleric but instead a swashbuckler or warrior or scion or whatever.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Saturday at 6:52 PM)

Olrox17 said:


> I do not ascribe any malicious motives to anyone who wants to use or uses Variant Ability Scores. I do believe their use can engender niche invasion and favour the crafty, persuasive player to an unfair degree.
> Taking the example of Dex (Athletics) to scale a wall, is it "realistic"? Potentially yeah, free climbers certainly look the nimble kind rather than powerhouses (although they clearly have massive power in specific muscles). You could make a convincing argument (personally, I would still ask for Str (Athletics), adjusting the DC if your superior Dex clearly provides a benefit in this situation).
> 
> Is it really fair to party's high Str Fighter to make Dex even more of a god stat and infringe on his niche? When the less crafty fighter player tries get into the Variant Ability Scores game and attempts some mental gymnastics to convince you he should roll for Strength (Stealth), you'll probably shut him down...and yet, there is at least one hypothetical persuasive argument I could think of that would make that work, the fighter player just didn't think of it.
> ...




I think part of it for me is, "what do I see more often". And the thing I see more often is not players attempting be crafty and persuasive. What I see more often is players shutting down because they don't have good numbers. The person with a -1 Charisma much of the time, unless they are going for clowning and making a fool of themselves, doesn't participate in the social rolls. They just hang back and let the person with the high charisma do it. 

An exception to this are things like when the climbing rules are misused (mandatory annoucement, climbing does not require a check unless it is an extreme situation) and the players are not given a choice, and they MUST roll to progress the story. This is rather rarer these days, but I often ended up in situations where we had to climb a cliff, and failure meant we didn't climb the cliff, and so we just had the strongest person rolling more and more often, because we couldn't progress without getting up the cliff. And it is a nightmare for everyone, not a fun time.

And in both of those instances, I much prefer people finding an alternative that uses theirs strengths as best they can, rather than either shutting down or forcing a failure. Now, this doesn't mean I allow EVERYTHING, obviously not, but if a player has a fun way to engage with the story, instead of sitting there on their phone because they feel that they cannot meaningfully contribute, I'll take that every time. Especially since it is most common in investigations and social encounters, which everyone sort of wants to be a part of, since they are such a large section of the game.


----------



## Olrox17 (Saturday at 7:51 PM)

Chaosmancer said:


> I think part of it for me is, "what do I see more often". And the thing I see more often is not players attempting be crafty and persuasive. What I see more often is players shutting down because they don't have good numbers. The person with a -1 Charisma much of the time, unless they are going for clowning and making a fool of themselves, doesn't participate in the social rolls. They just hang back and let the person with the high charisma do it.



I understand. You see, that's not a bug to me, but rather a feature, if handled sensibly.
I do want the high Cha characters with social proficiencies to engage more freely and liberally in conversation, because they built their characters to do so, and I don't want low cha characters to yoink their rightful spotlight. Again, that's were teamwork shines: the crafty low cha character with a good idea can help the high cha one on the task.


Chaosmancer said:


> An exception to this are things like when the climbing rules are misused (mandatory annoucement, climbing does not require a check unless it is an extreme situation)



True, true.


Chaosmancer said:


> and the players are not given a choice, and they MUST roll to progress the story. This is rather rarer these days, but I often ended up in situations where we had to climb a cliff, and failure meant we didn't climb the cliff, and so we just had the strongest person rolling more and more often, because we couldn't progress without getting up the cliff. And it is a nightmare for everyone, not a fun time.



Some of my best set pieces ever involved climbing, ironically enough. The one I remember most fondly was a long chase scene, were the party was desperately trying to shake off a red dragon (far stronger than them) while traversing a canyon. While a lot of different skills were used in the process, Strength (Athletics) was certainly given a lot of spotlight, and the strong characters were allowed to be awesome badasses, and carried the party (literally, in a few instances). Very proud of that one, the players' enthusiasm was so off the charts that one of them made a commemorative fake movie title card for it.


Chaosmancer said:


> And in both of those instances, I much prefer people finding an alternative that uses theirs strengths as best they can, rather than either shutting down or forcing a failure. Now, this doesn't mean I allow EVERYTHING, obviously not, but if a player has a fun way to engage with the story, instead of sitting there on their phone because they feel that they cannot meaningfully contribute, I'll take that every time. Especially since it is most common in investigations and social encounters, which everyone sort of wants to be a part of, since they are such a large section of the game.



