Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Axiomatic Unicorn" data-source="post: 117380" data-attributes="member: 1974">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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;a bully to back down&quot;.&nbsp; So clearly the intent of the skill is that it can be used to influence someone bigger than you (thus the bully example).&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; Still no answer?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Axiomatic Unicorn, post: 117380, member: 1974"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification