How often do you guys allow alt-stat skills?

[SangoProduction]

As in, allowing the use of alternative stats for skills, like Strength for Intimidate?
Ignoring explicit allowances from various mechanics that say you can do it... because unless those are banned, you'd probably allow it, and thus isn't interesting...

For me, I need a justification for that use of the skill, but am very lenient for actual attempts at doing something creatively. Mostly because it gets players to actually engage with "How do I contrive a way to make this roll better?" It just seems to be fun and interactive whenever the players get into it. Which is admittedly not all that often.

[Phoenix Duck]

I've honestly never done it. 3.5 at its core is such a skill-filled system that I never feel like I need it. If someone is attempting an interrogation by beating up the victim, I won't just do intimidate with strength. I would do a regular intimidate roll with some kind of circumstance bonus or penalty.

Therein is kinda the problem with it for me. If you reassign the ability score for a skill, you're not just applying a new bonus - you're taking away the relevance of the existing stat, which is rarely easy to justify.

[Kurald Galain]

As in, allowing the use of alternative stats for skills, like Strength for Intimidate?
I never do.

First, I find that, with the sole exception of str-for-intimidate, alternative stats make pretty much no sense (and that includes in other systems like Whitewolf). Did you notice how people always bring up the single example of str-for-intim when talking about alternative stats? That's because there aren't any (good) other examples.
Second, allowing alternative stats encourages players to try and fast-talk their GM into always allowing their best stat with everything.
And third, the game plays faster (and I like fast resolution mechanics) if you do not allow alternative stats.

[Rynjin]

Only for explicit mechanically based abilities like Student of Philosophy (Int to Diplomacy).

[loky1109]

Not for skill, but sometimes for skill check.
Mostly it's Int, if player needs some theoretical hints... Well, for example skilled climber could to tell could this wall endure climbing ogre or not.

[ShurikVch]

Did you notice how people always bring up the single example of str-for-intim when talking about alternative stats? That's because there aren't any (good) other examples.
No other good examples?!

What's about Cat (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm)? It uses Dex for Climb and Jump!

Jungle Kobold (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/environmentalRacialVariants.htm#jungleKobolds) uses their Dex for Climb

Undead uses their Cha for Concentration

Agile Athlete - Dex for Climb and Jump checks (replaces Str)
Ancestral Knowledge - Wis for Knowledge checks (replaces Int)
Keen Intellect - Int for Heal, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks (replaces Wis)
Tactile Trapsmith - Dex for Disable Device and Search checks (replaces Int)

Also, once I compiled the list (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?578550-Skills-keyed-from-non-standard-abilities) of classes which stated key ability for their class skill which is differs from the skill's description in the Core. While it could be typos, it's all still officially legal (until corrected). Say, Ravager - with their "Profession (Int)" - survived both Errata and 3.5 transition...

[DammitVictor]

Generally, if it makes half a lick of sense I can be talked into it. But STR for Intimidate is actually the best example of one I will never allow under any circumstances because 1) it shows a clear misunderstanding of how intimidation works and 2) it exists almost purely for people who want their character to be "scary" while dumping the most common dumpstat that most "scary" races get a penalty to.

Take Skill Focus. And ask yourself, in a culture with little coded law and no institutional law enforcement, how an orcish warchief can rule over more than jack or squat with a low Charisma.

[Rynjin]

Take Skill Focus. And ask yourself, in a culture with little coded law and no institutional law enforcement, how an orcish warchief can rule over more than jack or squat with a low Charisma.

...Because what little coded law and institutions they do have vastly respect strength over all else, and asskicking equals authority.

If the chief says "do what I say or I'll beat your ass" the only viable responses are "Yes, sir" or "Try it, bitch". That is exactly the situation where Strength = "Charisma". His political and social power entirely derives from his ability to beat anyone who speaks out against him senseless.

That is WHY orcs get a bonus to Str and a penalty to Cha; outside of their culture, that power is significantly less impactful.

[icefractal]

I'd allow it in general, but not for the specific use of Strength to Intimidate.

