• A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 年前

    Remember: RAW, the ability that gets used on a skill check is determined by the DM. STR is a perfectly valid ability for Intimidation.

    On a related note, God I hate these skill systems, as an old-school DM. If you try to intimidate someone and it makes sense for it to work, it works.

    • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 年前

      Well you as a DM set the DC. If it makes sense to work then set it to 3 or something, or just make it free. But setting it to succeed on anything except for critical failure makes sense, since anyone can flub their grand moment.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        I also hate the DnD criticals. First, they don’t apply to ability checks if you’re playing by the book, so the point is moot here. Second, why is someone very skilled at something just as likely to crit as someone unskilled? Pathfinder 2E does it great where you need to be over/under the AC/DC by 10 or more for a crit. Someone very good at something will critically succeed more often with that skill than someone very bad, who will critically fail more often. In fact, someone particularly skilled may not even be able to critically fail a check that’s trivial for them. The fact that a master still has a 1/20 chance to critically fail trivial things in the DnD rules isn’t ideal.

        • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 年前

          There are abilities and gear that lower your crit requirement, but usually only by 1, so 5% higher chance of crit. I agree that your crit chance should go up as you get better, but only in relation to the skill of your opponent. Like I’m sure Bruce Lee could punch me exactly where he wants to 100% of the time, but not so much against Donny Yen. The pathfinder system sounds smart.

          It’s definitely possible for people who have mastered things to critically fail. How many times have you drunk water in your life? Millions of times? But every rare once in a while you mess it up so bad that you put water into your windpipe. That’s a critical failure. But the chances of it happening when you’ve mastered something should certainly be far lower than 5%.

          • Kichae@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 年前

            I agree that your crit chance should go up as you get better, but only in relation to the skill of your opponent.

            Conveniently, that’s also how Pathfinder does it.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 年前

            I can’t remember when I last failed to drink. Maybe I’m an overgrown halfling and get to reroll 1s

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 年前

            I was going to mention the feats that change crits in DnD 5E but I felt that was getting too far into the weeds. The fact of the matter is you skill doesn’t really matter for crits in 5E. Maybe you decrease the requirment for a crit by 1, but let’s say you have that and great weapon master. Shouldn’t that -5 to hit effect your chance to crit? You’re going all in on power, so you lose precision. Why are the odds exactly the same? It just doesn’t make sense. The crit system is half baked and doesn’t really work, and then your throw in advantage and disadvantage and the system is really flawed. Pathfinder 2E seems to have figure this all out, but the new version of DnD (5.5E, or whatever they call it) doesn’t seem to try to fix it.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 年前

          Critical success and failures are by the book.

          They are an optional rule in the Dungeon Master Guide on page 242.

          They are as optional as Multiclassing and Feats.

          • Colalextrast@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 年前

            Arguably MORE optional as this rule does not appear in the PHB, but fair enough. To me, using crits on ability checks messes with game balance too much and challenges verisimilitude. But, to each their own.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 年前

            Well, the rule as stated there is a recommendation to possibly change “exceptional rolls” to have different effects. It talks about rolling a 1 and 20, but I’d say DMs should probably just use the Pathfinder option of getting 10 points higher or lower than the DC. It just makes so much more sense, although the advantage/disadvantage system doesn’t really work for this as well as the Pathfinder system, which actually adds to your roll.

            At the end of the day, everything in the book is a guide. You should throw parts away that don’t work and add things that do. Regardless though, the rules of Pathfinder 2E need a lot less modification to work as you’d expect.

            • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 年前

              I don’t play PF2E, but I checked out the crit rules a couple of months ago and rolling a nat 1 or 20 was still accounted for. From memory, doing that or succeeding / failing by 10+ brought you down or up a degree of success, and those degrees were:

              1. Crit fail
              2. Fail
              3. Succeed
              4. Crit success

              So if the DC was 25, you rolled a nat 20, and your result was a 16-24, you would succeed. If your result had been a 25 or higher, you’d have critically succeeded.

              If the DC was 10 and you rolled a nat 1, you didn’t necessarily critically fail. If your result was a 20 or higher, you’d still succeed (since you were over by 10); on a 10-19, you’d fail; and on a 9 or lower you’d critically fail.

              If you rolled a nat 2-19, though, the impact of the over by 10 / under by 10 would be more noticeable. Vs a DC 15, you would crit fail if your result was 5 or lower and crit succeed if your result was 25 or higher.

              Like I said, I haven’t played with the PF2E system, but my impression is that it would be a big improvement over 5e’s current system without suffering the same issues that most homebrew crit systems run into. It makes critical successes and failures more believable. It encourages DMs to prepare outcomes for the higher degrees of success / failure due to them having a higher chance of occurring. It makes it less likely for crit failures to happen to highly skilled characters.

