Would a PC with advantage on Intimidation and disadvantage on Charisma checks be balanced?
$begingroup$
I’m making a fighter who was tortured in the past. He has a badly healed broken nose, one of his ears was cut off, his face was branded, etc.
I was thinking it would be neat for him to have advantage on Intimidation checks because he’s horrifying-looking and disadvantage on Charisma checks because of his looks - but I was wondering if that would be balanced, or if maybe he should have other disadvantages to even it out.
dnd-5e balance house-rules social-stats
edited yesterday
V2Blast
21.8k365139
asked yesterday
JonasJonas
461
New contributor
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m making a fighter who was tortured in the past. He has a badly healed broken nose, one of his ears was cut off, his face was branded, etc.
I was thinking it would be neat for him to have advantage on Intimidation checks because he’s horrifying-looking and disadvantage on Charisma checks because of his looks - but I was wondering if that would be balanced, or if maybe he should have other disadvantages to even it out.
dnd-5e balance house-rules social-stats
edited yesterday
V2Blast
21.8k365139
asked yesterday
JonasJonas
461
New contributor
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Have you discussed your idea with your GM? This will be a vital part of answering this question. Also, welcome to the site! Take our tour when you get the chance to learn about how things work here. Happy stacking!
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
When it comes to rules, it's important to be a bit pedantic -- to say exactly what you mean, because otherwise you're going to have people who don't get the intended sub-text. In this case, Intimidation checks are also typically Charisma checks, so you would roll intimidation at normal, and other Charisma checks at disadvantage. You probably don't want that outcome, and should word your ability as 'disadvantage on non-intimidation Charisma checks' -- or, better yet, define a specific skill(s) such as 'disadvantage on persuasion [and performance] checks.'
$endgroup$
– RonLugge
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m making a fighter who was tortured in the past. He has a badly healed broken nose, one of his ears was cut off, his face was branded, etc.
I was thinking it would be neat for him to have advantage on Intimidation checks because he’s horrifying-looking and disadvantage on Charisma checks because of his looks - but I was wondering if that would be balanced, or if maybe he should have other disadvantages to even it out.
dnd-5e balance house-rules social-stats
edited yesterday
V2Blast
21.8k365139
asked yesterday
JonasJonas
461
New contributor
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I’m making a fighter who was tortured in the past. He has a badly healed broken nose, one of his ears was cut off, his face was branded, etc.
I was thinking it would be neat for him to have advantage on Intimidation checks because he’s horrifying-looking and disadvantage on Charisma checks because of his looks - but I was wondering if that would be balanced, or if maybe he should have other disadvantages to even it out.
dnd-5e balance house-rules social-stats
dnd-5e balance house-rules social-stats
edited yesterday
V2Blast
21.8k365139
asked yesterday
JonasJonas
461
New contributor
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
V2Blast
21.8k365139
asked yesterday
JonasJonas
461
New contributor
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
V2Blast
21.8k365139
edited yesterday
V2Blast
21.8k365139
edited yesterday
V2Blast
21.8k365139
21.8k365139
asked yesterday
JonasJonas
461
New contributor
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
JonasJonas
461
asked yesterday
JonasJonas
461
461
New contributor
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jonas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
$begingroup$
Have you discussed your idea with your GM? This will be a vital part of answering this question. Also, welcome to the site! Take our tour when you get the chance to learn about how things work here. Happy stacking!
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
When it comes to rules, it's important to be a bit pedantic -- to say exactly what you mean, because otherwise you're going to have people who don't get the intended sub-text. In this case, Intimidation checks are also typically Charisma checks, so you would roll intimidation at normal, and other Charisma checks at disadvantage. You probably don't want that outcome, and should word your ability as 'disadvantage on non-intimidation Charisma checks' -- or, better yet, define a specific skill(s) such as 'disadvantage on persuasion [and performance] checks.'
$endgroup$
– RonLugge
yesterday
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Have you discussed your idea with your GM? This will be a vital part of answering this question. Also, welcome to the site! Take our tour when you get the chance to learn about how things work here. Happy stacking!