Agreed in spirit, not in method. As I said before about the Str (intimidation) example, if a character flexes his muscles at a pack of thugs and, according to my judgement, it would make sense for those thugs to be impresses by that, I will lower the DC, even considerably. I'll still ask for a Charisma check, though.
You want maximum efficiency? Flex your muscles while your actually charismatic buddy threatens the thugs.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sunday at 12:19 AM)

Olrox17 said:


> I understand. You see, that's not a bug to me, but rather a feature, if handled sensibly.
> I do want the high Cha characters with social proficiencies to engage more freely and liberally in conversation, because they built their characters to do so, and I don't want low cha characters to yoink their rightful spotlight. Again, that's were teamwork shines: the crafty low cha character with a good idea can help the high cha one on the task.




I generally don't have to worry about spotlight hogs, but this line of logic often leads to this idea that allowing the high charisma character to "shine" during social encounters is fine, because then the high strength low charisma characters will "shine" during combat.... but that is false. A bard with Expertise in Persuasion and access to Hypnotic Pattern is massively impactful in social encounters AND redefines combat encounters. Meanwhile Rune Knight can be impressive during combat, but has nothing to do during a social encounter. 

I'm fine with social characters to be more free to act in social encounters, but alternatively, I want non-social characters to have a chance to do something other than say that they perform the help action.

I think we are both in agreement, just with different concerns and priorities. I've rarely if ever seen these "crafty" players you are so worried about, because generally the only time those low cha characters get involved is when they get swept up in the story, and I have seen that moment in their eyes when they realize "Oh god, I [bleeped] up, now I have to roll, and I can't reliably make this roll" which is a shame, because then they feel like getting swept up in the story was a mistake.



Olrox17 said:


> Some of my best set pieces ever involved climbing, ironically enough. The one I remember most fondly was a long chase scene, were the party was desperately trying to shake off a red dragon (far stronger than them) while traversing a canyon. While a lot of different skills were used in the process, Strength (Athletics) was certainly given a lot of spotlight, and the strong characters were allowed to be awesome badasses, and carried the party (literally, in a few instances). Very proud of that one, the players' enthusiasm was so off the charts that one of them made a commemorative fake movie title card for it.




Very nice



Olrox17 said:


> Agreed in spirit, not in method. As I said before about the Str (intimidation) example, if a character flexes his muscles at a pack of thugs and, according to my judgement, it would make sense for those thugs to be impresses by that, I will lower the DC, even considerably. I'll still ask for a Charisma check, though.
> You want maximum efficiency? Flex your muscles while your actually charismatic buddy threatens the thugs.




The thing is though, then their action is meaningless. The bard with a 10 strength flexing for the thugs is more likely to intimidate them than the Goliath Barbarian with an 18 strength. Even as you lower the DC, the difference between a 1d20-1 and a 1d20+10 is 11 pts. You aren't generally going to reduce the DC by that much. 

And, your choice of terms reflects a viewpoint. You keep talking about efficiency, about crafty players, phrasing the entire conversation in terms of this player who seems like they are trying to manipulate the DM and the game. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a player who has seen that scene in the movies a dozen times and thinks "Awesome! I can do that thing I thought of when I made my character!" 

They are trying to recreate a moment from a book or a TV show, which was never a moment created to subvert some system. The system is just there from the game, and getting in the way of the story. Not always, but sometimes. They want the story beat, not efficiency.


----------



## Olrox17 (Sunday at 12:59 AM)

Chaosmancer said:


> I generally don't have to worry about spotlight hogs, but this line of logic often leads to this idea that allowing the high charisma character to "shine" during social encounters is fine, because then the high strength low charisma characters will "shine" during combat.... but that is false. A bard with Expertise in Persuasion and access to Hypnotic Pattern is massively impactful in social encounters AND redefines combat encounters. Meanwhile Rune Knight can be impressive during combat, but has nothing to do during a social encounter.
> 
> I'm fine with social characters to be more free to act in social encounters, but alternatively, I want non-social characters to have a chance to do something other than say that they perform the help action.
> 
> I think we are both in agreement, just with different concerns and priorities. I've rarely if ever seen these "crafty" players you are so worried about, because generally the only time those low cha characters get involved is when they get swept up in the story, and I have seen that moment in their eyes when they realize "Oh god, I [bleeped] up, now I have to roll, and I can't reliably make this roll" which is a shame, because then they feel like getting swept up in the story was a mistake.