              And, as a fringe benefit, it also means that you can have almost impossible DCs that are possible only for the most skilled, and even then, only when they’re lucky (like a DC of 40 in a game where the highest bonus you can reasonably get is +11-+19, such that only a nat 20 by someone with such a bonus can succeed).

      • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 年前

        Also you can just give advantage if it’s such an obviously threatening situation.

        That should easily make up for the lost + in Charisma modifier.

    • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      1 年前

      There are a lot of things I like about 5e, but charisma making you good at ALL forms of charisma simultaneously is one of my least favorite changes they made.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        I really dislike the 6 traditional stats for many reasons, and this is one of them.

        The chronicles of darkness games have a nicer stat system, in my opinion. It’s 3x3. One axis is Power - Finesse - Resist, and the other is Physical - Mental - Social. They have names (strength, dexterity, stamina are the physical ones, for example), but this is the underlying concept.

        Demanding people’s attention is Social Power. Being subtle is Social Finesse. And keeping cool is Social Resist. Now it’s possible to make a character that is The Center of Attention who isn’t subtle, or someone who cannot be spooked but also isn’t very good at talking to people.

        If I was going to do some hacking to D&D, I would probably rip charisma out entirely. It’s half-baked and its implementation introduces a lot of un-fun problems.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 年前

            You probably have heard of it and just don’t realise it. Chronicles of Darkness was a spin-off of World of Darkness, which is the world consisting of games like Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse.

            Chronicles includes the games Vampire: The Requiem and Werewolf: The Forsaken. The names were different, but really it’s essentially a different version of the same game. A version with more substantially different lore than normal, but fundamentally a games about vampires, werewolves, etc.

            I haven’t ever really looked at Chronicles, but I have the 5e Vampire: The Masquerade Core book. While the specific stats’ names might change, the idea is the same. You have three physical, three mental, and three social stats. Each is broken down into power, finesse, and defence.

            Strength, Dexterity, Stamina. Charisma, Manipulation, Composure. Intelligence, Wits, Resolve.

            Even outside the game, it’s a really good system. It helps greatly clear up the ambiguity you sometimes get over Int vs Wis checks in D&D, or Wis vs Cha saving throws.

            • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 年前

              I think I’m even more interested in the system than the setting. I always end up making my own stuff anyway. I’ll have to check this out someday.

              • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 年前

                I definitely think that it’s the best system for engaging in the hobby of “how would you stat up this real person/non-RPG fictional character?” The overall mechanics of the game are very focused on telling the kinds of stories that the World of Darkness is designed for, but the basic character statting is really good and broadly applicable.

              • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 年前

                I’ve used the system itself for a lot of homebrew myself so I get the desire. I’ve also played lots of normal mortal games with the Chronicles of Darkness system without vampires or mages involved.

      • RandomLegend [He/Him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        Most of the times we decide spontaneously what ability to use for a certain skill. The fixed stat+skill is super annoying and breaks immersion.

        The wisdom 20 / int 8 Druid not being good in medicine? … yeah maybe not good in school-medicine but knowing what herb can treat what illness is a thing of wisdom, not intelligence by default.

        Then, yes, Strenght for intimidation.

        Intelligence for deception - think of an elaborate network of pseudo-facts and weave them together in a complex way so the “opponent” is so overwhelmed that he just choses to believe you.

        And so on so on…

        • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 年前

          I like your philosophy of trying to pick a more appropriate skill when it feels right. I need to remember that one for my next session.

          • SourceOfMistypes@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 年前

            I mean it’s literally the way the rules intend it. Most just get confused by the character sheet showing the most common ones.

            I’m playing for 5 years with my group now and still get some confused looks when I ask for e.g. a Charisma (Investigation) check.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 年前

          That’s why there is survival and medicine. And a roll has much more variation than the +2 or 3 that you are considering here.

          And as always, if there are no chances or consequences for failure, don’t roll. That’s in the dmg.

        • bob_lemon@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 年前

          The scale is different. In 3e, that +5 charisma bonus is less noticeable compared to that +10 skill bonus, so specializing in a skill is more relevant.

          • zombiecalypse@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 年前

            Ah, that makes sense. It sounded like you were saying that 5e was the first to use Charisma for Intimidation, but bards being more intimidating than barbarians is a long standing (if questionable) DnD tradition.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 年前

      If you try to intimidate someone and it makes sense for it to work, it works.

      I can see making a CHA save for the victim, but (IMO) the DC should come from the situation, not the PC stats.