The 3.5 skill and feat systems are unquestionably its biggest weakness. Within that area, the Intimidate skill ranks near the bottom for "most poorly done". Its effect is to actively remove fighter and barbarian types from a number of role-playing situations, instead of involving them.
The problem is its mechanic, which is Charisma based. While that works well for Bards and Rogues, it's an exceptionally poor choice for fighters and barbarians because that is almost always their dump stat. So they don't get involved. And yet, here in the real world, I'd invite you to visit some bars (or high schools, if you're under age) and see who uses the Intimidate feat and how.
Paizo implicitly acknowledges this, and believes it is necessary to fix it with a new feat:
"Intimidating Prowess. Your physical might is intimidating to others.
Benefit: Add your Strength modifier to Intimidate skill checks instead of your Charisma modifier."
This is, I submit, perhaps not the quality of design one would expect from Paizo. Forcing fighter-types and (worse) barbarians to give up a feat, in order to be useful during roleplay encounters, is poor mechanics and will not attract a lot of players to that path. But it's a first draft, and the good news is that they recognize the problem (the mechanic) and solution (use Str).
There are 3 ways to fix this, all of which are better than forcing PCs to take a precious feat: The Simple fix, the Complex fix, and the Class fix.
The Simple Fix is to simply change the mechanic: Intimidate (Str OR Cha). From a game design point of view, I would argue that its elegance and simplicity makes bending convention worthwhile.
This was done in 2E, and worked. I have restored this in my own rebuilt fighter class. Suddenly, the party bard wants to take the fighter along for roleplay encounters, as an intimidating backup presence. Suddenly, the fighter sees this as a good place to put skills that confers real benefits. Suddenly, the incentive is to roleplay a bit instead of always handing this off to someone else. Paizo et. al. are invited to playtest this and see for themselves.
The Complex Fix is to acknowledge that there are 2 kinds of intimidation, and create appropriate skill mechanics designed for each.
Intimidating Personality (Cha). Same as the current skill.
Intimidating Prowess (Str). You are physically intimidating to opponents. Uses Str. for the base skill, but it's an opposed check. For every +2 of difference between your Strength, or your best attack bonus with all current modifiers (skill user picks), and your opponent's corresponding figure, you get +1 to the Intimidation check. If your chosen strength or best attack bonus is actually lower than your opponent's, you take a -1 to the check for every -2 difference.
I used Str. or best attack bonus for the opposed check because your 12th level fighter may not be as strong as that ogre, or in some cases even as strong as the Hobgoblin Fighter 2... but once it sees your moves or even senses your demeanor (ever been around a very good martial artist?) it's going to realize that it's seriously overmatched, and the fear will begin. Remember that Intimidation can be a combat move. I allowed the modifiers rather than using BAB because if you're holding a glowing, pulsing sword, that's more intimidating. If the sword looks inert but is +5 and makes you look that much better, it's still more intimidating. If you aren't holding a sword, it's not a current modifier and removes itself from the equation.
This fix is the most realistic, but also the most cumbersome. Is the trade worth it?
The Class Fix removes "Intimidating Prowess" from the feats roster, and adds it as a class ability to appropriate classes at an appropriate level. This is better design than making it a feat, but I suspect that every strength-heavy class would soon get it. At which point, it becomes obvious that the fix needs to be deeper.
I strongly recommend the simple fix. If this was broken enough to require a special new feat to fix, it's broken enough to fix at the source and encourage more widespread roleplaying, in a wider variety of situations.
|
The 3.5 skill and feat systems are unquestionably its biggest weakness.
While I agree with most of the rest of your post, I'm not sure about your opening. YMMV but I have always looked at skills and feats as a strength of the system. Not that there aren't some feats and skills that could use some work...
|
|
The 3.5 DMG definitely discusses this on page 33 ('Variant: Skills with Different Abilities' - sidebar on page 33).
I don't know if the sidebars made it into the SRD, though.
If they didn't, then they really need to examine them, reword them and include the best of them in PFRPG, since this particular suggestion is one that most groups I know seem to use.
The same situation cropped up in 2nd Edition, with the Riding proficiency being based on either Wis (coaxing the animal) or Dex (staying in the saddle), as the plot demanded.