My issue is that yes, being stronger than your foe is intimidating. But:
1) So is being significantly more combat-skilled, or having dangerous-looking magic, or being politically powerful, or having an entourage of vampires, or being known as a deadly assassin, etc, etc, etc. There's nothing special about high-strength in particular.
2) Being stronger than a normal person while still much weaker than your opponent shouldn't help you. Bob the Tavern Keeper might crap his pants when Throg the Str 20 Barbarian looms over him, but a Storm Giant isn't going to be impressed.

Since "being bigger" is a +4 bonus (again, not sure if I even agree - an Ogre shouldn't really be intimidating to a Mind Flayer), I'd say +4 for "being more powerful" or +8 for "being much more powerful" would be reasonable standards.

* Incidentally, a failed Intimidate doesn't mean they become suicidally brave. If an armed group of mercenaries demands for a lone tavern owner to hand over all the booze and whiffs the check - yeah, they're still fully capable of killing him, and he knows that. But it means that he's going to operating purely off his own interests rather than forced-helpfulness. So he might give them the booze and then sneak away to get help, or he might panic and run away immediately before telling them where the booze is, or he might try to poison the booze. Or he might just cooperate fully, the same way that "Get out of this burning building!" (failed Diplomacy check) doesn't mean people will burn to death just to spite you.

[loky1109]

...Because what little coded law and institutions they do have vastly respect strength over all else, and asskicking equals authority.

If the chief says "do what I say or I'll beat your ass" the only viable responses are "Yes, sir" or "Try it, bitch". That is exactly the situation where Strength = "Charisma". His political and social power entirely derives from his ability to beat anyone who speaks out against him senseless.

That is WHY orcs get a bonus to Str and a penalty to Cha; outside of their culture, that power is significantly less impactful.
Remember, orcs have not only -2 Cha, but also -2 Wis. Plus, orc-specific intimidated improving options.

[Kurald Galain]

What's about Cat (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm)? It uses Dex for Climb and Jump!
It's in the rules for tiny creatures that they can use dex for climb/jump, and this makes sense because of the square/cube law. That doesn't mean that everybody else should be able to use dex for climb/jump just because they feel like it.

For the rest of your post, well, just because there is a semi-obscure feat (or similar option) for it doesn't mean that it makes any sense. It's part of the DM's job to ban rules interactions that don't make sense (without being a jerk about it, obvs) regardless of how much they're technically legal, just like how you can't heal yourself by drowning either, regardless of how much that is technically RAW. Regular gameplay isn't theory-op.

[Dr.Samurai]

Generally, if it makes half a lick of sense I can be talked into it. But STR for Intimidate is actually the best example of one I will never allow under any circumstances because 1) it shows a clear misunderstanding of how intimidation works and 2) it exists almost purely for people who want their character to be "scary" while dumping the most common dumpstat that most "scary" races get a penalty to.

Take Skill Focus. And ask yourself, in a culture with little coded law and no institutional law enforcement, how an orcish warchief can rule over more than jack or squat with a low Charisma.
This is in reverse. There's a reason that post-apocalyptic stories always revolve around survivors with weapons defending themselves from other survivors with weapons; because when all of the social systems, institutions, and structures are gone, might makes right.

All of the systems we have in place now are precisely to AVOID having to go out and physically confront other people. That's what all of this civilization is about. Bartering, diplomacy, laws and enforcement, etc etc. All of it is about coexisting with each other in such a way that we aren't beating each other up for every basic survival need on the daily.

Magic charisma beams are not always necessary to intimidate people.

[ShurikVch]

It's in the rules for tiny creatures that they can use dex for climb/jump
It's untrue: AFAIK, nobody Tiny-sized - but the Cat - is using Dex for Jump checks (at least - in the Core)


and this makes sense because of the square/cube law. That doesn't mean that everybody else should be able to use dex for climb/jump just because they feel like it.
Monstrous Centipedes (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousCentipede.htm) and Monstrous Spiders (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/monstrousSpider.htm) are using Dex for Climb - up to Large size


For the rest of your post, well, just because there is a semi-obscure feat (or similar option) for it doesn't mean that it makes any sense. It's part of the DM's job to ban rules interactions that don't make sense (without being a jerk about it, obvs) regardless of how much they're technically legal, just like how you can't heal yourself by drowning either, regardless of how much that is technically RAW. Regular gameplay isn't theory-op.
The "make sense" is so subjective... (Ever heard of "Reality Is Unrealistic" trope?) And especially weird to talk about it in the explicitly fantastical setting
But let's check those feats... You already said about the Agile Athlete effect, but what you have against Keen Intellect or Tactile Trapsmith?

