Really?KarinsDad said:The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
You mean like spellcasting?
Really?KarinsDad said:The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
Infiniti2000 said:Why do you need to [find the link between dodging abilities?
<snip>
I think your whole point in this exercise is that parts of the system are too complicated. But, I'm not sure.
Storm Raven said:Scarier, probably. But which one is more likely to get you to do what they want? I'm not putting my money on Greene or Nagurski.
Your problem is that you continue to confuse to colloquial small "i" intimidate with the 3e Intimidate skill. They are not the same. Conflating them leads you to the false conclusion that "strong, scary guys" should automatically be better at the Intimidate skill. Big and scary is not what it is about. Getting what you want out of someone is. That is why it is a Charisma based skill.
SlagMortar said: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?
Nail said:For example, I still use the tripping rules, even though they don't account for combat skill.
billd91 said:There very well may be from time to time. That's why I like the variant rule on p 33 of the DMG. Use the stat bonus that's closest to the actual application. Threaten physical violence? Use Strength for the intimidation stat. Going for a more subtle approach? Use Charisma.
lukelightning said:The balance skill. The only time I've ever seen "balancing" has been in the form of reflex saves vs. grease and other effects.
Storm Raven said:Scarier, probably. But which one is more likely to get you to do what they want? I'm not putting my money on Greene or Nagurski.