Rules that never made sense to you?

[Kmart Kommando]

My stepdad earned his third brown belt, his black belt, and opened his karate studio all at the same time.

 

[Notmousse]

Schwarzenegger with a nail file is intimidating.

Ghandi with a bazooka is not.

Charismatic leaders do not lead by intimidation. They lead by charm (and truth be told intelligence).

Intimidation has virtually nothing to do with Charisma. It has to do with perceived power.

In fact, Intimidation should be easy to change with spells like Polymorph. The Gnome is not intimidating, but the Troll is. Hence, Strength (and even ugliness if that were an ability) should help with Intimidation. So should obvious wealth and power. Only two sets of individuals are intimidating: powerful people and crazy people. CE creatures should be more intimidating than LG ones, but LG ones should be better at Diplomacy.

Sure, there are a few very rare people who can intimidate with a soft voice or pleasant smile, but that is the minority.

I would like to state that Arnold must have a Cha of at *least* 15. Afterall he's governer of a capital D state with an R after his name.

 

[KarinsDad]

Or some lead by intimidation. Just walk into a large law firm one of these days. The senior partners are all about intimidation. And they are usually about as physically threatening as a pomeranian.

Yes. And they have a Charisma of -2 as well.

It is all about power and the perception of that power, not Charisma. Thanks for supporting my POV.

And Charisma is all about how well you communicate your power. You could be really powerful, but speak like Michael Jackson, and suddenly you are not going to convince people to do what you want. And begin to look silly every time you talk.

A first level Sorcerer can communicate all he wants, but a 12th level Barbarian should still be more intimidating, even if the Barbarian takes no ranks of Intimidate.

It's all about the perception of power.

High Charisma is not equal to High Power.

The super friendly, super communicative, and well liked Cheerleader is NOT intimidating.

I wonder just how much phsyical prowess would be perceived as "powerful" by those in a D&D world. That gnome, he could be a powerful wizard, able to blow you up with a gesture. Or a rogue able to slice you to ribbons in a heartbeat with a smile on his face. Sure, you don't know that by looking at him, but conveying that possibility is what the Intimidate skill is for.

Yup, they could. The point you are missing is that the Half Orc Barbarian gives the impression of Power automatically. The Gnome Sorcerer does not. Even if the Gnome Sorcerer is really powerful, just him saying that he is powerful should not be a convincing argument.

or, alternatively, you just haven't met many. I'd say they are all over the legal and business world.

All over?

Well then, again you illustrate my point.

The defense to Intimidate is 1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear. That means that the defense to it is automatically strong since it is basically a level modification. Hence, the game mechanics (even outside of using Charisma as an offensive modifier) do not accurately represent how real intimidation works. If as you say it occurs all over the real legal and business world, then the offense of it should be modified by level automatically, not the defense.

And so again, the game mechanics model is inaccurate.

For example, if you perform a violant action while Intimidating, it should give a bonus. There is no such language in the skill.

If my PC cuts off the head of an enemy with a single swing, NPCs should be peeing in their pants. But, the game mechanics do not handle this very important aspect.

Or as per your legal partners example, just walking into their office should be intimidating. Modifiers for that are not part of the skill in the game.


It is all about the perception of power. You could put the janitor in the proper clothes and sit hm behind the opulent desk and he could hardly open his mouth and people who did not know it was the janitor would still be heavily intimidated.

In the real world, physically large salesmen often purposely fake a trip or some other way of being clumsy, just so that they will not seem intimidating.


It is all about the perception of power and really has very little to do with Charisma, OR with ranks in a skill for that matter.

The high level Priest should automatically be intimidating, just because of his position in society and how he is dressed.

The Executioner? Automatically VERY intimidating and he does not even open his mouth.

The game skill mechanics do not model this accurately at all.


Ditto for Spot checks. The 20th level low Int Fighter who went adventuring for 10 years should automatically be better at Spot than the 1st level Rogue, precisely because he has been adventuring for 10 years.

This should be represented like BAB or Saving Throws (i.e. a constant, even if slow progression every level), not just a skill. Ditto for Listen and Sense Motive. Purposely taking a skill in these should increase the creature's odds of being good at them, but the game mechanics representation should not just be modeled on the skill and the skill alone.

There are a lot of "skills" in the game that poorly model what they attempt to model.

 

[nobodez]

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Intimidation is a skill. Spotting is a skill. These are not things that should automatically increase with level unless you particularly increase them by working on getting better.

I'm a 23 year old male, and I can spot things better than my 50 year old parents. Does that mean I'm automatically higher level than them? I don't think so, I've just worked hard at being good at spotting, too many years of playing "bug". Heck, just last night I spotted a Pfizer logo in an ad that was perhaps 10 pixels high, and out of focus, from ten feet away on a 19" diagonal SDTV. If that's not a good example of trained Spot, I don't know what is.

Oh, and cheerleaders, no matter how kind, can be very intimidating, at least compared to non-cheerleaders. Now, it might just be a bad choice of example, and since I myself can't come up with an example, I won't.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes. And they have a Charisma of -2 as well.