The 3.5 skill and feat systems are unquestionably its biggest weakness.While I agree with most of the rest of your post, I'm not sure about your opening. YMMV but I have always looked at skills and feats as a strength of the system. Not that there aren't some feats and skills that could use some work...
They are a strength, but they are also its biggest ball and chain.
SKILLS
The immense amount of work and calculation required to do skills for an NPC or monster, and the universality of the need to do it, are the single biggest drag on DM prep time. Which means they're the biggest drag on DM productivity. That's a big, big minus.
Paizo acknowledges this by streamlining the skills in Pathfinder. WotC 4E acknowledges it by radically changing the skills system to make it much, much faster to assign skills (by a factor of about 5). I like the better granularity of Paizo's approach, but would add a full set of "standard skill scores" for every monster Paizo uses. If DMs want to change them around by subtracting from skill A and adding to B, great; otherwise, they're ready to go. That still leaves DMs with class/level NPcs, but it would help...
Intimidate is another weak point, weaker in implementation than any other skill. Unfortunately, it's also a skill that has the potential to be used a lot. Hurting role-playing for whole classes of PCs is another serious knock. Hence the fixes above.
FEATS
The limited usefulness of most feats, plus the Fighter's dependence on them as the prime feature of the class, did more than anything else to kill the fighter as anything other than "something you do until about level 3 or 4." It also leaves PCs with a lot of feats that have very limited usefulness at higher levels.
Am currently working in another thread on possible ways to make most feats auto-scale with level, using a common core system that fits with other conventions in the game. See: Suggestion: Feats that Matter at Higher Levels, Too.
As for the question of whether Charisma is a valid basis for Intimidate, I would suggest that it is.
Agreed. Personally, I've always handled big strong guys who fail intimidate checks as if they did scare their target. Except they simply caused them to panic. A succesful intimidate is about using fear into manipulating someone into doing your bidding.
Automatic strength to Intimidate seems to much like having your cake and eating it too. I like the feat idea, and IIRC it existed as a feat for orcs in the FR.
As for the question of whether Charisma is a valid basis for Intimidate, I would suggest that it is.
Ditto. Remember that in 3.5, Charisma is more than just looking nice and knowing when to say the right things. It also represents force of personality and knowing how to use your physical attributes to influence people. This is what makes some big hulking brutes intimidating not necessarily how much they can bench (which is Str).
I'd argue that a high Str / low Cha character doesn't have a menacing personality any more than he has a friendly/social one. In order to know how to apply his Str/size, knowing what actions/body language to use to make his size scare people, he needs a high Cha too. Maybe he isn't comfortable dealing with people, so he has a nervous tick that people can pick up which makes him less intimidating. Maybe he has a baby face, or despite his Str he isn't very tall/intimidating.
Heck to use a real world example, I remember for a while one of the strongest All Blacks (measured by bench/weight ratio) was quite a small and non-threatening looking guy (Christian Cullen) so obviously a high Str does not always indicate you'll be good at intimidating people.
|
As for the question of whether Charisma is a valid basis for Intimidate, I would suggest that it is.Ditto. Remember that in 3.5, Charisma is more than just looking nice and knowing when to say the right things. It also represents force of personality and knowing how to use your physical attributes to influence people. This is what makes some big hulking brutes intimidating not necessarily how much they can bench (which is Str).
Personally, I think that physical attractiveness should be divorced entirely from Charisma.
|
|
I think Charisma should remain the base for Intimidate.
Being able to intimidate people has a lot to do with confidence and the ability to project that confidence.
Let's say a Fighter with an 18 STR and 8 CHA is trying to intimidate a Bard with an 8 STR and 18 CHA. The Fighter may be physically capable of breaking all of the Bard's fingers, but if he's soft spoken, mumbles, and slouches, the Bard is going to feel pretty confident about his ability to talk his way out the situation, and will see any threats made by the Fighter as negiotiable, because the Fighter isn't self-assured enough
I personally think Wisdom is a better dump stat for Fighters, mostly because their Will save already blows chunks, and anyone who takes nothing but a sword into a dungeon and is willing to play a role commonly described as "meat shield" is clearly lacking in common sense, not confidence.
I would posit that a Feat that grants you potentially a +5 or more bonus to a single Skill is a rather considerable benefit out of a Feat (Charisma 8 to Strength 18 translates into a +5 bonus to the Skill).
