A Disconnect with CHR?

[kitcik]

I only half agree with that. Guess who put ranks in Intimidate:

Seriously though, there is something to the theory that if you have low Cha and no ranks, you will just look less intimidating in the same getup. I mean, you could get a situational bonus from ranks in du=isguise or something I suppose...

 

[Jackinthegreen]

You're saying the rules are 100% correct.

I'm saying that they don't model the Intimidate aspect of the game that well under certain circumstances.

You keep forgetting there is always suspension of disbelief when playing games. D&D is plain and simply not realistic. It is and always has been an abstraction.

What is your point with all this posting? I don't see one. If you don't like the rules, house rule it and be done. Quit trying to find something within the rules to support your position. The DMG plainly says to make your own rules as you see fit. The already published works won't be changing just because one person thought there was a disconnect in the rules about charisma or anything else.

 

[Water Bob]

What is your point with all this posting? I don't see one. If you don't like the rules, house rule it and be done. Quit trying to find something within the rules to support your position. The DMG plainly says to make your own rules as you see fit. The already published works won't be changing just because one person thought there was a disconnect in the rules about charisma or anything else.

This kind of idiotic post always cracks me up. "Hey! Why don't you take your discussion about the game somewhere where people want to discuss it!"

"Um, this is a forum about discussing all sorts of topics about the game."

"Well, I don't want it here. It's not the kind of discussion I like."

 

[Water Bob]

That's simply not how the game works. The rules are the rules, and if you can't imagine a situation within the rules, imagine harder.

This is a very interesting position. The rules are correct no matter what?

 

[Water Bob]

And, here's a tangental question: Does a character have to use the Intimidate skill to be intimidating?

The rules kinda lead you in the direction of saying "yes", but let's not forget something like a Spot check. We are constantly looking around, noticing things, and many GMs incorporate this into the game by thinking that characters are always Taking 10 on spot.

Is the guy in this picture Taking 10 on his Intimidate throw?

And, even if he is, is it right to say that this character must have a lot of ranks in Intimidate and/or a high CHR because he looks this way?

A character cannot look this way and have a low CHR with no ranks in Intiidate? That doesn't seem right, does it?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

This kind of idiotic post always cracks me up. "Hey! Why don't you take your discussion about the game somewhere where people want to discuss it!"

"Um, this is a forum about discussing all sorts of topics about the game."

"Well, I don't want it here. It's not the kind of discussion I like."

I don't mind the discussion of rules really, but there are times when I just don't see why certain aspects of the game must be analyzed with a microscope when it's a simple fix that takes all of a few seconds to implement.

There's no need to insult my intelligence. I certainly didn't try to insult you, although I can see how you might interpret it otherwise. If that's the impression you got then I apologize.

As for the rules always being correct, they obviously aren't depending on one's interpretation. The fact remains, however, that deviating from them means you're putting a house rule in place. Is that a bad thing? Only if it detracts from the game. Every game uses a house rule, and in many ways the game only operates because of house rules.

Technically the guy can't be taking 10 on his Intimidate checks because Intimidate requires an action to perform unless otherwise noted. As the DM though, you could certainly rule that he has a frightful presence.

 

[Water Bob]

I don't mind the discussion of rules really, but there are times when I just don't see why certain aspects of the game must be analyzed with a microscope when it's a simple fix that takes all of a few seconds to implement.

But you now agree, then, that if one wanted to analyze the rules with a microscope, then this is a good place to do it?

There's no need to insult my intelligence. I certainly didn't try to insult you, although I can see how you might interpret it otherwise. If that's the impression you got then I apologize.

Accepted. No worries. Forgotten. Let's move on.

As for the rules always being correct, they obviously aren't depending on one's interpretation. The fact remains, however, that deviating from them means you're putting a house rule in place

What's happening here is that I'm exploring the issue. Maybe a house rule is not called for. Maybe there's a different take on the official rules that makes the situation I describe logical using the official mechanics--and someone lights the way for me.

We're just discussing this thing, here.

Technically the guy can't be taking 10 on his Intimidate checks because Intimidate requires an action to perform unless otherwise noted.

OK, how would you account for (within the rules) that guy in the pic just standing in front of you in the woods. You're alone. He's got his club raised. But, he's not doing anything but standing there.

Isn't there a silent form of intimidation going on there? A threat that says, "If you come any closer, I'm going to beat you with this club until you can't move any more."

