Masters of the Wild bloopers

[nick]

I don't see how, for example, a crippled rogue threatening some nasty punishment would be more threatening than a raging barbarian threatening the same thing. I know this is an extreme example, but just using it to prove a point.
Also, in a medieval fantasy setting, wouldn't a physical threat be basically what the rogue would be threatening? I mean, torture, and killing the person's family, for example, would be credible threats, but if you see an extremely strong character in front of you, bending bars, or smashing into a stone wall, wouldn't that have more of an effect on you?
In previous editions, wasn't charisma basically a combination of the person's social graces and physical appearance?
Finally, why are people so reluctant to devise their own house rules? The guides are simply that, a suggested way of doing things. In some situations, a rule may simply not make sense.
I am writing this at 6am, so am hoping that everything sounds logical with not too many mistakes.

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't see how, for example, a crippled rogue threatening some nasty punishment would be more threatening than a raging barbarian threatening the same thing. I know this is an extreme example, but just using it to prove a point.
Also, in a medieval fantasy setting, wouldn't a physical threat be basically what the rogue would be threatening? I mean, torture, and killing the person's family, for example, would be credible threats, but if you see an extremely strong character in front of you, bending bars, or smashing into a stone wall, wouldn't that have more of an effect on you?

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, in the D&D universe, physical strength is just one way to focus personal power. In a world where individuals can cause balls of flame to appear by force of will, call down the wrath of the gods, strike precisely in your vital organs or otherwise use non-strength based ways of causing mayhem is the raging barbarian all that noteworthy of a threat?

Is that little halfling who is trying to coerce you into doing something a powerful Wizard? Can you tell just by looking at him? Since Wizards are not unheard of in the D&D reality, do threats made by someone claiming to be a Wizard scare you more or less than the raging barbarian? I'd think the guy who can alter reality with his magical powers would be more intimidating, but that may just be me.

Being big and strong in the D&D world is not all that impressive compared to the abilities wielded by other possible threats.

 

[Quaestor]

Disclaimer: I don't actually take this seriously, it's just the way I argue.

This has come up before, and to me, it seems a fairly simple issue.

These are two types of "intimidation" being discussed. One should not require a skill check, and the other should require a Charisma-based Intimidate check.

First, is the Half-Orc barbarian taking his greataxe and chopping a thick tree in half, and then pointing at you. To me, this is not an "Intimidate check" per se, but a simple demonstration. It, or other displays of physical strength, are simply examples meant to imply that "if I can cut the tree in half, I can sure do it to you." This is not a social interaction, but evidence being given to the opponent. The opponent then has the opportunity to use their reason to figure out if they have a chance against this beast strong enough to chop down a tree in one slice. If they don't, and they're smart or wise enough, they'll back down simply because they don't want to die. No check made, the DM just decides how the NPC in question react to the show of force.

Secondly is the scenario of a person exerting their force of personality over another, making them *feel* small and weak. Among most animals, the animal the steps down in a confrontation isn't necessarily the big one, but the socailly dominant one. This also applies in ways to the various demihuman races. This situation is the social one, the one requiring a Charisma-based skill check, the one for which the Intimidate check was clearly originally intended.

Quaestor the Wanderer

 

[Wolfen Priest]

All this talk about Mike Tyson having low charisma, high STR, etc. has got me thinking.

Mike Tyson probably has pretty high STR, yes. He would also qualify as a VERY high-level character (I'm tempted to say monk, but in a D&D world, he'd be a barbarian, I bet). So let's say he is a level 20 barbarian (I mean hey, he's probably one of the world's greatest ever).

Add to that the fact that his charisma is probably not necessarily THAT low. I would say maybe 10 or so. Then again, who knows?

But my main point is this: his alignment is probably chaotic evil. So you have a level 20 character who is chaotic evil threatening you... If I were the DM, intimidate wouldn't really be needed; if you don't do what he says, he'll kill you.

I think intimidate is used when you otherwise would not *necessarily* be able to kill the guy. Otherwise, like some others have said, why not just use INT for a wizard, etc etc.... I mean hey: why not just use level, since in D&D that is the key criteria for being able to beat up another guy?

 

[Mistwell]

WHY DID YOU PEOPLE HIJACK THIS THREAD?

THIS THREAD IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT INTIMIDATION CHECKS. IT IS ABOUT MASTERS OF THE WILD BLOOPERS.

THE COMMENT ABOUT INTIMIDATION CHECKS, WHILE MENTIONING MOTW, ALSO ADMITTED THAT IT WASN'T QUITE ON TOPIC, SINCE IT WASN'T A BLOOPER.

HOW ABOUT WE TRY A BIT MORE TO STAY ON TOPIC? MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD ABOUT INTIMIDATION SO YOU DON'T FALSELY LURE PEOPLE INTO A THREAD THEY THINK WILL BE ABOUT MASTERS OF THE WILD?

Rarely so frustrated at yammering goofballs on this board...

 

[Plane Sailing]

WHY DID YOU PEOPLE HIJACK THIS THREAD?

THIS THREAD IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT INTIMIDATION CHECKS. IT IS ABOUT MASTERS OF THE WILD BLOOPERS.

I was wondering whether I ought to bow to the inevitable and rename the title of the thread

Then I would probably get chastised for starting the thread with an "off topic" post! LOL!

 

[Crothian]

On topic then: What other bloopers are there in this book? I really hope Mistwell didn't get an anyerism there, that would be bad.

 

[Matthias]

I'm not sure whether this is a blooper per se (i.e., it's not a mechanical error).

Why is Rage a prerequisite for the Exotic Weapons Master prestige class? Other than (I fear) an excuse to stick it in the MOTW book as a p-class for barbarians when the feel of the class seems too generic.

How exactly does Raging and the Barbarian in general correspond to learning lots of exotic weapons?

Were it not for that one prereq, one could speculate that this would be a p-class for Rangers as well (who have their affinity for fighting with multiple weapons and ostensibly do a lot of exploring and visiting exotic lands and such).

 

[hong]

IMO, the deepwood sniper class could have done with a good dose of pep pills. As it is, it seems relatively underpowered (how often do you hear _that_ about a splatbook PrC?).

So far, I've bumped up the magic weapon ability at 2nd level to greater magic weapon, as a cleric of class level + 2; and changed the true strike ability to be usable 3 times/day, on all attacks in one round.

 

[the Jester]

A high strength might scare the heck out of someone.

A high charisma might let you scare someone into doing what you want.

There you go.