Masters of the Wild bloopers

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Somebody earlier was making a differentiation between Intimidate and Scare. I would just like to point out that a targets save bonuses vs fear (if any) are added to the DC to Intimidate that person. This is a clear indication that Intimidation is based on frightening (syn. scaring) the opponent.

That was me. But I never said fear was not a part of it. I said fear was the tool. If you don't have the tool, your skill doesn't matter. All I was saying was that fear is only part of the job.

As to the rest of your comments, you have made a strong case for why it is correct to have Intimidate as a class skill for Barbarians, but does not do anything to convince me that strength itself is intimidating. If STR were the issue, fighters would be just as intimidating as barbarians. But you discussion is clearly focused on the justification for Barbarians and does not work for "civilized" fighters.

Everything you have said is allowed for by having Intimidate be a class skill. A Level 5 CHA 10 (or even 8) Barbarian can easily have 8 ranks in Intimidate and will probably be the most effective intimidator in the party. So your claims are already met by the existing system.

I did 5 years in the USMC, and I met plenty of people with the personalities and self-awareness of wooden posts and their sheer bloody mindedness and willingness to engage in sudden physical violence made them Intimidating.

I would include this as an example of having ranks in intimidate.
In the end, ranks are more important than which ability you use.

 

[blickish]

Re: Re: You've missed a key element of the definition

First, the PHB's description of Charisma doesn't fully jibe with how it's used in play. Even parts of the description conflict with one another. The dwarf gets a penalty to charisma because he's "gruff and reserved". So gruff and reserved people lack personal strength in all cases? Half orcs are "crude". Crude = lacking in personal strength in all cases? In FR, Air Genasi get a penalty because they are "arrogant". Since when are arrogant people automatically lacking in personal strength? Earth genasi get a penalty because they are "stubborn", Fire Genasi because they are "quick to anger" and water genasi because they are "emotionally distant". Tiefling lose charisma because they "tend to disturb people". Wood elves because they are less "intuitive". Deep gnomes have a - 4 because they are "retiring", Duergar a -4 because they are "guarded". Since when do these things automatically equate to a lack of "personal strength".

Gruff, arrogant, stubborn, emotionally distant, disturbing people are lacking in Strength of Character (and we're talking Heroic Fantasy here) to a certain degree, which is reflected by their Charisma penalty. A Character who is quick to anger will have a more difficult time of interacting with others than one who isn't.

Second, the oaf's intimation of violence is backed by a credible display of violence. I see it this way:

The Rogue with Charisma 18 and Strength 8 is cracking walnuts with the hilt of a dagger. He looks at you, gives a twisted sneer and mimes cracking a couple other nuts with his dagger hilt. For Intimidation purposes, his lack of credible physical power (STR 8) is balanced by his force of personality (CHA 18) and knowledge of how to use that sinister personality to best effect (Skill ranks).

The Barbarian with Charisma 8 and Strength 18 is cracking walnuts with his fingers. He looks at you, gives a twisted sneer and mimes cracking a couple of other nuts in his bare hands. For Intimidation purposes, his lack of presence (CHA 8) is balanced by his overabundance of credible physical power (STR 18) and knowledge of how to use that rippling physique to best effect (skill ranks).

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Charisma (and therefore Intimidate) is more than just how others perceive the character. The big oaf looks threatening, but until he actually uses his size to make his point, he's not Intimidating. It is not his size that is Intimidating, but his conviction to use it as a means to an end.

The Rogue (CHA 18) will successfully Intimidate someone. The Barbarian (CHA 8) will probably just look like a knucklehead frat boy threatening to beat up a freshman.

 

[Crothian]

Isn't this skill better role played then just rolling anyway?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Isn't this skill better role played then just rolling anyway?

Not always. I like to role-play more than roll-play, not doubt there.

But I don't think a shy person should be restricted from playing a slick talker any more than a small person should be restricted from playing Conan.

 

[Crothian]

You do need to take into account the personwho is doing the role playing. We are not all equal in role playing, no doubts. But for Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Intimidate I try to get player to Role play it out, rather then just rely on the die roll.

