Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 8528449" data-attributes="member: 90374">I dont get the dragonballz references, sorry. Why does intimidation rely on sight and language at all? I mean, for me I like to link it to charisma. You are intimidating not because of the things you say, the weapon you have, or abilities (all these can contribute) but because you know how to use your personality, your presence, to intimidate people. It's a natural result of your class abilities, or something you have invested in to make happen. For monsters, I like them having this ability too. (Tho, in PF2 they can cause they dont have to work like PCs anymore.) I like the 3E/PF1 philosophy (its far from perfect I know that) in that some classes have abilities that make them good at things, but all characters can invest in it. Intimidation is something I can see a barbarian being good at. Why? I dont know, a feral presence, a tap into their ferocity in rage, being misunderstood is all just thematic. For others, its not a class ability, then they can use skill/feat/item resources to accomplish it.   The PF2 philosophy seems to be a funnel of ability. You have some things that you can do at the most basic levels. Then, a handful of things that you are good at. During level up you have to continually invest in things just to keep up. Not only that, but doing these things is often pointless unless you are fully invested and statted. This also needs to be planned early, there is little you can do to change it via magic, magic items, ASI, etc.. The worst part of PF2 is they took the feat dynamic from 3E/PF1 and extended it to everything. You can try it without the feats, but good fin luck. In this, I agree with capp zapp on PF2, though, im trying to be more respectful.</blockquote>

Verification