Trap skills

[Mjolnirbear]

I'm talking about Animal Handling and Performance.

As I see it, either of those would be better served as a tool proficiency. You don't need animal handling to ride, there's no rules for training pets, and persuading or deceiving an animal should be a charisma check.

Performance, likewise, is redundant. You also need proficiency in musical instruments, and you could easily designate oration or juggling or something as a tool proficiency.

History or Nature might be less-used options but it still makes sense to have them covered. What useful purpose (other than role-playing, which could be done equally well if these were tools) do these skills have?

[SleepIncarnate]

Performance is more than just playing an instrument. It basically boils down to the ability to work a crowd, wether through music, acting, speech, juggling, or even stage magic. Anyone with charisma can try to work a crowd, but those with proficiency in performance find it much easier.

Think the difference between a karaoke singer and Freddie Mercury. Skill in the instrument or whatever is good and useful, but without the ability to work the crowd, you can remain in obscurity.

Likewise, animal handling is more than simply dealing with mounts and pets. It can be used to bypass guard dogs, know how to react to an angry bear, and any other kind of interaction with an animal. Like performance, it's more specialized, but think of it as combining persuasion, deception, intimidation, and insight all together for animals as opposed to humanoids.

[Mr.Spastic]

Performance is used to impersonate somebody. It is not deception as most people presume. This mainly comes into play with more sneaky types like Assassins or Warlocks with Mask of Many Faces.

Animal Handling checks are made to not fall off of a mount. This can be really helpful if you are flying via Find Greater Steed or other means.

[ImproperJustice]

Animal handling comes up a fair amount anytime we meet a native animal or two.
Our foes seem fond of guard animals, including wolves, dogs, and even apes.
Our sneakier types have found it convenient to be able to calm such creatures and even gather information from them.

Performance less so, but that is largely due to our campiagn being very war/ dungeon crawl focused.
It came up in one major social challenge where we had to impress various tribal leaders at one time that we were strong and capable warriors and they wanted a display of our various forms of prowess.
It also gets used with occasional magical
Musical instrument.

Medicine I think, is our least used proficiency.

Wheras most used would be:
Perception
Investigate
Persuade
Insight
Various Knowledge checks

And Chef Tools and Cobbler strangely.
Turns out you can pull a lot of info from cookware and people’s shoes. And monsters seem to really like their kitchens, and boots.

[Dark Schneider]

Performance is used to impersonate somebody. It is not deception as most people presume. This mainly comes into play with more sneaky types like Assassins or Warlocks with Mask of Many Faces.

Animal Handling checks are made to not fall off of a mount. This can be really helpful if you are flying via Find Greater Steed or other means.
No, that is Deception, not Performance. Performance is for entertain an audience, singing, dancing, joking. If you want to be another person, you are deceiving in any case.

Animal Handling is not only for riding, is everything animal involved, like calm, train, give orders (not riding), etc.

[DeTess]

I'd expect Performance to be very useful in an Urban campaign. It could be used to stage distractions, or even as a means of gathering information.

Animal handling might not come up that often, but in most cases where it does come up, it's going to be a pretty important check (calming the guard dog before it gives your position away, convincing the big guard animal in the dungeon to go and eat your offering of Kobolds instead of your face, convincing the Roc to go and fall somewhere else, etc.). I think so far it's come up 3 times in the campaign i'mt taking part in, we failed the check miserable every single time , and it would have saved us some decent measure of trouble as well.

[Dark Schneider]

I'd expect Performance to be very useful in an Urban campaign. It could be used to stage distractions, or even as a means of gathering information.

Yes I understand that and already had the same doubt. But what you are looking is mainly Deception not Performance.

Performance can be played to gain some money (look at downtime at PHB), yes make distractions while you perform to get attention others could do other things... Notice that if you want to distract i.e. a few guards, you would use Deception instead (with an useless chat) as you are deceiving them. The Performance one would be more like you get place at street, square or somewhere and attract general attention (like a circus, mime, musician...).

So, Deception is more individual or reduced, Performance is a show.

It can be easier to handle if you think this way: when you have to confront against Insight, it is Deception, if is a check roll against a DC (normal maneuver) is Performance. So you want to interact with someone/s comparing checks, your Deception against their Insight. If you have to check against a DC (that could be the audience requirement), Performance. Notice this can be sometimes a bit obscure, like imitating sounds, that use Deception, because it is really a Deception vs Insight to check if they recognize your sound or not.

[some guy]

Yeah, I'd say Medicine is perfect as a tool proficiency, as are Animal Handling and Performance. These skills can be very useful in rare situations, or frequently useful in certain campaigns, but I would say that fits the power level of tool proficiencies. At most as powerful as a proficiency in Disguise kit, Forgery kit, Thieves' tools.

Depending on the dm, Intimidation can also be a trap skill, but more in the sense of "you used intimidation so now you're in a worse situation than before". But that's really dependent on the type of dm.

[JellyPooga]

Performance is acting and not just for entertainment or for large crowds. So if you're parading as a cultist or guard, for example, then you could use Performance to bypass casual inspection, or even to select the right outfit/mannerisms (though that might also fall under Disguise Kit) If questioned or you're outright lying, then a Deception check would be in order. The problem with Performance is the amount of overlap with other skills; juggling? Sleight of Hand. Lies? Deception. Playing an instrument? Tool. etc. The strength of Performance is that it's a catch-all.

[DeTess]

Depending on the dm, Intimidation can also be a trap skill, but more in the sense of "you used intimidation so now you're in a worse situation than before". But that's really dependent on the type of dm.

That's either bad DM-ing, or players thinking trying to intimidate an archmage or king is a good idea.


Yes I understand that and already had the same doubt. But what you are looking is mainly Deception not Performance.

Performance can be played to gain some money (look at downtime at PHB), yes make distractions while you perform to get attention others could do other things... Notice that if you want to distract i.e. a few guards, you would use Deception instead (with an useless chat) as you are deceiving them. The Performance one would be more like you get place at street, square or somewhere and attract general attention (like a circus, mime, musician...).



"I try to distract the guards by playing a beautiful and heartbreaking ballad on the other side of the street."

"I put on a performance in the inn to put people at ease and hopefully loosen tongues. My allies will be listening in to see if they hear anything of interest."

What skills would you ask the player to roll in these two situations?

[Dark Schneider]

Look at this:

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/5e_SRD:Deception_Skill


Typical situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself off in a disguise, dull someone's suspicions with false assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling a blatant lie.

As mentioned, I had that doubt but finally is Disguise.


I try to distract the guards by playing a beautiful and heartbreaking ballad on the other side of the street.
Yes, as mentioned, acting in the street or something like that. But acting does not implies the guards will pay attention, as in a large city many performers may pass daily and probably they don't pay attention to all, if not they directly would not do their job. By Deception you attack directly, because is a short intrusion to distract them.
So with Performance depends much of the situation, the guard orders, so the DM decides if they pay attention or not (it could be simply an impossible check), with Disguise there is always a confront against Insight, but if you fail by much the guards could hit back against you.


"I put on a performance in the inn to put people at ease and hopefully loosen tongues. My allies will be listening in to see if they hear anything of interest
That is Performance, but in that case people is not talking directly. Could be used to soften the situation, i.e. change from neutral to friendly for a short time, because they are inspired by the perform.

[Misterwhisper]

A side note, playing an instrument is not performance, it is tool use in the instrument.

Which also uses dex not cha.

Really made out 14 dex bard very angry when he got all uppity about being the best performer ever and the dm just had the monk pick up the violin and out play him.

Performance is a skill I have put points in but only as RP, everything it does is covered by persuasion and deception.

[SleepIncarnate]

In response to the question of which skill you use when trying to pass yourself off as a guard, the answer is both. Performance is used to give yourself the general appearance in ways that a disguise can't cover. How to walk, how to carry that air of authority, how to pretend you actually know which end of the sword goes in someone if you don't, etc. Deception is used when someone challenges you on your disguise. This is the skill used to get out of that challenge.

Take a look at a classic example from Star Wars episode 4. Luke and Han dress up in storm trooper outfits, walk through the ship until they find Leia's cell, and then release her. The donning the armor is a disguise kit check (which is intelligence), walking through the ship without raising suspicion is a performance check (they're acting in a way that fits their disguise), and if anyone challenges them (such as Han over the radio or Luke trying to convince Leia that he really is a storm trooper), that's a deception check. They passed their disguise checks, passed their performance check, Han rolled a natural 1 on his deception check, and Luke didn't even try to make a deception check.

[Reynaert]

A side note, playing an instrument is not performance, it is tool use in the instrument.

Which also uses dex not cha.

Really made out 14 dex bard very angry when he got all uppity about being the best performer ever and the dm just had the monk pick up the violin and out play him.

Performance is a skill I have put points in but only as RP, everything it does is covered by persuasion and deception.

Complete nonsense.
It's like saying Data (from star trek TNG) is a better performer than Riker.

[Unoriginal]

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
Proficiency with a musical instrument indicates you are familiar with the techniques used to play it. You also have knowledge of some songs commonly performed with that instrument.

History Your expertise aids you in recalling lore related to your instrument.

Performance Your ability to put on a good show is improved when you incorporate an instrument into your act.

Compose Tune As part of a long rest, you can compose a new tune and lyrics fory our instrument. You might use this ability to impress a noble or spread scandalous rumors with a catchy tune.

MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
Activity DC
Identify a tune 10
Improvise a tune 20



Musical Instrument proficiency gives you advantage when you use CHA (Performance), it doesn't replace CHA (Performance)

[Misterwhisper]

Complete nonsense.
It's like saying Data (from star trek TNG) is a better performer than Riker.

No idea on the star trek thing, and I think the rule in the book is stupid but it is what it is, same as a sorcerer being better at intimidate than a barbarian

[some guy]

That's either bad DM-ing, or players thinking trying to intimidate an archmage or king is a good idea.

Yeah, I agree. Still, in the games I run, in comparison with Deception and Persuasion, Intimidate is the least used social skill.

[JackPhoenix]

No idea on the star trek thing, and I think the rule in the book is stupid but it is what it is, same as a sorcerer being better at intimidate than a barbarian

Yes, finding someone able to set you on fire with a snap of his finger, turn you into a frog or make you into his obedient slave with few words and some magic scarrier than just a strong guy with an axe is totally stupid.

[Misterwhisper]

Yes, finding someone able to set you on fire with a snap of his finger, turn you into a frog or make you into his obedient slave with few words and some magic scarrier than just a strong guy with an axe is totally stupid.

The same could work in reverse too, the large guy with scars from killing people with an axe his whole life and not even needing armor to do it, wielding a blood caked great axe that the frail guy who can’t even figure out how leather armor and a long sword work.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, finding someone able to set you on fire with a snap of his finger, turn you into a frog or make you into his obedient slave with few words and some magic scarrier than just a strong guy with an axe is totally stupid.


The same could work in reverse too, the large guy with scars from killing people with an axe his whole life and not even needing armor to do it, wielding a blood caked great axe that the frail guy who can’t even figure out how leather armor and a long sword work.

Both can be equally scary.

If you want a guy to be scary, be it with an axe or with magic, it comes from their force of personality and how well they know how to manipulate you into being scared.

Most of the time, criminals are more afraid of Batman than they are of Superman, even if only one of those two could literally grab them and fly them into orbit.

[Joe the Rat]

On Medicine: It all depends on how you use it. If it's just to stabilize wounds, yeah, waste of space. If you want to recognize diseases, poisons, cause of death or injury, treat lingering injury effects, fake an illness/injury, evaluate general health, make diet recommendations, recognize mental illness and treat the same, etc., it's applicable. Can some of this be covered by other skills? Yeah. But that requires the mindset of "this can apply" rather than "ONLY this can apply."

Intimidation: The catch here is that - and look at the NPC interaction rules - Intimidation always shifts the target to the negative. Unless you are dealing with a culture where threats of injury (physical or otherwise) are considered a display of power that should inspire loyalty, making leg-breaking statements or insinuations about exactly how many generations of his descendants you will be visiting for highly inappropriate reasons, you're going to piss someone off, compliance or no. Intimidation isn't "Do as I ask or I will do X," It's convincing them that you a) can, and b) will follow through on that threat. You can cow an opponent, or squeeze information this way, but they are not going to like you. Making threats that you appear willing to follow through on, against people with the means to remove you as a threat, is going to see you being removed as a threat.

Barbarian vs Caster: If you are proficient, you are better at it. Barbarians (or any physical fighter) can have the appearance of physical danger. Sorcerers can conjure lightning and paralyze. Warlocks open gates to all sorts of strange places - and likely have an air of power about them. Remember, attributes describe your abilities in broad strokes, they do not speak to how you got there. High Charisma may be a result of having magic as much as having the ability in the first place.

But that also assumes you are using words and looks to make your threats. If your warrior has a steely glare, you need the stats to back that up. Better-than-average charisma, and the proficiency. If you are threatening with violence, and can engage in violence, your general ability to interact well has less to do with your ability to demonstrate your ass-kicking ability, and point at the target - Using Strength (or Dexterity) to demonstrate martial prowess. Or Constitution to tank damage without flinching or wincing. Skill proficiencies have a typical attribute use, but that is not an absolute attribute use.


Complete nonsense.
It's like saying Data (from star trek TNG) is a better performer than Riker.