 

[Petrosian]

my opinion on the strength option for charisma...

they didn't fix anything, they just switched who gets screwed.

before the CHA18 Str8 gnome was more intimidating (in the hands of a lax GM) than a str18 cha8 half-orc.

Now the str18 cha8 half-orc is as intimidating as the str8 cha 18 human.

The current answer just choses which relevent stat to ignore completely.

What should have been done?

Option 1: The easy way was to put in print the concept of allowing circumstantial modifiers for "performance"... allowing a guy with an impressive violence effect to gain a +2 or +5 or what have you. This remains consistent with the rules and allows brute force boy to get a bonus from his strength (higher strength = more impressive display) or the dex guy throwing daggers just closer an closer and closer to get an edge for his. The gnome can still outdo the barbarian IF he does a good style for his intimidate.

Option 2: Add rules to cover complimentary bonuses. Allow a second stat to add a bonus as well (or half its bonus) if it is used in roleplaying out the skill use. Think of it as a roleplaying kind of synergy bonus. You might even categorize it as "if you have a +5 rank, you can get a +2 synergy bonus if the Gm agrees it was relevent." So an orc barbarian with an 18 strength only has a +4 but thats not outstanding enough, a 20 would be with its +5 to give him a +2 synergy to his intimidate.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Sure, and so do I. But I do not penalize them if they can not role play it well. Thus, the skill system to make the game fair to all players.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

????

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.

Being insulting and ignoring my points does not some how prove yours. The only people denying reality are those who fail to open their minds just a smidge and see how str could easily be seen as a way to naturally porivde a bonus hence just as adequate of a skill to base chr off of.

Really the chr side of the argument haven't provided any real proofs beyond those on the str side of the argument, anyone who steps back beyond there own prejudices on how intimidate should work will see that. About the only reason you can say the chr arguments shown here are better than the str arguments are because you agree with them so naturally see it that way.

So go ahead, call things silly just because you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore points.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

I have responded to every one of your points.

It is you who is trying to ignore points and falsely claim that your have been ignored when every one of them has been addressed.

If this tangent is the only way you can stay in the discussion, then you are not worth the time.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Re: Re: Re: You've missed a key element of the definition

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Charisma (and therefore Intimidate) is more than just how others perceive the character. The big oaf looks threatening, but until he actually uses his size to make his point, he's not Intimidating. It is not his size that is Intimidating, but his conviction to use it as a means to an end.

The Rogue (CHA 18) will successfully Intimidate someone. The Barbarian (CHA 8) will probably just look like a knucklehead frat boy threatening to beat up a freshman.

No, I understood your point. However, freshman do what "knucklehead frat boys" want precisely because they are afraid they will get beaten up by them.

D&D is a VERY abstracted system. Within the context of the rules there isn't really a difference between "coerce the commoner (freshman) with a blatant threat of force and coerce the commoner (freshman) with the intimation of a dire threat." In either case, the commoner is free to get the law to deal with the bully. In either case, if the Intimidation check is successful, he isn't likely to do so, as the threat weighs too heavily in his mind.

In D&D, the Barbarian and Rogue stand almost the opposite side of the spectrum from one another. The rogue works with Stealth, the Barbarian with Brute Force. But both have Intimidation. In fact they are the only classes with Intimidation as a class skill. It stands to reason, IMO, that the skill's effects should play to the strengths of both classes. Intimidation's skill description says you "use this skill to get a bully to back down or to make a prisoner give you the information you want. Intimidation includes verbal threats and body language." I see room for both superior physical force and superior force of personality within that description.

I don't view it as a weakening of the Rogue or a denigration of Charisma, I see it as boosting of the Barbarian and a way to give mechanics for characters inducing fear without having to give Barbarians an actual Fear effect.

I think I'll use this opportunity to bow out of the discussion. It's been fairly polite so far, but I think both sides have come to that fundamental impasse known as personal opinion.

Happy arguing