I don't treat it as a bonus, because it isn't one. Iron Will is a bonus. I treat is as definition of the character. The feat (in this case) is being used to do something that's obviously possible to do and fits, or the feat would not make sense.
I can happily introduce y'all to a few bars where you can meet some people that aren't charismatic by any stretch, but will be rather large and good at intimidation.
Though Ian's system where he differentiates between panic and intimidation is an interesting variant...
I can happily introduce y'all to a few bars where you can meet some people that aren't charismatic by any stretch, but will be rather large and good at intimidation.
Trust me, I know the kind of bars you're talking about, and the guys who are both large and good at intimidation will know a lot about how to hold themselves and portray themselves as scarier than all the other equally large guys... your example just goes to prove my point.
:)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
From a real-world verissimiltude standpoint: Intimidate is a CHA-based skill.
From a role-plaing game standpoint: We want social skills to be spread out so that they're not all based off the same attribute.
I have no problems with somebody using a show of high strength (or, for that matter, a display of quick knifeplay, or blowing up a bar-room table with a spell) to frighten someone else into doing what you want.
Basing intimidate off of (CHA or STR) works well.
Or, borrowing a page from Champions, why not allow situational modifiers for scary actions? Just being strong might not be Intimidating, but threatening someone --with a horse you're holding over your head, or a door you ripped off its hinges, or an arrow you shot into his boot from across the street, or a fireball you have sizzling in your hand-- might be worth a +4 to a +10 circumstance bonus to the skill check.
|
In the past I have allowed STR or CHA as a modifier for Intimidate. However, I think I will go further out and make it STR + CHA in my next game. To me, this reflects the interaction of physical attributes with the social ones. A strong, confident person should be more intimidating than either a confident or strong person.
From a role-plaing game standpoint: We want social skills to be spread out so that they're not all based off the same attribute.
I'm very close to Chris on this one, as a matter of fundamental design. My broader concern is slightly different, but gets to the same place. It's that every class should have opportunities in every major facet of the game. Not only that, they should have opportunities that leverage their natural foci, so that they can be effective in some kind of understood role within that facet, without sub-optimizing. A game that neglects this is inviting players to become bored, or penalizing certain classes in practice as a gateway to participating effectively in a major element of the game. Neither is good design.
This does not mean all classes are equal at everything. It does means every class should have a role to play in the various major situations PCs find themselves in. One of which is social interaction encounters.
* Right now, Bards' roles in social interaction are obvious - it's their class' strength. As an NPC in my world is fond of saying: "Always remember, lass: a Bard's greatest power is her friends."
* Sorcerers also do well. Both have Cha as their key attribute, and Bluff is very helpful to sorcerers. Plus, they may have useful spells. Covered.
* Rogues have lots of skill points, and a number of key abilities like Gather Information in addition to the classic social interaction skills. Their potential role is also clear, and their "friends in low places" mold may well give them access to exclusive sources. They're definitely covered, even if they have a low Cha - but the class is rewarded in numerous ways for investing in Cha, if they decide to do so.
* Clerics have the strongest wisdom scores, which gives them very strong sense motive capabilities. Diplomacy is a class skill. And under Pathfinder Alpha's Cha-related Channel Energy, Cha has become their de facto primary stat now that investment in Wisdom brings dramatically smaller benefits. Even without the broken Channel Energy, however, they're covered.
* Paladins have strong reasons to invest in Cha via Channel energy, Divine Grace, et. al. Plus Sense Motive and Diplomacy are class skills. Covered.
* Wizards lack a compelling reason to invest in Cha, and don't have the social skills as class skills. They compensate with their ability to use spells as part of those encounters, and their own specialty which is High Int hence the best access to knowledge categories. So they're definitely still involved and covered. This is a good example of a class with proper compensating abilities AND skills to keep them involved in a key facet of the game.