You're reading that backwards. Data is the proficient (stupid warforged knowledge clerics...), Riker has Performance. Sherlock Holmes has neither.

BUT that also gets into my tendency to view tool proficiencies on many things as can/can't, not adds proficiency bonus.

[Pleh]

Complete nonsense.
It's like saying Data (from star trek TNG) is a better performer than Riker.

Not to make a huge deal of this, but Data probably WAS a better musician in Technicalities. He could play any note flawlessly. This made him pretty great at Classical pieces.

What he couldn't do, was FEEL the Jazz behind the notes, which was Riker's specialty.

Riker played to express his connection with his humanity. Data played so he could try to connect with some form of humanity.

[Pelle]

A side note, playing an instrument is not performance, it is tool use in the instrument.

Which also uses dex not cha.

Really made out 14 dex bard very angry when he got all uppity about being the best performer ever and the dm just had the monk pick up the violin and out play him.

Performance is a skill I have put points in but only as RP, everything it does is covered by persuasion and deception.

Dex (Instrument) is for the guy sitting is his parents' basement, playing technical guitar solos. Cha (Performance) is for the guy putting together a band that fills up big arenas with his fans. The latter is arguably the best 'performer', even tough less technically apt. It's up to the player to get leverage out of either skill.

[Misterwhisper]

Dex (Instrument) is for the guy sitting is his parents' basement, playing technical guitar solos. Cha (Performance) is for the guy putting together a band that fills up big arenas with his fans. The latter is arguably the best 'performer', even tough less technically apt. It's up to the player to get leverage out of either skill.

The best performer is the guy with the better roll. Or the better bonus, just because one uses cha and the other dex does not make them better.

I can see someone using int for thieves tools, but that does not mean that the person that uses dex is better because they use dex.

[Pelle]

The best performer is the guy with the better roll. Or the better bonus, just because one uses cha and the other dex does not make them better.


No, those are two different tasks. Task play technically - Dex. Task perform - Cha. Apply relevant profs.

Sure, you might use Int with thief's tools, but then it's a different task/approach. Who is best at the given task/approach is the one with the highest modifier for that task. So the Dex user is better at the approaches that require Dex, the Int for the tasks that require Int.

[JackPhoenix]

The same could work in reverse too, the large guy with scars from killing people with an axe his whole life and not even needing armor to do it, wielding a blood caked great axe that the frail guy who can’t even figure out how leather armor and a long sword work.

The best performer is the guy with the better roll. Or the better bonus, just because one uses cha and the other dex does not make them better.

I can see someone using int for thieves tools, but that does not mean that the person that uses dex is better because they use dex.

So, wait, you say that sorcerer potentially having better Intimidate than barbarian thanks to higher Cha is stupid, despite there being good possible in-game reason for that, but aknowledge that higher bonus is what makes you better at something?

[Unoriginal]

Dex (Instrument) is for the guy sitting is his parents' basement, playing technical guitar solos. Cha (Performance) is for the guy putting together a band that fills up big arenas with his fans. The latter is arguably the best 'performer', even tough less technically apt. It's up to the player to get leverage out of either skill.


The best performer is the guy with the better roll. Or the better bonus, just because one uses cha and the other dex does not make them better.

I can see someone using int for thieves tools, but that does not mean that the person that uses dex is better because they use dex.

The best performer is the one who get/can get the highest CHA check with Performance proficiency. Musical Instrument proficiency gives you advantage. DEX has no effect on your attempt at performing with an instrument.

That "Monk is better at the fiddle than the Bard" example is either the DM houseruling or not understanding the rules.

You can use INT with thieves' tools proficiency, but it will NOT let you open doors. If you use INT with thief's tool proficiency, you are attempting to recall lore about burglary or lock mechanisms or the like.


THIEVES’ TOOLS
Perhaps the most common tools used byadventurers, thieves’ tools are designed for picking locks and foiling traps. Pro fi ciency with the tools also grants you a general knowledge of traps and locks.

Components Thieves’ tools include a small file, a set Of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow—bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers.

History Your knowledge of traps grants you insight when answering questions about locations that are renowned for their traps.

Investigation and Perception You gain additional insight when looking for traps, because you have learned a variety of common signs that betray their presence.

[solidork]

Slightly off topic:
There is a Werewolf: the Forsaken campaign report over on RPG.net called Detroit Rock City. In this game there are two characters that are musicians, one a guitarist one a bassist. They had a mutual friend who played the drums who hoped that they'd all one day be in a band together, but he died and the bassist blamed the guitarist for it so they HATE each other at the start. One of the first things that happens is their base gets burned down, and both of them risk their lives to save their instruments. They then spent the next 5 years IRL time lugging those guitars to hell and back, constantly on the run from foes that could crush them. It would have been so easy for them to just leave them behind, but they didn't. Slowly the two build a relationship of mutual respect over spilled blood and incredible hardship.

Finally, the last obstacle before they make it to the tree of life that will let them resurrect their dead friend, they have to placate a god-totem. And of course they have to play it music.

The guitarist plays a solo, spending his last willpower and getting dramatic success. Still the god totem is not appeased.

The bassist plays a solo. Still it will not let them pass.

Finally, they play a song together, just like their friend had hoped, and the PC rolls another dramatic success. The god-totem turns to stone.

It was incredible.

[Dark Schneider]

Well I like the Medicine skill. If you only hold on what is written (that are examples of uses) then yes it can be very limited. But, it is medicine after all. Some examples:

- You can use it to gain some money while downtime working as doctor.
- Diagnose poisons and diseases, including madness.
- You could also use to reduce madness effects, by treatment.
- Greater examples:
Someone loses a limb, he was petrified and broken. When returned to flesh, what about if the player says he wants to join the severed limb by surgery? If he does it, then the limb could be recovered by a Greater Restoration

Greater Restoration
...end one of the following effects on it
Any reduction to one ability score
One effect reducing hit point maximum
A damaged limb could fit into any of these, so if was attached by surgery, so you have an damaged limb instead a severed limb, it could be finally healed by Greater Restoration.

What about if the player wants to join a severed head before resurrecting?

Both can be easier or harder to achieve, simply put a DC, but definitely you use Medicine.


About the "tool Medicine" skill, yes you could add "healer kit proficiency", in fact it would be the skill for nursing. You need Medicine for diagnosing, but for treatment you could use the tool, as also for blood transfusion and other things. Even more, it could be used to assist to the one using Medicine for granting advantage probably (or group check, the one that fits better for you).


Remember that was is written in the ability check section, are example cases, but the rules there are open. So when a player says he want to do something, you have to fit into another something, and in this case any skill could have use.

[Misterwhisper]

So, wait, you say that sorcerer potentially having better Intimidate than barbarian thanks to higher Cha is stupid, despite there being good possible in-game reason for that, but aknowledge that higher bonus is what makes you better at something?

No I think that it not being written in the book that intimidate is automatically a multi stat choice skill is stupid.

I think they should have listed some skills as being a choice between more than one stat in the first place, not just as an option.

Ex

Intimidate should be str or cha from the start
Investigate should be int or wis

Stuff like that.

Also, athletics and acrobatics should. It be different skills in the first place.

[JackPhoenix]

No I think that it not being written in the book that intimidate is automatically a multi stat choice skill is stupid.

I think they should have listed some skills as being a choice between more than one stat in the first place, not just as an option.

Ex

Intimidate should be str or cha from the start
Investigate should be int or wis

Stuff like that.

Also, athletics and acrobatics should. It be different skills in the first place.

Linking Str and Intimidate at all is stupid and goes against what Strength checks represent. It was a really bad choice for an example of using ability checks with unrelated skill proficiency.

[Pleh]

Linking Str and Intimidate at all is stupid and goes against what Strength checks represent. It was a really bad choice for an example of using ability checks with unrelated skill proficiency.

It's also stupid that a 7ft Half Ogre Barbarian is as intimidating as his ability to speak well, not his physical presence.

Strength IS scary and impressive. Watching Captain America instantly shred a log with his bare hands is pretty intimidating when you're in the middle of an argument with him and it's not his charisma that is scaring you when that happens.

[Pelle]

It's also stupid that a 7ft Half Ogre Barbarian is as intimidating as his ability to speak well, not his physical presence.

Strength IS scary and impressive. Watching Captain America instantly shred a log with his bare hands is pretty intimidating when you're in the middle of an argument with him and it's not his charisma that is scaring you when that happens.

That's rather situational context that should go into your judgement when choosing the DC for the Cha(Intimidate) check, IMO. I mean, npcs may be scared even though no one tries to do an ability check.

[JackPhoenix]

It's also stupid that a 7ft Half Ogre Barbarian is as intimidating as his ability to speak well, not his physical presence.

Strength IS scary and impressive. Watching Captain America instantly shred a log with his bare hands is pretty intimidating when you're in the middle of an argument with him and it's not his charisma that is scaring you when that happens.

But Intimidate isn't "I'm scary". It's "I'll get someone to do what I want through threats". Lots of things are scary... but that doesn't mean they can order anyone around. A big dog may be scary, but it's got no control if the commoner it confronts run, fight, give him food or crap himself in fear.

[dragoeniex]

Yes, as mentioned, acting in the street or something like that. But acting does not implies the guards will pay attention, as in a large city many performers may pass daily and probably they don't pay attention to all, if not they directly would not do their job. By Deception you attack directly, because is a short intrusion to distract them.
So with Performance depends much of the situation, the guard orders, so the DM decides if they pay attention or not (it could be simply an impossible check), with Disguise there is always a confront against Insight, but if you fail by much the guards could hit back against you.


There's no guarantee a guard has to give you the time of day to attempt deception either. Or that they do anything whether they believe you or not. All outcomes are DM-dependent, and saying you shouldn't use performance because you could theoretically take another tactic is not sound to me. You can always try different tactics.

Sweeping ballads to get attention? Just as valid as other kinds of distractions, and it comes with the benefit of seeming completely innocent. If your deception fails, you could be in hot water. If your performance fails, well... it's annoying, not suspicious. And maybe you can start failing as hard as possible to be a less pleasant distraction/get yourself escorted off the premises while friends move around.

For certain types of "deception," I would argue you'd actually need performance. Like pretending to be an injured person in need of help, or acting panicked and yelling "Stop, thief!" and trying to get someone to run after your shady accomplice, etc.

Deception to me is more logic and guile, or wording and charm. Performance is theatrics- even the misleading ones.

The really DM-dependent part is which one your DM decides to call for, because you can overlap the definitions some. But performance will always have its place, and I think the bigger thing is whether players try to aim for that sort of check or not.

[JellyPooga]

It's also stupid that a 7ft Half Ogre Barbarian is as intimidating as his ability to speak well, not his physical presence.

Strength IS scary and impressive. Watching Captain America instantly shred a log with his bare hands is pretty intimidating when you're in the middle of an argument with him and it's not his charisma that is scaring you when that happens.

Strength, size and feats of prowess are intimidating in the general sense, but they aren't Intimidating in the sense that an Ability Score check requires.

A 7ft Ogre is scary and if he roars at you, it might give you a moments pause to consider whether you're skilled or stupid enough to contradict him. Great. He hasn't made an Intimidation check yet, though. If he then says "You run away now", now he's made an Intimidation check; he's trying to get you to do something specific, not generally be scary. Unfortunately for him, he's not so good with words and he's little more than a lumpen oaf, so he'll probably fail at forcing you to run away. Yes, his physical stature is a factor in your decision, but it's not a factor in removing your decision making process.

A 3ft Halfling Warlock with high Charisma and proficiemct in Intimidation, on the other hand, may not have the Ogres size or strength, but he does have a way with words, a presence that's hard to ignore and potentially even an otherworldly aura that is unsettling to the uninitiated. If he roars at you, it'll probably give you pause for thought because it's unexpected, but it's no more an intimidation check than when the Ogre did it and his physical stature has as much impact on your decision as the Ogres (albeit in the reverse, probably). When he says "You'll be leaving now, or I may not be able to guarantee you'll be alive in 3 minutes time", he is also then making an Intimidation check, like the Ogre, except unlike said Ogre he's got the inflection, the presence, the Charisma to make you believe it, to force your decision, beyond the facts as presented.

Intimidation is always a form of deception, bluff or persuasion; it's not about being scary, so much as it's about making the victim believe that you are in spite of or because of the evidence presented. A low Charisma Ogre is scary to a peasant because he's big and strong, not because he's convinced them that he is and likewise, he's not scary to a high level adventurer because his physique pales by comparison to the adventurers skill and the Ogre doesn't have the Charisma to convince him otherwise; no amount of flexing or chest-beating on the Ogres behalf will change that becaue he's just a big, dumb brute.

A strong person is scary or not based on who is facing them, not their own efforts. An Intimidating person is scary based on how intimidating they are, regardless of their size, strength, skill with a blade or magical aptitude and it's due to their own effort at being intimidating, not who the recipient is.

That's why Srength (Intimidation) checks make no sense.

IMO

[Man_Over_Game]

In these instances, I'd let my player make the roll using the lower of the two attributes with advantage. Advantage provides about a +5 on the roll, so generally, it's worth it.

[terodil]

Strength, size and feats of prowess are intimidating in the general sense, but they aren't Intimidating in the sense that an Ability Score check requires. [...]

