Your Thoughts on Different-Ability Skills

[Aldarin]

Your Thoughts on Different-Ability Skills

So, the group that I DM just love using variant rules. And if you recall, in the PHB, there's a section on different-ability skills. For those of you that don't know, that would be, for example, making a Charisma(Arcana) check. Arcana normally being an Intelligence-based skill.

So my players want the following different-ability skills to be allowed. Tell me what you think on them and if you would allow them.

Intelligence(Deception)
Wisdom(Persuasion)
Strength(Intimidation)
Wisdom(Religion)
Wisdom(Nature)
Intelligence(Persuasion)
Intelligence(Insight)
Intelligence(Medicine)

Tell me what you think of those and if you would allow them.

Thanks,
Aldarin

[Mith]

Personally, I will be using Wisdom (Religion) in my games, because the party cleric has a fairly low Int with a higher Wis. I treat this as him knowing archetypes and the flow of stories, if not the actual Religious history.

[JumboWheat01]

A Strength (Intimidation) check is in the PHB, if I recall correctly, and my DM totally lets that one fly. One of my buddies made great use of it with his Barbarian.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes I would allow them. But, I allow any and all different-ability skills, at least in theory, but it's probably not what you think.

The rationale: players should not, in theory (despite our knowing we can't ever be rid of the problem), be declaring their character's actions in system jargon. So, we don't want "I make an investigation check to see if this wall is an illusion," for example.

Instead, players should make declarations about actions and intentions that fit the narrative. Once you've achieved this, you can get more information about exactly what is happening and what ability applies. So, the method by which you do something determines the ability that applies. For example, if you confront a mob of goblins by picking up a metal object and bending it half - that's effectively an intimidation that depends on strength. If you use a revealing letter to blackmail someone, that's an intimidation that depends on intelligence (or whatever), and if you simply try to look as menacing as you can, that's intimidation depending on charisma.

The argument against it: Players may (probably will) try to game the system by always looking for ways to make their skills work with their best abilities. To my taste, this is something to be avoided.

Implementation: The decision on which skill-ability combo is right for the situation is solely up to the DM. Player's don't get to simply pick the best option.

Final Word: It may or not be good for your group. It has worked to varying degrees of success for me, but in my opinion it's the "best" way to run a game in terms of mechanics matching versimilitude.

[Aldarin]

Yes I would allow them. But, I allow any and all different-ability skills, at least in theory, but it's probably not what you think.

The rationale: players should not, in theory (despite our knowing we can't ever be rid of the problem), be declaring their character's actions in system jargon. So, we don't want "I make an investigation check to see if this wall is an illusion," for example.

Instead, players should make declarations about actions and intentions that fit the narrative. Once you've achieved this, you can get more information about exactly what is happening and what ability applies. So, the method by which you do something determines the ability that applies. For example, if you confront a mob of goblins by picking up a metal object and bending it half - that's effectively an intimidation that depends on strength. If you use a revealing letter to blackmail someone, that's an intimidation that depends on intelligence (or whatever), and if you simply try to look as menacing as you can, that's intimidation depending on charisma.

The argument against it: Players may (probably will) try to game the system by always looking for ways to make their skills work with their best abilities. To my taste, this is something to be avoided.

Implementation: The decision on which skill-ability combo is right for the situation is solely up to the DM. Player's don't get to simply pick the best option.

Final Word: It may or not be good for your group. It has worked to varying degrees of success for me, but in my opinion it's the "best" way to run a game in terms of mechanics matching versimilitude.

Very well thought out and put. For the record, my characters have always done this (and annoyed the heck out of my DM)

[treecko]

I see it as something to use rarely and only when it makes sense due to special circumstances. For example, mounting a horse running a full speed might be animal handling (str). Or using the stars to navigate might be survival (int). Or running a long distance might be athletics (con). It's the DM's call when or if to invoke it, but sometimes it makes more sense than anything else. I think that it should be used sparingly and I wouldn't let a player use strength for every intimidation check they make.

[Mith]

The rationale: players should not, in theory (despite our knowing we can't ever be rid of the problem), be declaring their character's actions in system jargon. So, we don't want "I make an investigation check to see if this wall is an illusion," for example.

Instead, players should make declarations about actions and intentions that fit the narrative. Once you've achieved this, you can get more information about exactly what is happening and what ability applies. So, the method by which you do something determines the ability that applies. For example, if you confront a mob of goblins by picking up a metal object and bending it half - that's effectively an intimidation that depends on strength. If you use a revealing letter to blackmail someone, that's an intimidation that depends on intelligence (or whatever), and if you simply try to look as menacing as you can, that's intimidation depending on charisma.

The argument against it: Players may (probably will) try to game the system by always looking for ways to make their skills work with their best abilities. To my taste, this is something to be avoided.

Implementation: The decision on which skill-ability combo is right for the situation is solely up to the DM. Player's don't get to simply pick the best option.

Final Word: It may or not be good for your group. It has worked to varying degrees of success for me, but in my opinion it's the "best" way to run a game in terms of mechanics matching versimilitude.

I personally look at this as a learning curve. When players are new to a system, it doesn't hurt to use system jargon to make the mechanics more familiar. However, it is ideal that the players move away from system language and move to descriptive language over time.

As for players picking the best skills, I see it as the character applying their skill set in the best way possible. The character may not know the system they are operating under (D&D 5e), but they do know what seems to work for them.

[Aldarin]

I see it as something to use rarely and only when it makes sense due to special circumstances. For example, mounting a horse running a full speed might be animal handling (str). Or using the stars to navigate might be survival (int). Or running a long distance might be athletics (con). It's the DM's call when or if to invoke it, but sometimes it makes more sense than anything else. I think that it should be used sparingly and I wouldn't let a player use strength for every intimidation check they make.

Now, see, here's how I view it. If somebody is always using a show of strength to intimidate their enemy, why not always let them do Strength(Intimidation)? I'd bet that the average burly bruiser with a charisma of 10 but a strength of 20 is more intimidating than a flumph with 20 charisma. If we're being realistic, different-ability skills are the only way to make skills accurate and real-world.

[YCombinator]

In my opinion, these are all great. In fact, when I do this, I consider pretty much any combination. Some are clearly great and common place. Others are harder to conceive of. I always let the situation decide and players are allowed to propose different combinations. In fact, it's *mostly* their choice. In the same way that making any skill check is their choice.

Sometimes a player will say something to an NPC and say "I'd like to make that an persuasion check." and that's them choosing persuasion over intimidation for example. There are consequences to using one or the other of course. I always make my players role play out in-character charisma checks. I also have the option to say "well what you're saying is more intimidating that persuasive, it has to be that." That's how skill checks work with most DMs.

By that same token I also allow a choice for the ability score but it does have to be fitting. Generally we keep with the traditional ability/skill pairings because they make sense in a lot of common cases. But for example, like was already mentioned, a barbarian making a strength-based intimidation check makes a lot of sense. So that player will know they can suggest that. They might walk up to an NPC and say "give me your money or I'll kill you" and then squeeze his arm really hard. The player would then say "I want to make an intimidation check and can I go with strength for that?" and I'd say sure. If they had said "Give me your money or I'll rat you out to the big boss who likes me better than you." and then suggested strength I'd be a little wishy washy on it.

So yeah, I think variant ability score skill checks should be more the norm. I love how they are listed as suggestion in the PHB for players who don't think that will add too much complication and find it to be a nice tool.

[quinron]

I don't really like using different-ability skills. I think most of the time - and some of the examples here support this perception - they're just an attempt to make a character who put a bad score in Intelligence or Charisma good with those skills.

