Curse that charisma!
- Thread starter Myrddin ap Taliesen
- Start date
For the same reason Fortitude saves are not Strength dependant.Thanee said:Charisma is probably the most misunderstood stat in the whole game.
I still wonder, tho, why Will saves are not charisma-dependant.
Now, Initimidate is possibly the most misunderstood skill in the game. As argo was alluding to, it's not simply about scaring people - it's about scaring people in a way that will get them to perform some desired action. The dwarf is a scary fellow, but his lack of subtlety, articulation, guile, etc. hampers his ability to get some specific reaction when trying to intimidate. And it's not like he's bad at it - +7 is pretty decent - it's just that he's not as good as the sorcerer.
uzagi_akimbo
First Post
Ok, another 2 cents worth of ... advice.
Off the board - IMHO, anyone can threaten/intimidate in two ways - by demonstrating just how your head is going to be smashed into the brick wall, repeatedly (the brawny way ) or alternatively by insinuating just what horrors will befall you, your family, friends, associates etc. etc. etc. if you mess with the wrong guy (the suave, more brainy approach - aka, the 'family' way)), aka the character using the skill. You need a lot of persuasiveness and confidence for the second.
Personally I would allow supplementing CHA with STR for the purpose of 'demoralizing' an opponent only - with the premise that
a) the player in question tells/describes just which display of strength, force and brawny might he is going to display and
b) the opponent is susceptible to the threat of that display ( and say, does not have DR 15/silver // is ethereal etc. when facing a guy armed with a 'wood and teeth' baseball bat ), and not distracted.
Note - this use of the skill is aimed at a single target or a very small group of opponents. It also takes a standard action (PHB p.75). The character must be visible and immediately threatening (or incur a hefty penalty, if he wants to intimidate across a bridge etc.) If the player is willing to pass up a round of combat to "shake" his opponent for a single round (something that has just become even more difficult, given that now some feats like "blooded" and "fearless" from the FR-PG provide immunity to it ), he is welcome to it...
And speaking from a GM's perspective - it works the other way round, too.... now let's face that frost giant who has just ripped your trusty mount into pieces to demonstrate his strength.....
I would not allow a character to use STR-supplemented Initimidation to "change attitude" by threats - therefore force "cooperation" and a "friendly" attitude, though. That is overwhelmingly a matter of insinuating threats - and therefore falls under the aegis of CHA. It is also the more useful way of using the skill.
Last - one should never overlook the modifiers for relative size affecting the skill, nor the synergy bonuses to be reapt from having a good "bluff" skill (always a handy thing).
Off the board - IMHO, anyone can threaten/intimidate in two ways - by demonstrating just how your head is going to be smashed into the brick wall, repeatedly (the brawny way ) or alternatively by insinuating just what horrors will befall you, your family, friends, associates etc. etc. etc. if you mess with the wrong guy (the suave, more brainy approach - aka, the 'family' way)), aka the character using the skill. You need a lot of persuasiveness and confidence for the second.
Personally I would allow supplementing CHA with STR for the purpose of 'demoralizing' an opponent only - with the premise that
a) the player in question tells/describes just which display of strength, force and brawny might he is going to display and
b) the opponent is susceptible to the threat of that display ( and say, does not have DR 15/silver // is ethereal etc. when facing a guy armed with a 'wood and teeth' baseball bat ), and not distracted.
Note - this use of the skill is aimed at a single target or a very small group of opponents. It also takes a standard action (PHB p.75). The character must be visible and immediately threatening (or incur a hefty penalty, if he wants to intimidate across a bridge etc.) If the player is willing to pass up a round of combat to "shake" his opponent for a single round (something that has just become even more difficult, given that now some feats like "blooded" and "fearless" from the FR-PG provide immunity to it ), he is welcome to it...
And speaking from a GM's perspective - it works the other way round, too.... now let's face that frost giant who has just ripped your trusty mount into pieces to demonstrate his strength.....
