Anyone else think Skill Points are... wierd?

[Felnar]

if a rogue holds a knife to your throat, does he get a bonus on his intimidate check?

- Felnar

 

[DonTadow]

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.

I like strength for intimidate for another reason. Diplomacy, Bluff, and intimidate should have different ability scores because they all imply a different type of convincing.

 

[Ranger REG]

if a rogue holds a knife to your throat, does he get a bonus on his intimidate check?

Depends on what the rogue want from me. Should I break my oath and spill my secret to save my life, or should I not drop an explosive potion in my hand knowing I will die anyway?

 

[billd91]

I like strength for intimidate for another reason. Diplomacy, Bluff, and intimidate should have different ability scores because they all imply a different type of convincing.

May I point out that 3.5 already suggests making that an option depending on the circumstances. Check the sidebar on page 33 of the 3.5 DMG. It's titled "Variant: Skills with Different Abilities". I think, in general, Charisma is a fine default for those skills, but I'm willing to use different Stat mods depending on how the PC is using them.

But I think there's one additional thing missing. Half-orcs are supposed have a reputation for being nasty and barbarous. Yet, they don't have a race bonus on Intimidate checks. I make it a house rule to add that flavor.

 

[Henry]

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.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the people who SCARE me aren't the big bruisers; it's those small, wiry, dead-eyed mother who scare me, because you know what they bruiser's usually capable of; you DON'T know everything the other one can do to you. And somebody who has both muscle and creepy look on their side? Good Lord, get outta the way, I'm comin' through!

 

[Storm Raven]

But I think there's one additional thing missing. Half-orcs are supposed have a reputation for being nasty and barbarous. Yet, they don't have a race bonus on Intimidate checks.

That's because being "nasty and barbarous" and being "intimidating" are two entirely different animals.

 

[Storm Raven]

Another thing... anyone else think its a bit strange that the Intimidate skill is affected by only your charisma? For some reason I always imagined a big hulking snarling rude Half-Orc would be able to intimidate someone more than a charismatic halfling bard...

So, in a world where wizened old men can cause balls of fire to engulf their enemies, crafty bards can ensnare your mind and force you to kill your own friends, druids can transform themselves into dire bears, and priests can call down the wrath of God upon your head, the guy you are intimidated by is the dimwitted barbarian?

 

[Celebrim]

But I think there's one additional thing missing. Half-orcs are supposed have a reputation for being nasty and barbarous. Yet, they don't have a race bonus on Intimidate checks. I make it a house rule to add that flavor.

I think that would be appropriate and actually better model the reasonable expectation that things that are ugly, strong, and known for cruelty would have some advantage in intimidating people.

 

[Storm Raven]

I think that would be appropriate and actually better model the reasonable expectation that things that are ugly, strong, and known for cruelty would have some advantage in intimidating people.

An advantage in scaring people maybe. An advantage in intimidating them? Probably not.

Intimidating someone is convincing them to do what you want, by other than Diplomatic means. It requires that you be able to read and understand your mark. Scared people are unpredictable, and difficult to control. Someone who is good at intimidating others can ellicit the correct response from his mark - something that is much more than (and completely different from) scaring them.