I prefer to grant advantage to certain skills while keeping them in their existing ability categories. For instance, the ever-common Strength (Intimidation) doesn't really make sense to me - being strong doesn't make you more capable of scaring someone, it makes you strong; being burly is a bit of a different story, but you can still prevent someone from being scared of you by being weak-willed. However, if you apply your strength - by "accidentally" breaking something in front of someone with your bare hands, for example - you've definitely put your Strength to work to bolster your naturally unimpressive Charisma. So you still roll Intimidation using Charisma, but you have advantage.

Considering the maximum (nonmagical) bonus to a skill is +5 and advantage is worth roughly a +4 bonus, this mitigates most of the "downsides" to keeping skill to one ability score.

[Tanarii]

Personally, for active player declared actions, I think Angry DM describes how to adjudicate it the best. (Edit: link http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/)

summary: player say what they are trying to do (Intent) and how (Approach), preferably in non-rules terms. Then, the DM decides if a check is needed, and if so uses that info to choose the ability score and skill appropriate. Between Intent and Approach, you usually have enough information to determine ability score and skill. And sometimes it'll be obvious when the normal base ability score for a skill isn't appropriate.

Also, it's not always the best practice, nor necessarily even follows DMG guidelines, but you might set different DCs depending on the abiity score (ie approach). IMo if you're going to do that its best done in advance in your notes though, or sort it out with players in advance. If the orcs are particularly succeptable to shows to brute Str, you could note that Str (Intimidate) DC is 5 lower. If the Mage is particularly unimpressed by anyone flexing muscles, you could note it'll be be 5 higher. If a player likes trying to convince people of the logic of his argument, you could make it clear to him in advance that Int (Persuasion) will be easier with the learned and harder (or have a chance of backfiring) with the less educated. Etc

[Slipperychicken]

Your players need to describe the actions they're taking in such a way as to make the association with the ability score clear. If your players say "I want to do intelligence(persuasion) because I'm really smart and convince him that doing what I want is the smart thing to do!", you should not accept that. You need to keep the ability scores' descriptions in mind and judge each one on a case-by-case basis. To discourage powergaming, only accept an alternate ability score in cases where it actually makes *more* sense than the normal one.



Strength: Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.

Strength(Intimidation) is fairly straightforward. Bend an iron bar, break something, grab someone's arm, or even flex like an anime character. Show someone that you'll physically kick his ass if he doesn't do what you want. But you have to do something that emphasizes your physical power over the person you're communicating with.

Dexterity: Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance.

Constitution: Constitution measures health, stamina, and vital force.

Intelligence: Intelligence measures mental acuity. accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

Intelligence(Deception) would not work with me unless you're specifically fudging some technical or logical detail.

Intelligence(Persuasion) would be if you were convincing me that one option is better entirely using technical details, and this would only happen when someone is making a relatively rational decision where emotions don't really come into play, like getting an executive to buy one printer over another.

I'm not really seeing how Intelligence(Insight) would work, sorry. Maybe to defeat an Intelligence(Deception) check?

Intelligence(Medicine) would be perfect for diagnosing an illness, remembering facts about humanoid health and biology, or determining cause of death.

Wisdom: Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition

I cannot imagine how Wisdom(Persuasion) would even work. Wisdom helps you understand people, but charisma is for influencing them.

I'm not seeing Wisdom(Religion) either. Maybe for recognizing an obscure omen or a bit of disguised iconography ('that almost imperceptible boot with wind around it refers to St. Cuthbert's silver boot, stamping into fine powder the skull of the lich-king Malazyg, and said powder blew away in the wind. The illustrator was clearly a worshiper of the Saint trying to hide that fact'), but not as a general-purpose thing.

Wisdom(Nature) could be okay for intuiting a natural environment's reaction to some phenomena like pollution or something, but even that's stretching it

Charisma: Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

[djreynolds]

I don't really like using different-ability skills. I think most of the time - and some of the examples here support this perception - they're just an attempt to make a character who put a bad score in Intelligence or Charisma good with those skills.

I prefer to grant advantage to certain skills while keeping them in their existing ability categories. For instance, the ever-common Strength (Intimidation) doesn't really make sense to me - being strong doesn't make you more capable of scaring someone, it makes you strong; being burly is a bit of a different story, but you can still prevent someone from being scared of you by being weak-willed. However, if you apply your strength - by "accidentally" breaking something in front of someone with your bare hands, for example - you've definitely put your Strength to work to bolster your naturally unimpressive Charisma. So you still roll Intimidation using Charisma, but you have advantage.

Considering the maximum (nonmagical) bonus to a skill is +5 and advantage is worth roughly a +4 bonus, this mitigates most of the "downsides" to keeping skill to one ability score.

This is an excellent point, but often in real life people who are strong are perhaps not more charismatic but more confident. And maybe they get some advantage.

Its like jocks in highschool, they are cool in high school but as we grow older they are just tools now.

[BurgerBeast]

Now, see, here's how I view it. If somebody is always using a show of strength to intimidate their enemy, why not always let them do Strength(Intimidation)? I'd bet that the average burly bruiser with a charisma of 10 but a strength of 20 is more intimidating than a flumph with 20 charisma. If we're being realistic, different-ability skills are the only way to make skills accurate and real-world.

I share this view. In my life, it's often reputation, as opposed to personal charisma, that makes someone intimidating.

To put your same example another way: it doesn't matter if your charisma is 5, if I know you have 20 strength, I'm going to be intimidated. You might go so far as to not even calling it fear (in the sense that fear is irrational), and instead calling it a realistic estimation of consequences.

[hymer]

Tell me what you think on them and if you would allow them.

Okay, my thoughts follow. :smallsmile:


Intelligence(Deception)
In most cases no. If the deception involved is particularly elaborate (such as fake papers or getting away with book-keeping secrets), then it could fly.


Wisdom(Persuasion)
No. But in many cases an Insight/wis check could be used to give a hint about a line of persuasion that the current subject would be more likely to respond to.


Strength(Intimidation)
As long as you're threatening with physical violence, makes perfect sense.


Wisdom(Religion)
Tempting. For recalling lore about religion it doesn't really make a lot of sense, but in more people-oriented checks... *shrug*


Wisdom(Nature)
No. But I'm sorely tempted to say anyone proficient in Nature is also proficient in Survival and vice versa. You just have to use the stat that makes sense - Survival/wis for doing something practical, Nature/int for recalling lore.


Intelligence(Persuasion)
Generally no. Possibly in an academic debate, where you're trying to impress others with your expertise, it could make sense.


Intelligence(Insight)
Perhaps if you're trying to make an Insight check from someone else's description or for a fictional character you've read about. Quite a few very intelligent people have no idea what's going on inside their interlocutor's head, unless told outright. You can learn to do better, but then that would be proficiency.


Intelligence(Medicine)
Trying to make a diagnosis, or doing an autopsy, sure. And Medicine/cha I'd probably be fine with for emergency care, where getting the patient to calm down and cooperate is crucial.

[Tanarii]

This is an excellent point, but often in real life people who are strong are perhaps not more charismatic but more confident. And maybe they get some advantage.

Its like jocks in highschool, they are cool in high school but as we grow older they are just tools now.
Agreed. Additionally, it's not Str that is scary in that particular example. It's size. And how you project it.

A Str 18 Halfling just isn't going to be able to loom dangerously the way a Str 12 Dragonborn or Half-Orc is, just based on sheer size. It doesn't matter how many horseshoes he twists in knots.

Threat projection is almost always a function of Charisma. You just have another avenue at hand to threaten physical violence if you are large and muscle bound. It can just as easily be a dagger or other weapon, or display of magic, or (IRL) a gun. Those wouldn't change it to Dex (Intimidate) or <spellcastong stat> Intimidate. IMO.

[Specter]

Using INT for CHA-based skills is just bad. A wizard can come up with a very elaborate lie, but without the right tone of voice, the right expressions in his face and without being able to connect with his victim it would simply sound fake, and anyone would know.

