[NABAIS] Commonly shared gripes about D&D

[Humanophile]

...Charisma is simply used in the context of what society portrays it as. A Half-orc with a low charisma would quite effectively Intimidate another of his breed, or any other race for that matter, and I don't think that being inharently less charismatic should affect this. Intimidation is, once again, not pursuasion. It is imposing one's will (as in Willpower-as in Wisdom) on another to get the desired response...

Actually, proper intimidation (that is, getting the intimidated character to do what you want) requires either a very real threat of very immediate physical harm, or else a talent for working on people to the extent that you know how to make them do what you want as opposed to doing something contrary like calling down the watch on your head, reinforcing their position so they can take you out when you do try carrying out that thread, or just up and ignoring you. And it's the first case that most people have a problem with. (Which I can partly agree with; "targets life directly threatened" should give a sizeable intimidation bonus, but should have bad repercussions later on.)

However, if you try a tactic a little more subtle than "Lead me to the treasure and I might not puncture your kidney", you have the risk that the target may very well lie to you, attempt a daring escape, or gear up for battle and come after you when he has the chance to. None of these are good results for the character, and that's why he has to be charasmatic enough to make sure he gets the right amount of scare across.

(And as an aside, this is why fighters and orcs should be better at intimidation than they are. Not because they're big, dumb, and ugly, but because fighters, at least the smart ones, should realize that intimidation can let them win a battle without having to risk injury or resource-use, and because orcs are surrounded by other big, dumb uglies who tend to only respond to intimidation, and having to do that regularly should be excellent training by the time the character is PC quality.)

 

[Weeble]

Actually, proper intimidation (that is, getting the intimidated character to do what you want) requires either a very real threat of very immediate physical harm, or else a talent for working on people to the extent that you know how to make them do what you want as opposed to doing something contrary like calling down the watch on your head, reinforcing their position so they can take you out when you do try carrying out that thread, or just up and ignoring you. And it's the first case that most people have a problem with. (Which I can partly agree with; "targets life directly threatened" should give a sizeable intimidation bonus, but should have bad repercussions later on.)

However, if you try a tactic a little more subtle than "Lead me to the treasure and I might not puncture your kidney", you have the risk that the target may very well lie to you, attempt a daring escape, or gear up for battle and come after you when he has the chance to. None of these are good results for the character, and that's why he has to be charasmatic enough to make sure he gets the right amount of scare across.

(And as an aside, this is why fighters and orcs should be better at intimidation than they are. Not because they're big, dumb, and ugly, but because fighters, at least the smart ones...

Exactly, the smart ones. One example of an ability that might be used IN STEAD OF the one in the rules.

 

[bardolph]

Harm

 

[bardolph]

Alignment

 

[LostSoul]

Re: Intimidation.

Why not rename the skill "Persuasion"? That would probably solve a lot of these issues.

 

[bardolph]

Spell Memorization

 

[bardolph]

Levels

 

[Humanophile]

Exactly, the smart ones. One example of an ability that might be used IN STEAD OF the one in the rules.

Moot point. Just because he's really smart won't make you afraid of him. Granted, if he has a giant deathbot he just built behind him, or you just realize that he's the man in charge of the vast evil conspiracy that's been dominating the campaign, you'll be more likely to quake in awe, but those are circumstance bonuses, much like displaying extraordinary strength or bringing a very real and lethal force to bear are. The big, dumb nebbish with a maching gun is almost definately scarier than the cool, composed, psychotic assasin who's unarmed, but if both are armed, nobody's going to assume that the assassin won't have the balls to pull the trigger.

And LostSoul, that might be a good idea, but knowing how PC's are, I'd assume that they wanted at least a little definition between diplomacy-style persuasion, and scaring someone 'till he messes himself. And if you wanted to pare it all the way down, there'd just be one "manipulation" skill, which is a little too broad to be realistic.

 

[Weeble]

The big, dumb nebbish with a maching gun is almost definately scarier than the cool, composed, psychotic assasin who's unarmed, but if both are armed, nobody's going to assume that the assassin won't have the balls to pull the trigger.

It sounds like you are contradicting yourself here. The cool, composed, psychotic assassin? That sounds rather more Charismatic than does the big, dumb nebbish, yet you say he would have less of a chance to Intimidate?

And LostSoul, that might be a good idea, but knowing how PC's are, I'd assume that they wanted at least a little definition between diplomacy-style persuasion, and scaring someone 'till he messes himself. And if you wanted to pare it all the way down, there'd just be one "manipulation" skill, which is a little too broad to be realistic.

I thought the Intimidation skill didn't involve just scaring, as an earlier poster claimed. No one said anything about paring anything down, just having the option to use a separate ability for a skill like Intimidation. So a Paladin has a statistically better chance to Intimidate than does the Half-orc Assassin? I'm thinking I can trust the Paladin's moral code here and not the Assassin's.

 

[bardolph]

"Game Balance"