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
When it comes to rules, it's important to be a bit pedantic -- to say exactly what you mean, because otherwise you're going to have people who don't get the intended sub-text. In this case, Intimidation checks are also typically Charisma checks, so you would roll intimidation at normal, and other Charisma checks at disadvantage. You probably don't want that outcome, and should word your ability as 'disadvantage on non-intimidation Charisma checks' -- or, better yet, define a specific skill(s) such as 'disadvantage on persuasion [and performance] checks.'
$endgroup$
– RonLugge
yesterday
3
3
$begingroup$
Have you discussed your idea with your GM? This will be a vital part of answering this question. Also, welcome to the site! Take our tour when you get the chance to learn about how things work here. Happy stacking!
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
yesterday
$begingroup$
Have you discussed your idea with your GM? This will be a vital part of answering this question. Also, welcome to the site! Take our tour when you get the chance to learn about how things work here. Happy stacking!
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
When it comes to rules, it's important to be a bit pedantic -- to say exactly what you mean, because otherwise you're going to have people who don't get the intended sub-text. In this case, Intimidation checks are also typically Charisma checks, so you would roll intimidation at normal, and other Charisma checks at disadvantage. You probably don't want that outcome, and should word your ability as 'disadvantage on non-intimidation Charisma checks' -- or, better yet, define a specific skill(s) such as 'disadvantage on persuasion [and performance] checks.'
$endgroup$
– RonLugge
yesterday
$begingroup$
When it comes to rules, it's important to be a bit pedantic -- to say exactly what you mean, because otherwise you're going to have people who don't get the intended sub-text. In this case, Intimidation checks are also typically Charisma checks, so you would roll intimidation at normal, and other Charisma checks at disadvantage. You probably don't want that outcome, and should word your ability as 'disadvantage on non-intimidation Charisma checks' -- or, better yet, define a specific skill(s) such as 'disadvantage on persuasion [and performance] checks.'
$endgroup$
– RonLugge
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is probably balanced
There is actually precedence for this in the variant rule for Lingering Injuries on page 272 in the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Horrible Scar. You are disfigured to the extent that the wound can’t be easily concealed. You have disadvantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks and advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks. Magical healing of 6th level or higher, such as heal and regenerate, removes the scar.
These injuries are intended to provide either a neutral or detrimental effect, so the game designers, at least, see it at as balanced.
In my experience, ability checks that involve Intimidation are prompted by the GM much less frequently than other Charisma checks, but that will vary from table to table and from game to game. Overall, I don't see a balance issue with your proposition.
All that being said, it is ultimately up to your GM whether to allow it in the game, as there are no rules to cover starting with injuries in the rulebooks (and the Lingering Injuries rules are optional).
answered yesterday
David CoffronDavid Coffron
35.2k3122247
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
In my experience, players simply try to deceive or persuade more often than they try to intimidate. After all, intimidating someone marks you as somewhat hostile - persuading doesn't, and deceiving only if you fail.
$endgroup$
– PixelMaster
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
+1, as this answer incorporates rules in the DMG, as opposed to an opinion.
$endgroup$
– Justin
yesterday
$begingroup$
@PixelMaster That's assuming the PC is not inherently better at one than the other.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is generally to the character's advantage
The character is clearly better at intimidation than normal, but worse at other tasks requiring charisma. The weakness here is easily circumvented in usual circumstances by having a dedicated "party face" --- that is, another character who handles the more diplomatic tasks dedicated to charisma while the scary Fighter sits on the side. The weakness in other charisma tasks doesn't really kick in unless the character is forced to make charisma checks as a part of their adventuring, or if their player is eager to push their character towards more challenging rolls despite them being quite weak at them.
How big is the impact depends almost solely on the GM, though. Ability checks have few rules and their role varies a lot between tables: some GMs allow bypassing entire encounters with well-executed Persuasion, Deception or Intimidation checks, while in other tables all those checks will earn you is a cheaper night in a tavern or five gold off the price of a fancy broadsword. There's no single right answer here --- you will have to judge where your game lies on this spectrum yourself.
answered yesterday
kviirikviiri
35.4k8133201
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree; this is typical min/maxing aka specialization.