[Slipperychicken]

A Str 18 Halfling just isn't going to be able to loom dangerously the way a Str 12 Dragonborn or Half-Orc is, just based on sheer size. It doesn't matter how many horseshoes he twists in knots.

I'd let a Halfling try strength(intimidate), but he'll have disadvantage if his target is a bigger size category than him.

[JumboWheat01]

A Str 18 Halfling just isn't going to be able to loom dangerously the way a Str 12 Dragonborn or Half-Orc is, just based on sheer size. It doesn't matter how many horseshoes he twists in knots.


I'd let a Halfling try strength(intimidate), but he'll have disadvantage if his target is a bigger size category than him.

A halfling is at just the right height to threaten the tender bits of just about any medium creature. That should actually have advantage on the Strength (Intimidation) check. :belkar:

[jas61292]

I don't have many thoughts on most of them, but I specifically want to comment on Strength(Intimidation), because I absolutely detest this one, and the fact that the PHB uses it as an example.

Breaking something is not intimidating. Can it be done in an intimidating way? Sure. But nothing about feats of strength that directly intimidates someone. The barbarian who smashes a table in half may be scary, true. But the martial artist who breaks 10 bricks with his head, a much more impressive physical feat, gets applause, not screams. The difference is not in strength, but in you presentation of your strength. Or, in game terms, your charisma. That said, the feat of strength could help you intimidate someone. But, going by the rules, this should either be in the form of a lower DC, due to the circumstances, or advantage on the roll.

Basically, my general thoughts on different ability skills is that they are fine, but only where they are being used because the normal ability does not really apply, and not simply to let a player use a key ability instead of a dump ability.

[Grey Watcher]

Generally, if there's a reasonable justification for it in the circumstances, I'll go with it, but as the DM, it's my call what ability applies in the given situation. For example, I'd be hard pressed to find a situation where Charisma (Arcana) would fly, but I could see using Wisdom (Religion) if you're trying to figure out, say, What Would Thor Do? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html), I could see Wisdom being used to as a measure of your intuitive understanding of the faith rather than your ability to cite chapter and verse examples.

[Tanarii]

I'd let a Halfling try strength(intimidate), but he'll have disadvantage if his target is a bigger size category than him.


A halfling is at just the right height to threaten the tender bits of just about any medium creature. That should actually have advantage on the Strength (Intimidation) check. :belkar:
lol

I generally allow Str (Intimidate) checks, provided the player gives a good description of what he's doing. Regardless of race. Enough players think it should be possible I'm not about to spend a bunch of time arguing with them in a game. :smallwink:

Edit: and honestly, that's what it comes down to. If players have a reasonable expectation that a variant ability score skill use makes sense, run with it. It's more fun. Just so long as they're not trying to obviously metagame for the best bonuses possible, it's all good. It should be about reasonable in-character approaches to taking actions and solving problems, not metagaming bonuses.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't have many thoughts on most of them, but I specifically want to comment on Strength(Intimidation), because I absolutely detest this one, and the fact that the PHB uses it as an example.

Breaking something is not intimidating. Can it be done in an intimidating way? Sure. But nothing about feats of strength that directly intimidates someone. The barbarian who smashes a table in half may be scary, true. But the martial artist who breaks 10 bricks with his head, a much more impressive physical feat, gets applause, not screams. The difference is not in strength, but in you presentation of your strength. Or, in game terms, your charisma. That said, the feat of strength could help you intimidate someone. But, going by the rules, this should either be in the form of a lower DC, due to the circumstances, or advantage on the roll.

I see this mistake often. A martial artist breaking bricks on TV isn't trying to intimidate you. Neither is a bodybuilder flexing at the gym. That's why you think it's not scary

Now, lets say one of those martial artists got right in your face, demanded your money or your life, and when you protest he abruptly slammed his fist into the wall right next to your head, making a crash and leaving large visible in the wall there.. that would be represented by a strength(intimidation) roll. Or if a bodybuilder put his hand on your shoulder, letting you feel the power of his muscles so you just know he could break you in half.

[Tanarii]

Now, lets say one of those martial artists got right in your face, demanded your money or your life, and when you protest he abruptly slammed his fist into the wall right next to your head, making a crash and leaving large visible in the wall there.. that would be represented by a strength(intimidation) roll. Or if a bodybuilder put his hand on your shoulder, letting you feel the power of his muscles so you just know he could break you in half.
I disagree. Most of that is still Cha (Intimidate). He's just using a physical muscle-based threat to do it.

He could just as easily use a dagger. That wouldn't be Dex (Intimidate). Or Produce Flame cantrip, which wouldn't be Wis (Intimidate). They're all Cha (Intimidate), possibly with Advantage for obvious ability to carry through on the threat.

[mgshamster]

I love using different ability scores for skills. It creates variety in the game, gives more options for my players, and opens up new dynamics for story development. I love it when they think of novel ways to use skills - it means they're immersed in the game and are actively thinking about how to solve problems in ways other than looking at their character sheet.

To me, it's a win-win situation. I get imagination, thinking, and immersion from my players, they get new ways to use skills to interact with the world.

[Grey Watcher]

On a slightly related note, I've gotten into arguments about whether, if you do allow ability-skill flexibility, Acrobatics and Athletics should be a single skill or not (jokingly referred to in my circles as "Move Good"). I tend to say yes, they should be, but :shrug:

[mgshamster]

On a slightly related note, I've gotten into arguments about whether, if you do allow ability-skill flexibility, Acrobatics and Athletics should be a single skill or not (jokingly referred to in my circles as "Move Good"). I tend to say yes, they should be, but :shrug:

I tend to view Acrobatics as moving through battle or doing gymnastics, and Althetics as running, jumping, climbing, etc. In terms of olympics, Althetics are the stuff that's done outside, and Acrobatics are the stuff done inside. Plus or minus some, depending on the situation.

It takes about 30 seconds for my players and I to come to an agreement for which attribute and skill would be used, in which we consider the physical act and how we want the story to play out (with a leaning towards making the PC feel capable).

[Ruslan]

So my players want the following different-ability skills to be allowed. Tell me what you think on them and if you would allow them.

Intelligence(Deception)
Intelligence(Persuasion)

Would totally allow this, if the player can roleplay through it. I want to hear what is it that he's actually saying - what is the super-rational argument that makes sense to use INT for Persuasion, or how he's bamboozling the target with information to justify the use of INT for Deception.


Wisdom(Persuasion)
Again, roleplay through it. Your attempt to persuade must exhude some kind of aura of peaceful serenity. Use parables. "A peach seed will never grow into an Oak, no matter how your nurture it."


Strength(Intimidation)Totally. I can totally imagine the PC performing some kind of feat of strength, probably break something or tie a fireplace poker into a knot. Something like this. EDIT: I also see above that Slipperychicken and Tanarii got into an argument over this one. Executive summary: Slipperychicken is right, Tanarii is wrong.


Wisdom(Religion)
Wisdom(Nature)Sure.


Intelligence(Insight)This one actually depends on the type of bluff being performed. If it's about reading body language and getting subtle behavioral clues, I'd say no, that's the province of wisdom. If the bluffer actually tries to use rational and facts, then maybe.


Intelligence(Medicine)As a descendant to a family of MDs, I can attest it takes a lot of intelligence to memorize all the stuff in dem books. Sure.

[jas61292]

He could just as easily use a dagger. That wouldn't be Dex (Intimidate). Or Produce Flame cantrip, which wouldn't be Wis (Intimidate). They're all Cha (Intimidate), possibly with Advantage for obvious ability to carry through on the threat.

Could not have said it better myself. The fact that a related task you are doing requires one stat does not change the fact that the actual intimidation requires charisma.

[Ruslan]

He could just as easily use a dagger. That wouldn't be Dex (Intimidate). Or Produce Flame cantrip, which wouldn't be Wis (Intimidate).Actually, unless you're going to call the people who wrote this section of the DMG liars, yes. Yes, it will be.