I would like 5e to have more overall balance among the classes, and have actually taken steps in that direction via home rules, but discussing that would be pretty off topic.

Interestingly, I don't even allow the standard Help action (boring auto-advantage) unless you are proficient in the skill being used (something the One D&D playtest is also doing). However I allow "non-standard" help when a creative idea is proposed, and generally lower the DC as a result.
I do not use crafty as an insult, I like crafty players. I just think that, as a DM, I need to be careful how I reward them, so other (possibly less crafty or simply less experienced) players don't get overshadowed.


Chaosmancer said:


> The thing is though, then their action is meaningless. The bard with a 10 strength flexing for the thugs is more likely to intimidate them than the Goliath Barbarian with an 18 strength. Even as you lower the DC, the difference between a 1d20-1 and a 1d20+10 is 11 pts. You aren't generally going to reduce the DC by that much.
> 
> And, your choice of terms reflects a viewpoint. You keep talking about efficiency, about crafty players, phrasing the entire conversation in terms of this player who seems like they are trying to manipulate the DM and the game. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a player who has seen that scene in the movies a dozen times and thinks "Awesome! I can do that thing I thought of when I made my character!"
> 
> They are trying to recreate a moment from a book or a TV show, which was never a moment created to subvert some system. The system is just there from the game, and getting in the way of the story. Not always, but sometimes. They want the story beat, not efficiency.



I wouldn't expect a bard with 10 strength and +10 to intimidate (thanks to charisma and maybe expertise?) to try intimidation by muscle flexing. If they choose that route, I'd probably _increase_ the DC (unless they were intimidating an halfling child or something). I'd expect them to try intimidation by subtle coercion, with a DC decrease if they actually manage to uncover enough information about the target ("Isn't your family living in a farm just left of the city gates? What a nice, cozy home it is!").

And, well, _should_ the Goliath Barbarian with 8 cha and no intimidation prof be as good at the job than the bard with high Charisma, proficiency and maybe expertise? Heck no, imo. Lowering the DC allows the untrained low cha Barbarian to be adequate at the task, which I believe is more than fair, and ultimately kinda numerically the same as allowing him to use Strength...but:

the calculation happens on the DM's side of the screen, as it should for reasons I explained here;
if the barbarian player happened to invest a 12 in Cha instead of an 8, it gets a better bonus, which, I believe, is fair and logical.

Finally, I do not come from an adversarial DM mindset, if that is what you're suspecting. I am a mechanically minded player and DM. The story is important to me, but I've always believed that a good story isn't enough to fix unfun gameplay, while on the contrary, good mechanics will always improve one's enjoyment the story.
EDIT: I realized that I've been illustrating my position on Alternate Ability Scores for a while now, and spent a lot of virtual words doing so. Perhaps a change of topic would be best?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Sunday at 5:32 PM)

Olrox17 said:


> I would like 5e to have more overall balance among the classes, and have actually taken steps in that direction via home rules, but discussing that would be pretty off topic.
> 
> Interestingly, I don't even allow the standard Help action (boring auto-advantage) unless you are proficient in the skill being used (something the One D&D playtest is also doing). However I allow "non-standard" help when a creative idea is proposed, and generally lower the DC as a result.




I agree, different discussion. The ideas are related though, parts of the same system and so they pull and push on each other.



Olrox17 said:


> I do not use crafty as an insult, I like crafty players. I just think that, as a DM, I need to be careful how I reward them, so other (possibly less crafty or simply less experienced) players don't get overshadowed.




I never said it was an insult, just noting the usage as it seems to give a certain viewpoint. Understanding the bias we bring to a conversation is hard, but it can also help us understand where disagreement arises.



