Masters of the Wild bloopers

[BBQ Man]

positing a change

How about changing the check itself?

My players and I have been thinking on the intimidate issue for some time, and we think we have a possible answer, still subject to some working though.

Intimidate becomes an opposed roll check, the modifier is always the CHA bonus and skill modifier, then the person who is trying to intimidate the other may include the bonus from some other ability if they are basing the current use of the intimidate skill with that. The 'recipient' then can use their own skill modifier plus their CHA modifier, and then their bonus for whatever ability the intimidator used for their roll.

example:

Joe the Barb (11 CHA, 16 STR, intimidate 2) attempts to intimidate an ogre through a 'bending of bars' routine, he adds is CHA modifier and his STR modifier to his roll. Grum the Ogre (CHA 6 STR 20) makes an opposed check, adding his CHA bonus and his STR bonus to the roll (because joe tried intimidating through STR).


make sense?

It works for any skill that is being used of course, reflecting the difficulty that is inherent in trying to intimidate someone who may be better than you in a given area.


BBQ Man

 

[hong]

In game terms, as someone else pointed out Dwarves have a Cha penalty as well, but they are not portrayed as being wishy-washy types that suffer from a lack of confidence. They suffer a Cha penalty because they are not skilled at getting along with others. They tend to be surly and insular; in short unfriendly.

Actually, the reason why dwarves (and half-orcs) have a penalty to Cha is almost certainly because of legacy reasons. Cha was a rather ill-defined stat in 1E and 2E days (and still is, to some extent), but its most common interpretation was that it was a measure of attractiveness and likeability. So these races were penalised not just because they were unfriendly, but because they were ugly as well.

Note that in the old days, a low Cha didn't mean you had no personality; it meant you had an _abhorrent_ personality, and/or a hideous appearance. The 1E Deities and Demigods even had rules for negative Cha, which basically meant that people ran away screaming at the sight of you.

In 3E, however, not getting along with others is basically a personality trait that isn't reflected in your stats. A zombie has 1 Cha, and presumably has no problem getting along with anyone it hasn't been ordered to beat up. Conversely, a ghast has 16 Cha, and they're pretty surly creatures, last I checked.

And let's not forget the hill giants who have 17 Cha....

 

[BBQ Man]

Note that in the old days, a low Cha didn't mean you had no personality; it meant you had an _abhorrent_ personality, and/or a hideous appearance. The 1E Deities and Demigods even had rules for negative Cha, which basically meant that people ran away screaming at the sight of you.

in 1e they introduced 'Comeliness' which defined pure physical attractiveness(or lack thereof), negative numbers in that sure where ugly.


BBQ Man

 

[hong]

in 1e they introduced 'Comeliness' which defined pure physical attractiveness(or lack thereof), negative numbers in that sure where ugly.

... to be exact, in _Unearthed Arcana_ (aka the compleat munchkin's splatbook) they introduced Comeliness. And promptly removed it again in 2E.

 

[Killer Shrike]

Actually, the reason why dwarves (and half-orcs) have a penalty to Cha is almost certainly because of legacy reasons. Cha was a rather ill-defined stat in 1E and 2E days (and still is, to some extent), but its most common interpretation was that it was a measure of attractiveness and likeability. So these races were penalised not just because they were unfriendly, but because they were ugly as well.

Note that in the old days, a low Cha didn't mean you had no personality; it meant you had an _abhorrent_ personality, and/or a hideous appearance. The 1E Deities and Demigods even had rules for negative Cha, which basically meant that people ran away screaming at the sight of you.

Yes yes, all granted. However, in 3e terms, a Dwarf is less Intimidating than an elf, which is just back-asswards IMO. Sacred cow, 'artifact of legacy system', or intentional Dwarves are given a penalty to Cha instead of, say, Dex. Based on this, I merely raised the point to foil the running "Charisma=Self Confidence" fallacy.

In 3E, however, not getting along with others is basically a personality trait that isn't reflected in your stats. A zombie has 1 Cha, and presumably has no problem getting along with anyone it hasn't been ordered to beat up. Conversely, a ghast has 16 Cha, and they're pretty surly creatures, last I checked.

And let's not forget the hill giants who have 17 Cha....

Charisma is certainly the least well defined ability. Also, it is often unclear what the rhyme or reason is to many creatures stat allocations in the various monster tomes (and not just Cha).

All that aside, I dont buy into the "Half-Orcs are half breeds, therefore they are innately less self-confident and suffer a Cha penalty, which has the side effect of making them less Intimidating than an Elf on average just because Intimidate is assigned to Cha" concept.

All that aside again, this is all immaterial to the question at hand, which is 'Does the variant Str based Intimidate give Barbarians an unfair or unbalancing ability". I dont think that it does. Its certainly not the most graceful way of handling the (real or perceived) rules disconnect, but it is possibly the easiest solution and simplicity is often its own virtue.

 

[hong]

Yes yes, all granted. However, in 3e terms, a Dwarf is less Intimidating than an elf, which is just back-asswards IMO. Sacred cow, 'artifact of legacy system', or intentional Dwarves are given a penalty to Cha instead of, say, Dex. Based on this, I merely raised the point to foil the running "Charisma=Self Confidence" fallacy.

Fair enough. Although a bug in the current setup doesn't really prove a point one way or the other, I would think. Now if you'd used the example of fire giants (Cha 11) who are no more intimidating than the average gnome or halfling, that might be interesting.

All that aside, I dont buy into the "Half-Orcs are half breeds, therefore they are innately less self-confident and suffer a Cha penalty, which has the side effect of making them less Intimidating than an Elf on average just because Intimidate is assigned to Cha" concept.

In that case, perhaps you could say that half-orcs are half orc and half human, and since regular orcs have Cha 8 and regular humans have Cha 10, taking the average gives Cha 9.

All that aside again, this is all immaterial to the question at hand, which is 'Does the variant Str based Intimidate give Barbarians an unfair or unbalancing ability". I dont think that it does. Its certainly not the most graceful way of handling the (real or perceived) rules disconnect, but it is possibly the easiest solution and simplicity is often its own virtue.

Oh, I agree there are lots of reasonable ways to get around this glitch in the rules. Substituting Str for Cha is one of them. Another is assigning a circumstance bonus to the roll, based on how different races are perceived. Combine with a size-based bonus if necessary, like that used for grapple checks.

 

[blickish]

Re: Special Circumstance Bogus

"I twist the iron bar into a knot to indimidate the guy"

"I casually throw knowledge of quantum dymanics into the conversation to intimidate the guy"

"I juggle 3 keen vorpal daggers with one hand to intimidate the guy"

"I drain the goblet of poisoned wine and smack my lips to intimidate the guy"

"I point out the oh so obvious flaws in his Flawless Plan to intimidate the guy"

"I let the shoulder of my tunic slip down, exposing an inviting expanse of creamy smooth skin to intimidate the guy"

Earlier (above) I posted examples of how one character might attempt to Intimidate another using each of the six Ability Scores. Why not just make the relevant Ability check each time you are trying to Intimidate, depending upon your method of Intimidation, and then add or subtract the resultant Special Circumstance Bonus to your Intimidate check? Why? Because for one thing it is cumbersome. For another, it doesn't make sense.

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

[Plane Sailing]

Gosh, I think in 7 pages there is perhaps 2 or 3 on topic posts

maybe if I start a thread about "using Str vs Cha in initimidate" everyone would talk about "master of the Wild"

As an additional contribution to the general run of posts here, the clearest fictional example of intimidation which I can think of is in the Wheel of Time books, where the Aes Sedai and the Wise Ones are described intimidating people into what they want to do left right and centre. The Aes Sedai are backed by the knowledge that they can magically do horrible things to you, the Wise Ones are backed by tradition.

---

IMO one of the biggest problems with intimidation "by the book" is that it can't be used against the players (since they simply choose their attitude).

One of the biggest problems with Intimidation based upon Cha is that it becomes almost indistinguisable from Diplomacy apart from the flavour text... Both use a Cha based skill check to attempt to modify an NPCs reaction.

Cheers

 

[Vaxalon]

With regard to using Strength to intimidate, I can understand. You take an uncharismatic Mike Tyson, have him punch a hole in the wall (a display of strength) in front of you, and then tells you to kiss his booty with his rat squeaky voice, chances are you will obey.

No, I'd call security and/or the police.

Would I be afraid? Yes.

Would I obey? No.

Now if Jack Nicholson got in my face and told me that if I didn't do what he said, he'd sic his lawyer and a dozen private investigators on me, I'd say, "What can I do for you sir?"

 

[Henrix]

No, I'd call security and/or the police.

Would I be afraid? Yes.

Would I obey? No.

Now if Jack Nicholson got in my face and told me that if I didn't do what he said, he'd sic his lawyer and a dozen private investigators on me, I'd say, "What can I do for you sir?"

Excellent! *applauds Vaxalon*

The point with Intimidate, as a skill, is not just to scare the NPCs, but to get them to do what you want.


P.S. Why are we debating this now? The rules for using a skill a different ability has been around ever since the DMG, at least.
Now, MotW hasn't appeared around here yet, so I don't know what it says. But I cannot imagine that it says "Any player may substitute stregnth for charisma when making an intimidate check, regardless of what the DM feels about it."
So, nothing has really changed, right. Those who wanted to use strength could if they wanted to, even before MotW. And those of us who don't want to, don't have to.