That's exactly the whole point of Different-Ability Skills. That a show of amazing knife-throwing can be Dexterity (Intimidate) and breaking something in a menacing manner can be Strength (Intimidate). That's what Different-Ability Skills actually do.

Now, caveat, the DM still has freedom to decide that <some ability> doesn't apply to <some skill> in <some situation>, so, no, not every ability can be paired with every skill, the DM will be the judge of what makes sense.

If the PC is trying to break a table into pieces to make a (scary) point, the DM has a few choices:

1. He can say "That's not intimidating. Intimidation does not apply here"
2. He can say "That's a Charisma (Intimidate) check"
3. He can say "That's a Strength (Intimidate) check"

Sure, he can choose (1) or (2), that's his game, he can do whatever he wants, but both are actually not in line with what that section of the DMG recommends. Only (3) is in line with the DMG recommendation.

Extrapolating on the DMG very slightly, we can reach the conclusion that using a show of amazing knife-throwing can in fact be interpreted as a Dexterity (Intimidate) check. If you don't like it, don't argue with me. Argue with the DMG.

[Segev]

I think different-ability skills have the same place in 5e they did in 3e: use the combination of ability and skill that seems appropriate for what they're doing. Their proficiency isn't in "Charisma(Deception)" or "Intelligence(Deception)," it's in "Deception." If their effort or end goal seems to you, the DM, to be more an intellectual exercise than a charismatic one, roll Intelligence with Proficiency. If it's more charismatic than intelligent, roll Charisma with proficiency.

If they're attempting to use thieves' tools to pick a puzzle-lock that is designed to foil the typical "feel it out" methods by having logical gates physically programmed in somehow, they add Proficiency to their Intelligence roll if they're proficient with the tools.

If they're searching for hidden triggers by feeling about and carefully jostling every could-be button, indentation, or switch/knob/fillagree, then sure, let them add their proficiency bonus for Investigation to that Dexterity check.

[Tanarii]

Executive summary: Slipperychicken is right, Tanarii is wrong.lol

I did say above that I allow it in games (ie when I DM), because enough players think I'm "wrong". :)


Actually, unless you're going to call the people who wrote this section of the DMG liars, yes. Yes, it will be.Skills with Different Abilities is an variant rule, and it's in the PHB. Although the DMG references the PHB rule and does talk specifically about the variant, it uses Con Athletics as the example. Regardless, I don't need to call the designers liars, or argue with anything. I just have to use the default non-variant rules, if that's what I want.

But I do use the variant, and I do allow Str (Intimidate) skills. And Dex (Intimidate). And any other action the player can do that results in such variant skill checks, as long as they're not just blatantly trying to meta-game. I take the action, decide on the ability score, and decide on the appropriate skill (if any).

I just object to Str (Intimidate) in theory. :smalltongue:

[Ruslan]

But I do use the variant, and I do allow Str (Intimidate) skills. And Dex (Intimidate). And any other action the player can do that results in such variant skill checks, as long as they're not just blatantly trying to meta-game. I take the action, decide on the ability score, and decide on the appropriate skill (if any).

I just object to Str (Intimidate) in theory. :smalltongue:Ok, thanks for clarifying that.

[SharkForce]

in my opinion, generally speaking skill proficiencies are linked to an attribute, and the general use of that proficiency is also linked to that attribute. unless the situation is in some way unusual, i'm quite disinclined to allow the use of a skill proficiency with a non-standard attribute, even if the DMG does seem to think for some reason that you should be able to intimidate people using strength because you threaten physical violence. (you could, however, convince enemies that you are more powerful than them, which could certainly help with an intimidate check).

that said, i would allow different attributes to be used in some very specific situations. intimidate (strength) will almost never be allowed, but i could see intelligence (deception) if you're not communicating directly (for example, when people asked about how to handle generals trying to outsmart each other months ago, i indicated that making a feint with your army might be an intelligence (deception) check; you are definitely attempting to deceive your opponent about what you're doing, but charisma just has no logical way to apply; you actually are for real ordering your troops to move somewhere or attack something, but the opposing general never hears your voice or sees your body language. you are attempting to deceive them by disguising your actions using your intelligence. (however, if for some reason they were scrying on you and you knew it, and you tried to act like you're going to issue a certain order, that would again be charisma).

one exception i would probably make would be performance (if i was going to use it as-is). but then, i just don't like the performance skill in general. it feels too much like a specialized persuasion (you're trying to persuade people to be entertained, and probably to pay money) + (all tool proficiencies you could possibly ever use to entertain people) wrapped into one skill; i'd rather it just disappear entirely and be replaced by its component tool proficiencies.

[Tanarii]

even if the DMG does seem to think for some reason that you should be able to intimidate people using strength because you threaten physical violence.Just to be clear, that's in the PHB. I just looked the DMG and it uses Con (Athletics) for an endurance swim as it's example of Skills with Different Abilities.

[Grey Watcher]

I tend to view Acrobatics as moving through battle or doing gymnastics, and Althetics as running, jumping, climbing, etc. In terms of olympics, Althetics are the stuff that's done outside, and Acrobatics are the stuff done inside. Plus or minus some, depending on the situation.

It takes about 30 seconds for my players and I to come to an agreement for which attribute and skill would be used, in which we consider the physical act and how we want the story to play out (with a leaning towards making the PC feel capable).

Like I said, using Move Good instead of Athletics and Acrobatics only works if you're already using the Skills-Can-Pair-Up-with-Other-Abilities-as-the-Situation-Warrants variant. To me, the single Move Good skill represents "knowing how to use your body optimally to move around", and whether you use Str or Dex just depends on the specific task at hand (eg tightrope walking or rock climbing). Of course, it would also work breaking the skills back up (Swim, Climb, Balance, etc.*), but if you ball up all those skills into the broad umbrella of "Acrobatics" and "Athletics", the only distinction I can see is "this one uses Str and that one uses Dex", and if you're de-coupling ability scores from skills, then the difference becomes...?

*If you did this, you'd obviously have to give classes more starting skills, but that's a whole different snowball.


I think different-ability skills have the same place in 5e they did in 3e: use the combination of ability and skill that seems appropriate for what they're doing. Their proficiency isn't in "Charisma(Deception)" or "Intelligence(Deception)," it's in "Deception." If their effort or end goal seems to you, the DM, to be more an intellectual exercise than a charismatic one, roll Intelligence with Proficiency. If it's more charismatic than intelligent, roll Charisma with proficiency.

In character, I think a good example of where I (as a DM) would call for Intelligence (Deception) instead of Charisma (Deception) would be trying to forge papers.

[SharkForce]

Just to be clear, that's in the PHB. I just looked the DMG and it uses Con (Athletics) for an endurance swim as it's example of Skills with Different Abilities.

well, it's a stupid example regardless of what book it's found in. have half a dozen strong guys with you and threaten to have them kill (or hurt) the target: charisma check. have a single strong guy with no friends threaten to kill (or hurt) the target: apparently that somehow becomes a strength check, according to some people.

the ability to inflict harm of some form is a necessary element of intimidation, certainly (in much the same way that in order to make a persuasion check, you need to be able to offer them something, even if that something is as intangible as having done something good, or getting a reputation as one of the good guys, or whatever else). bending a metal bar could help establish that you have the ability to harm them. but intimidation is about getting someone to do something because they're afraid of what you can do, not just persuading them that you can do something. if you bend a metal bar, they will believe that you can hurt them. but if you want them to believe that you hurting them is worse than what will happen if they do what you say, well, that's a charisma check. if the target of your intimidate check is particularly impressed by physical strength, your display of strength will probably get you advantage on that check.

(also, generally speaking, for most NPCs when faced with imminent death i would not require any intimidate check at all, unless the thing you're demanding is very strongly against their beliefs somehow; they'll just do it. you will, however, need an intimidate check if you want them to remain compliant once you are no longer in a position to threaten imminent death).