Intimidation is always a form of deception, bluff or persuasion; it's not about being scary, so much as it's about making the victim believe that you are in spite of or because of the evidence presented. A low Charisma Ogre is scary to a peasant because he's big and strong, not because he's convinced them that he is and likewise, he's not scary to a high level adventurer because his physique pales by comparison to the adventurers skill and the Ogre doesn't have the Charisma to convince him otherwise; no amount of flexing or chest-beating on the Ogres behalf will change that becaue he's just a big, dumb brute.

A strong person is scary or not based on who is facing them, not their own efforts. An Intimidating person is scary based on how intimidating they are, regardless of their size, strength, skill with a blade or magical aptitude and it's due to their own effort at being intimidating, not who the recipient is.

That's why Srength (Intimidation) checks make no sense.

IMO
I don't think I agree. When you are differentiating between the peasant and the high-level adventurer, you're correct in describing the outcome of the intimidation attempt. But this variance in outcome is primarily due to the higher DC/contesting ability check from the adventurer compared to the peasant, while the ogres ability check, whether CHA or STR-based, is constant.

On picking a different ability for a skill/proficiency check, the DMG gives the example of a CON (athletics) check vs. the default STR (athletics) check when crossing a large body of water. It also says: "If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking."

When I compare the nuance in CON (athletics) and STR (athletics) and compare it to STR (intimidation) and CHA (intimidation), I fail to see so large a difference so as to forbid a player from using it -- especially not if the character in question has proficiency in intimidation and/or roleplays his attempt convincingly. I certainly know from personal experience that a gigantic brute can be plenty intimidating if I meet him in the street at night, whatever his force of personality, actual character, or intellectual prowess. The overwhelming strength conveyed by the hulking shadowy shape is enough.

As always, if the circumstances fit, then I'd allow STR (intimidation), with a higher (combat-trained opponent) or lower (common peasant) DC. If it was CHA-based, the DC would vary along a different line, of course -- a trader, for example, would probably resist more easily due to experience in negotiation tactics than said combat-trained opponent who is just used to pointing swords and doesn't feel confident in ascertaining the veracity of a purely verbal threat.

Edit: I could even imagine allowing DEX (intimidation) in rare circumstances. If a rogue with proficiency in intimidation 'plays' with throwing daggers and demonstrates quite clearly to the shop-owner that she can hit targets 30m off with pinpoint accuracy, then turns around, just barely 'misses' the head of his beautiful, innocent daughter, and politely asks him to grant her a complimentary discount, chances are that the merchant's face will lose colour as quickly as his shop items.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Difference between Con (Athletics) and Str (Intimidate) is that the former fits with what the ability score represent ("Constitution measures health, stamina, and vital force", and stamina definitely matters in long-distance swimming) while the later doesn't. "Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force". That's all well and good, but you're trying to intimidate someone, that falls purely under Cha, because "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".

Yes, 7' orc brute is scary but for intimidation...getting someone to do what he wants...that size and strength is only a tool. It doesn't matter if he's big, pulls out a weapon, displays arcane power or shows a badge of authority. He's trying to "interact effectively with others". Str doesn't cover that. Dex doesn't cover that. Con doesn't cover that. Int doesn't cover that. Wis doesn't cover that. Cha DOES.

It's easy to be scary to a commoner. A villager won't be significantly more afraid of the big orc threatening him than of the smaller orc brandishing a weapon, or the scrawny goblin shaman who just set his house on fire. They all represent deadly threat... but when all of they threaten him together to give his gold to them personally, they won't be rolling Str (Intimidate), Int (Intimidate)(because he remembered to bring a weapon with him) and Cha (Intimidate)(because that's his spellcasting ability). They'll all roll Cha (Intimidate), and the winner gets the gold.

And the villager will likely get killed no matter who wins.

Edit: problem with your Dex (Intimidate) example is that the check may fail. What then? Did the rogue hit the girl? Was the throw too wide and missed her by 2 feet? Because the accuracy of that throw is propably less relevant to the shopkeeper than the fact there's a psychopath throwing knives at his daughter. If he missed by few inches regardless of the roll, what's the point of using dexterity? It's just a dressing, and what matters is Cha, because that decides if he gets the shopkeeper to do what he wants instead of calling for help.

[Pleh]

When he says "You'll be leaving now, or I may not be able to guarantee you'll be alive in 3 minutes time", he is also then making an Intimidation check, like the Ogre, except unlike said Ogre he's got the inflection, the presence, the Charisma to make you believe it, to force your decision, beyond the facts as presented.

Wait, so Charisma checks are supernatural, but strength checks aren't?

I've never seen social skill checks as FORCING anything to happen. It's just, you try to do a thing. Did it work?

A halfling warlock tries to use their skill and persuasive personality to initimidate foes into leaving. It isn't Forcing them if the check succeeds. They were persuaded to heed the warlock's warning, not supernaturally manipulated. If the Warlock had used an invocation or spell, you could say that they were forced, but that wouldn't be due to their charismatic talking skills.

To me, you can just as easily communicate the same message ("you should get away from me promptly,") by standing to full height and flexing a large set of muscles, supplementing with a hard glare to provide context.

You aren't forcing anything. Social skill checks don't force things. They just indicate how successful you were at convincing another creature.

There's not really a reason that a muscular barbarian needs to be ineffective at convincing people that they don't want to make him angry just because he wasn't built to be a party face.

Sure, his skills of persuasion are limited compared to a bard or rogue as fear only generates a small set of responses. That's the tradeoff.

But someone said, "that should be represented by modifying the Check DC."

Really? Should the penalty against an ogre's intimidate be proportionate to its strength modifier? Because if the Circumstance Penalty to Will Save vs the Ogre's Intimidate is proportional to the Ogre's strength, that's mathematically identical to giving the Ogre its Str bonus to Intimidate.

Large, powerful creatures are intimidating, even when their force of personality is lacking. This is because force of physicality triggers subconscious survival instinct. We can't help noticing the clear signs of a powerful foe and it makes our gut tell us to do anything necessary to avoid a confrontation.

Now, that should be the effective limit, doing what they can to avoid conflict. The halfling warlock is much better equipped to craft nuanced manipulations and convince people to do more than operate on survival impulse.

[stoutstien]

It's obvious that Jack Phoenix plays his game like a point-and-click adventure game on a computer. Everytime he enters a dialogue scene a little box of skills pop up and give him a list of options are you allowed to use. If a pc barbarian went into a rage and tossed a 30 foot tree at a advancing army they would shrug it off bc the player only has a 10 in Cha so he/she is incapable of intimating.

[JackPhoenix]

Wait, so Charisma checks are supernatural, but strength checks aren't?

I've never seen social skill checks as FORCING anything to happen. It's just, you try to do a thing. Did it work?

A halfling warlock tries to use their skill and persuasive personality to initimidate foes into leaving. It isn't Forcing them if the check succeeds. They were persuaded to heed the warlock's warning, not supernaturally manipulated. If the Warlock had used an invocation or spell, you could say that they were forced, but that wouldn't be due to their charismatic talking skills.

To me, you can just as easily communicate the same message ("you should get away from me promptly,") by standing to full height and flexing a large set of muscles, supplementing with a hard glare to provide context.

You aren't forcing anything. Social skill checks don't force things. They just indicate how successful you were at convincing another creature.

Nobody said it's supernatural. That hard glare and proper looming stance? That's what Cha does.


There's not really a reason that a muscular barbarian needs to be ineffective at convincing people that they don't want to make him angry just because he wasn't built to be a party face.

Sure, his skills of persuasion are limited compared to a bard or rogue as fear only generates a small set of responses. That's the tradeoff.

Sure. The barbarian can invest into Cha if he wants to be intimidating. And take proficiency in Intimidate. If he doesn't, he's just not that scary. He doesn't need to be the party face, or take proficiencies in other Cha skills, but he won't get anything (higher bonus than he deserves) for free.



Large, powerful creatures are intimidating, even when their force of personality is lacking. This is because force of physicality triggers subconscious survival instinct. We can't help noticing the clear signs of a powerful foe and it makes our gut tell us to do anything necessary to avoid a confrontation.

Scrawny guy with an assault rifle (or loaded crossbow in fantasy) is equally, if not more, intimidating, no matter his force of personality. But as there isn't any ability score that represents ownership of a weapon, he'll be rolling Cha to see if he can get people do what he want. So will the large, powerful creature. Because without that, avoiding confrontation may mean running away, giving the intimidator what he wants, calling for help or waiting until he's distracted before attacking.

Again, Intimidate isn't "being scary". Intimidate is "When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the GM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision". Or, to put it simply, getting the others to do what they want through some kind of threat.

Kobold with a rusty knife, hulking ogre, walking skeleton, a sorcerer, flaming demon devil from literal Hell and an angry manager are all scary in different ways. But if any of them wants a commoner to fetch them a cup of coffee, it's Cha check to see if he complies or runs away the moment he's out of sight.


It's obvious that Jack Phoenix plays his game like a point-and-click adventure game on a computer. Everytime he enters a dialogue scene a little box of skills pop up and give him a list of options are you allowed to use. If a pc barbarian went into a rage and tossed a 30 foot tree at a advancing army they would shrug it off bc the player only has a 10 in Cha so he/she is incapable of intimating.

No, if barbarian went into a rage and tossed 30 foot tree at an advancing army, he did just that. But that's not an Intimidate check, he's just showing off. The army may run away, turn him into arrow pincussion, attempt to negotiate or send a mage to mind control him to join them. He's not incapable of intimidating, even with Cha 10 and no proficiency, but apparently, he doesn't even bother trying, because he forgot to mention what he's trying to accomplish. Besides pissing off the local druid. There's no indication he's trying to get the army to behave a certain way, which is what would've prompted Cha (Intimidate) check in the first place.

[stoutstien]

Nobody said it's supernatural. That hard glare and proper looming stance? That's what Cha does.



Sure. The barbarian can invest into Cha if he wants to be intimidating. And take proficiency in Intimidate. If he doesn't, he's just not that scary. He doesn't need to be the party face, or take proficiencies in other Cha skills, but he won't get anything (higher bonus than he deserves) for free.




Scrawny guy with an assault rifle (or loaded crossbow in fantasy) is equally, if not more, intimidating, no matter his force of personality. But as there isn't any ability score that represents ownership of a weapon, he'll be rolling Cha to see if he can get people do what he want. So will the large, powerful creature. Because without that, avoiding confrontation may mean running away, giving the intimidator what he wants, calling for help or waiting until he's distracted before attacking.

Again, Intimidate isn't "being scary". Intimidate is "When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the GM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision". Or, to put it simply, getting the others to do what they want through some kind of threat.

Kobold with a rusty knife, hulking ogre, walking skeleton, a sorcerer, flaming demon devil from literal Hell and an angry manager are all scary in different ways. But if any of them wants a commoner to fetch them a cup of coffee, it's Cha check to see if he complies or runs away the moment he's out of sight.



No, if barbarian went into a rage and tossed 30 foot tree at an advancing army, he did just that.But that's not an Intimidate check, he's just showing off. The army may run away, turn him into arrow pincussion, attempt to negotiate or send a mage to mind control him to join them. He's not incapable of intimidating, even with Cha 10 and no proficiency, but apparently, he doesn't even bother trying, because he forgot to mention what he's trying to accomplish. Besides pissing off the local druid. There's no indication he's trying to get the army to behave a certain way, which is what would've prompted Cha (Intimidate) check in the first place.
There is no such thing as an intimidation check or any skill checks at all in dnd 5e.

[JackPhoenix]

There is no such thing as an intimidation check or any skill checks at all in dnd 5e.

Hm, we're talking about applying Intimidate proficiency to different ability checks... why, oh why, would I possibly decide to deliberately avoid mentioning ability score used?

Perhaps because what you're describing isn't Cha (Intimidate) check, and proficiency in Intimidate isn't relevant to Str check to throw trees around?

Or perhaps you're trolling, because I think the rest of the post you're quoting should be enough to make clear that I understand how ability check works.

[stoutstien]

Hm, we're talking about applying Intimidate proficiency to different ability checks... why, oh why, would I possibly decide to deliberately avoid mentioning ability score used?

Perhaps because what you're describing isn't Cha (Intimidate) check, and proficiency in Intimidate isn't relevant to Str check to throw trees around?

Or perhaps you're trolling, because I think the rest of the post you're quoting should be enough to make clear that I understand how ability check works.
Yoy can prove that your right by saying your right?

If you want to run a game where skills are a rigid one skill/one task there nothing wrong with it but saying it's RAW is just wrong. If I intimating a guard by saying I'm part of a powerful merchant guild it could easily be 4+ different skills. It's up to how the player approachs it.

[Mr.Spastic]

I personally love the variant rule to use different abilities for skills. My favorite thing that I have done as a player is use my Int to intimidate somebody(I was playing a Necromancer) in an integration by listing off the different stats of the human body. My character told the dude how much blood he could lose bbefore going unconscious and the places to break his body to lead to the most painful death. He followed it up by saying "Now where shall I start first?" Needless to say, the dude we had captured told us everything.

[Tanarii]

On reading the Variant rule for checks, my initial thought was something like, that's brilliant!

On reading the example given of Strength (Intimidation), my first thought was something like "of course".

