Worse Rules that game designers have made?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Although, if the opponent is also strong, I would let that affect their chance to be intimidated. I don't see the Str 20 dude using strength to intimidate the Str 30 dude.

That's why we have opposed skill checks!

After all, I'm sure that, like me, you know someone who refuses to be intimidated...

A buddy of mine once charged an entire football team to figure out which one of the dudes called him by a racial slur.

He was 5'6" 125lbs.

 

[FireLance]

Trying to intimidate the shy spirit? Str doesn't help. Trying to intimidate Joe commoner by threatening to beat him up? Then Str helps. In fact, I'd give the same modifier for an equivalent threatening act by an average Str PC like slashing his shirt with your rapier (or does this group feel that in that case BAB should be the main roll for Intimidate in that case?)

I think we should re-name Intimidate. Too many people think it means "scare someone" when it should actually be "make someone do what you want by playing on his fears". Any character can try to be scary. Coming up with the right kind of scary that worries a person so much that he's willing to do whatever you say is what separates an Intimidate check from an untrained Charisma check.

 

[Nyaricus]

Wow. Most (though not all) of the "worse rules" being mentioned here are the very rules that made me want to play D&D again, after completely discarding the system during the 2e years.

Wait till the honeymoon's over

 

[Nyaricus]

As for flying, I've been thinking of a house rule turning flying into 3 categories: good, average, poor.

To stay flying a poor flier must spend a standard action. For it, flying is just a way to get around.

An average flier must spend a move action to fly (moving a distance is part of this action), so it cannot make a full attack and fly.

A good flier spends a free action to fly.

Not a perfect system, but I think it's a start.

And what a start! Wow, gets me thinking about it all, in any case.

So, a poor flyer essentually would be using a full-round action, right? move action (to stay up) + move action (to actually move) is how it would go down. I'm not sure, balance-wise, which wording would be better and less subject to abuse. Likely, you'd have to call it a full=round action.

There could also be feats which improve your movement by one step (prereq of a dex score, or somesuch), and more to increase movement, etc.

That works though, it really does. Neat!

cheers,
--N

 

[Nyaricus]

I think we should re-name Intimidate. Too many people think it means "scare someone" when it should actually be "make someone do what you want by playing on his fears". Any character can try to be scary. Coming up with the right kind of scary that worries a person so much that he's willing to do whatever you say is what separates an Intimidate check from an untrained Charisma check.

I think Intimidate, Diplmacy and Bluff need to be rolled into one skill, really: Persuasion.

Bluff is being underhanded while trying to influence someone.

Diplomacy is trying to work with an individual to persuade them.

Intiimidate is being "overhanded" while trying to get someone to do what you want.

Really, they should all just be one skill. Pesuasion.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Two-handed weapons have to stack up against the two-weapon style. Unless you also eliminate the Strength bonus to damage for an off-hand weapon completely, two-weapon fighting will become the top damage-dealing fighting style for high-Strength characters. Not everyone will find that to be intuitive.

I think this would be true if the same feat investment was required to use 2H weapons, but it isn't. A style that requires feat investment (TWF) *should* let you do more damage!

If it was a real concern, then the simple solution would be to allow a TWF to decide how they wish to distribute their strength between their two weapons, so no matter what weapons someone is using (or how many), they only have a certain amount of strength damage they can personally apply - whether in one attack or distributed over several attacks.

Cheers

 

[BryonD]

While Intimidate makes sense as a Cha based skill, it is equally sensible for someone who is immensely strong but unassuming to be able to use his Str for that roll, perhaps by quietly bending an assailant's sword into a question mark.

See, I really disagree with this as a default. Using STR to create fear, is one thing, but to create compliance is completely different. That isn't to say I wouldn't allow a high STR char to receive circumstance bonuses under the right conditions.

Also, I'd happily allow a character to take a feat that traded STR for CHR here. A specific character that isn't notably charismatic but simply knows how to use his bulk to influence people is reasonable and is what feats are all about.

But just assuming that simply instilling fear or awe causes the subject to behave more favorably toward the character is flawed. IMO

 

[lukelightning]

I think Intimidate, Diplmacy and Bluff need to be rolled into one skill, really: Persuasion.

Or, as I call it, Dibluffmidate.

 

[FireLance]

I think this would be true if the same feat investment was required to use 2H weapons, but it isn't. A style that requires feat investment (TWF) *should* let you do more damage!

Two-weapon style does let you do more damage - not for abilities related to sheer force, like Strength and Power Attack, but for abilities related to skill and precision, like Weapon Specialization, sneak attack and favored enemy bonuses.

 

[lukelightning]

For those "intimidate with strength" folks, how, exactly, does strength help intimidate when it is not a terribly evident stat? Sure, a high strength human character may be buffer and larger than an average person, but what about magical strength enhancements? Does a girdle of giant strength give you ginormous muscles? Do you have to pick up large objects, rip phone books, and pose like a bodybuilder to intimidate? No more wearing bulky cloaks...you gotta strip down to show your muscles! Talk about comical!

What about a wraith? It has no strength score. So evidently incorporeal undead suck at intimidation.

How would you intimidate a blind person with strength? Pick 'em up? That's not intimidation, that's an attack. What about strong-but-harmless creatures? Is a draft horse more intimidating than a wolf? Is a sheep more intimidating than a cobra?