So, if there is no Take 10, how do you implement that form of intimidation in the game?





EDIT:

I don't mind the discussion of rules really, but there are times when I just don't see why certain aspects of the game must be analyzed with a microscope when it's a simple fix that takes all of a few seconds to implement.

BTW, what is your simple fix?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

But you now agree, then, that if one wanted to analyze the rules with a microscope, then this is a good place to do it?

Yes, this is an excellent place to do it.

What's happening here is that I'm exploring the issue. Maybe a house rule is not called for. Maybe there's a different take on the official rules that makes the situation I describe logical using the official mechanics--and someone lights the way for me.

We're just discussing this thing, here.

Then it may be worthwhile to specify you're looking for official stances and rules to support your thought. It's not necessarily assumed after all.

OK, how would you account for (within the rules) that guy in the pic just standing in front of you in the woods. You're alone. He's got his club raised. But, he's not doing anything but standing there.

Isn't there a silent form of intimidation going on there? A threat that says, "If you come any closer, I'm going to beat you with this club until you can't move any more."

So, if there is no Take 10, how do you implement that form of intimidation in the game?

There are a number of possibilities.

People in D&D might be so used to seeing such characters that their mere presence isn't enough to roll the Intimidate check.

The action of getting into an intimidating stance might be precisely the standard action usually called for in game. It's very likely he doesn't always go around in the stance that says "I'm gonna kill you."

He my be using the Duel of Wills option Tome of Battle put forth. That version doesn't require an action but can still leave the opponent cowed.

His armor might be a masterwork tool to aid his Intimidate checks.

Now that I think on it, Intimidate in combat technically requires the character threatening his adversary with a weapon. That's why reach weapons are so highly sought for Intimidate specialists. Quite often DMs will ignore that though since it doesn't always make sense.

If I think of more I'll edit them into this post here.

BTW, what is your simple fix?

That depends entirely on whether one wants to house rule it or not. Saying he has a circumstance bonus is technically house ruling it, but the rules themselves encourage the house rule. Not so encouraged but equally possible is just saying "Screw the CHA roll, this mofo is intimidating" and not apply the CHA penalty. Certain traits can add to his Intimidate. The scar you mentioned is most definitely a trait.

What you'd do is possibly quite different than what I'd do, but were I DMing I'd make the change in a heartbeat. It makes sense, it adds some flair to the character, and I'll be honest in my like of breaking and remodeling rules when it's acceptable and/or sane to do so.

 

[Water Bob]

Then it may be worthwhile to specify you're looking for official stances and rules to support your thought. It's not necessarily assumed after all.

But, I'm not specifically looking for that. I'm just throwing it out there and looking at the different points of view.

That's kinda what you do on a forum like this, yes?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, Danny...I know what the rules say. And, when the rules don't match the thing they are trying to model, you have a disconnect. Thus, this thread to talk about it.

There is no problem with the rule. It's your grasping the game's level of abstraction.

You keep talking about a low Cha but intimidating character. Someone who is more of a follower and has low force of personality, but is nonetheless scary. RAW, the only way that happens is if he takes ranks in Intimidate. There simply isn't a low Cha & no-Ranks Intimidating person in the game because the rules are very clear about what "Intimidating" means => "reasonably assured of making a successful Intimidate roll for his level."

In D&D, your Cha score irreduceably combines a wide array of mixes of attractiveness and personality, and you can't simply pull out one element and go from there.

But, logic tells you that the Barbarians should have an intimidation factor that is exactly the same,

No, the clothes don't make the man. Nor does the class. The man is the sum of his parts.

Like I said before, you dress me up like that picture, and I guarantee you I would not be intimidating. Laughter would be more likely. My stick-figure buddy would also not be intimidating dressed in that fashion.

That has no bearing on whether or not either of us could kick someone's ass. We're simply not much to look at, in terms of fearsomeness.

To illustrate further: there was a heavy metal bar I used to go to regularly that had 2 bouncers. They dressed identically. One was 6'3", 330lbs and had a Mohawk, and a booming voice. Very intimidating. The other was 5'5" and about 145lbs. Not much to look at, fairly soft-spoken. In D&D terms, they had the same "class", and they wore the same clothing. They were not equally intimidating.

The big guy's visual impressiveness kept bad behavior to a minimum, but when things got tough, they got Mr. Lee. It was his job to clear the bar of idiots, which he did by kicking people in the head and letting the big guy drag them out...