$endgroup$
– Matthieu M.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Jonas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140406%2fwould-a-pc-with-advantage-on-intimidation-and-disadvantage-on-charisma-checks-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is probably balanced
There is actually precedence for this in the variant rule for Lingering Injuries on page 272 in the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Horrible Scar. You are disfigured to the extent that the wound can’t be easily concealed. You have disadvantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks and advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks. Magical healing of 6th level or higher, such as heal and regenerate, removes the scar.
These injuries are intended to provide either a neutral or detrimental effect, so the game designers, at least, see it at as balanced.
In my experience, ability checks that involve Intimidation are prompted by the GM much less frequently than other Charisma checks, but that will vary from table to table and from game to game. Overall, I don't see a balance issue with your proposition.
All that being said, it is ultimately up to your GM whether to allow it in the game, as there are no rules to cover starting with injuries in the rulebooks (and the Lingering Injuries rules are optional).
answered yesterday
David CoffronDavid Coffron
35.2k3122247
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
In my experience, players simply try to deceive or persuade more often than they try to intimidate. After all, intimidating someone marks you as somewhat hostile - persuading doesn't, and deceiving only if you fail.
$endgroup$
– PixelMaster
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
+1, as this answer incorporates rules in the DMG, as opposed to an opinion.
$endgroup$
– Justin
yesterday
$begingroup$
@PixelMaster That's assuming the PC is not inherently better at one than the other.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is probably balanced
There is actually precedence for this in the variant rule for Lingering Injuries on page 272 in the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Horrible Scar. You are disfigured to the extent that the wound can’t be easily concealed. You have disadvantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks and advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks. Magical healing of 6th level or higher, such as heal and regenerate, removes the scar.
These injuries are intended to provide either a neutral or detrimental effect, so the game designers, at least, see it at as balanced.
In my experience, ability checks that involve Intimidation are prompted by the GM much less frequently than other Charisma checks, but that will vary from table to table and from game to game. Overall, I don't see a balance issue with your proposition.
All that being said, it is ultimately up to your GM whether to allow it in the game, as there are no rules to cover starting with injuries in the rulebooks (and the Lingering Injuries rules are optional).
answered yesterday
David CoffronDavid Coffron
35.2k3122247
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
In my experience, players simply try to deceive or persuade more often than they try to intimidate. After all, intimidating someone marks you as somewhat hostile - persuading doesn't, and deceiving only if you fail.
$endgroup$
– PixelMaster
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
+1, as this answer incorporates rules in the DMG, as opposed to an opinion.
$endgroup$
– Justin
yesterday
$begingroup$
@PixelMaster That's assuming the PC is not inherently better at one than the other.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is probably balanced
There is actually precedence for this in the variant rule for Lingering Injuries on page 272 in the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Horrible Scar. You are disfigured to the extent that the wound can’t be easily concealed. You have disadvantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks and advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks. Magical healing of 6th level or higher, such as heal and regenerate, removes the scar.
These injuries are intended to provide either a neutral or detrimental effect, so the game designers, at least, see it at as balanced.
In my experience, ability checks that involve Intimidation are prompted by the GM much less frequently than other Charisma checks, but that will vary from table to table and from game to game. Overall, I don't see a balance issue with your proposition.
All that being said, it is ultimately up to your GM whether to allow it in the game, as there are no rules to cover starting with injuries in the rulebooks (and the Lingering Injuries rules are optional).
answered yesterday
David CoffronDavid Coffron
35.2k3122247
$endgroup$
It is probably balanced
There is actually precedence for this in the variant rule for Lingering Injuries on page 272 in the Dungeon Master's Guide:
Horrible Scar. You are disfigured to the extent that the wound can’t be easily concealed. You have disadvantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks and advantage on Charisma (Intimidation) checks. Magical healing of 6th level or higher, such as heal and regenerate, removes the scar.
These injuries are intended to provide either a neutral or detrimental effect, so the game designers, at least, see it at as balanced.
In my experience, ability checks that involve Intimidation are prompted by the GM much less frequently than other Charisma checks, but that will vary from table to table and from game to game. Overall, I don't see a balance issue with your proposition.
All that being said, it is ultimately up to your GM whether to allow it in the game, as there are no rules to cover starting with injuries in the rulebooks (and the Lingering Injuries rules are optional).
answered yesterday
David CoffronDavid Coffron
35.2k3122247
answered yesterday
David CoffronDavid Coffron
35.2k3122247
answered yesterday
David CoffronDavid Coffron
35.2k3122247
answered yesterday
David CoffronDavid Coffron
35.2k3122247
35.2k3122247
2
$begingroup$
In my experience, players simply try to deceive or persuade more often than they try to intimidate. After all, intimidating someone marks you as somewhat hostile - persuading doesn't, and deceiving only if you fail.
$endgroup$
– PixelMaster
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
+1, as this answer incorporates rules in the DMG, as opposed to an opinion.
$endgroup$
– Justin
yesterday
$begingroup$
@PixelMaster That's assuming the PC is not inherently better at one than the other.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
yesterday
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
In my experience, players simply try to deceive or persuade more often than they try to intimidate. After all, intimidating someone marks you as somewhat hostile - persuading doesn't, and deceiving only if you fail.
$endgroup$
– PixelMaster
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
+1, as this answer incorporates rules in the DMG, as opposed to an opinion.
$endgroup$
– Justin
yesterday
$begingroup$
@PixelMaster That's assuming the PC is not inherently better at one than the other.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
In my experience, players simply try to deceive or persuade more often than they try to intimidate. After all, intimidating someone marks you as somewhat hostile - persuading doesn't, and deceiving only if you fail.
$endgroup$
– PixelMaster
yesterday
$begingroup$
In my experience, players simply try to deceive or persuade more often than they try to intimidate. After all, intimidating someone marks you as somewhat hostile - persuading doesn't, and deceiving only if you fail.
$endgroup$
– PixelMaster
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
+1, as this answer incorporates rules in the DMG, as opposed to an opinion.
$endgroup$
– Justin
yesterday
$begingroup$
+1, as this answer incorporates rules in the DMG, as opposed to an opinion.
$endgroup$
– Justin
yesterday
$begingroup$
@PixelMaster That's assuming the PC is not inherently better at one than the other.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
yesterday
$begingroup$
@PixelMaster That's assuming the PC is not inherently better at one than the other.
$endgroup$
– kviiri
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is generally to the character's advantage
The character is clearly better at intimidation than normal, but worse at other tasks requiring charisma. The weakness here is easily circumvented in usual circumstances by having a dedicated "party face" --- that is, another character who handles the more diplomatic tasks dedicated to charisma while the scary Fighter sits on the side. The weakness in other charisma tasks doesn't really kick in unless the character is forced to make charisma checks as a part of their adventuring, or if their player is eager to push their character towards more challenging rolls despite them being quite weak at them.
How big is the impact depends almost solely on the GM, though. Ability checks have few rules and their role varies a lot between tables: some GMs allow bypassing entire encounters with well-executed Persuasion, Deception or Intimidation checks, while in other tables all those checks will earn you is a cheaper night in a tavern or five gold off the price of a fancy broadsword. There's no single right answer here --- you will have to judge where your game lies on this spectrum yourself.
answered yesterday
kviirikviiri
35.4k8133201
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree; this is typical min/maxing aka specialization.
$endgroup$
– Matthieu M.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is generally to the character's advantage
The character is clearly better at intimidation than normal, but worse at other tasks requiring charisma. The weakness here is easily circumvented in usual circumstances by having a dedicated "party face" --- that is, another character who handles the more diplomatic tasks dedicated to charisma while the scary Fighter sits on the side. The weakness in other charisma tasks doesn't really kick in unless the character is forced to make charisma checks as a part of their adventuring, or if their player is eager to push their character towards more challenging rolls despite them being quite weak at them.