[Segev]

Charisma(Intimidate) involves creating a sense of fear or dread, which may or may not have overt evidence in place. It relies upon people buying that you are a threat to them, and that their best bet is to kowtow to avoid trouble. It's about convincing.

Strength(Intimidate) is simply a flat-out demonstration that you ARE dangerous (by virtue of your physical prowess) and that you ARE (potentially) destructive (depending on how you demonstrate it). It's not about convincing; it's about demonstrating.

Constitution(Intimidate) is also demonstration, but in this case it's a demonstration that they have nothing they can do to YOU, and that you are willing to go through a lot to get them to do what you want. It's about demonstration, again, but this time of how futile their actions are (likely to be) and what you consider "acceptable" suffering by virtue of your willingness and ability to withstand it.

Dexterity(Intimidate) is just like Strength(Intimidate), except the demonstration is of some feat of agility which very obviously makes you extremely dangerous to them. Knife-throwing, for example.

Intelligence(Intimidate) would be a form of awesome by analysis; the most likely mechanism would be so thoroughly analyzing the situation with nothing but known, unquestioned facts and explaining in no uncertain terms how hopeless the situation is, no matter what they do, unless they do what you say. It requires far, far more control over the situation than Charisma(Intimidate), because you really must have everything lined up as you say. The moment you imply, insinuate, or deceive, we're back to Charisma as you're attempting to persuade rather than simply explain.

I...am not sure how one would do Wisdom(Intimidate), honestly.

[hymer]

I...am not sure how one would do Wisdom(Intimidate), honestly.

Maybe... "I noticed that slight limp. Bad knee, eh? Knees take forever to heal. Oh, don't like that thought, do you? Know something with busted kneecaps? Don't want to end up carried everywhere you go, huh? I didn't think so."

[Segev]

Maybe... "I noticed that slight limp. Bad knee, eh? Knees take forever to heal. Oh, don't like that thought, do you? Know something with busted kneecaps? Don't want to end up carried everywhere you go, huh? I didn't think so."

Still comes off as Charisma, really; you're trying to persuade him that you can and are willing to hurt him. The "trying to persuade" rather than "performing a feat to demonstrate" is what makes it Charisma rather than whatever physical stat would align with the demonstration.

[hymer]

I was implying that the intimidator uses his insight and perception to target a weak spot in his target's psyche.

[Specter]

Been thinking a lot about this. One of the few exceptions to the usual skill attributes would be a Charisma (Investigation) check, when a player wants to talk to a guy who might know a guy to get information. Kinda like the Gather Information skill in 3.5.

[JumboWheat01]

Been thinking a lot about this. One of the few exceptions to the usual skill attributes would be a Charisma (Investigation) check, when a player wants to talk to a guy who might know a guy to get information. Kinda like the Gather Information skill in 3.5.

That sounds like your standard Persuade, Deception or Intimidation check for getting people to talk.

[Ruslan]

Intelligence(Intimidate) would be a form of awesome by analysis; the most likely mechanism would be so thoroughly analyzing the situation with nothing but known, unquestioned facts and explaining in no uncertain terms how hopeless the situation is, no matter what they do, unless they do what you say. It requires far, far more control over the situation than Charisma(Intimidate), because you really must have everything lined up as you say. Like this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQi_d9c2oEs)

[Tanarii]

Been thinking a lot about this. One of the few exceptions to the usual skill attributes would be a Charisma (Investigation) check, when a player wants to talk to a guy who might know a guy to get information. Kinda like the Gather Information skill in 3.5.The PHB already has that as a straight Charisma check. "• Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip". But it's not an unreasonable to allow it as Investigation if you're looking find specific information from people in a deductive manner. IMO it'd be particularly appropriate for a detective-like character investigating a crime.

Which brings up an important point: Not every check needs to have a skill or tool available to provide a proficiency bonus to it. Some things are raw natural talent, not thing that a proficiency can apply to. Some skills are really broad and can easily apply regularly to many checks across several ability scores (Perception, Insight, Investigation). Others are far more specific (Arcana, Nature, Religion) and trying to shoehorn every check into one of them isn't appropriate. For example, for those to just call for an unmodified Int check rather than try to categorize everything. For example, recalling something about Undead isn't a Religion check, it's an Int check. Or maybe History for a specific undead who has been around for a while.

[Specter]

That sounds like your standard Persuade, Deception or Intimidation check for getting people to talk.

Not getting a specific person to talk; goin from place to place to see what's happening without arousing suspicion and putting your ear to the street, in general.

[JumboWheat01]

Not getting a specific person to talk; goin from place to place to see what's happening without arousing suspicion and putting your ear to the street, in general.

Now that sounds more like Stealth and Perception. Hiding away from the prying eyes, but seeing everything.

[Gtdead]

I would allow Intimidation (Strength) and Deception (Intelligence).
For everything else I'd give a circumstancial bonus to counter the negative modifier if the character's backstory gave me a reason too.
I'd probably give an expertise style bonus to clerics in certain checks that match his domain for example.

[Ruslan]

Which brings up an important point: Not every check needs to have a skill or tool available to provide a proficiency bonus to it. Some things are raw natural talent, not thing that a proficiency can apply to.Oh, absolutely. The example given is for breaking a door. Since there is no relevant skill, that would be just a raw Strength check.


For example, recalling something about Undead isn't a Religion check, it's an Int check. Or maybe History for a specific undead who has been around for a while.I wanted to argue with that, but turns out RAW is actually on your side here. Undead are not mentioned under the Religion skill in the PHB. Go figure...

[Tanarii]

I wanted to argue with that, but turns out RAW is actually on your side here. Undead are not mentioned under the Religion skill in the PHB. Go figure...It's a common assumption for anyone that has played 4e, since there were baked in monster knowledge checks, and each type of creature fell under a skill. Monster knowledge checks don't exist in the base game any more. (I can't recall if 3e Religion skill covered undead or not.)

[quinron]

Does anyone know if there's been insight from the creators on why they reduced the skills and assigned them to abilities as they did?

The Intelligence (Deception) to forge papers requires some fiddling in 5e, but the Forgery skill in 3.5 was Intelligence-based anyway. And since they've decided to make tumbling through battle and reducing fall damage with Acrobatics optional, they've invalidated some of the most common uses of the skills that were condensed into Acrobatics; I go the Pathfinder route in my games and make jumping part of Acrobatics. Does it make sense physically? Maybe not; but it makes someone who chose Acrobatics and not Athletics feel like they didn't get screwed out of a useful skill.

If it's a matter of keeping things simpler, as is largely this edition's design philosophy, I still don't get it; skills are binary now, not point-based, so having proficiency in one or two more pertinent skills doesn't exactly test the mind that much. Sure, if you want to forge documents you can gain proficiency with a forgery kit, but a character isn't guaranteed the downtime to gain proficiency with it - why not just make that a skill? My only guess is that the skills that saw a lot of use in previous editions were boiled down into our current skills, and the ones that didn't were made into toolsets, but that just means that if DMs aren't giving their players enough downtime (and the idea of extended downtime has become anathema to the adventurer lifestyle), they won't get any use whatsoever out of a pretty useful chunk of the equipment list.

The problem with the examples given is that they're the things that everyone wanted; Strength (Intimidation) is such a commonly requested capability (although I disagree with it) that there's a feat for it in Pathfinder. And based on the confusion and disagreements on this thread, including my own, I'd say that all they did mentioning it in the DMG was raise questions about how far you can take this.

[Tanarii]

The Intelligence (Deception) to forge papers requires some fiddling in 5e, but the Forgery skill in 3.5 was Intelligence-based anyway.Forging Papers is Intelligence (Forgery Kit). Passing them off as real is Charisma (Deception). If an additional check is needed for some reason. (ie someone doing a cursory inspection probably wouldn't require convincing them it was real. But if you have to shake off their suspicions about it, that's a different matter.)