Having read enough of these threads, I've come to see that people who take the position taken by JackPhoenix are totally right. Intimidation attempts should almost always be Charisma. Especially since the counter example is always "hulking barbarian". A 3ft tall Str 20 Halfling Barbarian sure hulks out, but he doesn't loom very well. :smallamused:

But despite that as a DM I still use the variant rule (which I like), and the two most common are Con (Athletics) and Str (Intimidation). Why? Because doing otherwise will result in a stupid ten page forum argument at the gaming table. :smallyuk:



If you want to run a game where skills are a rigid one skill/one task there nothing wrong with it but saying it's RAW is just wrong. If I intimating a guard by saying I'm part of a powerful merchant guild it could easily be 4+ different skills. It's up to how the player approachs it.
Of course it's RAW. It's the base rule.

There is also a RAW variant for those that don't want to use the base rule, that explicitly calls this situation.

[Sigreid]

The best performer is the guy with the better roll. Or the better bonus, just because one uses cha and the other dex does not make them better.

I can see someone using int for thieves tools, but that does not mean that the person that uses dex is better because they use dex.

Haven't we all seen actual performers where one person was the more proficient in their technical art but you couldn't take your eyes off the other? That's the difference between proficient musical instrument and proficient performance. It's a bit dated of an example, but there are lots of people who can play a piano as well as Liberace, but There's only one piano player I know of who for decades was a name everyone knew and it was all about the personality he brought to his skill.

[Dark Schneider]

There's no guarantee a guard has to give you the time of day to attempt deception either. Or that they do anything whether they believe you or not. All outcomes are DM-dependent, and saying you shouldn't use performance because you could theoretically take another tactic is not sound to me. You can always try different tactics.

Sweeping ballads to get attention? Just as valid as other kinds of distractions, and it comes with the benefit of seeming completely innocent. If your deception fails, you could be in hot water. If your performance fails, well... it's annoying, not suspicious. And maybe you can start failing as hard as possible to be a less pleasant distraction/get yourself escorted off the premises while friends move around.

For certain types of "deception," I would argue you'd actually need performance. Like pretending to be an injured person in need of help, or acting panicked and yelling "Stop, thief!" and trying to get someone to run after your shady accomplice, etc.

Deception to me is more logic and guile, or wording and charm. Performance is theatrics- even the misleading ones.

The really DM-dependent part is which one your DM decides to call for, because you can overlap the definitions some. But performance will always have its place, and I think the bigger thing is whether players try to aim for that sort of check or not.
Deception is directed, Performance not, that is the difference.

Using Performance for those purposes, I'd give it disadvantage vs Deception, or advantage to the targets, or set always the DC a degree harder for Performance. While you put at the street singing, is not the same than directly talking to people, on the 1st is target decision and on the 2nd there is interaction even if the target does not want, he can then react in some way, but there is interaction in any way. That's the difference.

The easier way for this (both Deception and Performance) could be check against targets passive Insight, giving advantage to targets if using Performance, as giving advantage is +5, this is the very same than increasing the DC degree by one.

[Pleh]

Nobody said it's supernatural.

The heavy emphasis of Forcing Things to Happen attributed more supernatural quality to charisma checks than RAW implies.


if barbarian went into a rage and tossed 30 foot tree at an advancing army, he did just that. But that's not an Intimidate check, he's just showing off.

But here's the problem.

Half Orc Barbarian says, "I enter a Rage, throw a tree at the army, and make an intimidation check."
DM says, "you throw the tree with devastating effect, but your charisma is low, so they just laugh."

Halfling Warlock says, "I throw a tree, too and add my own Intimidation check."
DM says, "You barely nudge the tree, but the army is instantly terrified of your charismatic struggle against the log."

The "showing off" is very commonly an important part of an intimidation check.


A 3ft tall Str 20 Halfling Barbarian sure hulks out, but he doesn't loom very well. :smallamused:

I did consider there should also be size bonuses and penalties to intimidate. Bigger creatures are inherently more impressive and intimidating.

Then again, most people are still spooked when they see an angry wasp zipping around aggressively. A Halfling that stands up and rips apart a piece of furniture in the blink of an eye can make other creatures stop to reassess their odds of winning a fight.

Intimidation is about scaring another creature into doing what you want it to do. To scare a creature away, you should either be naturally persuasive or naturally scary.

A Halfling Bard can be just as proficient in Intimidate as a Halfling Warlock. No unsettling auras from demon pacts, just method acting. That is intimidation by persuasion. You are specifically trained to know how to tell scary stories, so you can use those tricks to intimidate others when it suits you.

When naturally scary characters like the grizzled fighter with a well used Greatsword can't scare anyone because his charisma is low, it communicates that no matter how dangerous you are, you're only scary if you can talk.

It leads to lame moments that the Barbarian has been owning a battle only to turn around and derp at the end because he tried to scare the last foe into fleeing.

Screw the "circumstance bonuses." If you don't mind giving out free things like circumstance bonuses, why wouldn't you just give him Str to Intimidate and let his character excel at his main shtick without your condescending, provisional bonuses that you deign to bestow on his humble form THIS time? The character has a right to this.

[terodil]

On reading the Variant rule for checks, my initial thought was something like, that's brilliant! [...] Having read enough of these threads, I've come to see that people who take the position taken by JackPhoenix are totally right. Intimidation attempts should almost always be Charisma. Especially since the counter example is always "hulking barbarian". A 3ft tall Str 20 Halfling Barbarian sure hulks out, but he doesn't loom very well. :smallamused:
I still respectfully disagree with that position. The circumstances put the spanner in the works here. Unless the halfling dances through the shop swinging a blood-caked greataxe with wild abandon and juggling the severed heads of his unfortunate enemies at the same time, I'm not going to allow a STR (intimidation) check simply because he's a barbarian. By that rote, any high-level class would be enough to pass a XYZ (intimidation) check: a barbarian because he's very barbary, a wizard because he's very wizardy, etc.

No, it's down to RP. The variant rule states that it's supposed to reward creative thinking. 'But I'm a Barbarian, I hulk, I smash!' is not creative thinking. The rogue with the daggers is, as is using your imposing physique and the environment to your advantage.

@JackPhoenix, re the rogue question: Sure, I'd also allow the check to fail. Roll terribly on the dice and you're going to hit the poor innocent girl in the face. Fail by a significant margin and the dagger goes so wide that the shopkeep falls over laughing... before increasing his prices. Why wouldn't I? That's not an issue with ability checks, it's a feature...

[JackPhoenix]

Yoy can prove that your right by saying your right?

If you want to run a game where skills are a rigid one skill/one task there nothing wrong with it but saying it's RAW is just wrong. If I intimating a guard by saying I'm part of a powerful merchant guild it could easily be 4+ different skills. It's up to how the player approachs it.

Who's talking about skill checks now?

There are skill checks. Each ability score describes what it does. If it's appropriate, you can add your skill proficiency to the ability check.

But there's no situation in which being good at "influencing someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence" (description of Intimidate skill) will make you better at something that requires "bodily power, athletic training and exerting raw physical force".


But here's the problem.

Half Orc Barbarian says, "I enter a Rage, throw a tree at the army, and make an intimidation check."
DM says, "you throw the tree with devastating effect, but your charisma is low, so they just laugh."

Halfling Warlock says, "I throw a tree, too and add my own Intimidation check."
DM says, "You barely nudge the tree, but the army is instantly terrified of your charismatic struggle against the log."

The "showing off" is very commonly an important part of an intimidation check.

Yes. There IS a problem: the player calls for ability check instead of describing what he's doing and letting the GM to tell him what happens and what he should roll, if anything at all.
There's another problem: strawmanning. If the Str 8 halfling warlock tries to throw a tree like the barbarian, he doesn't get to do any check. He automatically fail, because the task he's attempting is impossible.

"I make an intimidation check" doesn't mean anything. He set no goal. I don't know if he wants the army to stop, to offer him a job, or to attack him instead of someone less impressive.

[Tanarii]

Intimidation is about scaring another creature into doing what you want it to do. To scare a creature away, you should either be naturally persuasive or naturally scary.Agreed.

Neither of which indicates that Str (Intimidate) should be an allowable check.


When naturally scary characters like the grizzled fighter with a well used Greatsword can't scare anyone because his charisma is low, it communicates that no matter how dangerous you are, you're only scary if you can talk.Still has nothing to do with Str. But I'll note that the Soldier Background gets the skill. As well as all three violent melee classes (Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter) get access to it. Pretty sure that's because the grizzled scary warrior trope is often a reason for people to be scared. But not anything inherent 5e Strength scores as opposed to 5e Charisma scores.

[Pelle]

But someone said, "that should be represented by modifying the Check DC."

Really? Should the penalty against an ogre's intimidate be proportionate to its strength modifier? Because if the Circumstance Penalty to Will Save vs the Ogre's Intimidate is proportional to the Ogre's strength, that's mathematically identical to giving the Ogre its Str bonus to Intimidate.


Yes, someone said that. No, it is not mathematically identical as long as the Ogre has Cha =|= 10.

Personally, I would not add the Str modifier directly to the DC anyways, but include it in my overall judgement of the situation, on par with is the Ogre alone, is the target part of a big group, who is the target etc. But it is a factor considered when choosing a DC.



But here's the problem.

Half Orc Barbarian says, "I enter a Rage, throw a tree at the army, and make an intimidation check."
DM says, "you throw the tree with devastating effect, but your charisma is low, so they just laugh."

Halfling Warlock says, "I throw a tree, too and add my own Intimidation check."
DM says, "You barely nudge the tree, but the army is instantly terrified of your charismatic struggle against the log."


Yeah, those are really strawmen. In my game it would be closer to:

Half Orc Barbarian says, "I enter a Rage, throw a tree at the army, and make an intimidation check."
DM says, "you throw the tree with devastating effect. No need to roll Cha(int), the enemy is already wetting their pants with fright. That's an automatic success"

Halfling Warlock says, "I throw a tree, too and add my own Intimidation check."
DM says, "You barely nudge the tree, showing you struggle against the log. Roll Cha(int) and the DC is 20 now since they don't see you as a physical threat"

[Dark Schneider]

Those classes get Intimidation because Intimidation is the brute way for social interact, but in the way they are social, it is CHA based.

It is not a good example that STR (Intimidation), because all involving social would be CHA, as you are attempting to influence someone mood, it is CHA.

Yes, they are brute, and because that they have the option to get Intimidation proficiency, you don't have that option with Wizard, or Cleric. That doesn't mean it uses STR.
When you can so easily to nullify a stat, so you can achieve the same things but even better with your 20/8 STR/CHA character, then something is wrong. And the wrong is using STR for social.
If the drawback is that it has requirements, well is too easy to bypass it, you can always have something to punch (a wall or any other thing) to use your STR. The real is that you could punch the wall, but that triggers the use of Intimidation, not the use of STR, as you want to influence it is CHA.

By this way, you could also use DEX, i.e. a DEX (Persuasion) because you do some nice trick with your hands so the target do as you want because he liked it.
Or INT, with a loquacious talking.

It is so easy for any player to use their main stat, that would be enough to see the correct one would be CHA.

Something different is the use of other ability to get advantage on your social attempt. DMG is clear on that, if you touch the correct spot, you could get advantage. So if a character is fearful, you could do a STR (Athletics) check to break something, and get advantage on your CHA (Intimidation) check.
If the target is a smart guy that likes smart conversation, you could get advantage on your CHA (Persuasion) if you 1st make use of some INT (History) for establishing a link, if history was what the target likes.
The same for the other examples using other abilities.

[stoutstien]

The skills/ stats are arbitrary.
Both acrobatics and lock picking are underneath dexterity so so inherently a guy who can balance on a rope can pick a lock now. You could be a guy who trips over your own feet but could be a master lock pick but not in dnd.
Which knowledge skills are wis or int? They should share never attached skills to the stats.
Half-orcs have no Cha bomus but are proficient in intimation but at the same time a halfling bard without it is just as good at intimating because it happens to be a cha based class.
I don't see how limiting player options for play style is useful for anyone

[sophontteks]

Intimidation strength checks are specifically mentioned in the PHP. So, we can only really discuss why it works, since we know it does.

[Misterwhisper]

Intimidation strength checks are specifically mentioned in the PHP. So, we can only really discuss why it works, since we know it does.

That is the issue, many dms don’t care what it says, because everything in the game is up to the dm so they just say no.

[stoutstien]

That is the issue, many dms don’t care what it says, because everything in the game is up to the dm so they just say no.

Sounds like it time for you to jump behind the screen.😀

[Tanarii]

Intimidation strength checks are specifically mentioned in the PHP. So, we can only really discuss why it works, since we know it does.
Intimidation Strength checks are a variant rule.

So we can really only discuss why it doesn't work, since we know that it doesn't work by RAW

Unless your DM decides they're willing to use the variant rule in question. Then we can discuss why it does work, since we know that it does work by Variant RAW.

Which is exactly the dead horse this thread is flogging yet again, since both points of view have a RAW basis, it can never be settled. :smallamused:

[dragoeniex]

Deception is directed, Performance not, that is the difference.

Using Performance for those purposes, I'd give it disadvantage vs Deception, or advantage to the targets, or set always the DC a degree harder for Performance. While you put at the street singing, is not the same than directly talking to people, on the 1st is target decision and on the 2nd there is interaction even if the target does not want, he can then react in some way, but there is interaction in any way. That's the difference.