* Barbarians. To be effective in the game, they need to concentrate on Str (weapon damage their main contribution), Con (need high HP given low AC), and Dex (need the AC boost). With limited choices, putting enhancements or high scores elsewhere is crippling. To the extent that you're looking for any concrete bonuses elsewhere, Wisdom is needed for good Survival and Perception scores, both very important to Barbarians. Outside of scenarios related to tribes and culture they're familiar with, therefore, they leverage very poorly in social interaction scenarios. Which fits in some ways with their stereotype, but in terms of role-playing in ways that leverage the class' strengths and the way the game has set them up, this is not a good situation. They need an option that preserves their "outsider in civilization" status, while giving them a role in social situations that makes sense. Unfortunately, correction with a feat is very, very expensive for them.
* Rangers. to be effective, Rangers need to think in the same terms as Barbarians for major abilities: Con, Dex, Str, though strength is more optional for ranger bow types than it is for barbarians. Wisdom is more important to rangers for their classic tracking role, so that's 4 abilities now which need attention. Which is already bordering hard on overload. Something that may, in turn, help to explain the ranger's consistent low ranking in polls re: classes, despite their iconic fantasy status. Now, where does the Ranger fit in social interaction situations, in a point buy abilities world? Animal empathy, maybe - a thin reward for Cha investment (5 abilities now?). Definitely needs a fix or two in the Pathfinder redesign, and feats are too expensive as fix mechanic for this class.
* Fighters. To be effective, they need to concentrate on Strength OR Dex, plus Con; ideally all 3, but there are builds that can reduce either Str or Dex to low importance. The class' inherent weakness as written also gives them little margin for error in terms of sub-optimization, and there are other areas that need attention. Skill points are poor, and so are Will saves. Int or Wis scores are needed to address that, and Int is required for Swashbuckler types due to things like the way Combat Expertise has been rewritten, as well as 3.5 prestige classes that leverage it. Taking a good Cha confers benefits on NPC fighters with the Leadership feat, but not on PC fighters unless your DM runs a lot of mass battles. Most run very few, if any. Fix options are also sub-optimal. Yes, the fighter could put points into Charisma, but it means weakening the class in its primary role. Correction with a feat is less expensive for fighters in one way, since they get more of them. But feats are the class' primary power - and so forcing them to burn one is, again, hindering the fighter in its primary role, in order to make the fighter much more useful in a major phase of the game which the designers should have already equipped them for in some way. And did not.
What's the common thread across the last 3 classes covered? They tend to have high strengths. And they need a better mechanical role in social interaction situations, which does not depend on sub-optimization or burning feats to get them there.
Making Intimidate (Str OR Cha) is the simplest way to begin fixing this. Other options must certainly exist for these classes, and I'd hope we'd explore some in Pathfinder design & discussion. There will almost certainly be more than one solution, at the end of the day, which overlap to get us where we need to be.
But if the goal of Pathfinder is a better game, this is definitely an area that needs to be addressed.
Or, borrowing a page from Champions, why not allow situational modifiers for scary actions? Just being strong might not be Intimidating, but threatening someone --with a horse you're holding over your head, or a door you ripped off its hinges, or an arrow you shot into his boot from across the street, or a fireball you have sizzling in your hand-- might be worth a +4 to a +10 circumstance bonus to the skill check.
This strikes me as an excellent idea! Definitely one of the overlapping solutions, with the bonus that it encourages good roleplaying and drama by ALL classes.
(I can hear Tracy Hickman in my head as I read this, saying "Make it exciting! Make it a great story!")
From a role-plaing game standpoint: We want social skills to be spread out so that they're not all based off the same attribute.I'm very close to Chris on this one, as a matter of fundamental design. My broader concern is slightly different, but gets to the same place. It's that every class should have opportunities in every major facet of the game.
While I might not agree that basing Intimidate on Str makes sense in terms of "real-world" verisimilitude, I can definitely see the argument from a game-mechanic standpoint.
Looking at your breakdown raises an interesting point - very few of the classes that would actually put ranks in Intimidate are likely to have a higher Cha than Str (with the possible exception of rogue, although a high Cha rogue is more likely to concentrate on Diplomacy or Bluff).
So, with that in mind, why not just base it on Str? Why muddy the mechanics by allowing the best of Str or Cha to apply, when more often than not the characters who will actually invest ranks in the skill will just choose Str anyway?
Or, borrowing a page from Champions, why not allow situational modifiers for scary actions? Just being strong might not be Intimidating, but threatening someone --with a horse you're holding over your head, or a door you ripped off its hinges, or an arrow you shot into his boot from across the street, or a fireball you have sizzling in your hand-- might be worth a +4 to a +10 circumstance bonus to the skill check.