How big is the impact depends almost solely on the GM, though. Ability checks have few rules and their role varies a lot between tables: some GMs allow bypassing entire encounters with well-executed Persuasion, Deception or Intimidation checks, while in other tables all those checks will earn you is a cheaper night in a tavern or five gold off the price of a fancy broadsword. There's no single right answer here --- you will have to judge where your game lies on this spectrum yourself.
answered yesterday
kviirikviiri
35.4k8133201
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I agree; this is typical min/maxing aka specialization.
$endgroup$
– Matthieu M.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is generally to the character's advantage
The character is clearly better at intimidation than normal, but worse at other tasks requiring charisma. The weakness here is easily circumvented in usual circumstances by having a dedicated "party face" --- that is, another character who handles the more diplomatic tasks dedicated to charisma while the scary Fighter sits on the side. The weakness in other charisma tasks doesn't really kick in unless the character is forced to make charisma checks as a part of their adventuring, or if their player is eager to push their character towards more challenging rolls despite them being quite weak at them.
How big is the impact depends almost solely on the GM, though. Ability checks have few rules and their role varies a lot between tables: some GMs allow bypassing entire encounters with well-executed Persuasion, Deception or Intimidation checks, while in other tables all those checks will earn you is a cheaper night in a tavern or five gold off the price of a fancy broadsword. There's no single right answer here --- you will have to judge where your game lies on this spectrum yourself.
answered yesterday
kviirikviiri
35.4k8133201
$endgroup$
This is generally to the character's advantage
The character is clearly better at intimidation than normal, but worse at other tasks requiring charisma. The weakness here is easily circumvented in usual circumstances by having a dedicated "party face" --- that is, another character who handles the more diplomatic tasks dedicated to charisma while the scary Fighter sits on the side. The weakness in other charisma tasks doesn't really kick in unless the character is forced to make charisma checks as a part of their adventuring, or if their player is eager to push their character towards more challenging rolls despite them being quite weak at them.
How big is the impact depends almost solely on the GM, though. Ability checks have few rules and their role varies a lot between tables: some GMs allow bypassing entire encounters with well-executed Persuasion, Deception or Intimidation checks, while in other tables all those checks will earn you is a cheaper night in a tavern or five gold off the price of a fancy broadsword. There's no single right answer here --- you will have to judge where your game lies on this spectrum yourself.
answered yesterday
kviirikviiri
35.4k8133201
answered yesterday
kviirikviiri
35.4k8133201
answered yesterday
kviirikviiri
35.4k8133201
answered yesterday
kviirikviiri
35.4k8133201
35.4k8133201
$begingroup$
I agree; this is typical min/maxing aka specialization.
$endgroup$
– Matthieu M.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree; this is typical min/maxing aka specialization.
$endgroup$
– Matthieu M.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree; this is typical min/maxing aka specialization.
$endgroup$
– Matthieu M.
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree; this is typical min/maxing aka specialization.
$endgroup$
– Matthieu M.
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Jonas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jonas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jonas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jonas is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f140406%2fwould-a-pc-with-advantage-on-intimidation-and-disadvantage-on-charisma-checks-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
$begingroup$
Have you discussed your idea with your GM? This will be a vital part of answering this question. Also, welcome to the site! Take our tour when you get the chance to learn about how things work here. Happy stacking!
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
When it comes to rules, it's important to be a bit pedantic -- to say exactly what you mean, because otherwise you're going to have people who don't get the intended sub-text. In this case, Intimidation checks are also typically Charisma checks, so you would roll intimidation at normal, and other Charisma checks at disadvantage. You probably don't want that outcome, and should word your ability as 'disadvantage on non-intimidation Charisma checks' -- or, better yet, define a specific skill(s) such as 'disadvantage on persuasion [and performance] checks.'
$endgroup$
– RonLugge
yesterday