The easier way for this (both Deception and Performance) could be check against targets passive Insight, giving advantage to targets if using Performance, as giving advantage is +5, this is the very same than increasing the DC degree by one.

An option for a performance- if fittingly dramatic- to replace intimidation or deception is even written in. That said, I do think those examples better fit performance than deception. Physicality comes into play- hobble, hop with a hunch, weep on command...

If your goal was to convince some guards to leave their post to help someone, I would give the person who runs up and pants out a warning about a fire/robbery/injured person that needs immediate attention a deception check. The person pretending to have been struck by a cart and needing assistance would get a performance. Both are valid, and depending on how they were described, I wouldn't weight one easier than the other.

Outcomes could be somewhat different, though. The performance one, in this case, definitely does attract more attention to both your ailing self and the guards who may be pressured to intervene. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on how it bounces out from there.

[sophontteks]

Performance includes acting, influencing the emotions of a crowd, a means of receiving payment, distracting a crowd, improving an NPCs attitude (which makes persuasion DCs lower), getting access to restricted places by offering to perform at said places, inspiring people to fight, increasing your marching speed, an excuse when your cover is blown, and of course wooing the hand of whatever person you desire outside their windowsill.

This is 5e. There are no skill checks. They are all ability checks, so they can and do overlap in utility, what matters is how you are going about it.

If you don't think performance is a good skill you probably didn't watch Team America World Police. The protagonist was an actor and he literally saved the world with his performance skill. But seriously, do you think music and acting have no real world utility? Ever heard of a "Rock God?"

[Mjolnirbear]

Intimidation Strength checks are a variant rule.

So we can really only discuss why it doesn't work, since we know that it doesn't work by RAW

Unless your DM decides they're willing to use the variant rule in question. Then we can discuss why it does work, since we know that it does work by Variant RAW.

Which is exactly the dead horse this thread is flogging yet again, since both points of view have a RAW basis, it can never be settled. :smallamused:

This thread is about useless (as I perceive them) skills, not variant abilities for intimidate.

Has anyone ever just cut out Animal Handling, Medicine and Performance in their games? And/or replaced them with tool proficiencies? Because sure, I could throw some pigs at the group, make a mystery where they have to identify the rare disease (because just curing it doesn't solve the whodunit) or perform the Thayyan Moon Dance to avoid the wrath of the local baron, but unless I deliberately build a game for those skills, the player has wasted a skill choice. Unless they have skill choices to spare (half-elven bard?) there are better options.

And, mechanically, tools check the "I need this to role-play and for no other reason" check box.

[Capac Amaru]

No, that is Deception, not Performance. Performance is for entertain an audience, singing, dancing, joking. If you want to be another person, you are deceiving in any case.

Animal Handling is not only for riding, is everything animal involved, like calm, train, give orders (not riding), etc.

Telling somebody you are the King of America is deception.

Acting like you are the King of America is performance.

[JellyPooga]

This thread is about useless (as I perceive them) skills, not variant abilities for intimidate.

Has anyone ever just cut out Animal Handling, Medicine and Performance in their games? And/or replaced them with tool proficiencies? Because sure, I could throw some pigs at the group, make a mystery where they have to identify the rare disease (because just curing it doesn't solve the whodunit) or perform the Thayyan Moon Dance to avoid the wrath of the local baron, but unless I deliberately build a game for those skills, the player has wasted a skill choice. Unless they have skill choices to spare (half-elven bard?) there are better options.

And, mechanically, tools check the "I need this to role-play and for no other reason" check box.

It could be an interesting to create a divide between "Major" and "Minor" skills; not only the ones you mention, but others that check the "I want my character to be good at X, but it's not likely to be that significant in most games" category (with "significant" being the operative word here). In addition to Animal Handling, Medicine and Performance, the Lore skills (Arcana, History, Nature and Religion) could all easily fit into the Minor Skill group, as could Sleight of Hand, IMO.

[Dark Schneider]

The person pretending to have been struck by a cart and needing assistance would get a performance.
The problem is that is Deception, not Performance, as you are trying to cheat. Anything that goes by that way (cheating, deceiving, etc.) is Deception. Performance is for entertain. So when an actor imitates someone on a show, usually is Performance, but notice in that case you can easily (auto-success) determine he is not the real person (the one beign imitated), so it is only an entertainment show. If he wants to imitate to replace the original, then is Deception.

I know it is hard to notice difference in many cases and the line can be obscure, but putting the "cheating" meaning on the table could help. And are cases of overlap, like distracting, but at least I'd use them different, as it is active (Deception) vs passive (Performance) distraction, I'd set as mentioned a harder degree to Performance, or in some cases you can distract some senses but not others, i.e. if you sing a ballad you could distract the guards hearing, but they don't need to look at you for hearing, so their sight would not be distracted. If you approach them asking for address, showing a notes about where you can go, establishing conversation and etc., this is, Deception, then seems more effective for distracting and affecting all their senses. I see harder for a guard to move from their guarding position to look a show (enough turning the neck even if sight is required), than moving 2 steps to you for assisting on your (false) asking (and then others stealthing by his back).


Telling somebody you are the King of America is deception.

Acting like you are the King of America is performance.
That is not like it works.

Acting like you are the King of America in a show for entertainment (eveyone notices that you are not him) is performance.

Trying to replace the King of America within a disguise is Deception.

Check again Deception description.

pass yourself off in a disguise
Replacing someone fits into that. Also:

Performance. Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment.



It could be an interesting to create a divide between "Major" and "Minor" skills; not only the ones you mention, but others that check the "I want my character to be good at X, but it's not likely to be that significant in most games" category (with "significant" being the operative word here). In addition to Animal Handling, Medicine and Performance, the Lore skills (Arcana, History, Nature and Religion) could all easily fit into the Minor Skill group, as could Sleight of Hand, IMO.
I use them (Lore) many often. I think they are main skills, very main indeed.

[Capac Amaru]

Trying to replace the King of America within a disguise is Deception.

Check again Deception description.

Replacing someone fits into that.

But it doesn't feel very good.

You are impersonating the crown prince. You have convinced everyone. You spend the day going through the elaborate coronation ceremony.

Do you roll a deception check to see if you can 'lie' people into thinking you are performing your part in the ceremony properly?

Or do you roll a performance check?

Someone might be very good at convincing people that lies are true, but be very bad at pretending to be someone they are not.

If the rules made this distinction, then performance would be quite a valuable skill, and bards would be naturally good at pretending to be other people (which makes perfect sense, since they are actors and observers of all kinds of people).

In my scenario above, who is most likely to succeed, a goblin rogue with deception, or a half-elf bard with performance?

[JellyPooga]

I use them (Lore) many often. I think they are main skills, very main indeed.

As do I, but their significance is usually niche or incidental at best, which puts them alongside the other skills I mentioned as being Minor. Perception, for example, might mean the difference between stumbling into a trap and dying or not, whereas Arcana is only going to give you a clue about a magic item or spell effect; it will rarely make or break a campaign.

[sophontteks]

The problem is that is Deception, not Performance, as you are trying to cheat. Anything that goes by that way (cheating, deceiving, etc.) is Deception. Performance is for entertain. So when an actor imitates someone on a show, usually is Performance, but notice in that case you can easily (auto-success) determine he is not the real person (the one beign imitated), so it is only an entertainment show. If he wants to imitate to replace the original, then is Deception.

Anything that goes by the way of cheating or deceiving is not deception. We already know this, because disguises depend on both performance and deception. If your conclusion only allows deception to work, then we already know its flawed. If an actor is skilled at imitating another in a show, he would also be skilled at doing it outside of a show. How does the stage magically make them good at something that they can not do in its absence?

Actor- "You have an advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person."

You are stuck on the old ideas of skill checks. There are no skill checks in 5e. There are ability checks. Hense why skills overlap in utility. It is intentional, and downright necessary given that players only have a limited number of skills they can ever become proficient with. My character may not be good at lying, but he is flawless at disguising himself and imitating other people.

[Tanarii]

This thread is about useless (as I perceive them) skills, not variant abilities for intimidate. What you intended the thread to be about, and what it became about, are totally different things.


Has anyone ever just cut out Animal Handling, Medicine and Performance in their games?Animal Handling is a powerful skill if your game includes Riding (Horses or otherwise), or Mastiffs. If it's an entirely indoor dungeon campaign, or combat is entirely on foot, and players aren't allowed to purchase mastiffs, then it's less useful skill.

Just as:
- all four charisma skills are useless if you never interact with a creature in any way except combat.
- all Lore skills and Int checks themselves are useless if you never need to recall information or puzzle something in the heat of the moment.
- Int entirely if your DM also allows Perception checks to figure out where everything is and deduce clues.
- Acrobatics if you never have to escape a grapple.
- the Sailor background if you never get on a boat
- vehicle (land) if you never have an exciting moment trying to something something a runaway wagon or chariot or carriage

Etc etc

That said, yes, Medicine is pretty useless. It's stabilize function should become part of the Healers Kit, which should require proficiency, and a check to DC use. Helping with diseases should become part of Herbalism Kit, again with a check. And still neither will get used because nobody does either of those things in the vast majority of games. They use spells.

[sophontteks]

One of my favorite hollywood scenes showing off the performance skill being used to intimidate the enemy into leaving the fight. Tropic Thunder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ah28vmc3Uc

Without a doubt they are not making an intimidation check or a deception check. The protagonists are terrible at both. They are just actors performing. The result is hilarious, and its something we can actually do in 5e with the performance skill.

And of course team america https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlG9aSMCpg

[Dark Schneider]

But it doesn't feel very good.

You are impersonating the crown prince. You have convinced everyone. You spend the day going through the elaborate coronation ceremony.

Do you roll a deception check to see if you can 'lie' people into thinking you are performing your part in the ceremony properly?

Or do you roll a performance check?

Someone might be very good at convincing people that lies are true, but be very bad at pretending to be someone they are not.

If the rules made this distinction, then performance would be quite a valuable skill, and bards would be naturally good at pretending to be other people (which makes perfect sense, since they are actors and observers of all kinds of people).

In my scenario above, who is most likely to succeed, a goblin rogue with deception, or a half-elf bard with performance?
That is Deception vs Insight. Passing off in a disguise (someone that is not you fits into that) itself is part of the Deception skill indeed. If a bard is going to introduce into those kind of stuff, he should get proficiency on Deception.


As do I, but their significance is usually niche or incidental at best, which puts them alongside the other skills I mentioned as being Minor. Perception, for example, might mean the difference between stumbling into a trap and dying or not, whereas Arcana is only going to give you a clue about a magic item or spell effect; it will rarely make or break a campaign.
Knowing the spell the foe is casting for Counterspell can be more decisive, magical traps are usually identified by Arcana. Getting valuable information from a creature, place or any other thing can be sometimes more decisive than triggering a (not usually deadly) trap.
Perception is the exception as it is used too much, but putting Perception aside Lore skills are very important IMO.


Anything that goes by the way of cheating or deceiving is not deception. We already know this, because disguises depend on both performance and deception. If your conclusion only allows deception to work, then we already know its flawed. If an actor is skilled at imitating another in a show, he would also be skilled at doing it outside of a show. How does the stage magically make them good at something that they can not do in its absence?

Actor- "You have an advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person."

You are stuck on the old ideas of skill checks. There are no skill checks in 5e. There are ability checks. Hense why skills overlap in utility. It is intentional, and downright necessary given that players only have a limited number of skills they can ever become proficient with. My character may not be good at lying, but he is flawless at disguising himself and imitating other people.
You forgot the other part of "actor".

You can mimic the speech of another person or the sounds made by other creatures. You must have heard the person speaking, or heard the creature make the sound, for at least 1 minute. A successful Insight check contested by your Deception check allows a listener to determine that the effect is faked.
So, when you want to imitate someone we can use Deception or Performance, but reading the other part:
- You can imitate another person, with entertainment purposes (just like on TV), Performance.
- You can imitate another person, with replace purposes, Deception.
Notice when imitating for replace in the other part of the feat description, Performance has nothing to do.
You can imitate someone as part of a show, that is not new.
In fact, I was going to use that feat to show the difference.

For the last part (bold in quote), you even need 2 proficiencies, Deception and Disguise Kit. So the problem I see here is when you want to do anything with only 1 skill, so you are good in many things with few skills. Any character have to choose, that is common, so decide if you want to be good entertaining, cheating, or both but sacrifing dungeon exploration (not getting Perception i.e.). A character can't be good at everything just twisting the overlap extension of ability checks. All we have to choose the character specializations, and then if want more, there is a feat that provides other 3 skill proficiencies, and tools proficiency can be adquired by training. And can't forget backgrounds.

Also, you are underestimating Performance utility, even using it as the entertainment skill it is.

[Mjolnirbear]

Animal Handling is a powerful skill if your game includes Riding (Horses or otherwise), or Mastiffs. If it's an entirely indoor dungeon campaign, or combat is entirely on foot, and players aren't allowed to purchase mastiffs, then it's less useful skill.

