Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elf Witch" data-source="post: 6072186" data-attributes="member: 9037">Exactly intimidation is not about power it is about scaring the crap out of someone that you will use that power. It is an attitude that you are willing to hurt someone or at least let them think that. It is a force of personality which is why it should be open to all classes. It has more to do with your personality than what your PC does for a living. In one of my games the guy playing the necromancer scared the living daylights out of everyone he was creepy and talked and acted in a way that led you to believe he had no real love for the living and was more than willing to add you to his collection of undead playthings. Far more intimidating than the swashbuckling ladies man rogue.    I don't buy that all rogues have training on how to deliver threats. Here again we are making them a cookie cutter class some do but then any class can be trained to be someone who can deliver threats. I played a sorcerer who was just shy of being completely ruthless and evil. She cut off ears off all her foes alive or dead and wore them. She was known to lick their blood of her weapons and she was not afraid to use certain torture techniques learned since she was a child to make people talk. Yet under the RAW rules she would never be as good at intimidating prisoners as the rogue who was chaotic good or the fighter who only killed when necessary. It really should be a player choice not a choice decided by a game designer based on some weird type of balance. And again I ask why would a sorcerer be unable to study these thing as well they have more time on their hands because they don't have to learn complicated formula to cast magic. The fact that sorcerers get a few more weapons than wizards really means very little they still only have a d4 hit die and the same BAB I always thought they should have the same hit die as bards and if you are not going to give them that then at least give them a better selection of skill choices. Again the entire reason is one of made up balance. It is a gamest approach that I see as a flaw.  We have been doing the open skill list for a long time now under various DMs and players and have yet seen anything really broken about it.  Like I said what we have seen is a way to really be able to open up your character concept. I noticed that once we did it people were more likely to play core classes because it made them interesting again. After awhile it gets boring to play the class the same way over and over again with just a name change and maybe a different weapon or different spells. One of the reasons I still like 3E over older editions is that it opened up player choice far more than you had in older editions I just think they didn't go far enough with it.</blockquote>

Verification