[quinron]

Forging Papers is Intelligence (Forgery Kit). Passing them off as real is Charisma (Deception). If an additional check is needed for some reason. (ie someone doing a cursory inspection probably wouldn't require convincing them it was real. But if you have to shake off their suspicions about it, that's a different matter.)

Good point - hadn't stopped to think about that before posting. I think the skill toolkits actually invalidate a lot of different-ability skills (like the Forgery example). It's nice that those toolkits are modular with skills, but I don't think most of them make much sense to use with anything other than Intelligence other than the lockpicks in thieves' tools (which, due to tradition, etc., should probably be Dex-based).

Though this really just enhances the problem of not having enough downtime to gain proficiency. It's a path of least resistance problem - if the choices are "forge documents" or "intimidate a clerk into forging documents for you," then nobody's going to learn to use a forgery kit; they're just going to do the thing they already know how to do. It passive-aggressively limits player options.

[Ruslan]

Good point - hadn't stopped to think about that before posting. I think the skill toolkits actually invalidate a lot of different-ability skills (like the Forgery example). It's nice that those toolkits are modular with skills, but I don't think most of them make much sense to use with anything other than Intelligence other than the lockpicks in thieves' tools (which, due to tradition, etc., should probably be Dex-based).Thieve's Tools are Dex-based by default. It's in the PHB under Dexterity Checks.

[Cespenar]

Okay, I'm just gonna throw around some combinations as a thought exercise, see if you can or can't stomach them. :smalltongue:

Normal level:

Dex (Athletics): How small animals and halflings climb/swim/etc.
Wis (Investigation): "Hey, can you feel the breeze? Isn't this supposed to be a secluded room?"
Int (Insight): Sherlock Holmes.
Wis (Persuasion): Appeal to common sense.
Int (Persuasion): Appeal to logic.

"Ehh"-level:

Intelligence (Athletics): "Hmm, that handhold would exert my wrist too much, I should better use this one instead." / "Lift with your legs, not your back!" / "There seems to be strong current near the bottom. I bet I can ride that off if I could dive a bit to reach it."
Intelligence (Survival): "I remember reading about this type of berry. You shouldn't eat the red-hued ones."
Charisma (Stealth): Laying low in a bar, disappearing in a crowd.
Wisdom (Stealth): "This cove feels safer than those bushes, for some reason." (Basically how animals think?)
Constitution (History/Lore/Religion): Pulling an all-nighter on those dozens of tomes.

[Kurald Galain]

So my players want the following different-ability skills to be allowed. Tell me what you think on them and if you would allow them.
While I'm generally in favor of the concept, I do believe it should be applied sparingly, because otherwise you end up in a situation where players always use their best stat for everything on the flimsiest justifications.

Strength(Intimidation) is a common suggestion and is probably the main reason this topic is brought up the books; I'd have no problem with that. Intelligence(Medicine) is clear, as it's mostly a knowledge-based skill; conversely, Wisdom(Nature) shouldn't work, as nature is also a knowledge-based skill and that simply isn't what wisdom is about. Intelligence(Insight) is basically what the Investigate skill is used for.

However, Intelligence(Deception), Wisdom(Persuasion), and Intelligence(Persuasion) really don't make sense. If you want to persuade or deceive people, you need to have the charisma to pull it off. It simply isn't the case that being smart (or wise) correlates to being persuasive.

[Cespenar]

However, Intelligence(Deception), Wisdom(Persuasion), and Intelligence(Persuasion) really don't make sense. If you want to persuade or deceive people, you need to have the charisma to pull it off. It simply isn't the case that being smart (or wise) correlates to being persuasive.

Not necessarily. If your arguments can be picked apart with the simplest pull, it doesn't matter how eloquent and well you put it. It's a combination, actually. In some situations charisma gains weight, in some, intelligence and/or wisdom.

[Tanarii]

Good point - hadn't stopped to think about that before posting. I think the skill toolkits actually invalidate a lot of different-ability skills (like the Forgery example). It's nice that those toolkits are modular with skills, but I don't think most of them make much sense to use with anything other than Intelligence other than the lockpicks in thieves' tools (which, due to tradition, etc., should probably be Dex-based).
Forgery is int vpby default because the Int ability says so in the PHB. each ability score has a list of things it can do that explicitly are straight ability checks, and don't use a skill proficiency. But many of those things you can use a tool for.
Yes, some of them potentially invalidate Skills with Different Abilities, but that's the Variant rule. Tools are the standard rule. Besides, not everything you can do that requires a resolution roll should require a skill to go with it, you don't have to force them all into a skill.


Examples straight from the PHB under abilities scores, and the tool that should clearly apply:

Dex:
Control a heavily laden cart down a steep descent - Vehicle (Land)
Steer a chariot around a step descent - Vehicle (land)
Pick a Lock - Thieves' Tools
Disable a Trap- Theives' Tools
Play a stringed instrument - Any stringed instrument tool
craft a small or detailed object - any appropriate craft tool

Int:
Forge a Document - Forgery Kit
Pull together a disguise to pass as a city guide - disguise kit
Win a game of skill - Game set

Sometimes there is apparent crossover. Charisma (Performance) is how well you can delight an audience with Music. Okay a stringed instrument is Dex (Tool: Instrument). But that's because the Dex/tool is technical skill. Cha Perfomance is showmanship. Dex (Performance) for some entertainment shouldn't be totally inappropriate ... But it shouldn't necessarily be the flat every time standard for a skill/ agility based act. Playing an instrument is Dex (instrument), a Knife Thrower makes attack rolls, a trapeze Artist makes acrobatic checks. And they all delight an audience with the showmanship, Cha (performance), if they don't screw up.

(Note: the actual check not to screw up may be unneeded, as might the performance check. Checks should only be required if you have a chance of failure. And IMO if there is a meaningful to the game difference between success and failure.)

[Tanarii]

Not necessarily. If your arguments can be picked apart with the simplest pull, it doesn't matter how eloquent and well you put it. It's a combination, actually. In some situations charisma gains weight, in some, intelligence and/or wisdom.Anyone who thinks they are somewhat smart, and/or thinks they know best, thinks they are using logic to present their argument. Or to pick apart someone else's argument. It almost never persuades. Every Internet forum discussion ever shows this. That's why we end up with twenty page threads. :smallamused:

Meanwhile political speeches demonstrates that Charisma (Persuade) is a highly effective technique. People will do the convincing for you as long you as long as you let them fill in the rationlization themselves and pull all the right strings. That's why Rhetoric is a thing. It's effective. Logic isn't. Despite what philosophy, science and tech oriented people would like to believe. :smalltongue:

[Kurald Galain]

Not necessarily. If your arguments can be picked apart with the simplest pull, it doesn't matter how eloquent and well you put it.
Clearly you've never had a charismatic fool for a manager before :smallbiggrin:

[hymer]

Anyone who thinks they are somewhat smart, and/or thinks they know best, thinks they are using logic to present their argument. Or to pick apart someone else's argument. It almost never persuades. Every Internet forum discussion ever shows this. That's why we end up with twenty page threads. :smallamused:

Meanwhile political speeches demonstrates that Charisma (Persuade) is a highly effective technique. People will do the convincing for you as long you as long as you let them fill in the rationlization themselves and pull all the right strings. That's why Rhetoric is a thing. It's effective. Logic isn't. Despite what philosophy, science and tech oriented people would like to believe. :smalltongue:

I agree. But I might well let you use Persuasion (Int) on a professor of an academic field that your findings bear the interpretation you placed on them. But s/he'd be just as susceptible to Persuasion (Cha).

