One of the things that always bothered me about the 6 ability checks of D&D was the inflexibility in how difficulty checks are applied to gameplay. To search you ALWAYS add your Wisdom, to break down a door you always use you strength, etc, etc. But as life teaches all, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
So I propose moving from a rigid mechanic system that dictates what skill you MUST use for a task to a more flexible, player driven, skill check. This would replace difficulty checks and saving throws while keeping the combat system as is. That being said if the player is unable to come up with a good idea, we still keep the fall back on to the traditional mechanics via providing usage examples of each skill.
I think this has some positive improvements to gameplay:
- The players are encouraged to think outside the box.
- Players are more engaged in the gameplay as their crazy idea succeed or fail.
- BONUS: Adds variety and role playing to more situations.
- BONUS BONUS: The slave to the rules is lessened as bonuses become more subjective.
What do you think? Blog Source
So if I want to jump and have 0 athletics but I have a +6 acrobatics, I can always just explain that I use acrobatics instead to gain the mechanical benefits of jumping? Then what's the point of even having a Strength score if you can replace the key things it lets you do with another ability score?
I follow the rule of cool while DM'ing. You want to run across the wall to get past the pit trap, fine roll me acrobatics. But I'm leery of allowing for straight exchanges since it makes some ability scores even more useless to have.
Is that not how it's supposed to be played? There are default abilities/skills for various tasks, but the players are always free to make a case for using a different one, pending DM approval.
That's how I've always played, and how everyone I've seen play it.
Interesting, I didn't even notice the variant rules block. I'll have to go read that.
I don't want the game to degenerate into "how can I convince the DM to let me use my best stat on every check?", so I adhere rigidly to the default presentation just to keep things simple.
Saelorn wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
To the OP, no need for a new system when the rules already are there. The DMG allows the use of the standards but allows logical alternatives when they make sense. That is how I have always done it and it still works just fine in 5th. 
As for intimidation.
If big bad barbarian comes to you grabs you, onehandedly lifts you up a smash you head against a ceeling and says; TALK!!
that is intimidation prof + str,
If he seats calm next to you and tries to silver line you like Soprano, that is charisma check,
Trance-Zg wrote:
velkymx wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
My stance is similar to DungeonKrusher's. Certainly being strong can help you intimidate, but a straight conversion is not how I'd do it. Compare a scary barbarian with 16 STR and 6 CHA, versus a scary barbarian with 16 STR and 16 CHA. With a straight "use STR for intimidate" conversion, they are exactly as intimidating as each other. But the one with higher CHA - more force of personality, knows the right psychological tactics, etc - should be better. The guy with no CHA is like Sully in Monsters University. Some natural scariness, but that reaches its limits real quick.
Btw, the way a high-CHA halfling intimidates someone is by waving a scary barbarian in their face. The CHA gives them the skill to make that tactic more effective than a barbarian just roaring at people. Back to Monsters University, because everyone's definitely seen that movie and understands the reference, Mike arguably made the Intimidate check in the final scare, since he orchestrated everything and just used Sully as his scary face.
I would say that showing off with STR can give you advantage on the roll if the target is vulnerable to that tactic, which as noted, can be even better than proficiency. I just don't think stat substitution is the appropriate solution, at least in most cases.
Isn't the ability you can use to intimidate also situationally dependent? Grabbing an orc by the throat and slamming it up against a wall might be considered foreplay, not intimidation.
On the other hand, threatening a zealot with death means nothing but threatening them with death in such a way that they will never see their eternal reward with a religion check might be.
Intimidation is a skill, not just in game, but in real life. Being large and being intimidating are not the same thing. I know a lot of big guys and none of them are very intimidating. They really couldn't be if they tried, not to me at least. I've also met guys that are not as big as me that put me on edge. It really has more to do with presence than strength. The example of the 20th level barbarian tells me that he knows how to intimidate people. That's represented by skill proficiency. Having a charisma of 8 tells me that he doesn't really have a forceful presence or doesn't know how to read people naturally. Yes he's big and has scars and apparently likes to walk around covered in decaying organic materials, but it's his skill in intimidation that makes up for his lack of presence. He's scarred and covered in blood because he knows it's intimidating to most people. That's how he uses his skill. He's intimidating, despite his lack of charisma, because of the understanding of human nature he's gained through learning how to inspire fear.
That said, there's a moving part to this equation and that's the NPC. Who you are trying to intimidate sets the DC. A local tavern owner may, or may not, be a coward. A lone guard may be easy to intimidate, but add nine of his buddies and your blustering probably won't work as well. The king's guard will probably be hard to intimidate, since his entire purpose for being there is to die for his liege if necessary. If you try to bully someone who has no power, the DC is going to be low. The greater personal or social power an individual has, the higher the DC is going to be. Generally speaking, of course.
However, everyone has a weakness. Something that they fear above all other things; spiders, loss of a loved one, a dark past coming to light, semester exams, whatever. If my PCs were able to root out what an NPC's fears were, I'd definitely grant them advantage on their roll. But I'd never grant a bonus just because a guy has big muscles.
colemcm wrote:
My real point was that the DC is the part that should change, not the bonus. Dangling a guy off the edge of a building would significantly reduce the DC of an intimidation attempt. Showing that an individual is powerless before you modifies the DC. These are situational bonuses that affect the difficulty; not by improving the skill bonus, but by lowering the DC.
For me it's a matter of simplicity. The fewer moving parts a system has while still fulfilling the requirements of the game, the better.
colemcm wrote:
Raw or bust. If you want your character to be able to do something, build him accordingly.
Daydreamer80 wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Daydreamer80 wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Daydreamer80 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
I would absolutely change the way ability scores are applied.
Primarily, I would get rid of the ability score completely and replace it with just the ability bonus. In other words, a player wouldn't have a strength of 10 (or 11), he would have a strength of 0. If he had a strength of 15, he'd instead have a strength of +2.
That would completely eliminate the need for the current redundant system.
Nachturnus wrote:
This experiment has been tested before to dire results.
Pathfinder has many talents that let you replace one stat with another on a particular skill. Intimidating prowess, for example, lets you use strength for intimidate. It makes sense, but what it functionally does is strip an 8 charisma from causing a character any trouble. Its any min-maxxer's dream come true, but makes any charecter who put points in charisma to try to be good in social chalenges feel like a tool.
If you want stats to matter, you can't let them be circumvented so easily.
Nachturnus wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
CariadocThorne wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
CariadocThorne wrote: