Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 1588683" data-attributes="member: 1190">:\ Very moving.  Your declaration and lack of explanation has made everything clear.How could I ever have been so closed minded as to have an opinion, argue it with examples, refute counter examples, and expect the same in return?For the record, my sig says it all, and I'm happy to never think twice about the way Shader or anyone else plays it in their game.  I assume when a person continues to post on a topic, that they desire dialogue on an issue.In continuation of said dialogue:On a metagame level, the only real reason for Strength-based Intimidate is to allow warrior types to use Charisma as a dump stat without sacrificing scare factor.  It reduces the value of Charisma as a stat and reduces the value of classes with Charisma-based skills and abilities by making their primary stat less valuable.On a more conceptual level, I believe that Intimidation is all about Charisma.  I feel that the definition of Charisma in the rules ("force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness" PH p9 emphasis mine) fits the idea of attempting to convince someone of your intent to harm them.I belive the definiton of Strength ("muscle and physical power" PH p8) has nothing to do with said activity.  I would argue that all a display of strength could do is make someone who is smart/wise enough to consider such things believe that you are ABLE to harm them.  The two are not the same things.More to the point in the rules, I would be more willing to accept Strength based intimitdate if someone could give me a visual for a strength based use of the Demoralize Opponent feature of the skill.I understand that with Charisma, a character could taunt, gesture, sneer, and otherwise use free actions attempt to make the opponent feel intimidated.  I do not understand what Strength based free action could be taken that allow you to make an opponent feel scared.  You cannot hit them, push them, pick up a rock and throw it at or toward them because these are all standard (or move + standard) actions and many provoke attacks of opporunity.  Flexing muscles is one possibility, but this is not something that can be done with armor on, nor is it easily done with one's guard up.  In addition, without an accompanying scowl or roar, flexing could appear to be nothing more than part of another action in combat.If such an action is not possible, then simply being strong would have to be the key but your opponent would not have much way of knowing how strong you are, barring your acting upon them in some way.The passage in Masters of the Wild that sanctions the Strength based Intimidate is on page 18. (emphasis mine)I argue three things about this passage:1) This passage refers only to barbarians, which indicates that it was an optional rule intended only for members of that class.  This literal interpretation is not my first instinct, but I'm indicating what rules lawyering could accompany it.2) This passaged does not refer to replacing the primary stat for Intimidate with Str.  It is a situational adjustment.3) This passage is from a pre-revision source and the specific example has not reappeared an any 3.5 book (to my knowledge) nor has it appeared in any errata or FAQ (again to my knowledge), which indicates that the PTB did not feel it was a relevant rule.These are my reasons for not permitting (except perhaps in exceptional and yet to be encountered situations) replacing Charisma with Strength for the Intimidate skill.  It is not a straw man and it is not that I'm a strength hater or barbarian hater.DC</blockquote>

Verification