[Zanos]

Orcs only have a -2 penalty to charisma. This makes them 'bad' for players who want to focus on charisma skills, but an orc born with good charisma can still have up to 16 in the stat, which is more than passable for convincing other orcs.

Anyway, I generally don't allow alternate stats for skills, because as others have said, it's just a way for SAD characters to try to use their biggest stat for everything. I do think there are some skills whose default assignments don't make sense. UMD being essentially "hacking" a magic item should probably go off of intelligence, not charisma, unless you're trying to trick an intelligent item or something. But I would just change the skills I don't like. I allow things like Student of Philosophy in pathfinder because there in the rules and I don't really mind that much, but no amount of schooling in philosophy is going to allow you to bypass the fact that having a 5 in charisma makes you absolutely terrible at getting your point across.

[MonochromeTiger]

I allow it on the condition that it can be justified. Having a set stat for some skills doesn't really make sense to me, there's multiple ways to do some of these things beyond just having the right tool to make it easier, but I'll keep to it mechanically unless a reasonable alternative is presented.

A good example would be Perform. Yes, you're trying to draw a crowd or entertain people and that generally involves some force of personality but not every performance is singing a song or giving a speech where you want people hanging off your words or emotions, playing an instrument requires quick and precise movement and timing which also fits with Dexterity.

There's more than one way to do things, get creative and you can even justify using different skills for the same thing, but the important thing is that a player needs to have that in mind and make a reasonable argument for why it will work instead of just "but this was my dump stat."

[Kurald Galain]

not every performance is singing a song or giving a speech where you want people hanging off your words or emotions, playing an instrument requires quick and precise movement and timing which also fits with Dexterity.
I've seen such performances, with technical excellence but low or no stage presence. They're boring and unengaging, which in game terms means they're taking the action of performing but failing the check. This is why dexterity does not add to perform checks: it simply fails at drawing a crowd or entertaining people.

[False God]

I decoupled stats from skills a long time ago. I just call for stat based on the approach, and skill in question.

Works fine.

[MonochromeTiger]

I've seen such performances, with technical excellence but low or no stage presence. They're boring and unengaging, which in game terms means they're taking the action of performing but failing the check. This is why dexterity does not add to perform checks.

Subjective. You don't need to be flashy and showy to play impressively or keep attention, sufficient skill in itself can be somewhat captivating and people trying for "stage presence" can easily overdo it turning an otherwise impressive performance into something obnoxious.

If someone is playing piano you aren't exactly going to hold it against them if they don't set up pyrotechnics and a stage dive partway into the performance. If someone is playing guitar and they've got no grasp of how to play you also aren't likely to swear up and down they're the best just because they tried to work the audience.

Edit: in short, I feel you're dismissing other possibilities based off your own idea of how it works. Not exactly uncommon when it comes to rules interpretations but it goes to my entire point, most skills have more than one way to do them well but they're so narrowly interpreted that people find it easier justifying why it can only be a certain thing than they do actually considering other ways valid.

[Kurald Galain]

people trying for "stage presence" can easily overdo it turning an otherwise impressive performance into something obnoxious.

If someone is playing piano you aren't exactly going to hold it against them if they don't set up pyrotechnics and a stage dive partway into the performance.

"Stage presence" has nothing to do with pyrotechnics and stage diving :smallamused:

[MonochromeTiger]

"Stage presence" has nothing to do with pyrotechnics and stage diving :smallamused:

Simplifying, as should be obvious. "Stage presence" is nebulous and, again, subjective but you've managed to make it the core of your argument for dismissing what I was saying in such a way that I could come up with any rebuttal and still have it thrown out as "that's not stage presence" without you ever actually clarifying the exact meaning you intend or how it's impossible for skill with an instrument to qualify.

Edit again: I get where your argument is coming from. Charisma is the "social ability score" so "logically" all skills to draw and keep attention should spring from it, but that's only if you interpret it as low Charisma making you unambiguously forgettable, ignored, and incapable of making or having a point that others can recognize. It hinges on Charisma being the only reason people will listen to you when that's simply not the case, and it certainly doesn't translate into doing well at something that requires some actual technical expertise.