[Cespenar]

Anyone who thinks they are somewhat smart, and/or thinks they know best, thinks they are using logic to present their argument. Or to pick apart someone else's argument. It almost never persuades. Every Internet forum discussion ever shows this. That's why we end up with twenty page threads. :smallamused:

Meanwhile political speeches demonstrates that Charisma (Persuade) is a highly effective technique. People will do the convincing for you as long you as long as you let them fill in the rationlization themselves and pull all the right strings. That's why Rhetoric is a thing. It's effective. Logic isn't. Despite what philosophy, science and tech oriented people would like to believe. :smalltongue:

Eh. Internet forum discussions aren't what they are because they use "intelligence" instead of "charisma". It's more because it's a medium where it's all detachment and there are no repercussions. Also, political speeches favor Cha because they can't talk back and you have all the grounds to yourself. But put two politicians in a debate and then it shows how preparation, quick thinking, and some actual logic behind your arguments is important. At least to those who care.

It's not all or nothing, but a slider between Cha and Int/Wis, and some cases favor some.


Clearly you've never had a charismatic fool for a manager before :smallbiggrin:

:smallbiggrin:

I had a meticulous fool as a manager instead, and it's just as hard. They just pelt you with detail after detail of small non-important matters that you can't ever come out of the defensive. Kinda like a forum discussion, actually. :smalltongue:

[Kurald Galain]

I had a meticulous fool as a manager instead, and it's just as hard. They just pelt you with detail after detail of small non-important matters that you can't ever come out of the defensive. Kinda like a forum discussion, actually. :smalltongue:

Sure. Anyway, your point is basically that people with too low an intelligence can't be persuasive. While that's certainly true, it means that certain combinations of attributes on a character just don't make sense (e.g. cha 18 and int 5, or for that matter str 18 and con 5). But that's just hypothetical as you don't see those in play anyway.

Simply put, being trained in persuasion means you have trained in preparation, quick thinking, and some actual logic. This doesn't mean that the persuasion skill should be based on anything other than charisma.

[Cespenar]

Sure. Anyway, your point is basically that people with too low an intelligence can't be persuasive. While that's certainly true, it means that certain combinations of attributes on a character just don't make sense (e.g. cha 18 and int 5, or for that matter str 18 and con 5). But that's just hypothetical as you don't see those in play anyway.

Simply put, being trained in persuasion means you have trained in preparation, quick thinking, and some actual logic. This doesn't mean that the persuasion skill should be based on anything other than charisma.

My point wasn't that, actually, but instead that it was more like a slider between Int/Wis and Cha, depending on each case.

Also, since it's not strictly cleared, "trained in persuasion" can also mean that you're trained in rhetoric and eloquence. Which would mean you'd also gain from having a high intelligence/wisdom.

Eh, looks like we'll be disagreeing, but honestly I'd let my players use their intelligence with persuasion if they present a good enough case in a fitting situation.

[Tanarii]

Eh, looks like we'll be disagreeing, but honestly I'd let my players use their intelligence with persuasion if they present a good enough case in a fitting situation.I wouldn't do that. Because players don't get present a case for using an ability score or skill in my games. They get to declare actions. And those actions determine the ability score and skills involved.

I do use the rules variant though. And yeah, there are situations where Int (Persuasion) is a good alternative. For sure if you're trying to persuade a scholar of something using logic, then it's appropriate if you use the variant.

[DivisibleByZero]

Personally, with the exception of things that are set in stone (like perception and reactionary things like acro/athl) I usually call for an Ability Check. With no skill involved. If the player thinks he has a skill appropriate, he asks if that proficiency applies. If it's something unusual I make the player explain how that skill proficiency helps him.
If he dies so to my satisfaction, then he gets his proficiency bonus to the roll.

Make a Wis check.
-- "does deception apply?"
How would that apply here?

If the answer makes sense, I allow it.
Often, we then role play the specifics, and if the RP is strong/suitable, then I allow it.

[Cespenar]

I wouldn't do that. Because players don't get present a case for using an ability score or skill in my games. They get to declare actions. And those actions determine the ability score and skills involved.

"Case" was a misuse, maybe. Of course, action description is the better way to do it.

[Ruslan]

Clearly you've never had a charismatic fool for a manager before :smallbiggrin:I second that. I have seen C-suite managers spewing complete nonsense, and having the unwashed masses employees swallow it, hook, line and sinker. Yes, charisma matters, and a sufficient amount of it can cover for intellectual deficiency.

[quinron]

Yes, some of them potentially invalidate Skills with Different Abilities, but that's the Variant rule. Tools are the standard rule. Besides, not everything you can do that requires a resolution roll should require a skill to go with it, you don't have to force them all into a skill.

I agree with you here - the rolls I call for usually fit the purview of a certain skill, but I'll also call for a straight ability check if no skill is applicable. As we've both said, the standard rule (toolsets) largely invalidates the variant rule (different-ability skills); however, players are more likely to ignore the standard rule due to the prohibitive amount of downtime and the not-inconsiderable wealth required to master a toolset (250 days and 250 gp) while asking that the GM implement the variant rule because it's much cleaner and more efficient.

True, there are other ways than training to get tool proficiencies, but they all require that you choose a certain race/class/background to get them; that's unfairly restrictive. Training is the only other method listed in the PHB, and it just feels out-of-place in the sort of game that D&D has become and is still trying, at some level, to continue being: when the bulk of the rules assume you to be adventuring every or at least nearly every day, staying in one place for the better part of a year learning to be an amateur blacksmith seems absurd.

Basically, my problem here is what I perceive to be sloppy implementation. The variant rule, once presented to the players, becomes and excuse for their attempts to game the system, while the standard rule is unappealing and, in fact, most of the toolsets you can gain proficiency with through training are functionally useless for a career adventurer - I mean, who's throwing down 250 gp and 2/3 of a year to learn how to blow glass? And, more importantly, how and why would I motivate a PC to want to do so?

[JackPhoenix]

Your Thoughts on Different-Ability Skills

So, the group that I DM just love using variant rules. And if you recall, in the PHB, there's a section on different-ability skills. For those of you that don't know, that would be, for example, making a Charisma(Arcana) check. Arcana normally being an Intelligence-based skill.

So my players want the following different-ability skills to be allowed. Tell me what you think on them and if you would allow them.

Intelligence(Deception)
Wisdom(Persuasion)
Strength(Intimidation)
Wisdom(Religion)
Wisdom(Nature)
Intelligence(Persuasion)
Intelligence(Insight)
Intelligence(Medicine)

Tell me what you think of those and if you would allow them.

Thanks,
Aldarin

As a default? No, not really. In specific examples on case-by-case basis? Sure...except Wisdom (Persuasion), that just doesn't sits right with me.

[SharkForce]

I agree with you here - the rolls I call for usually fit the purview of a certain skill, but I'll also call for a straight ability check if no skill is applicable. As we've both said, the standard rule (toolsets) largely invalidates the variant rule (different-ability skills); however, players are more likely to ignore the standard rule due to the prohibitive amount of downtime and the not-inconsiderable wealth required to master a toolset (250 days and 250 gp) while asking that the GM implement the variant rule because it's much cleaner and more efficient.

True, there are other ways than training to get tool proficiencies, but they all require that you choose a certain race/class/background to get them; that's unfairly restrictive. Training is the only other method listed in the PHB, and it just feels out-of-place in the sort of game that D&D has become and is still trying, at some level, to continue being: when the bulk of the rules assume you to be adventuring every or at least nearly every day, staying in one place for the better part of a year learning to be an amateur blacksmith seems absurd.