It is all about power and the perception of that power, not Charisma. Thanks for supporting my POV.

Nope. Most of them are very charismatic. That is why they are successful partners in law firms. You don't get to be a senior partner without being a rainmaker. You don't get to be a rainmaker unless you can skillfully acquire new clients on a regular basis. There is no doubt but that most of these individuals are highly charismatic. That's what got them their perceived power. And it is all about how they use that power, which is where their charisma comes into play.

A first level Sorcerer can communicate all he wants, but a 12th level Barbarian should still be more intimidating, even if the Barbarian takes no ranks of Intimidate.

Oh sure, the barbarian might be superficially scarier. But it isn't about scariness. It is about getting what you want. The barbarian probably doesn't have the personal skills to do that. Whereas the sorcerer might.

It's all about the perception of power.

High Charisma is not equal to High Power.

High charisma is about convincing others that they should do what you want them to do.

The super friendly, super communicative, and well liked Cheerleader is NOT intimidating.

Umm, no. You don't remember high school very well now, do you? You never had any friends who were girls trying to get on the cheerleading squad either.

Yup, they could. The point you are missing is that the Half Orc Barbarian gives the impression of Power automatically. The Gnome Sorcerer does not. Even if the Gnome Sorcerer is really powerful, just him saying that he is powerful should not be a convincing argument.

No he doesn't. Think of all the buffoonish big guys you've seen. Were they intimidating? In many cases, the answer is "no". The gnome sorcerer isn't "just telling you he's powerful" he is using his skilled powers of persuasion to convince you that he is. Something the buffoonish lummox of a half-orc may not be able to do. In The Godfather, who was more intimidating and able to get what he wanted out of people, Clemmenza, or Brasi? Here's a hint - it wasn't the big guy.

All over?

Well then, again you illustrate my point.

Or not. Since most of them are intimidating without being big scary half-orcs. They are skilled at Intimidate because they can use fear to get what they want. Sure, you have to display some sort of power to get people to fear you, but the skill comes in using that fear to get to the goal you want. Just scaring the pants off someone isn't the skill. Scaring the pants off someone and getting the result you want as a consequence is.

The defense to Intimidate is 1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear. That means that the defense to it is automatically strong since it is basically a level modification. Hence, the game mechanics (even outside of using Charisma as an offensive modifier) do not accurately represent how real intimidation works. If as you say it occurs all over the real legal and business world, then the offense of it should be modified by level automatically, not the defense.

Actually, it models it perfectly. Because the offense is modified by the skill. And the individuals in question are skilled at this sort of thing. They have, so to speak, invested their skill points in the area. Which makes them intimidating on offense. They don't get all they want, because their opposition is usually skilled at detecting such attempts and not falling prey to them - hence the defensive bonuses.

In other words, the skill, as written, works very well so long as you make the reasonable assumption that the individuals who go into law and business and succeed are the ones who invest heavily in social skills.

For example, if you perform a violant action while Intimidating, it should give a bonus. There is no such language in the skill.

If I were DMing, I'd say because it shouldn't. Violent actions may be scary, but they may very well backfire on you. They make you look silly. They may cause your target to stiffen their resolve to resist such a vile individual. And so on.

If my PC cuts off the head of an enemy with a single swing, NPCs should be peeing in their pants. But, the game mechanics do not handle this very important aspect.

They may be "peeing in their pants", but scaring them is only half the battle. Do you have the skills to close the deal? If not, they may not give you want you want, and react in an entirely different way from what you want.

Or as per your legal partners example, just walking into their office should be intimidating. Modifiers for that are not part of the skill in the game.

You mean like applying circumstance modifiers to skill checks? Hey look, that's already in the rules, under "Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions". Well, whaddya know. They thought of that already. I guess that pretty much makes the rest of your examples not really relevant, since they all consistute such modifiers applied at the DMs discretion.

 

[Nail]

So anyway: About that "easy" AC 56 for a 6th level PC......

 

[Infiniti2000]

When I think 'easy' I think that there must be several ways to go about getting. It should not require This Class from Splatbook A, plus alter self, plus a select handful of potions/wands, and no other way to get it. For instance, AC 20 is easy because there are many ways to obtain it. AC 56 requiring a specific "build" and no other option is not, in fact, easy.

 

[Nail]

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more, I2k.

It *might* be that a 6th level artificer, carefully constructed, could get a AC 56. That same artificer would *likely* be very poor at everything else. We've all seen the amazing builds that are one-trick ponies. The Comet-Thrower comes to mind, for example.

But can most 6th level PCs get to even AC 32 in most games "if they know what to do"? Not a chance.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's why I hate with a passion the concept of "builds". It's far from my style of play and I really dislike it.

 

[Nail]

They're discussing this on the General forum too.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=182628

I don't mind "builds" at all....so long as they fit into the campaign. As I don't use psionics, FR, or Eberron, uber-builds are more difficult to pull off IMC. I currently have a player who's planned his levels and feats and what-not thru level 10; his PC is an archer-type, so you can imagine the feats and classes requested....