[Biggus]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Craft and Profession yet, in many cases having Int and Wis as the key stat respectively makes the square root of zero sense. I use Int, Wis or Dex for both of them, depending on the specific craft or profession.



Also, once I compiled the list (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?578550-Skills-keyed-from-non-standard-abilities) of classes which stated key ability for their class skill which is differs from the skill's description in the Core.

At least one item on that list is out of date: Master Arcane Artisan's Appraise skill was changed to Int in 3.5 (in "Epic Insights Compilation").

[lesser_minion]

What's about Cat (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/cat.htm)? It uses Dex for Climb and Jump!

There is a difference between "this facet of charisma is actually a facet of strength for this character" and "this character flexed their muscles a bit and growled at someone so that must be an Intimidate (Str) check". The first of those is fine: not every character can fit perfectly within the default logic of the system. The second one is controversial.

[ciopo]

In pathfinder, I allow it at the cost of a trait. You want "X-to-Y" for one skill and it isn't already codified like bruising intellect? I'll agree to have a custom trait that does that and makes the skillin-class, with the trait category depending on the combination of ability and skill.

Bruising intellect exists, afterall, and so there is a precedent.

I second my dislike of it, because it's a way for sad to get sadder, but "half a feat" feels like a fair price, and traits are the "skill customization" of pathfinder, so here we are.

[ShurikVch]

At least one item on that list is out of date: Master Arcane Artisan's Appraise skill was changed to Int in 3.5 (in "Epic Insights Compilation").
OK - then it, actually, was corrected


There is a difference between "this facet of charisma is actually a facet of strength for this character" and "this character flexed their muscles a bit and growled at someone so that must be an Intimidate (Str) check". The first of those is fine: not every character can fit perfectly within the default logic of the system. The second one is controversial.
Maybe, I'm too sleepy right now, but I'm honestly unable to see the difference between the first and the second
Also, AFAIK, there are three examples of "Str to Intimidation": variant rule for Barbarians (sidebar in the Masters of the Wild), Fearsome Gaze - Barbarian's 7th-level ACF (Dragon #349), and Dread Tyranny feat for clerics of Hextor (Races of Destiny). Which of those are "controversial" (if any)?

[icefractal]

OK - then it, actually, was corrected


Maybe, I'm too sleepy right now, but I'm honestly unable to see the difference between the first and the second
Also, AFAIK, there are three examples of "Str to Intimidation": variant rule for Barbarians (sidebar in the Masters of the Wild), Fearsome Gaze - Barbarian's 7th-level ACF (Dragon #349), and Dread Tyranny feat for clerics of Hextor (Races of Destiny). Which of those are "controversial" (if any)?None of those IMO, because they're skills specific characters have rather than the general case.

"This particular Barbarian is great at scaring people, and gets better the stronger he is" is very different than "a generic Ogre is more scary, to a Great Wyrm, than a world-famous archer with a bow of dragonslaying, because the Ogre can lift more"

[Darg]

Stats are only a bonus into a skill. Flexing your muscles and snarling is more of the combat interaction. Intimidation in a social setting is more about setting a mood and spending a minute to flood your victim with utter dread. Ever seen a really buff guy who tries to be intimidating but instead looks like a upset puppy instead? That's the guy who has 0 ranks but still could have 10 charisma. Intimidation is a type of persuasion. Once you get into physical violence it's no longer intimidation.

Likewise, performance is a skill. No matter how technically correct your technique is, that doesn't mean people will find your voice as appealing as the next person's. Likewise, dexterity has nothing to do with an appropriately performed sword dance that can't be attained with practice, unless you want to combine your performance on a tight rope or do something additional like that. It could provide a circumstantial bonus, but reacting faster doesn't help you when you do something choreographed.

[Dr.Samurai]

None of those IMO, because they're skills specific characters have rather than the general case.

"This particular Barbarian is great at scaring people, and gets better the stronger he is" is very different than "a generic Ogre is more scary, to a Great Wyrm, than a world-famous archer with a bow of dragonslaying, because the Ogre can lift more"
I guess the Great Wyrm is more afraid of the archer because it has reason to believe the archer can kill it.

Interesting.