Olrox17 said:


> I wouldn't expect a bard with 10 strength and +10 to intimidate (thanks to charisma and maybe expertise?) to try intimidation by muscle flexing. If they choose that route, I'd probably _increase_ the DC (unless they were intimidating an halfling child or something). I'd expect them to try intimidation by subtle coercion, with a DC decrease if they actually manage to uncover enough information about the target ("Isn't your family living in a farm just left of the city gates? What a nice, cozy home it is!").
> 
> And, well, _should_ the Goliath Barbarian with 8 cha and no intimidation prof be as good at the job than the bard with high Charisma, proficiency and maybe expertise? Heck no, imo. Lowering the DC allows the untrained low cha Barbarian to be adequate at the task, which I believe is more than fair, and ultimately kinda numerically the same as allowing him to use Strength...but:
> 
> ...




You seem to have hit on exactly my point, though I wasn't sure if you would increase the DC or not. But a Bard who doesn't have strength will never attempt to use strength to intimidate. Their strength is largely irrelevant to their plans and actions. And they can ALSO get a DC decrease, as you note, for being as you have phrased "crafty". 

And we aren't talking about the Goliath being as good at intimidation _in general_ as the bard, but instead of the Goliath being good at using strength and size to intimidate. Notably, even if we laid out the numbers and used the Goliath's strength, they are only getting a +4 compared to the Bard's +10 (+4 cha, level 5 with Expertise so +6 from prof). So the Bard is still better, but the Goliath has ONE avenue that they can use when it is appropriate. 

And yes, if you decide to lower the DC by 5, then you have numerically done the same thing as letting them use their strength... but feel-wise, you haven't. Because you normally don't tell them how many points the DC is lowered by, and you may not even tell them it has been lowered (that is a table specific thing, so I can't assume) but they are still rolling a die with a negative, not a die with a positive. Even if the math is identical, the feel of the roll is different. 

A player who rolls with their best mod, but fails anyways likely feels something along the lines of "I tried my best, but it wasn't enough. Just bad luck I guess." It feels like they did everything they could, and so it is easier to accept the failure. But someone who rolls with their worst mod and fails feels like "What did I expect, of course I failed, I'm not built to succeed at these things." and even worse, if they succeed, it feels like a fluke. It doesn't feel like clever play was rewarded, but that the dice just happened to be high enough for them to counter-act their bad ability. 

DC 10 with a 1d20-1 just feels worse than a DC 15 with a 1d20+4, even though they are the same math. This is also why earlier I spoke about giving players bonuses instead of lowering the DC. Because then the player feels that bonus more keenly, it has effected their side of the equation, not your side, and so psychologically, it feels more impactful.



Olrox17 said:


> Finally, I do not come from an adversarial DM mindset, if that is what you're suspecting. I am a mechanically minded player and DM. The story is important to me, but I've always believed that a good story isn't enough to fix unfun gameplay, while on the contrary, good mechanics will always improve one's enjoyment the story.




I don't consider this adversarial at all, however, I have noticed certain trends in thoughts about the "other side" so to speak. For example, I just recently encountered a video from a year ago where a youtuber sought to address problems they saw in WoTC's adventure design by giving more narrative powers and more options to the DM. This makes perfect sense.... if you assume a DM like that youtuber, who has decades of experience DMing and a solid consistent friend-group they run for who they know the limits and desires of intimately. However, it would be a nightmare for DMs who are only on their first year of DMing, and rely on those adventures to give them structure and direction. The sort of DMs who need far more consideration. But, that youtuber doesn't imagine DMs like that, because they are a DM, so they imagine DMs like themselves and other DMs in their circle who are highly experienced. And if they do consider new DMs then they reason that those DMs have access to experienced DMs to help guide them through the problems they encounter, because that is the situation around them. 

I find this same sort of thing often with DMs who think about players. Quite often on this site I've found people who consider players as masters of the system who seek to bend the rules of play to manipulate towards the outcome they want. Likely, because they themselves are highly experienced DMs who also play, and they can imagine themselves doing that. This isn't a condemnation, just an observation, because I've spent a long time working with new players for a few months at a time, before groups around me crumble. That has given me a different set of biases, and a different thrust to my views. I far more often see players who struggle to match the story they want to how they can achieve that story, and so I have found many ways to ease that transistion. Since very few of them get to the point of trying to always engineer success forever (which is not much different than anyone playing, very few people try to intentionally fail) I don't run into the problems you predict.



Olrox17 said:


> EDIT: I realized that I've been illustrating my position on Alternate Ability Scores for a while now, and spent a lot of virtual words doing so. Perhaps a change of topic would be best?




We can if you want. I just like discussing.


----------

