Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Eberron
Proposal: Background Benefits
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kalidrev" data-source="post: 5130800" data-attributes="member: 84005"><p>KD,</p><p></p><p>Thank you for your completely rational and logical counter arguments. I appreciate that despite the history we've had, we can still hold a discussion without it spiraling into a flame war. Brownie points to you <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Your arguments are also valid and sound in my eyes, so you've won me over <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I had thought that the intimidate was a 1 per encounter (since it can't be used against the same enemies more than once), but I hadn't thought about using it against separate "pockets" of enemies, or even 1 on 1 multiple times over the encounter. Your reference to "Economy of actions" helped me to understand this better, and you're right, I can now see this being abused by a player with a DM who feels that he must run everything RAW (or has a judge who feels this way and overrules the DM).</p><p></p><p>In light of this, however, I do not think that the feat or the background are the problem (although they could be a significant contributor). I think the problem is the possible build abuse. For just the same reasons that we have not banned the frost cheese items/feats, I do not think we should necessarily ban this feat/background, but rather, we should look to reclarify the Intimidate rule. I, personally, think it should be a once-per-encounter ability, cause I honestly can't see someone failing an intimidate check against one group, and then intimidate another group in the same battle. If you meant to roar but mewed instead, then you should be stuck with those results. I also think that it should have a much smaller range than "enemy must be able to hear and see you" OR it should be given the same penalties to range that perception has (-1 per 10 feet/2 squares). </p><p></p><p>What do you think about that idea?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kalidrev, post: 5130800, member: 84005"] KD, Thank you for your completely rational and logical counter arguments. I appreciate that despite the history we've had, we can still hold a discussion without it spiraling into a flame war. Brownie points to you ;) Your arguments are also valid and sound in my eyes, so you've won me over :) I had thought that the intimidate was a 1 per encounter (since it can't be used against the same enemies more than once), but I hadn't thought about using it against separate "pockets" of enemies, or even 1 on 1 multiple times over the encounter. Your reference to "Economy of actions" helped me to understand this better, and you're right, I can now see this being abused by a player with a DM who feels that he must run everything RAW (or has a judge who feels this way and overrules the DM). In light of this, however, I do not think that the feat or the background are the problem (although they could be a significant contributor). I think the problem is the possible build abuse. For just the same reasons that we have not banned the frost cheese items/feats, I do not think we should necessarily ban this feat/background, but rather, we should look to reclarify the Intimidate rule. I, personally, think it should be a once-per-encounter ability, cause I honestly can't see someone failing an intimidate check against one group, and then intimidate another group in the same battle. If you meant to roar but mewed instead, then you should be stuck with those results. I also think that it should have a much smaller range than "enemy must be able to hear and see you" OR it should be given the same penalties to range that perception has (-1 per 10 feet/2 squares). What do you think about that idea? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Eberron
Proposal: Background Benefits
Top