Kind of like the visual cue of something twice your size, covered in scars, looks angry, with giant muscles and a big scary weapon. That might make you think that something might kill you too. Just like an arrow of slaying.

Oh but wait... the little halfling that comes up to your knee talked good so you're more scared of them...

[icefractal]

I mean, if I myself am, say, a Warblade 10, then no, the big muscles guy with scars isn't particularly scary. I've probably fought literally dozens of guys like him, and also much worse.

The halfling isn't scary either. Until he convinces me otherwise. Say, with a skill that's about convincing people that:
1) You're more dangerous than you look. And ...
2) If they don't cooperate then bad things will happen. And ...
3) If they do cooperate, bad things WON'T happen.

And the third is where just "being scary looking" isn't enough. If you ask them to hand over their gold, and instead they scream and run full tilt away (because they think you'll kill them either way and they don't want to waste time getting the gold from their pack), then that's a failed Intimidate check.

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean, if I myself am, say, a Warblade 10, then no, the big muscles guy with scars isn't particularly scary. I've probably fought literally dozens of guys like him, and also much worse.
Given that Intimidation doesn't work on PCs, what if instead of a level 10 warblade you're just an NPC town guard? Still a total badass that's only afraid of halflings mean mugging them?

Can I turn this around on the DM? DM, as you know, we've killed 4 dragons already throughout this campaign so... Frightful Presence no longer works on me. Been there, done that.

Has your level 10 Warblade never come across a halfling with Intimidation before? Has he never curbstomped charisma rogues? Is he not aware that halflings with Intimidation ARE ALSO not particularly scary because he can cleave them in two? Or has this warblade never fought rogues before?


The halfling isn't scary either. Until he convinces me otherwise. Say, with a skill that's about convincing people that:
1) You're more dangerous than you look. And ...
2) If they don't cooperate then bad things will happen. And ...
3) If they do cooperate, bad things WON'T happen.
But you can't be convinced, because you're a level 10 warblade. You've faced worse than a halfling with a menacing glance. You've cut down hordes of ogres and minotaurs, decapitated naga sorcerers and mind flayer arcanists. What can a halfling possibly do to you that these others haven't? Oh right, look at you meanly, and let you fill in the gaps with your mind so you do whatever they say. Makes a lot of sense.

And the third is where just "being scary looking" isn't enough. If you ask them to hand over their gold, and instead they scream and run full tilt away (because they think you'll kill them either way and they don't want to waste time getting the gold from their pack), then that's a failed Intimidate check.
Yes, it's a failed Intimidation check because you described a failed Intimidation check.

The game already tells us that size is a factor in Intimidation. To then say "well, it just means height. It just matters if you're tall, it doesn't matter if you're a tall skin-and-bones, or tall with giant slabs of muscle on every inch of your frame".

Yeah, I'm sure it makes no difference :smallamused:.

[Dalmosh]

Absolutely, but mostly for quite nebulously-defined aspects of the game when they come up in my campaigns which is often because that's the sort of table we have and the kind of campaigns I enjoy writing, and unbalanced swingy rules can kill characters rapidly in a way that doesn't make sense for the narrative.
Even then its more likely to crop up through saves and raw ability checks than delineated skill checks.

So Dreamscapes... Horror/Taint rules... acting under the influence of psychoactive substances, some kinds of mind control, enchantment, confusion etc. Sometimes Int (pure rationalism) and Cha (your sense of self) make as much sense as Wis for these kind of will saves depending on the character and the situation. Sometimes these kind of checks are based off Constitution by RAW, which can produce weird and too granular outputs for my tastes, so there are definitely instances when I find mental stats more appropriate to use as substitutes.

It frustrates me how simplistic the spell Confusion is to start with if used as RAW, and I don't feel it does what it is supposed to on the tin, especially whenever its tagged on as a rider effect for something else. So if I'm already just roleplaying these effects on the fly by telling the player what feels to fit best, and using the die role and text outcome only as a very loose guideline... it makes as much sense to custom what happens further into what is more fun and engaging at our table.

[Maryring]

I'd say somewhere between rarely and uncommonly. It's always on a case-by-case basis, where for some particular skill checks I feel a different stat is the primary driver for the check in question. For example using Con as the modifier for an Athletics (Climb/Swim) check when the challenge tests endurance over short bursts of activity. Or using Wisdom or Constitution for Concentration checks depending on if the disrupting element is painful, or just annoying.

[lesser_minion]

Maybe, I'm too sleepy right now, but I'm honestly unable to see the difference between the first and the second

If your character sheet says that you have a strength of 46, and a feat that grants you strength to intimidate checks, that's a statement that you find it naturally very easy to get what you want by intimidating people (and presumably a lot harder to trade or negotiate for things).

If the DM changes the ability score on the fly because you described an approach that features an action where a different ability score would fit (flexing to boost intimidate), that's a completely different matter.

[Chronos]

When a little guy in a pinstriped suit, flanked by a couple of big musclebound brutes, tells you that it'd be a real good idea if you were to pay him money to protect you, the big musclebound brutes aren't making Intimidate checks. They're the masterwork tool.

That said, there can certainly be some specific situations where some other stat to a skill makes sense. The example I like to use is fading into a crowd. You're trying to make yourself hard to spot, so it's Hide. But you're not trying to make yourself hard to spot by breaking lines of sight; you're doing it by trying to act like everyone else. So that's a Hide (Cha) check.

Another example: Let's say that you're looking at a raging river, and trying to assess how difficult it would be to swim across it. Someone who's really good at swimming is going to be better at assessing which rivers are likely to have dangerous undertows, or smash you against rocks, versus which rivers are just going to carry you a long distance downstream but otherwise unharmed. So it makes sense to use ranks in the Swim skill. But you're still standing on the shore: You're not using your muscles yet. Right now, you're just trying to figure something out. So you could use Swim (Int).

And others have also mentioned that Craft or Profession will often make more sense with Str or Dex or some other score.

The key in all of these examples is that they depend on the situation. A player can't just say "I want to use Dex instead of Str here because my Dex is higher" (unless they have some feat or class feature that explicitly allows that). Rather, there just be some situations where the other score just makes more sense. And in those situations, the player likewise can't just decide to use the "normal" score (though there might be some other approach available to them that does use the other score).

[Darg]

That said, there can certainly be some specific situations where some other stat to a skill makes sense. The example I like to use is fading into a crowd. You're trying to make yourself hard to spot, so it's Hide. But you're not trying to make yourself hard to spot by breaking lines of sight; you're doing it by trying to act like everyone else. So that's a Hide (Cha) check.

You use bluff to create a diversion to break line of sight to hide in a crowd. Then if you want to move at normal speed you'll use your pre-made disguise of a cloak over your head to blend into the crowd. What you're trying to do is combine skill checks into one and saying it needs to be a charisma based. Hiding is all about not being seen, not being seen and being passed over because you look similar to the crowd.


Another example: Let's say that you're looking at a raging river, and trying to assess how difficult it would be to swim across it. Someone who's really good at swimming is going to be better at assessing which rivers are likely to have dangerous undertows, or smash you against rocks, versus which rivers are just going to carry you a long distance downstream but otherwise unharmed. So it makes sense to use ranks in the Swim skill. But you're still standing on the shore: You're not using your muscles yet. Right now, you're just trying to figure something out. So you could use Swim (Int).

You're swimming technique has nothing to do with knowing if you're faster than the water. If you really want to do something like this then ask for a DC 5 Wisdom check. Ability checks are there exactly for this reason.


And others have also mentioned that Craft or Profession will often make more sense with Str or Dex or some other score.

"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." Can't really do a craft or profession well if you never learn how in the first place. Str and Dex could be helpful in performing the tasks required, they aren't the first or most important aspect.


The key in all of these examples is that they depend on the situation. A player can't just say "I want to use Dex instead of Str here because my Dex is higher" (unless they have some feat or class feature that explicitly allows that). Rather, there just be some situations where the other score just makes more sense. And in those situations, the player likewise can't just decide to use the "normal" score (though there might be some other approach available to them that does use the other score).

There isn't really a situation where it's necessary to change the ability associated with a skill. If a skill doesn't directly affect something, use an ability check. If it's partly under the purview of a skill, break it down into parts to tease out the other skills being used that make it seem like the ability is the wrong one.

[lesser_minion]

To answer the OP directly, there are plenty of situations where an unusual skill can apply to a situation, such as using Ride or Handle Animal to figure out whether or not a horse is worth buying, or using a Knowledge to notice something out of place or catch someone in a lie.

