Masters of the Wild bloopers

[JacktheRabbit]

This arguement about strength for intimidation instead of charisma leaves a couple important points out.

1. Sure Mike Tyson could SCARE the hell out of you and youll run away or maybe hand him whatever you are holding.

On the other hand I doubt Mike Tyson is going to intimidate you into revealing revealing everything you know and then further intimidate you into not lying about it.

Look at it this way.

Who would you be more intimidated by if he approached and confronted you?

Mike Tyson?

or

Hannibal Lector?

I know which one I would rather not meet and it has nothing to do with size and strength.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Can you base that on the descriptions on the abilities as described in the PH?

Basing how well you pick a lock on your CON would not be a simple matter of viewpoint.

Your ability to control other peoples actions is clearly defined as your charisma.

If you want to say that is how you view it, fine. But a little rational would be nice. If you just play a hack and slash, it might even make sense. Enquiring minds....

Sure the stat things are based upon should be the stat that gives you a natural advantage at that skill, the thing that would make you better at the skill even without ranks. And for that just being big and strong does intimidate people. It's evident in thousands of minor interactions every day. When walking down a street who gets out of the way, invaribly it is the smaller person, not the charismatic person, who do people back down to in interactions where any hint of violence is involoved, the person with the most credible threat, barring any outside things like weapons str is the biggest determiner of who gives a credible threat. What chr could do is improve your bluff skill so you can provide a credible threat even if your natural appearance wouldn't normally give you that hence a synergy bonus from bluff should work.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Look at it this way.

Who would you be more intimidated by if he approached and confronted you?

Mike Tyson?

or

Hannibal Lector?

I know which one I would rather not meet and it has nothing to do with size and strength.

And it has nothing to do with chr either. It has to do with the fact that one will kill you and eat you one wont. Mike Tyson provides a credible non-lethal threat based upon size, str, and past actions, Hanibal provides a credible lethal threat purely due to past actions, credible lethal threats will almost always trump credible non-lethal threats.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Sure the stat things are based upon should be the stat that gives you a natural advantage at that skill, the thing that would make you better at the skill even without ranks. And for that just being big and strong does intimidate people. It's evident in thousands of minor interactions every day. When walking down a street who gets out of the way, invaribly it is the smaller person, not the charismatic person, who do people back down to in interactions where any hint of violence is involoved, the person with the most credible threat, barring any outside things like weapons str is the biggest determiner of who gives a credible threat. What chr could do is improve your bluff skill so you can provide a credible threat even if your natural appearance wouldn't normally give you that hence a synergy bonus from bluff should work.

Then you are simply using intimidate in the wrong cases.
It is not about getting people to move out of the way on the street.

Your examples do nothing more than establish the acknowledged point that strength MAY provide a circumstance bonus. You have done nothing to show that people would do anything significant to aid the party just because they are afraid of the big guy.

As a matter of fact, you example describes common people backing down, while the intimidate skill specifically mentions getting "a bully to back down". So clearly the intent of the skill is that it can be used to influence someone bigger than you (thus the bully example). Exactly the opposite of your position that it is simpyl a means of being a bully.

Again, why would a known wizard be less intimidating by your definition? Still no answer?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

And it has nothing to do with chr either. It has to do with the fact that one will kill you and eat you one wont. Mike Tyson provides a credible non-lethal threat based upon size, str, and past actions, Hanibal provides a credible lethal threat purely due to past actions, credible lethal threats will almost always trump credible non-lethal threats.

Wait a minute. You have been arguing that STR is the defining issue for Intimidate. Now you are saying that other factors are more important. Which is it?

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Wait a minute. You have been arguing that STR is the defining issue for Intimidate. Now you are saying that other factors are more important. Which is it?

I never said str was the only factor in intimidating people. Being a known murdering/cannibal would provide one heck of a circumstance bomus for intimidate checks.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Then you are simply using intimidate in the wrong cases.
It is not about getting people to move out of the way on the street.

Your examples do nothing more than establish the acknowledged point that strength MAY provide a circumstance bonus. You have done nothing to show that people would do anything significant to aid the party just because they are afraid of the big guy.

As a matter of fact, you example describes common people backing down, while the intimidate skill specifically mentions getting "a bully to back down". So clearly the intent of the skill is that it can be used to influence someone bigger than you (thus the bully example). Exactly the opposite of your position that it is simpyl a means of being a bully.

Again, why would a known wizard be less intimidating by your definition? Still no answer?

I provided the exact same thing for str and more than anyone here has done for chr, a description and reason why the stat makes it easier at the basic level to intimidate people. Without outside factors (circumstance bonuses for things like reputation, display of powerful magic etc) the thing that gives you a bonus in intimidation is str. You have done nothing more than provide areas where chr, and other things may provide a circumstance bonus. The stat that should give the bonus is the one that wihtout outside factors, without large numbers of ranks in the skill gives you a bonus or penalty at the skill. And for that str is the stat for the job.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

That is right.

Having your target think you are capable of seriously hurting them provides a good circumstance bonus. Being much stronger than them or being a know murderer would both produce this effect.

But being able to produce this fear still has not been estbalished as a means of actually controlling the target in any meaningful way. (i.e., getting out of your way on the street is not "meaningful")

But do you claim that all known murderers are as scary as Lector? I don't.

Though, in fairness, while I think Lector has a high Charisma, I also think he has lots of ranks in both Bluff and Intimidate, so his base ability is less important, making him a less meaningful example.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I provided the exact same thing for str and more than anyone here has done for chr, a description and reason why the stat makes it easier at the basic level to intimidate people. Without outside factors (circumstance bonuses for things like reputation, display of powerful magic etc) the thing that gives you a bonus in intimidation is str. You have done nothing more than provide areas where chr, and other things may provide a circumstance bonus. The stat that should give the bonus is the one that wihtout outside factors, without large numbers of ranks in the skill gives you a bonus or penalty at the skill. And for that str is the stat for the job.

????

O.K. That is just silly. You have not even come close. Denial of reality does not establish a point.


Seriously: If you think that making someone scared is all it takes to control their actions, you are missing out. And even then I do not see why having an 18 STR would provide a +4 bonus to intimidate an Ogre. If you are going to ignore more than half the points that myself and others have made and then try to claim that you have made points, when every comment you ahve made has been replied to, then a meaningful debate can not be had. I am just glad Monte, Jonathon and Skip understand roleplaying.

 

[CRGreathouse]

For those who think Intimidate checks should be based on Str, please respond to this post:

The example I always think of in this context is the scene in Star Wars (the original movie) where R2-D2 is whipping Chewbacca at 'chess'. His size, strength, and incomprehensible ranting inspires C-3PO to respond, "He made a fair move ..." etc. But after Han's quiet comment, and response to C-3P0's response ("Droids don't rip people's arms off when they lose ..."), C-3PO suggests "a new strategy ..."

Chewie has Strength. Han has Charisma, and a fair number of ranks in Intimidate. Chewie is providing the credible threat that makes it possible for Han's intimidation to work, of course, but it's Han's Charisma and people skills that finish it.