D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

Yaarel said:

In the sense that an Elephant cannot effectively climb or jump, it is a "mass of muscle" that lacks Strength Athletics.


The D&D 5e Strength ability handles two conflictive concepts: agility and weightlifting. These two concepts can and should separate from each other.

They need to be different skills with different proficiencies: Athletics and "Weightlifting".

Strength can be agilely athletic without being brute-forcing, and vice versa.


It is ok for Strength to handle both skills. People who are athletic tend to predispose toward lifting heavier weights, and people who can lift twice their body mass can, maneuver their own body weight while climbing and jumping. The Strength Score exhibits an aptitude for both, but Weightlift training and Athletics training can produce drastically different results.

Click to expand...

Yaarel said:

The 5e DMs Guide gives the example of using Strength for Intimidation as an example, when discussing the variant rule of applying any skill to any ability.

I myself wouldnt use Strength for Intimidation. But I like the idea by @James Gasik that very high Strength (say +3 thru +5) gives an advantage, since the "credible threat" is clear and present.

Click to expand...

CreamCloud0 said:

i'd give intimidation to STR but more for mechanical balance reasons than anything 'logical(feels like the wrong word to use here)': STR needs more skills and having both intimidation and persuasion in the same stat feels redundant, putting them in different stats emphasises how these are totally different approaches that people will inherently react differently to, plus this allows STR characters to better lean into the classic archetype of cowing people with a glare or a show of strength.

Click to expand...

James Gasik said:

I mean ultimately, it doesn't matter much, because Intimidation is inferior to Persuasion in every way.

Click to expand...

Pauln6 said:

But not in every situation. NPCS have personalities of their own and it's fun to give easy, moderate, and hard, ways to achieve a goal, as well as ways guaranteed to succeed.

For me as well, I prefer degrees of success,and failure rather than all or nothing, depending on by how much you pass or fail.

Click to expand...

James Gasik said:

I knew when I made that post that someone would disagree with me, lol. But I did it anyways. Silly me, lol.

Here's the thing. Yes, in theory, your approach should matter. In practice, I've found that between nobody really liking to be intimidated, NPC's who think they are "tough guys", and the fact that if you don't kill the person you intimidate, they'll basically hate you forever, that Intimidate is rarely worth the effort.

Sure, you might have a DM who takes a nuanced approach, or let Intimidate demoralize or taunt. But until I see that regularly (and the rulebooks actually say that there's an advantage to using Intimidate vs. Persuasion) in games, I don't see much reason to change my opinion.

I will however, in the interest of fairness, amend my statement.

"Intimidation is inferior to Persuasion in every way- except possibly in your game."

Click to expand...

Pauln6 said:

It's possible that, as our group includes 7 fighters or multiclass fighters, intimidation is often the only way to go!

Have you never watched US TV shows? Very few characters use persuasion to obtain what they want. Even Lucifer, one of the most charming characters, uses intimidation more than half the time. It may be an inferior form of persuasion but many people would rather feel powerful than clever.

Click to expand...

James Gasik said:

Oh don't get me wrong, in real life and fiction, Intimidation is a useful tool in one's toolbox. But it just does not seem to work well in D&D. My go-to example:
View attachment 343224

Click to expand...

Pauln6 said:

Torture doesn't work. Except in US TV shows.

Click to expand...