While you could then go down the path of "that Ride check is actually intelligence-based", skills like Tumble and Use Magic Device both already have uses that explicitly replace other skills (Perform and Spellcraft respectively) in certain situations, and neither changes its key ability when you do this. So the default is that it's not a thing.

In 3e, abilities represent innate talent and ranks represent actual training. It's not really a problem if you find yourself using your strength modifier to write (or even read) a book, as long as it's a book about running, jumping, climbing, or swimming -- your higher strength lets you pick those things up more easily, and means that you are genuinely more skilled than someone else with the same number of ranks would be.

[Zanos]

Most of the time if you start switching the ability score, you should just change the skill. Knowledge of rivers is Knowledge (Geography) not Swim(Int). Determining the value of a horse is not Handle Animal(int) its Appraise.

I would let a character with ranks in an associated skill get a +2 synergy bonus, but that's it. You're skill at riding or handling horses is not a replacement for understanding markets.

[Thunder999]

Switching the ability score is often a significant bonus to the check, so unless there's an actual feat/class feature/etc. I'm against it.

[loky1109]

It's not really a problem if you find yourself using your strength modifier to write (or even read) a book, as long as it's a book about running, jumping, climbing, or swimming -- your higher strength lets you pick those things up more easily, and means that you are genuinely more skilled than someone else with the same number of ranks would be.
While I really could agree with Zanos, your point here is nonsense!
It is! It is big problem if somebody use strength, because it's the most abusable stat! It's too easy to get stupid numbers with such logic.


Switching the ability score is often a significant bonus to the check, so unless there's an actual feat/class feature/etc. I'm against it.
I have different experience. Maybe because I as the DM was initiator, not player who "want better check".

[lesser_minion]

While I really could agree with Zanos, your point here is nonsense!
It is! It is big problem if somebody use strength, because it's the most abusable stat! It's too easy to get stupid numbers with such logic.

Yeah, sometimes you do have to take a more nuanced approach. Having a high rolled strength might suggest that you're a more talented climber (and hence better at writing climbing manuals), but using a spell to make yourself colossal sized definitely doesn't.

[Biggus]

"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." Can't really do a craft or profession well if you never learn how in the first place. Str and Dex could be helpful in performing the tasks required, they aren't the first or most important aspect.


Sounds logical in theory, but in practice, it's not true.

I have a high IQ but poor dexterity. There were kids I was at school with who did terribly in all academic subjects, but were far better than me at woodwork, metalwork etc. Some of them could barely write their own name but they could make a fantastic chair. So it doesn't always make sense for crafts to be Int-based, only the ones which require book-learning, memorisation or similar, rather than practical/on-the-job skills.

Profession I agree requires Int primarily in many cases, but it uses Wis...

[icefractal]

Profession is weird anyway, because of the "can't be used unskilled" thing.
So anyone can give ship-building a go (Craft is usable untrained), but nobody could even try to garden or take notes (scribe) without proper training?

I think it should be like Knowledge, where you can do DC 10 things untrained but need ranks for the more advanced stuff.

[Chronos]

Quoth Thunder999:

Switching the ability score is often a significant bonus to the check, so unless there's an actual feat/class feature/etc. I'm against it.
And just as often a significant penalty. At least, if it's the DM making the decision to use a different ability, not the player.


Quoth Darg:

"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons."
Which is reflected in that Int determines how many skill points you gain. You can still use the skill points your Int allows you to learn how to better use your Strength for climbing or your Dexterity for balancing or whatever.

[ShurikVch]

Table 4–2: Primary Skills for Hirelings (Arms and Equipment Guide) lists for Laborer and Porter both Primary Skills "Craft (any) or none" and Key Abilities "Str 2", with a footnote:

2 Laborers and porters commonly have a Craft skill but are hired for their strength and endurance.

[Kurald Galain]

fading into a crowd. You're trying to make yourself hard to spot, so it's Hide. But you're not trying to make yourself hard to spot by breaking lines of sight; you're doing it by trying to act like everyone else.
So that's not a hide check, but disguise (and conveniently, it's charisma-based).