Just as:
- all four charisma skills are useless if you never interact with a creature in any way except combat.
- all Lore skills and Int checks themselves are useless if you never need to recall information or puzzle something in the heat of the moment.
- Int entirely if your DM also allows Perception checks to figure out where everything is and deduce clues.
- Acrobatics if you never have to escape a grapple.
- the Sailor background if you never get on a boat
- vehicle (land) if you never have an exciting moment trying to something something a runaway wagon or chariot or carriage

Etc etc

That said, yes, Medicine is pretty useless. It's stabilize function should become part of the Healers Kit, which should require proficiency, and a check to DC use. Helping with diseases should become part of Herbalism Kit, again with a check. And still neither will get used because nobody does either of those things in the vast majority of games. They use spells.

... I'm sorry, you're comparing charisma checks, which are used in every game, even high-combat games, to Animal Handling, which only matters if you happen to be ambushed whilst riding or run into an angry cow?

I'm not at all saying everything needs to be as useful as Perception. Then every other skill would lose.

I'm saying some skills aren't used at all except as RP crutches. Which is, incidentally, what tools and backgrounds are, so I'm not sure what your point with Sailors and land vehicles is.

Finding niche uses for a skill doesn't matter if even those niches come up in 10% of games. In published adventures, you almost never see those three skills. I use 'almost' only because while I own almost all the published adventures for 5e and have read one of the two that I don't, I haven't bothered going over them with a fine-toothed comb looking for that one mention of Medicine.

Lore skills: your players want info, this is how they get it. Useful in every game, some less so (Nature) than others (Arcana).

Charisma skills: your players want something from people and don't want violence, this is how they get it. Useful in every game.

Athletics and Acrobatics: grapples, but also climbing, swimming, balancing; all things adventurers do, useful in every game.

Investigation: ok this one is weird. I probably don't run it RAW, but I use investigation far more than Perception. To me, perception is pure senses, and contesting hiding checks. Everything else is investigation.

Stealth, Sleight of Hand. Dunno about your games, but in mine, Stealth is used all the time. Sleight of Hand not so much. It's half performance and have stealing, but if a player wants to steal, something that can be done in any game they want to, they can pick this skill.

Survival: tracking, foraging, navigation. Though not useful in every game, and magic can negate half of it, it has a ton of useful crunch for the exploration pillar.

But animal handling. Riding checks, falling off mounts, or domestic animals. Most players don't ride; the riding rules encourage boring Mount choices. And those that do ride usually can't in buildings, which means urban and dungeon. So it might be useful where exploration meets combat, which matters IF you roll a random encounter. It's vanishingly rare, and combat tends to kill mounts, so players are encouraged not to risk their mounts, making it more rare.

And Performance. No rules crunch except downtime, and your moneymakers are in Tools, where Professions went to be reincarnated. There is no reason to do Performance that couldn't also be done using a tool check. Even though singing or speeches or contortionist don't really need physical tools, it fills the same role, and so easily fits.


Skills serve a few purposes:
* rules interactions (sleight of hand, athletics, perception, survival)
* world interactions (lore, charisma checks, investigation)

While tools are role-playing aids and very little else. Note this means thieves tools should be a skill, but thats a different topic.

Animal Handling and Medicine have rules interactions, I'll not deny... But the circumstances of these interactions are so rarely used, and so thoroughly replaced by magic, that there is no useful purpose to choosing them, except as a role-playing aid.

[Ganymede]

Think the difference between a karaoke singer and Freddie Mercury. Skill in the instrument or whatever is good and useful, but without the ability to work the crowd, you can remain in obscurity.

I like to use the example of the competing magicians in The Prestige. The magician Alfred was a master at his craft but had horrible stage presence, while the magician Robert put on a damn good show. It shows the difference between being proficient with a tool (whether an instrument or otherwise) and being proficient with Perform.

Film critic Nicolas Rapold described this dichotomy as the embodiment of "the divide between the artist and the social being," which is as succinct as to the difference between artistry/craft and performance as you can get.

[sophontteks]

You forgot the other part of "actor".

So, when you want to imitate someone we can use Deception or Performance, but reading the other part:
- You can imitate another person, with entertainment purposes (just like on TV), Performance.
- You can imitate another person, with replace purposes, Deception.
Notice when imitating for replace in the other part of the feat description, Performance has nothing to do.
You can imitate someone as part of a show, that is not new.
In fact, I was going to use that feat to show the difference.

For the last part (bold in quote), you even need 2 proficiencies, Deception and Disguise Kit. So the problem I see here is when you want to do anything with only 1 skill, so you are good in many things with few skills. Any character have to choose, that is common, so decide if you want to be good entertaining, cheating, or both but sacrifing dungeon exploration (not getting Perception i.e.). A character can't be good at everything just twisting the overlap extension of ability checks. All we have to choose the character specializations, and then if want more, there is a feat that provides other 3 skill proficiencies, and tools proficiency can be adquired by training. And can't forget backgrounds.

Also, you are underestimating Performance utility, even using it as the entertainment skill it is.
No, I didn't forget the other part of actor. If you want to pass your voice off as someone else, deception. But you went on to completely ignore that performance skill IS a part of the actor skill, and a check for one specific part of the skill is not really changing anything.

I mean, besides ignoring literally everything else I said. What is this magic stage you are talking about where people can magically imitate other people so long as they are on it, but lose this power when the stage is gone. That's nonsense. What you do on stage is transferable off the stage. The stage is a fictional thing. Its like the famous line "The world is my stage."

[Son of A Lich!]

Wow, Medicine is a Trap skill?

I'm blown away.

I call for medicine checks all the time; If a foe casts a spell at the party's fighter, and they don't know if he was cursed, poisoned, diseased or whatever range of nasty debuffs that can be applied, the cleric or wizard is going to need to do a medicine check to figure out what's wrong so they can make it right. (Side Note; not all diseases and the like are cast by spells. Mummies may be known for rot, but rats in a noxious sewer are just as likely to cause poison as they are to cause Disease, and everything is on the table with magically modified beasts)

If a dead goblin is found on the floor of a dungeon, a good medicine check will tell the party what killed it.

If you have an herbalist kit and someone is suffering from an ailment, they can cure the disease with a successful medicine check.

Now, that may not be the 'norm' or 'RAW', but it helps to know your anatomy at my table.



Performance is a bit trickier, but typically I ignore it unless I have a bard or anyone that has the skill. Usually I utilize it as 'spin', "We killed the snake in the swamp, pay up" vs. "And with Kelligan's Last Breath, he turned to the face of the vile demon serpent and said 'On behalf of our benevolent lord, I cast ye back to the 9 hells!". Now most campaigns, I don't have the party 'need' to save face and smudge the details about their failings and such, but it gives the characters with Performance a chance to shine; Likewise, I don't usually 'need' the party to forage for food, but if there is a ranger in the party, I let him shine by keeping it out of the urban sprawl for periods.



Ultimately, I think if you have a skill that you feel like you aren't utilizing, you should talk with your DM about incorporating it more into the campaign. Skills in general add a lot more flavor to the game and help your character stand out a bit from the normative flow of the structure of non-linear story telling.

[Rusvul]

As a preface: I don't think there's hard RAW for very much (if any) of this. 5e kind of handwaves actually writing rules for what distinguishes one skill or tool proficiency from another. Where's the line between Alchemy and Herbalism? Who knows! That kind of thing. So this is really all just how I'd rule it.


I think it's best to treat the normal ability score as the default, and modify based on player's actions. I wouldn't let a player use Strength to intimidate in general, but I might allow it on a case-by-case basis depending on what they're doing. At my table, looming threateningly is a Charisma (Intimidate) check, but throwing a tree to dissuade a charging army is a Strength (Intimidate) check.

That seems like the only example floating around this thread where you're trying to accomplish the same goal ("Intimidate someone into doing something") by different means. Everything else seems like different (but related) tasks.

I would rule that Performance (Charisma) is to hold the attention of a crowd, regardless of what you're doing. At my table, a relevant musical instrument proficiency is a prerequisite to performing with that instrument, not something you ever actually roll. You can't do a piano concert if you can't play piano. Now, as with the half-orc and the log, if someone was playing piano in front of a crowd and they wanted to do a performance based entirely on technical skill instead of personality, I might let them roll Performance (Dexterity), if they convinced me it was relevant.


Put together a believable disguise? Intelligence (Disguise Kit) or maybe Wisdom (Disguise Kit). At my table, you'd roll once when you put together your disguise, and if you fail your disguise just won't work.
Passively pretend like you belong in said disguise? Charisma (Performance). At my table, you'd roll at the start of each scene where you're trying to use your disguise. On a pass, people don't see through your disguise unless you do something suspicious. On a fail, you draw some attention (but not necessarily break your cover).
Actively pretend like you're the thing you're disguised as? Charisma (Deception). At my table, if you do something that risks breaking your cover (like failing a Charisma (Performance) check, or trying to bluff your way past someone based on your disguise) then you're rolling Charisma (Deception). If you pass, you manage to avoid breaking your disguise, or fast-talk your way out of trouble. If you fail, you've definitely made someone suspicious, and you might've just been found out.

So, if you're that Crown Prince being coronated? I'd rule it's Charisma (Deception) to bluff your way into the ceremony, but Charisma (Performance) to go through the coronation as if you're supposed to be there.

This means that being really good at disguising yourself requires three skill proficiencies: Deception, Performance, and Disguise Kit. I'm okay with that: impersonation is hard.

[Capac Amaru]

This means that being really good at disguising yourself requires three skill proficiencies: Deception, Performance, and Disguise Kit. I'm okay with that: impersonation is hard.

This.

Saying that performance only has relevance on stage is like saying you only have sword proficiency vs training dummies.

[Tanarii]

... I'm sorry, you're comparing charisma checks, which are used in every game, even high-combat games, to Animal Handling, which only matters if you happen to be ambushed whilst riding or run into an angry cow? If you play a game in which mounted combat happens, especially on a non-combat trained mount, or that allows using mastiffs as attack dogs, you might (depending on your DM) be called for making lots of animal handling checks.

If you play a high combat game, Cha checks can very easily be never or rarely made. Personally I've played in plenty of those (not just in 5e).

But yes, based on personal experience, I'll grant you that in the average, typical D&D game, Cha checks probably are far more likely than Animal Handling (or Ride in older editions) checks. My point wasn't that it's as commonly useful. Just that in the right kind of game, primarily ones where there is lots of mounted combat, it's pretty much crucial.


Athletics and Acrobatics: grapples, but also climbing, swimming, balancing; all things adventurers do, useful in every game. I'm with you on Athletics, but Acrobatics is IMX much more rarely used. Most often in 5e, it's grapple defense on high Dex low Str characters.


Investigation: ok this one is weird. I probably don't run it RAW, but I use investigation far more than Perception. To me, perception is pure senses, and contesting hiding checks. Everything else is investigation. I'm with you on this, Games I run Investigation easily as critical a skill as Perception. :smallamused:


And Performance. No rules crunch except downtime, and your moneymakers are in Tools, where Professions went to be reincarnated. There is no reason to do Performance that couldn't also be done using a tool check. Even though singing or speeches or contortionist don't really need physical tools, it fills the same role, and so easily fits.I'm also with you on Performance being a fairly niche skill. I always figured it's mostly there because Bards.


While tools are role-playing aids and very little else. Note this means thieves tools should be a skill, but thats a different topic.Personally I find players have frequent and innovative use for tools. Otoh they're far more useful if you incorporate the Xanathars rules, where proficiency gives you a bonus on knowledge related to the tool. Not just actively using the tool, which was the PHB rule.

[Chaosmancer]

That is Deception vs Insight. Passing off in a disguise (someone that is not you fits into that) itself is part of the Deception skill indeed. If a bard is going to introduce into those kind of stuff, he should get proficiency on Deception.


Knowing the spell the foe is casting for Counterspell can be more decisive, magical traps are usually identified by Arcana. Getting valuable information from a creature, place or any other thing can be sometimes more decisive than triggering a (not usually deadly) trap.
Perception is the exception as it is used too much, but putting Perception aside Lore skills are very important IMO.


You forgot the other part of "actor".

So, when you want to imitate someone we can use Deception or Performance, but reading the other part:
- You can imitate another person, with entertainment purposes (just like on TV), Performance.
- You can imitate another person, with replace purposes, Deception.
Notice when imitating for replace in the other part of the feat description, Performance has nothing to do.
You can imitate someone as part of a show, that is not new.
In fact, I was going to use that feat to show the difference.

For the last part (bold in quote), you even need 2 proficiencies, Deception and Disguise Kit. So the problem I see here is when you want to do anything with only 1 skill, so you are good in many things with few skills. Any character have to choose, that is common, so decide if you want to be good entertaining, cheating, or both but sacrifing dungeon exploration (not getting Perception i.e.). A character can't be good at everything just twisting the overlap extension of ability checks. All we have to choose the character specializations, and then if want more, there is a feat that provides other 3 skill proficiencies, and tools proficiency can be adquired by training. And can't forget backgrounds.

Also, you are underestimating Performance utility, even using it as the entertainment skill it is.

I'm kind of at a loss as to what use you've found for performance if it can only be used to entertain.

By the logic I've seen presented so far:

You can't spread disinformation of the party's accomplishment, since you are lying and not entertaining it is deception.

You can't go around town as a beggar to gather information, since you are trying to pass yourself off as something you aren't that is deception not performance (unless you are playing a beggar on a recognized stage? What if the act includes a character from the story hiding in the crowd?)

You can't convince the nobility to send aid to a devastated town through a moving ballad of struggle and charity, since you are trying to convince instead of entertain it is persuasion.