Isn't this just RAW? When I DM, I certainly already apply circumstance modifiers to any skill check where the PCs actions or the players roleplaying could reasonably influence the outcome.
I could have sworn this was already in the PHB or DMG, but maybe I'm just muddying the D&D RAW with other RPGs...
Strength is a physical stat. It's used for climbing, swimming, etc. It's how physically strong you are.
Intimidation is a purely mental activity. Crushing someone's head as part of your threat would be an example of an Aid Another or "feat of Strength" to give a circumstance bonus. The actual intimidation is based on how well you present it, and that's a talking bit. You don't talk with your Strength score unless you are making fart noises from your armpits.
Most of what I see people here say as good examples of "Strength based Intimidation" is really just a circumstance bonus from an example of Strength as part of the threat, OR adding a Reputation bonus with your check.
If you have a bully that's had a reputation of beating up everyone, and that reputation has been fostered, then he can have a fairly average or even low Charisma, but still come across threatening with an Intimidate because the target likely is thinking of all that reputation behind it.
If Reputation were added to the game, then Famousness and Infamy would have a large role in adding to these kinds of roles.
Fighters and Barbarians making a physical threat might get a large bonus based on their Reputation of being physical, and a circumstantial bonus based on a display of Strength.
|
|
Or, borrowing a page from Champions, why not allow situational modifiers for scary actions? Just being strong might not be Intimidating, but threatening someone --with a horse you're holding over your head, or a door you ripped off its hinges, or an arrow you shot into his boot from across the street, or a fireball you have sizzling in your hand-- might be worth a +4 to a +10 circumstance bonus to the skill check.Isn't this just RAW? When I DM, I certainly already apply circumstance modifiers to any skill check where the PCs actions or the players roleplaying could reasonably influence the outcome.
I could have sworn this was already in the PHB or DMG, but maybe I'm just muddying the D&D RAW with other RPGs...
Pretty much. It's covered under Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions (PHB, pages 64-65) and Skill And Ability Checks (DMG, pages 30-32).
|
|
I disagree that every class should have a role in every major facet of the game. That certainly isn't true for many team sports (there is only one pitcher in baseball - and he is worthless as a batter, one goalie in soccer/football - and he certainly isn't a striker, one quarterback in American football and so on). The game is a team game, where you need friends to succeed rather than being effective on your own in all situations. That being said, however, I still think there is a place for fighter types having a grater impact in Intimidation. After some thought though, my opinion has shifted from STR or CHA (or STR+CHA) to just CHA as being the controlling attribute for Intimidation and allowing situational modifiers of reputation, physical strength (if obvious) or threatening actions as modifiers to the roll.
I disagree that every class should have a role in every major facet of the game...
Then we agree to disagree.
As a GM, I prefer a game that helps me by keeping players involved and excited at all times, and not working against me at any time. The justification for why it may choose to work against me doesn't really matter very much.
If Reputation were added to the game, then Famousness and Infamy would have a large role in adding to these kinds of roles. Fighters and Barbarians making a physical threat might get a large bonus based on their Reputation of being physical, and a circumstantial bonus based on a display of Strength.
I agree with that. Famousness/Infamy rules would be one way of addressing this issue. Pair it up with Chris' idea of circumstance bonuses, and that would appear to be one viable solution. It is not a simple solution - in fact, it's more complex than my complex solution - but it has a lot of potential spin off benefits if done well.
Absent that option, which is the case now and may remain the case if Paizo looks at the infamy option and decides not to go with it, what other answers might work? I've put mine on the table, and explained it. Infamy+Circumstance can be said to be another option, not fully fleshed out yet but a clear idea.
What other useful answers might exist?
Am I the only one that ever thought it didn't make any sense how Halfling could initimdiate my character but a Iron Golem couldn't?
The reason why I point this out is this - most of the time, players abdicate their role in social situations. Giving them the option to have a place in social environments despite their clear, direct, and stated abdication is distinctly unfair to PCs whose stated intent is to specialize in social situations. If you want to be social "backup", then you're going to have to spread your points around.