Another example: Let's say that you're looking at a raging river, and trying to assess how difficult it would be to swim across it.
That falls under the survival skill (appropriately enough, not strength-based).


Most of the time if you start switching the ability score, you should just change the skill. Knowledge of rivers is Knowledge (Geography) not Swim(Int). Determining the value of a horse is not Handle Animal(int) its Appraise.
Yes, that.

Like I wrote in my first post, the reason people keep bringing up Intimidate(str) as an example is because it's pretty much the only good example.

[lesser_minion]

Most of the time if you start switching the ability score, you should just change the skill. Knowledge of rivers is Knowledge (Geography) not Swim(Int). Determining the value of a horse is not Handle Animal(int) its Appraise.

The example I presented was a specific horse, and not putting a price to it, but determining whether it was worth buying. Knowing the proper price for a horse (appraise) might be one valid approach to the problem, but that doesn't mean that there can't -- or shouldn't -- be others.

For example (assuming that all skill checks succeed and that this particular seller is trying to pull off the mount scam without hiding the horse's aura):

Appraise: "If this horse is everything he says it is, he's either mad or desperate. He could get six times the asking price from the right buyer."
Spellcraft: "This horse bears more than a few of the signs of being under an ongoing conjuration spell"
Sense Motive: "This guy doesn't seem trustworthy at all."
Knowledge (Local or Arcana): "This market is warded against most spells that aren't relevant to business. None of the other traders seem to be as worried about magic as this one."
Ride or Handle Animal: "This is a perfectly average horse, nowhere near the quality he's trying to suggest."
Heal: "The horse doesn't seem to have any significant health problems, but you've seen enough curses to suspect that it's under some sort of spell."


If this sort of scam has been tried more than a few times in this society, then a clue like "Traditionally, horses are shown to prospective buyers at dawn, but the actual exchange doesn't take place until dusk, which gives the buyers more confidence that the horse isn't conjured" would also be available, but aside from Heal and Sense Motive, nearly any of these skills should be able to find it.

As for rolling a normal skill check with a different ability modifier, while using the Climb skill to write a climbing manual is obviously not something that comes up often, Climb (Int) definitely handles it more elegantly than leaving it as strength and then trying to selectively disapply all of the strength bonuses you're not OK with.

[Kurald Galain]

The example I presented was a specific horse, and not putting a price to it, but determining whether it was worth buying. Knowing the proper price for a horse (appraise) might be one valid approach to the problem, but that doesn't mean that there can't -- or shouldn't -- be others.
Sure. The point is that these other approaches are (pretty much always) covered by other skills.

And not by doing something weird like, "hey, this appraise roll is based on strength because you have to hold the horse still to take a good look". :smalltongue:

[loky1109]

Sure. The point is that these other approaches are (pretty much always) covered by other skills.

And not by doing something weird like, "hey, this appraise roll is based on strength because you have to hold the horse still to take a good look". :smalltongue:

I could imaging appraise roll is based on strength if I try to lift mass of gold and it's too lightweight. )

[Daisy]

When a little guy in a pinstriped suit, flanked by a couple of big musclebound brutes, tells you that it'd be a real good idea if you were to pay him money to protect you, the big musclebound brutes aren't making Intimidate checks. They're the masterwork tool.

This. Got to be the best argument for not allowing STR for Intimidate checks I've ever seen. I might allow a circumstance bonus at my table (e.g. +2) if the intimidator said he'd rip the intimidatee's arms off and he looked like he could do it using the same logic as above. Intimidate works when the skinny little guy says that he'll have the king throw you in the dungeon if you don't tell him what he wants to know. STR has no impact on how much you fear him.

Bottom line for me is that classes that typically have high STR also have Intimidate as a class skill (Fighter, Barbarian, all three classes from ToB, etc.). If you a) want to intimidate people, b) have Intimidate as a class skill but c) choose not to pump it and dump your CHA, then it's on you if you fail.

[Darg]

If you a) want to intimidate people, b) have Intimidate as a class skill but c) choose not to pump it and dump your CHA, then it's on you if you fail.

Sorry to all the min-maxers, but the game doesn't care that you pump Str and want to persuade someone your muscles can determine what magic is on a sword or does math to determine if they can swim faster than a river's flow.

[Eladrinblade]

Only when a feat allows it, but I'm picky about which to allow.