You can't scare people by acting out a moment from a play (unless you are on stage performing said play) since you are trying to scare them instead of entertain them it is intimidate.

You can't get the attention of a crowd in the square to warn them of the undead army, since you aren't trying too entertain them it would be a different skill, perhaps persuasion or intimidation.

Heck, you don't even need it to entertain if you allow music instrument proficiency to be rolled as a charisma check with proficiency.


So... If you can only entertain, on a designated stage, with performance... What utility are you getting out of it?

[Dark Schneider]

No, I didn't forget the other part of actor. If you want to pass your voice off as someone else, deception. But you went on to completely ignore that performance skill IS a part of the actor skill, and a check for one specific part of the skill is not really changing anything.

I mean, besides ignoring literally everything else I said. What is this magic stage you are talking about where people can magically imitate other people so long as they are on it, but lose this power when the stage is gone. That's nonsense. What you do on stage is transferable off the stage. The stage is a fictional thing. Its like the famous line "The world is my stage."
So you want to pass off like another guy with a totally different voice? I see clear that when trying to replace someone you have to use Deception. Performance is not for pass off, but for entertaining people. We see many shows on TV of comedians imitating real people, do you think they are the real?. So when using Performance, is for entertaining purposes.
Supplant someone is illegal, Deception is for illegal purposes, so if a bard wants to do illegal things, he should also get Deception. Do you see those actors on TV be able to replace a real person and act in his place? I think most will not be good supplanting real people in real circunstances.



... I'm sorry, you're comparing charisma checks, which are used in every game, even high-combat games, to Animal Handling, which only matters if you happen to be ambushed whilst riding or run into an angry cow?

I'm not at all saying everything needs to be as useful as Perception. Then every other skill would lose.

I'm saying some skills aren't used at all except as RP crutches. Which is, incidentally, what tools and backgrounds are, so I'm not sure what your point with Sailors and land vehicles is.

Finding niche uses for a skill doesn't matter if even those niches come up in 10% of games. In published adventures, you almost never see those three skills. I use 'almost' only because while I own almost all the published adventures for 5e and have read one of the two that I don't, I haven't bothered going over them with a fine-toothed comb looking for that one mention of Medicine.

Lore skills: your players want info, this is how they get it. Useful in every game, some less so (Nature) than others (Arcana).

Charisma skills: your players want something from people and don't want violence, this is how they get it. Useful in every game.

Athletics and Acrobatics: grapples, but also climbing, swimming, balancing; all things adventurers do, useful in every game.

Investigation: ok this one is weird. I probably don't run it RAW, but I use investigation far more than Perception. To me, perception is pure senses, and contesting hiding checks. Everything else is investigation.

Stealth, Sleight of Hand. Dunno about your games, but in mine, Stealth is used all the time. Sleight of Hand not so much. It's half performance and have stealing, but if a player wants to steal, something that can be done in any game they want to, they can pick this skill.

Survival: tracking, foraging, navigation. Though not useful in every game, and magic can negate half of it, it has a ton of useful crunch for the exploration pillar.

But animal handling. Riding checks, falling off mounts, or domestic animals. Most players don't ride; the riding rules encourage boring Mount choices. And those that do ride usually can't in buildings, which means urban and dungeon. So it might be useful where exploration meets combat, which matters IF you roll a random encounter. It's vanishingly rare, and combat tends to kill mounts, so players are encouraged not to risk their mounts, making it more rare.

And Performance. No rules crunch except downtime, and your moneymakers are in Tools, where Professions went to be reincarnated. There is no reason to do Performance that couldn't also be done using a tool check. Even though singing or speeches or contortionist don't really need physical tools, it fills the same role, and so easily fits.


Skills serve a few purposes:
* rules interactions (sleight of hand, athletics, perception, survival)
* world interactions (lore, charisma checks, investigation)

While tools are role-playing aids and very little else. Note this means thieves tools should be a skill, but thats a different topic.

Animal Handling and Medicine have rules interactions, I'll not deny... But the circumstances of these interactions are so rarely used, and so thoroughly replaced by magic, that there is no useful purpose to choosing them, except as a role-playing aid.
Investigation can be so useful:
- Read the tracks to get info.
- Look for secret doors.
- Some traps use Investigation to look for how they works, and also sometimes (like listed in DMG) for finding them.
- You expect an encounter against a XXX Boss, check for Lore, failed. Then go for a source and Investigate about that creature, to get valuable info.
- Use it at downtime for finding an item, if succeed, the DM could change the next adventure treasures to put that item into it, as you were to that place because your investigation revealed that item was about that place.

Performace gives more money than tools. Read below.


I'm kind of at a loss as to what use you've found for performance if it can only be used to entertain.

By the logic I've seen presented so far:

You can't spread disinformation of the party's accomplishment, since you are lying and not entertaining it is deception.

You can't go around town as a beggar to gather information, since you are trying to pass yourself off as something you aren't that is deception not performance (unless you are playing a beggar on a recognized stage? What if the act includes a character from the story hiding in the crowd?)

You can't convince the nobility to send aid to a devastated town through a moving ballad of struggle and charity, since you are trying to convince instead of entertain it is persuasion.

You can't scare people by acting out a moment from a play (unless you are on stage performing said play) since you are trying to scare them instead of entertain them it is intimidate.

You can't get the attention of a crowd in the square to warn them of the undead army, since you aren't trying too entertain them it would be a different skill, perhaps persuasion or intimidation.

Heck, you don't even need it to entertain if you allow music instrument proficiency to be rolled as a charisma check with proficiency.


So... If you can only entertain, on a designated stage, with performance... What utility are you getting out of it?
- You can gain 4gp/day at downtime. Tools gives you 1gp/day or 2gp/day as much (depending if you can get a good job). If you live with 1gp/day, you can get up to 3gp/day of profits at downtime. Not bad.
- Convince to act in the Palace party if you are good, you will be invited. It is another way of infiltration.
- Soften tense situations, maybe allowing to check again socials, or at least not ending bad.
- Attract attention, you can perform at street and put a message in front of you, more probabilites people will read it and extend the rumor/message, so more probabilities you get contacted by that reason.



Wow, Medicine is a Trap skill?

I'm blown away.

I call for medicine checks all the time; If a foe casts a spell at the party's fighter, and they don't know if he was cursed, poisoned, diseased or whatever range of nasty debuffs that can be applied, the cleric or wizard is going to need to do a medicine check to figure out what's wrong so they can make it right. (Side Note; not all diseases and the like are cast by spells. Mummies may be known for rot, but rats in a noxious sewer are just as likely to cause poison as they are to cause Disease, and everything is on the table with magically modified beasts)

If a dead goblin is found on the floor of a dungeon, a good medicine check will tell the party what killed it.

If you have an herbalist kit and someone is suffering from an ailment, they can cure the disease with a successful medicine check.

Now, that may not be the 'norm' or 'RAW', but it helps to know your anatomy at my table.



Performance is a bit trickier, but typically I ignore it unless I have a bard or anyone that has the skill. Usually I utilize it as 'spin', "We killed the snake in the swamp, pay up" vs. "And with Kelligan's Last Breath, he turned to the face of the vile demon serpent and said 'On behalf of our benevolent lord, I cast ye back to the 9 hells!". Now most campaigns, I don't have the party 'need' to save face and smudge the details about their failings and such, but it gives the characters with Performance a chance to shine; Likewise, I don't usually 'need' the party to forage for food, but if there is a ranger in the party, I let him shine by keeping it out of the urban sprawl for periods.



Ultimately, I think if you have a skill that you feel like you aren't utilizing, you should talk with your DM about incorporating it more into the campaign. Skills in general add a lot more flavor to the game and help your character stand out a bit from the normative flow of the structure of non-linear story telling.
Yes, just do like this.

I think the main problem is getting stuck on what is written in the book about uses. Instead twisting the ability check rules, like using another than CHA for social, or extending too much the overlaps, that could break easily the game mechanics (I showed that is really easy for any player to use his main stat for social) what you should to look at more is role-playing the skills. What is written in the book are only examples, it says clearly, and talk with conditionals. The ability check section is open, so instead breaking the ability system and skills extension, try to use them by your own. Tell or describe what you want to do, and the DM will decide the skill to use, and if one of yours fit.

I finally think this, when read about "the adventures never use that". If you close to what is written in the book, or follow that adveture like "you can only what is written here", that is not good. One of the 1st things we read from manual, is that this is a role-playing game, so you could try to do anything, when possible. The adventures proposes some things because they can't foresee for anything possible, unlimited options, so mention one or some to get a reference about diffculty, and things like that. But you can approach in any form you can think.

We, the role-playing people, can look annoying with the role-playing stuff, but I think many of the problems with the system is because it is used like a board game with the capability of making own character builds (bad concept for a role-playing game), instead a real and full role-playing game. Changing perspective and using it as is, changes everything.

[Capac Amaru]

Deception doesn't require illegality and performance doesn't require a stage.

It would be a deception check to see if you successfully convince somebody that their husband died with no pain when he was in fact tortured.

Tricking people into thinking you're just a nameless peasant, and not anyone you need to be concerned about having eavesdrop on you is very much a performance. You needn't tell anyone anything.


The easiest way to sneak in somewhere is to look like you're meant to be there, and that is as much about how you BEHAVE as it is about how you LOOK, and needn't require talking to anyone at all.

And yeah, I think someone who has acted for their entire career could, after brief observation, be convincing at emulating someones behavior. Its what method acting is all about.

Persuasion and Deception are about words.

Intimidation and Performance are about action.

If a character is using their words, roll persuasion or deception.

If a character is using their appearance and actions, roll intimidation or performance.

[Dark Schneider]

Deception is much beyond words. Read again skill description. It is used even for gambling.

Deception. Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions. This deception can encompass everything from misleading others through ambiguity to telling outright lies. Typical situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself off in a disguise, dull someone's suspicions with false assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling a blatant lie.
"Everything". Supplanting someone is misleading others, more when "pass yourself off in a disguise" is explicity indicated. For me, more clear impossible, so can't argue more about this. Repeating the same don't change the meaning.

[Skylivedk]

Deception doesn't require illegality and performance doesn't require a stage.

It would be a deception check to see if you successfully convince somebody that their husband died with no pain when he was in fact tortured.

Tricking people into thinking you're just a nameless peasant, and not anyone you need to be concerned about having eavesdrop on you is very much a performance. You needn't tell anyone anything.


The easiest way to sneak in somewhere is to look like you're meant to be there, and that is as much about how you BEHAVE as it is about how you LOOK, and needn't require talking to anyone at all.

And yeah, I think someone who has acted for their entire career could, after brief observation, be convincing at emulating someones behavior. Its what method acting is all about.

Persuasion and Deception are about words.

Intimidation and Performance are about action.

If a character is using their words, roll persuasion or deception.

If a character is using their appearance and actions, roll intimidation or performance.

I'm with you on the "act like you're a noble by the way you move and talk". I'm not with you in the action/talk split. Of course intimidation can include talking.

"Hurt you? Why would we do that? You're trained to resist advanced interrogation, I take it.

Third District, quaint little shop that sells jewellery. Red hair, giggles when she shows you a new creation. That's your daughter, right? Squire to lord Belfort. Dirty blonde, twitches his left eye when thinking about something difficult. Sleep walks. I take it that's your youngest son. Now, please tell me to whom you report."

[Dark Schneider]

One note, for acting like nobody, i.e. a noble, not "that noble" (a real person), Performance could also be used. You are acting, not supplanting.

Then time to get false documentation to support it, and pray for the other part not having enough INT (History) to know you don't exist really (discover the false noble family cheat).

[Capac Amaru]

I'm with you on the "act like you're a noble by the way you move and talk". I'm not with you in the action/talk split. Of course intimidation can include talking.

"Hurt you? Why would we do that? You're trained to resist advanced interrogation, I take it.


Intimidation is far more than words. Intimidation is 100% reliant upon the behaviour and appearance of the user.

Lets say you have a talking mouse, and it says "You're trained to resist interrogation, I take it?"

It doesn't matter how the mouse says it, how much inflection it puts behind the words, or how genuine it makes them seem.

But if you've heard stories about this shadowy figure who rules from the shadows, if you've been taken to see him by guards that look afraid of him, if the mouse casually crawls over the dead corpse of your friend, fur matted with blood, commands a servant girl to bring forth a bottle of wine, dismisses the guards, then asks you if you'd like a drink... I think you get the picture.

The words you use when you perform or intimidate are almost irrelevant.

The words you use to deceive or persuade are everything.

[Chaosmancer]

So you want to pass off like another guy with a totally different voice? I see clear that when trying to replace someone you have to use Deception. Performance is not for pass off, but for entertaining people. We see many shows on TV of comedians imitating real people, do you think they are the real?. So when using Performance, is for entertaining purposes.
Supplant someone is illegal, Deception is for illegal purposes, so if a bard wants to do illegal things, he should also get Deception. Do you see those actors on TV be able to replace a real person and act in his place? I think most will not be good supplanting real people in real circunstances.

One of the most mind-blowing things I've seen is when actors like the guy from House or the lady from The Closer get interviewed. They are radically different, the lady from Closer was so different I didn't believe it was her.

