Worse Rules that game designers have made?

That's intimidation by seeing what someone is capable of doing.

True, but it is a strength based action that is doing the intimidation.

But lets compare different skill/stat combos:

Climb: While it makes sense to have Str reflect certain aspects of climbing, others aspects are better reflected by Dexterity, or possibly by Con.

Disable Device: Intelligence makes sense for figuring out how to disable complex devices, but dexterity in manipulating the device's works is just as important. For some other devices, Str might be key in the sabotage.

Escape Artist: Here, dex makes sense as the main stat- but a Str based check makes sense for PCs capable of simply busting ropes or chains.

Forgery: Intelligence and Dexterity are arguably of equal importance- the former lets the forger analyze and design his forgery, the latter gets you the control neccessary to execute a flawless copy. Yet by rule, only Int matters.

Craft & Profession: Does it really make sense to base the former on Int and the latter on Wis? I can think of various crafts and professions that require other stats than those.

Survival: Wisdom is probably most key here, but there are a lot of things about the wilderness that are just as likely to be Int based, like knowing which mushrooms are poisonous and which aren't.

Perhaps the solution isn't a swapout. Perhaps its a question of choosing the stat that is most appropriate for the situation at hand.

IOW, a PC using the Disable Device skill might use his Int for one Device (say, a Rube Goldbergian puzzle), his Dex for another one (a lock of MW Dwarven manufacture), or his Str for yet another over the course of an adventure (breaking a part of a portcullis system).
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz said:
True, but it is a strength based action that is doing the intimidation.

Not necessarily. Are you talking to the person and telling him what your going to do him by using your strength or your influence?

To your list of skills, this is an age old argument and a lot of them can fit under multiple ability scores. It might have been a good idea to create Synergies based on ability scores but that would complicate things. You could give a flat bonus and call it an ability synergy.

For example, a 15 or higher Dex gives you a +2 bonus to Climb checks. I like how that works, but honestly I'd kill myself if it was in the game. Skills are complicated enough.

Adding another thing to the dumb rules list, not allowing Fighters Profession as a class skill.
 

Dannyalcatraz
True, but it is a strength based action that is doing the intimidation.


Not necessarily. Are you talking to the person and telling him what your going to do him by using your strength or your influence?

Well, in the case I was citing, the person and his buddies were asked to leave by the bouncer. They didn't.

The bouncer then picked one up over his head and threw him across the room at a wall. The others grabbed their buddy and left.

Believe me, it wasn't the talking that convinced them to leave.

In the latter case, the Asian bouncer had a rep, and all of the regulars in the place knew it. When Mr. Lee asked someone to leave, the regulars got out of the way like townies headed for cover in a Western flick when Black Bart calls out the Sheriff for a gunfight. If that message didn't sink in, the next message was likely to be a kick to the head.
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz said:
Well, in the case I was citing, the person and his buddies were asked to leave by the bouncer. They didn't.

The bouncer then picked one up over his head and threw him across the room at a wall. The others grabbed their buddy and left.

Believe me, it wasn't the talking that convinced them to leave.

In the latter case, the Asian bouncer had a rep, and all of the regulars in the place knew it. When Mr. Lee asked someone to leave, the regulars got out of the way like townies headed for cover in a Western flick when Black Bart calls out the Sheriff for a gunfight. If that message didn't sink in, the next message was likely to be a kick to the head.


Ahh, but wouldn't that be a level based Intimidation bonus? :)
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
Well, in the case I was citing, the person and his buddies were asked to leave by the bouncer. They didn't.

The bouncer then picked one up over his head and threw him across the room at a wall. The others grabbed their buddy and left.

Believe me, it wasn't the talking that convinced them to leave.
The person and his buddies were obviously PCs whose reactions are not determined by the effects of a Charisma-based skill check. If they were NPCs, I'm sure they would have put up a fight. :p
 

Ahh, but wouldn't that be a level based Intimidation bonus?

For Mr. Lee? Definitely in some sense.

Like I said, his was definitely more Cha-based. Despite being shorter than me by 7 inches, his demeanor clearly bespoke someone who was ready to remove the unruly, by any means neccessary. He didn't yell (well, not any more than he needed to be heard over a PA system blaring Pantera), but he also rarely repeated himself.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
3) Some skills should be dual stat dependent- IOW, a PC gets to use whichever of that skill's stats he has that is best for calculating rolls. 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.

Gah, no! The "use Str to intimidate" house rule is my #1 pet peeve. The example you cite here, and also the example of the bouncer who throws the guy against the wall, are perfect examples of circumstance bonuses at work.

Being a 'big strong guy' does not make you threatening by nature. And the 'big strong guys' who are very intimidating have either worked on a threatening manner (ranks in the skill), or also have high Charisma.

From a balance point of view also, it's a bad idea to move Intimidate from Charisma. Too many characters already dump that stat in favour of all others, and too many DMs casually allow them to get away with this (to the vast detriment of the Sorcerer, Bard and Paladin, who instead spend the points on Cha but then gain no benefit for leaving other attributes weak by comparison). The last thing we need is one of the few reasons for Fighters and Barbarians to not dump Charisma removed.
 

Speaking of Charisma, and bad rules, it was a mistake to describe Charisma as some poorly-defined mixture of personal magnetism, leadership ability, and physical attractiveness. It should instead have been defined as "a measure of how badass you are."

Likewise, assigning Dwarves a -2 Cha for being gruff and insular, and Half-orcs a -2 Charisma for being ugly was a big mistake. If half-orcs were instead described as "deeply uncomfortable in social situations, and painfully shy", then the Cha penalty would be appropriate. Likewise, if dwarves were described as being "masterful engineers, but confounded by the intricacies of interactions with living creatures", the Cha penalty would work. But unlikeable and ugly should not make for Cha penalties.

IMO, of course.
 


delericho said:
Speaking of Charisma, and bad rules, it was a mistake to describe Charisma as some poorly-defined mixture of personal magnetism, leadership ability, and physical attractiveness. It should instead have been defined as "a measure of how badass you are."

Likewise, assigning Dwarves a -2 Cha for being gruff and insular, and Half-orcs a -2 Charisma for being ugly was a big mistake. If half-orcs were instead described as "deeply uncomfortable in social situations, and painfully shy", then the Cha penalty would be appropriate. Likewise, if dwarves were described as being "masterful engineers, but confounded by the intricacies of interactions with living creatures", the Cha penalty would work. But unlikeable and ugly should not make for Cha penalties.

IMO, of course.

IMO too. In my campaigns I always enforce the idea that low Cha doesn't mean gruff and rude, it means shy and unable to influence people.
 

Remove ads

Top