Anyone else think Skill Points are... wierd?

The Int stat is a combination of both the natural aptitude for learning and the personality type that is conducive for learning new things. The net effect is that some people learn more from the same set of experiences than others.

Some people avoid learning new things. It is a personal choice and personality issue. Mental horsepower usually has little to do with it. Many people are quite capable of repeating the same task over and over again, and never improve.

I would likewise argue tha all the abstract character stats measure personality type to some degree. Those with high Str tend to like exercising, etc.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'd like to say that "intimidate should be based on strength" is my pet hate.

Regardless of whether Ugh the mighty Half Orc barbarian or Sly the forked tongued Gnome bard threatens me in a dark alley, my options are fight, run, bluff or co-operate.

Given the choice, I'll run from Ugh and fight Sly. If the DM is calling for an intimidate check, we can assume that I've ruled out both running and fighting as options.

The question is whether I'll try and bluff, or if I'll co-operate. I know I can pull the wool over Ugh's eyes, but Sly has convinced me that not only will he see through my lies, he's the kind of person to think up all sorts of nasty punishments once he catches me lying to him.

Intimidation is an art, and it has nothing to do with physical strength. If strength is the test - for example, when two half-orc barbarians are head butting bricks to show who is boss - then make it a strength test, and ignore ranks in intimidation anyway.
 

amethal said:
I'd like to say that "intimidate should be based on strength" is my pet hate.

Regardless of whether Ugh the mighty Half Orc barbarian or Sly the forked tongued Gnome bard threatens me in a dark alley, my options are fight, run, bluff or co-operate.

Given the choice, I'll run from Ugh and fight Sly. If the DM is calling for an intimidate check, we can assume that I've ruled out both running and fighting as options.

The question is whether I'll try and bluff, or if I'll co-operate. I know I can pull the wool over Ugh's eyes, but Sly has convinced me that not only will he see through my lies, he's the kind of person to think up all sorts of nasty punishments once he catches me lying to him.

Intimidation is an art, and it has nothing to do with physical strength. If strength is the test - for example, when two half-orc barbarians are head butting bricks to show who is boss - then make it a strength test, and ignore ranks in intimidation anyway.

Some really convincing arguments from everyone so far! I must admit I'm starting to come around to understanding why int affects skills now.

In response to you above example however amethal, I'm not sure if in fact intimidate should be based on str, but at the same time, I am also not sure it should be based solely on cha. While I admit that in the example you gave above, knowing you COULD in fact bluff the big dumb barbarian could indeed reduce the percieved intimidation you felt from them, however, at the same time I can't really see a charismatic small and frail gnome being any more intimidating. In fact, for all we know the barbarian has in fact got a high wisdom and "pulling the wool over his eyes" as you say might in fact be harder than doing it to a high charisma but low wisdom bard. Intimidation I think should be based on not just strength of character and confidence (which are indeed charisma based things), but also the "appearance" of being able to follow through with threats, ie looking like they would be the one who would come out on top should a fight break out through your lack of co-operation. Surely a huge hulking half orc threatening to rip your arms off unless you give him all your gold is an intimidating thing.
 

Zadam said:
however, at the same time I can't really see a charismatic small and frail gnome being any more intimidating.

Really? A tiny, wizened creature, that looks at you with pure malevolence in its eyes, and says, "I believe you have ... a sister."

That's intimidating.
 

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Really? A tiny, wizened creature, that looks at you with pure malevolence in its eyes, and says, "I believe you have ... a sister."

That's intimidating.

True... But a bit ugly hulking Half Orc doing the same? Even more intimidating if you ask me...
 

Zadam said:
True... But a bit ugly hulking Half Orc doing the same? Even more intimidating if you ask me...

Nah - not if he doesn't have the same sparkle. I mean, who's more likely to get you to do something just by asking the right way?*

Don Corleone or Random Mafia Thug #6?

* - And that's really the point. Intimidate, in a "social" setting, isn't used for "Scare the crap out of your target." It's actually, "Scare your target just enough that he becomes pliable and will do what you ask him to without reducing him to tears."

If you just want to scare the crap out of someone, maybe the half-orc is better. If you want to do the second, then I'll pick the freaky gnome any day of the week.
 

Zadam said:
Surely a huge hulking half orc threatening to rip your arms off unless you give him all your gold is an intimidating thing.

I think that this is where all the confusion comes in. Yes, a huge hulking half-orc threatening to rip your arms off unless you give him all your gold is an intimidating thing, but Intimidation is not the art of making people afraid.

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

Intimidation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do even if they don't want to.

So, the huge hulking half-orc threatening to rip your arms off unless you give him all your gold might well inspire fear. But it won't necessarily inspire cooperation. The half-orc may well inspire fear, but people who are afraid often act irrationally - they become defiant, they become aggressive, they flee in terror, they become petrified with fear, the faint away, they begin screaming, and so forth. None of these things are necessarily what the half-orc intended for them to do, which is for them to hand over the money without any fuss.

Consider the situation. A nobleman is out for a night on the town. The half-orc shifts his axe and grunts in barely intelligible gutteral language, "Heel da govner, pony up ya jank irrre ill shift you limb from frame!" Does the nobleman:

a) Laugh disdainfully secure in his niave sense of superiority that such a ruffian would never dare harm one of such a high station?
b) Draw a rapier and say, "Begone villian!"?
c) Does the noble insult the half-orcs language, unaware of what the half-orc is trying to communicate, "Pardon me, but you will have to address me in the King's tongue. I have no idea what you are trying to say."?
d) Pee in his pants and collapse to the ground in a shrieking mass?
e) Turn and flee in cold terror?
f) Attempt to intimidate the half-orc in responce, "I am the Baronette de Arapatan, fool. If you harm even a hair on my body, you'll never sleep in peace again. My families diviners and necromancer's will hunt you down. They'll place such a large bounty on your head that every sorcerous assassin in five hundred miles will come looking for you. Why in the name of Hades do you think I'm walking around at night without a bodygaurd you imbecile? Because noone else in this city is stupid enough to pester me! Now move aside!!"?
g) Nervously give up the money while muttering, "Please don't hurt me."

It entirely depends on the half-orcs force of personality.

Consider A New Hope when R2D2 is playing chess. It's Han who says, "That's because droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookies have been known to do that." and successfully intimidates C3PO. It's not the fact that Chewy is belowing with rage. At most, all having a big hulking brute around does is give you a circumstance bonus on your intimidation checks - and in that case its looking mean and strong that is far more important than actually being mean and strong.
 


great answer to the question Celebrim (both answers actually). of course, there are threads upon threads upon threads on the Intimidate debate.

A quote from Farscape sums up what you said pretty well:

"Fear heralds the possibility of death; calm shepherds its certainty"

DC
 

Celebrim said:
... but Intimidation is not the art of making people afraid.

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

Intimidation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do even if they don't want to.

This is one of the best "answers" I have ever read on these forums and to such a prickly debate too. It is "the" answer to this debate in my opinion.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
 

Remove ads

Top