She completely deceived me. Of course, being a person in the modern day who understands what tv is, I knew she was an actress. But I was fully convinced she was a Southern Belle.

So, yeah. I think if told to impersonate someone generally, they could pull it off. Not "convince the queen you are the prince" but "convince the innkeeper you are a prince"

Maybe it involves the level of planning. It would be harder to convince me of using performance when you suddenly decide to lie to the count, but entering his estate as a fellow nobleman makes sense to me.


Performace gives more money than tools. Read below.

- You can gain 4gp/day at downtime. Tools gives you 1gp/day or 2gp/day as much (depending if you can get a good job). If you live with 1gp/day, you can get up to 3gp/day of profits at downtime. Not bad.
- Convince to act in the Palace party if you are good, you will be invited. It is another way of infiltration.
- Soften tense situations, maybe allowing to check again socials, or at least not ending bad.
- Attract attention, you can perform at street and put a message in front of you, more probabilites people will read it and extend the rumor/message, so more probabilities you get contacted by that reason.

I'd say money is usually a bad reason to take a skill. I won't go as far as to say "gold is useless in 5e" but if the only reason you took something is for the 4 gokd a day... Not worth it.

Infiltrating a palace that way works best if there is planned entertainment at the palace and requires a lot of time to get well known enough that a palace flunky is going to see you and tell the royals to invite you. A good plan if you have the time and skills, but not a reason to take a skill. Though, I would allow it to assist with disguises so you can sneak through the palace as a servant.

"Your friend insults me sir, why this will be..."
"A moment sire"
*Stands*
*Pratfall*
"Haha, a good one, now back to these peace talks"

I know it wasn't exactly what you meant, but it popped in my head immediately. It would be a weird usage. I think the biggest downfall of that plan is that it isn't unique to performance. Persuasion can do the same thing. If the DM allows for a roll to save a failure then multiple skills could make a showing.

Okay, I see it. Of course, that's again highly specific. And not really something unique. There are many ways to attract attention and at character creation are you really picking that skill for this reason?

Entertaining is great, but the skills involved in it should translate out into more than what a single performance would have you think.

In the bottom of the post I quoted you talk at length about being flexible and allowing skills to be used on a variety of ways. Why can't we be flexible about what performance can be used for then?


One note, for acting like nobody, i.e. a noble, not "that noble" (a real person), Performance could also be used. You are acting, not supplanting.

Then time to get false documentation to support it, and pray for the other part not having enough INT (History) to know you don't exist really (discover the false noble family cheat).

Ah, perhaps this is a "phrasing things differently" type of problem then instead of an actual disagreement.

[stoutstien]

Preformance/deception should have been a single skill from the get go. Preformance is one of those concepts like alignment that had a mechanical use in older edition and they just slapped them in 5e for nostalgic reasons.

[Dark Schneider]

One of the most mind-blowing things I've seen is when actors like the guy from House or the lady from The Closer get interviewed. They are radically different, the lady from Closer was so different I didn't believe it was her.

She completely deceived me. Of course, being a person in the modern day who understands what tv is, I knew she was an actress. But I was fully convinced she was a Southern Belle.

So, yeah. I think if told to impersonate someone generally, they could pull it off. Not "convince the queen you are the prince" but "convince the innkeeper you are a prince"

Maybe it involves the level of planning. It would be harder to convince me of using performance when you suddenly decide to lie to the count, but entering his estate as a fellow nobleman makes sense to me.



I'd say money is usually a bad reason to take a skill. I won't go as far as to say "gold is useless in 5e" but if the only reason you took something is for the 4 gokd a day... Not worth it.

Infiltrating a palace that way works best if there is planned entertainment at the palace and requires a lot of time to get well known enough that a palace flunky is going to see you and tell the royals to invite you. A good plan if you have the time and skills, but not a reason to take a skill. Though, I would allow it to assist with disguises so you can sneak through the palace as a servant.

"Your friend insults me sir, why this will be..."
"A moment sire"
*Stands*
*Pratfall*
"Haha, a good one, now back to these peace talks"

I know it wasn't exactly what you meant, but it popped in my head immediately. It would be a weird usage. I think the biggest downfall of that plan is that it isn't unique to performance. Persuasion can do the same thing. If the DM allows for a roll to save a failure then multiple skills could make a showing.

Okay, I see it. Of course, that's again highly specific. And not really something unique. There are many ways to attract attention and at character creation are you really picking that skill for this reason?

Entertaining is great, but the skills involved in it should translate out into more than what a single performance would have you think.

In the bottom of the post I quoted you talk at length about being flexible and allowing skills to be used on a variety of ways. Why can't we be flexible about what performance can be used for then?



Ah, perhaps this is a "phrasing things differently" type of problem then instead of an actual disagreement.
Some actors could have also the Deception skill. Indeed, a "pure actor" as we can think about it probably should have both skills Performance and Deception. To complete the set, also should have Disguise tools proficiency, unless he has others for make up (the most usual).

That is a common error, try to find a reason to get a skill. Again, this is a role-playing game, you make a character, you make your character. Do it as you like to be, and then act like him in the world in front of you. You can do anything, sometimes you will be more skilled, sometimes less. Any skill is circumstantial, is an adventure where everything happens in a court and is about kingdoms and negotiations, even Perception is useless, and prepare your social skills.
One of the worst sentences I usually read: "how can be used in combat?".
It is very easy, if you see that Performance as is don't fit for you, then don't adquire it, and get Deception if is what you are looking for. All the reasons I read to get Performance, is just what Deception is.
The main problem I see is not acting like the character, but always simply trying to get utility from RAW (even if it is an open rule section) at any cost. Wrong perspective. Changing perspective to the (your) character one, putting on his skin and imagination the possibilities are immense. Even more, if you get Performance, is because you want a showman, then act like one, instead trying to (exaggerating) "use it in combat".
You are even forgetting other Performance uses, always directing it to misleading uses, more for Deception. But that is something of each one, but even if I don't have a Performer, I can thing on so many things. Simply think on today, becoming popular, fans, influence. Don't understand people getting a performer not going that way and simply trying to overlap Deception in a way it was not designed. If Deception likes you so much, simply get it. Get your favorite skills and the others use your stats, just like any character has to do.

And it is not about phrasing, you can act "like a noble", I suppose that means something like educated, haughty. But that does not make you noble. Nobility is about lineage and heraldry. Noble families are usually known, and at any court they know about them. Look at the noble background, you are known to be a noble, that character can then be chaotic and impolite, but anyway is recognized as a noble.
Any humble traveller can be educated and smart, but that does not make him a noble, right?
So if you "act like a noble" take care where do you do it.
Something different is if you want to pass off like "that noble", with Deception, you get information about some noble, disguise like him, and them try to act like him, depending how much he is known at location, the check would be easier or harder.
The same for the servant, people there usually know who is the servitude, so be careful as you would be caught easier than with Deception. If butler (personnel manager) sees you, expect some inspection and asking, as he is the one hiring people and didn't hire you.

[Chaosmancer]

Some actors could have also the Deception skill. Indeed, a "pure actor" as we can think about it probably should have both skills Performance and Deception. To complete the set, also should have Disguise tools proficiency, unless he has others for make up (the most usual).

That is a common error, try to find a reason to get a skill. Again, this is a role-playing game, you make a character, you make your character. Do it as you like to be, and then act like him in the world in front of you. You can do anything, sometimes you will be more skilled, sometimes less. Any skill is circumstantial, is an adventure where everything happens in a court and is about kingdoms and negotiations, even Perception is useless, and prepare your social skills.
One of the worst sentences I usually read: "how can be used in combat?".
It is very easy, if you see that Performance as is don't fit for you, then don't adquire it, and get Deception if is what you are looking for. All the reasons I read to get Performance, is just what Deception is.
The main problem I see is not acting like the character, but always simply trying to get utility from RAW (even if it is an open rule section) at any cost. Wrong perspective. Changing perspective to the (your) character one, putting on his skin and imagination the possibilities are immense. Even more, if you get Performance, is because you want a showman, then act like one, instead trying to (exaggerating) "use it in combat".
You are even forgetting other Performance uses, always directing it to misleading uses, more for Deception. But that is something of each one, but even if I don't have a Performer, I can thing on so many things. Simply think on today, becoming popular, fans, influence. Don't understand people getting a performer not going that way and simply trying to overlap Deception in a way it was not designed. If Deception likes you so much, simply get it. Get your favorite skills and the others use your stats, just like any character has to do.

You spend an awful lot of time telling me I'm wrong, how I'm wrong, and how I should change to be right.

I can't say your assumptions are endearing your arguments to me.

For example, I am about to start as a player in a friend's game (a d20 modern style 5e game) and I'm playing a Feylock of the Chain. That's because I came up with a fun story involving naturalization of a Faerie Bride. I even took Performance because he was a poet in my head and that led to me expanding him to a theater minor.

So... I already am doing exactly what you recommend, story and mechanics inform each other and build off each other. But I'm glad you got your chance to preach.

But how we build characters wasn't the point. The point was that we have to make sacrifices for the mechanics of the game. Most characters get 4 skills, and we have to priortize them. This is why you get religious paladins without the religion skill, because the fact that they are a mounted knight (animal handling) who is insightful (insight) and persuasive (persuasion) and has a vast knowledge of military history (history) was more important. Or maybe their medical training should be higher up, or intimidation because they were a drill sergeant. All of these are story reasons for skills, and after you've narrowed it down so far you begin to look at the mechanics side to tilt the scales. A lot of people would lose animal handling, because mechanically it could be the weakest skill even though it has just as much narrative weight in the character's design.

So, when things clearly overlap (because in the real world we don't have handy little skill ratings to differentiate one from the other) it can make sense to allow either to apply instead of forcing limitations to appear.



And it is not about phrasing, you can act "like a noble", I suppose that means something like educated, haughty. But that does not make you noble. Nobility is about lineage and heraldry. Noble families are usually known, and at any court they know about them. Look at the noble background, you are known to be a noble, that character can then be chaotic and impolite, but anyway is recognized as a noble.
Any humble traveller can be educated and smart, but that does not make him a noble, right?
So if you "act like a noble" take care where do you do it.
Something different is if you want to pass off like "that noble", with Deception, you get information about some noble, disguise like him, and them try to act like him, depending how much he is known at location, the check would be easier or harder.
The same for the servant, people there usually know who is the servitude, so be careful as you would be caught easier than with Deception. If butler (personnel manager) sees you, expect some inspection and asking, as he is the one hiring people and didn't hire you.

Wow. What can I say except you don't get it?

Do I really need to defend that acting like a member of the nobility and having noble blood are two different things? I never claimed anything about noble blood, and I'd never assume any skill check could go a hundred years into an elves past and change how they were conceived.

And I shouldn't need to explain why matching the mannerisms of a group makes for an effective disguise. If no one has met the Duke's country cousin, then as long as you have some evidence (which can be forged or stolen) and act like a noble should act then few people should be suspicious. It isn't like they do DNA tests at the door.

And of course deception plays it's role. Convincing the casual observer you are country nobility might be performance, but being confronted with making up childhood memories could be deception.

And yeah, "if the butler sees you". Yes many deceptions and disguises and plots can be ruined by the person who is in the know confronting the con artist. Am I supposed to deny that? Why would I? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

[Capac Amaru]

So... if you pretend to be a noble to entertain my party.. its performance.

If I pretend to be a noble to trick a guard... its deception.

If I pretend to be a noble to scare a guard... its intimidation.

If I pretend to be a noble to convince someone to give me something... its persuasion.

Even though the action being taken may be exactly the same, and all cases rely on convincing performance of the role?

[stoutstien]

So... if you pretend to be a noble to entertain my party.. its performance.

If I pretend to be a noble to trick a guard... its deception.

If I pretend to be a noble to scare a guard... its intimidation.

If I pretend to be a noble to convince someone to give me something... its persuasion.

Even though the action being taken may be exactly the same, and all cases rely on convincing performance of the role?
Bout right. As I said they should have been a single skill. They ditched tumble and balance and should have kept chopping away redundant skills. At the same time they could have expanded with skills or sub skill such as high/low class social skills(aristocrat/street wise), diplomacy (different from persuasion in the fact it is more political than personal), or even mimicry.

[Mjolnirbear]

Bout right. As I said they should have been a single skill. They ditched tumble and balance and should have kept chopping away redundant skills. At the same time they could have expanded with skills or sub skill such as high/low class social skills(aristocrat/street wise), diplomacy (different from persuasion in the fact it is more political than personal), or even mimicry.

I disagree. They're fundamentally about *how* you go about persuading someone to do something. Just like lore skills are about knowing things; they're differentiated by what you want to know.

I can convince a guard to let me pass in several ways:
* I can bribe him. Standard persuasion
* I can threaten him. Standard intimidation.
* I can tell him I'm allowed to go through. Assuming I'm not, that would be deception.

Diplomacy does not need to be different. I can threaten you with an invasion, bribe you with a noble daughter's hand in marriage and a treaty, or tell you I have no idea who those men are that crossed your border. They are different from standard charisma checks only in scale and consequence.

They have mimicry as part of a feat.

[Dark Schneider]

You spend an awful lot of time telling me I'm wrong, how I'm wrong, and how I should change to be right.

No, I spend a lot of time telling how I'd do, and why. Each one is free to do as wanted. But OK, I'll not insist more, don't worry.