I've noticed this as well; one player had a rogue with Charisma as a dump stat and NO ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, or Profession (gambler), but insisted that the character was a super-suave diplomacist and poker champion. When I pointed out the patent absurdity of these claims, he complained that it was unfair to make him take points away from Climb, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot, Search, Open Lock, Disable Device, or Tumble. (And if we'd been using the Pathfinder A2 combined skill rules, I'm quite certain he'd have maxed out 3 or 4 other physical skills and STILL had no ranks in any of the social stuff).
Meanwhile, the cleric with the high Cha and cross-class ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy is saying "WTF?!"
In this entire time, there's only ever been one circumstance where me-as-faceman has ever come into play, since the other players simply whine to the GM that having no role in social situations despite their character's lack of ability to express themselves on levels beyond what a shark could understand is "unfair", or "violates their character concept".
The reason why I point this out is this - most of the time, players abdicate their role in social situations. Giving them the option to have a place in social environments despite their clear, direct, and stated abdication is distinctly unfair to PCs whose stated intent is to specialize in social situations. If you want to be social "backup", then you're going to have to spread your points around....
Ah. I begin to understand now.
There are other ways to have a role, other than as a backup "face man." Using Chris' suggestion re: circumstance bonuses, for instance, the Mage holding a sizzling ball of fire in his hand (illusionary, but who else knows that?), or a Charm spell, has a role. The fighter who goes along with the Bard and uses Intimidation as a backup (because that has been fixed to work with rather than against his class strengths) has a role.
Are they the #1 face-man type guy your character is? No. You worked for it via class and ability choices, and you earned it. "Having a role" does not mean they will be your equal in this area. You still da man.
But your fellow players' complaints ought to tell you something. They don't want to just hand everything over to you. They want to be involved. Somehow.
"Giving them the option" is EXACTLY what needs to happen.
Frankly, part of that needs to come from you. You're the social situations guy. Which means that coming up with plans that involve them is up to you, just as handling the other side of the encounter is primarily up to you. You have the charisma? Then lead!
But some of this may also have to come from the game itself. Just as it needs to work with your GM, it needs to work with you, too, and give you some tools and hooks.
Your fellow party members need options that let them work with their class' strengths and effectiveness requirements, so that they can put points into relevant skills, or use class-relevant ability scores, as part of social encounter play. Does the Fighter Intimidate? Does the Ranger successfully use "Knowledge, nature" (shifted to INT or WIS so it synergizes with its key classes - Druids, and with Rangers where WIS investments also help with Perception) to help you by briefing you about the creature you're trying to deal with? Does the Wizard use "Knowledge history" to do the same thing before the meeting with the Margrave of Whatsit? Or cast Detect Thoughts from the shadows of the booth? Etc.
Now, if they are given abilities and options for skill investments that work well with their class' needs, and then refuse to make those investments, you are right to say that they have chosen to deal themselves out.
For instance, a number of useful Rogue abilities are Charisma based. The class is built to work well with roleplaying situations, in a number of ways. If the Rogue chose Cha as a dump stat and didn't invest in the skills, that really is abdication. He's going to have to either find some other way to contribute in social encounters, or accept that he has chosen to build a character that is badly suited to this facet of play.
You may still be able to use such characters in your plans, of course. If Chris' circumstance bonus is used (which is already sort of in the rules: circumstance bonuses can contribute +2/-2 as a general rule), the 22 Dex rogue's habit of putting knife after knife into the bullseye near your tavern seat can be drawn to your mark's attention as you make your Intimidate check, or extol your group's competence as part of Diplomacy, or whatever.
Cleric with low charisma? Sorry about turning undead, dude, and I guess you didn't read Pathfinder's new Channel Energy section. But maybe you invested a lot in Sense Motive (Wis) instead, and if so I still want you along. That's a role.
But you can't berate the fighter for not optimizing Charisma, to the detriment of his class' fundamental function, and for no other benefit, and say he has dealt himself out. No, the game has dealt him out. And until the game gives him viable options that let him play a role without compromising his main function, we have a problem.
katman - just want to say, great post. Thanks.
Throwing handfuls of skill points at clerics and sorcerers is NOT my preferred solution (as we've seen, some players just won't spend points on non-combat skills, no matter how many they have); your examples earlier in the post include them in play without doing so.