Rules that never made sense to you?

[Storm Raven]

This is a logical flaw. Because they are Charismatic, they are Intimidating.

These lawyers are rainmakers because they are charismatic, not because they are intimidating. If they get their position due to their charisma, it is a logical fallacy to assume that their charisma (which is a positive force that attracts clients) is used negatively to intimidate coworkers and others.

They are rainmakers because they are charismatic. Their ability to be intimidating is a side effect of this. It is the knowledge that allows them to leverage their power into intimidation. on the other hand, I have met powerful people who were not intimidating at all.

The Intimidate skill is about getting what you want. Not about power.

Power intimidates. Charisma does not equate to power. It can be used to acquire power, but it does not equate to it. That is the logical fallacy of the Intimidate skill as defined in the rules. According to the Intimidate rules, the effeminate Bard who takes no ranks in Intimidate is more intimidating than the massive Barbarian who takes no ranks in Intimidate, even though the Barbarian exudes power. That's backwards. And it is especially backwards for the Demoralize Opponent aspect of Intimidate.

The barbarian doesn't exude power. He exudes uncivilized hayseed hick. In My Cousin Vinnie (to use a humorous example) Joe Pesci is intimidating. The big guy at the bar who tries to stiff Marisa Tomei is not. Because he is a hayseed hick with limited brain power. fred Gwynne's character is intimidating. Bruce McGill's is not. One is a judge, the other, the sherrif. It is more than power.

Several members of the U.S. Supreme Court are not overly charismatic (e.g. Ginsburg), but they wield a huge amount of power and are intimidating to anyone who enters their court or even meets them in a social setting.

You know, I have met several members of the U.S. Supreme Court, and if there is anyone I would describe as the exact opposite of intimidating, it would be Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Scalia? Yes. O'Connor and Rehquist (when they were on the court), yes. Breyer or Souter? Not a chance.

In fact, you appear to be espousing that Power leads to Charisma and that definitely is not the case.

No. I am espousing that in places like law firms, charisma leads to power. because it makes you good at skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate.

 

[ivocaliban]

It's about using fear or potential fear as a persuasive tool. Fear itself is insufficient. Fear just triggers a fight or flight response. The Intimidate skill is all about making that response do something other than those things.

You win the rainmaker award, but my personal experience tells me the athletes on the field are at least as good at (big I) Intimidating as the cheerleaders. Regardless of their respective Charisma scores.

 

[frankthedm]

Hi!

Flamestrike represents the fury of your god, half of its damage comes directly from your divine sponsor. Still this is no aligned spell! Why not? Shouldn't it be aligned as your god is?

Kodam

It does not call out your diety specificly, more of wrath of the gods in general rather than your specific god. At 5th level the spell is fine, maybe 15d6 out of a 4th level spells a bit much, but the druid pushes the envelope in a lot of ways. I give the 4th level version a 12d6 cap. but the other half results directly from divine power and is therefore not subject to being reduced by resistance to fire-based attacks.

I think there should be move versions of the spell, with the energy dependant on diety. Notably a Lighning Strike. Maybe even an arcane 4th level mixed school Necromancy/Evocation Negative energy and fire spell [12d6 cap].

 

[KarinsDad]

You win the rainmaker award, but my personal experience is the athletes on the field are at least as good at (big I) Intimidating as the cheerleaders. Regardless of their respective Charisma scores.

And even moreso.

 

[Storm Raven]

You win the rainmaker award, but my personal experience tells me the athletes on the field are at least as good at (big I) Intimidating as the cheerleaders. Regardless of their respective Charisma scores.

Many of the memorable athletes out there are quite charismatic. That's why they are memorable. I used to work with some former Redskins. Some were personable, charismatic, and quite memorable. Others, not so much (Joe Jacoby, I'm looking at you).

 

[SlagMortar]

I understand your point. I'm not arguing that Charisma can't work. I am arguing that it doesn't cover all the bases.

I think this pretty well sums up the charisma debate. Since the thread is titled, "Rules that never made sense," is there another attribute that would make more sense?

 

[Infiniti2000]

It does not call out your diety ...

True, you need heroes feast for all your dieting needs.

 

[KarinsDad]

Many of the memorable athletes out there are quite charismatic. That's why they are memorable. I used to work with some former Redskins. Some were personable, charismatic, and quite memorable. Others, not so much (Joe Jacoby, I'm looking at you).

So, your point is that the memorable athletes are more intimidating than the non-memorable ones?

Joe Montana is more intimidating than Mean Joe Greene?

 

[Storm Raven]

So, your point is that the memorable athletes are more intimidating than the non-memorable ones?

Joe Montana is more intimidating than Mean Joe Greene?

Are you really arguing that Mean Joe Greene was not a memorable and charismatic personality?

 

[ivocaliban]

I think this pretty well sums up the charisma debate. Since the thread is titled, "Rules that never made sense," is there another attribute that would make more sense?

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a better ability. I simply don't feel that Intimidate aptly covers all aspects of intimidation.