I would not allow a character to use STR-supplemented Initimidation to "change attitude" by threats - therefore force "cooperation" and a "friendly" attitude, though. That is overwhelmingly a matter of insinuating threats - and therefore falls under the aegis of CHA. It is also the more useful way of using the skill.
Last - one should never overlook the modifiers for relative size affecting the skill, nor the synergy bonuses to be reapt from having a good "bluff" skill (always a handy thing).
The core problem with using Strength as a supplement for Charisma in Intimidate is that it presumes Str=big ugly brute with rippling muscles. In a fantasy world, this is far from the case. The halfling fighter who had a base strength of 14, increased it 5 times from level adjusts, slaps on a +6 Girdle and reads a +5 book has a Strength score of 30, competitive with giants...but he's patently not as physically imposing. At 3' tall, he's not even as physically imposing as an average 6' tall human with Strength 10.
I can just about see an argument for size having a bearing on Intimidate, but if you want Strength to do so, then your best bet is circumstance modifiers. If you can headbutt your way through a brick wall, the other guy might think you're powerful and crazy enough to do anything to him. A straight flat bonus is inappropriate.
The argument that the character concept is 'big, tough, scary, ugly guy' is a moot point. The mechanics represent the concept, not the concept giving bonuses to the mechanics. If I want to play a 'clever intellectual guy', I'd better put ranks in Knowledge- I don't expect free skill points or synergy bonuses. If I want to play a 'master fencer', I don't get Weapon Focus (Rapier) for free. If I want to play a mighty wizard, I don't expect getting 9th level spells from the start. If he really wanted that concept, he should not have dumped Charisma- it's like putting a 6 in Int and then whining that you get penalties to Knowledge despite wanted to play a great academic.
I can just about see an argument for size having a bearing on Intimidate, but if you want Strength to do so, then your best bet is circumstance modifiers. If you can headbutt your way through a brick wall, the other guy might think you're powerful and crazy enough to do anything to him. A straight flat bonus is inappropriate.
The argument that the character concept is 'big, tough, scary, ugly guy' is a moot point. The mechanics represent the concept, not the concept giving bonuses to the mechanics. If I want to play a 'clever intellectual guy', I'd better put ranks in Knowledge- I don't expect free skill points or synergy bonuses. If I want to play a 'master fencer', I don't get Weapon Focus (Rapier) for free. If I want to play a mighty wizard, I don't expect getting 9th level spells from the start. If he really wanted that concept, he should not have dumped Charisma- it's like putting a 6 in Int and then whining that you get penalties to Knowledge despite wanted to play a great academic.
Humanophile
First Post
Quick note: The halfling sorcerer is not more intimidating than you. He has that size penalty dragging him down.
Second, "in the moment" intimidate checks (such as ones to shake an enemy in combat) should be open to circumstance modifiers. Just being a Really Muscular Guy should only be reflected by SF: Intimidate or many ranks, but if someone ripped a tree out of the ground and said "now I break you!", I know I'd be out of there as fast as I could, with soiled undergarments. So if you want a rough house rule, performing a feat of strength could give a circumstance bonus equal to (Str check DC - 11), but what feats of strength are available should depend on the environment, and failure should carry penalties of its own.
Second, "in the moment" intimidate checks (such as ones to shake an enemy in combat) should be open to circumstance modifiers. Just being a Really Muscular Guy should only be reflected by SF: Intimidate or many ranks, but if someone ripped a tree out of the ground and said "now I break you!", I know I'd be out of there as fast as I could, with soiled undergarments. So if you want a rough house rule, performing a feat of strength could give a circumstance bonus equal to (Str check DC - 11), but what feats of strength are available should depend on the environment, and failure should carry penalties of its own.
Thanee
First Post
Well, everyone can be intimidating. Just pick up a sword, thrust it full length into the guy next to him, retrieve the bloody blade and point it on him, and he sure as hell will be intimidated.
The skill represents the fine art to achieve a similar result without such unnecessary acts of violence.
Bye
Thanee
The skill represents the fine art to achieve a similar result without such unnecessary acts of violence.
Bye
Thanee