Basically, my problem here is what I perceive to be sloppy implementation. The variant rule, once presented to the players, becomes and excuse for their attempts to game the system, while the standard rule is unappealing and, in fact, most of the toolsets you can gain proficiency with through training are functionally useless for a career adventurer - I mean, who's throwing down 250 gp and 2/3 of a year to learn how to blow glass? And, more importantly, how and why would I motivate a PC to want to do so?

this is all only a problem if you presume that PCs should be good at everything they do.

if we're going to make that assumption, then we should just cut out the middle man and give them a single attribute, add their proficiency bonus, and use that for anything they do.

sometimes, players won't be proficient in the things they're trying to do. and that is PERFECTLY FINE. it's perfectly fine if the wizard who didn't choose to have high dex isn't extremely good at stealth. it is not a problem if the rogue who didn't take proficiency in forgery tools with a background, feat, subclass, or downtime is not a master of forgery. and so on.

it isn't even as if you need a +10 minimum to be useful in these checks. a charisma 20 paladin with no proficiency in a social skill may not be the grand high emperor of social skill checks, but that paladin has a pretty good chance for many uses of charisma-based checks.

no character is entitled to a high bonus on a check they didn't expend character resources on. there is no right to having a +10 to whatever it is you're trying to do. sometimes you will fail at something because you're not good at doing that something, and that is not a bad thing. in fact, it is far more likely to push you to be creative and find some other way of applying the things you are good at, than just trying to figure out how you can sort of justify using your highest attribute and some random proficiency on the check you're trying to make.

[Specter]

Another important concern a DM should have (other than logic) is that most of these variant checks seem like players trying to be good at something they shouldn't be good at (as a Wizard with Deception).

[Ewhit]

Burger explained a good way to use it.
However i would suggest if you like role playing, let the character act or say what he's doing decide if it succeeds or not for game flow but if its very important then roll for a specified ability like burger wrote

[Kurald Galain]

no character is entitled to a high bonus on a check they didn't expend character resources on. there is no right to having a +10 to whatever it is you're trying to do. sometimes you will fail at something because you're not good at doing that something, and that is not a bad thing. in fact, it is far more likely to push you to be creative and find some other way of applying the things you are good at, than just trying to figure out how you can sort of justify using your highest attribute and some random proficiency on the check you're trying to make.


Another important concern a DM should have (other than logic) is that most of these variant checks seem like players trying to be good at something they shouldn't be good at (as a Wizard with Deception).

Yep, I agree with both. I've met slightly too many players who've tried to abuse such systems by always arguing to have their best stat apply to everything, which is why I'm leery towards using this too much. I'll ask for such rolls when I feel they make sense, not when a player states "I want to use <stat> to do <something only marginally related to that stat>".

[MBControl]

Look, the bottom line is, you should do whatever makes the game the most fun for the group. That's always the number one objective. That being said, I'm not a big fan of changes like this. I think it leads to a lot of "lawyering".

I understand the arguements for most of those, but once that ball starts rolliing, where does it end?

I do see a way that you can have your characters end up using their preferred modifiers while adding flavor to the encounter. For example.

Intelligence (Deception)
Presumably the argument here is that if I'm smart enough to trick you it should be intelligence based. So here is how I'd do it. Let your PC make an INT (Insight) check. If successful, your PC learns the NPC's weakness, or what is truly important to him. At that point give the PC ADV on a following Deception check. Maybe if they crit the Insight roll, they automatically deceive the NPC

or

Strength (Intimidation)
Rather than letting your PC's size alone scare an opponent, ask them to perform a "feat of strength" Festivus style. For example pick up and hurl a large boulder. This would be a Athletics check, and you can now give an ADV on Intimidation roll to follow. On a STR crit, auto intimidation as with the previous example.

I understand this means more rolling, and some groups aren't keen to do that, but I see it as an opportunity to add more flavor to the game. The PC has to decide what physical feat am I going to attempt to frighten this guy. They players have to add more than just, "He's scared of me 'cause I'm big."

In the long run it adds more use for the skills, and more importance in focusing on your strengths.

[quinron]

this is all only a problem if you presume that PCs should be good at everything they do.

if we're going to make that assumption, then we should just cut out the middle man and give them a single attribute, add their proficiency bonus, and use that for anything they do.

My problem isn't that players can't be good at everything they do. It's that there's a system in place - namely, training to gain tool proficiency - that allows them to invest time and money to become good at things. But if you include both tool proficiency training AND different-ability skills, players are going to try to justify using the skill proficiencies they already have with other abilities rather than using the default rules for training with tools - why invest time and money into learning to use a forgery kit when you could just make an Intelligence (Deception) check?

[Ruslan]

As a default? No, not really. In specific examples on case-by-case basis? Sure...except Wisdom (Persuasion), that just doesn't sits right with me.Perhaps like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxgUCgdtZk).

[SharkForce]

My problem isn't that players can't be good at everything they do. It's that there's a system in place - namely, training to gain tool proficiency - that allows them to invest time and money to become good at things. But if you include both tool proficiency training AND different-ability skills, players are going to try to justify using the skill proficiencies they already have with other abilities rather than using the default rules for training with tools - why invest time and money into learning to use a forgery kit when you could just make an Intelligence (Deception) check?

well, that's why you use variant attributes very sparingly. and generally only when a tool proficiency wouldn't apply. my example was a general (or other military officer) attempting to make a feint (in the army sense) to fool an opponent into thinking it is the main attack, and committing their forces (and ideally their reserves as well) to the wrong part of their army. there's no tool to use, and basically it's deception, but you can't really plausibly apply charisma to it, so you use a variant attribute (I would go with intelligence, but there's a case to be made for wisdom being an option I suppose).

I would be very surprised if there were no other possible examples, but there aren't a lot. which is kinda my point; like I said, you use it sparingly.

[Ruslan]

My problem isn't that players can't be good at everything they do. It's that there's a system in place - namely, training to gain tool proficiency - that allows them to invest time and money to become good at things. But if you include both tool proficiency training AND different-ability skills, players are going to try to justify using the skill proficiencies they already have with other abilities rather than using the default rules for training with tools - why invest time and money into learning to use a forgery kit when you could just make an Intelligence (Deception) check?
I believe that it says somewhere in the DMG that not having the right tool for the job leads to Disadvantage. So this problem can easily be solved by RAW. If they don't want to spend time to become proficient with a Forgery Kit, they can improvise and use their natural skills (read: make an Int (Deception) check), but do so at a Disadvantage.

Anyway, as the posted above me noted, "sparingly" is the word.

[Saeviomage]

I use variant skills because
1. The basic skills rules are crap. They're full of inconsistencies, contradictions, imbalances and gaps.
2. Saying "no, you can't use a proficiency" or "no, you have to use stat X" just makes players not want to try out new plans. I want players to try out new plans.
3. Saying "proficiency X goes with stat Y" makes for cookie cutter characters. D&D already has enough of those.
4. It really doesn't matter that much to the math. Someone with a +5 in a stat only succeeds 25% more than someone with a +0 in the same stat. If you would hand out inspiration for appropriate roleplaying, then letting someone use the ideal stat is pretty much even with that.

[Linker2k]

Intelligence(Deception) : For me Intelligence is knowledge, not how intelligent you are but how much of a scholar. That's why when a character has 8 i don't make him be stupid but he will for sure be ignorant. So it's a NO

Wisdom(Persuasion): No, i think this is CHR specific as it its really dependable on your people skills. For example deception might be Wisdom. But not Persuasion. So another NO

Strength(Intimidation): This is a YES for me, but if it comes along with a good rol where the player breaks thing, shouts, etc.

Wisdom(Religion): Might be, but again as i relate Lore with Knowledge and Int maybe not. It's a MAYBE.

Wisdom(Nature): Idem Religion.

Intelligence(Persuasion): Idem Wisdom (Persuasion)

Intelligence(Insight): Idem Wisdom (Persuasion)

Intelligence(Medicine): This is a YES for me, even so i think it's more Intelligence than Wisdom.

Edit: One other thing if the players are asking for this is because they want to get away with murder by making a character of a class that uses these specific skills and fix the skills to better fit their array.