Feel this needs to be brought up:
Intimidate (page 60):
I suggest that the "demoralize opponent" function be usable with STR instead of CHA.
to intimidate someone - that is, making someone doing something for you by threat- isn´t the same than just being able to bully someone around by your muscles.
A wild bull won´t intimidate, but will terrify you.
Or think about the muscly guard without much wits who isn´t that intimidating because you can easily outsmart him.
Remember, Charisma doesn´t just mean to be beauty, but shows how impressive you seem to others.
So a raging half-orc barbarian might be terrifying, but he ís probably the wrong person to make someone doing things for him.
If this person wants to force someone, he just beats it out of him - literally.
Impressing someone to make him doing something is another thing.
In this case, the gnome farmer would probably see the half-orc barbarian with low charisma as nothing more than a raging animal.
An animal he could easily impress by other means than muscles.
So i think Charisma is the correct ability, but i also agree that STR should be counted in.
Maybe by granting an adequate bonus.
|
They have a feat that allows you to use strength in that way and I think thats a good way to do it. Its like weapon finesse, there are other ways of wielding a sword rather then strength(much like you can spook someone without being charismatic) but it takes a different type of training and skillset and I think a feat represents that well.
-Tarlane
|
|
to intimidate someone - that is, making someone doing something for you- isn´t the same than just being able to bully someone around by your muscles.
A wild bull won´t intimidate, but terrify you.
Except that the "demoralize opponent" is not "making someone do something for you", but is instead giving a penalty to their actions in combat by scaring them.
Direct from page 60:
You can use this skill to frighten your opponents...That looks a lot to me like your "a wild bull will terrify you", which you admit is a STR thing - a raging half-orc barbarian ought to indeed be frightening.
No, I think you're dead on. To demoralize them in this way you're suppose to instill fear in them that you can rip their arms off and beat them to death with em.
I've been a proponent of having STR be the Intimidate-based stat and the feat should be to allow CHA to act instead.
That I believe it's the way it should be. And bullying someone is very much a way to get someone to do something you don't want them to - thats the whole cliche of bullys making you hand over your milk money or the dangerous mob guy who's forcing you to pay your extortion money.
Robert
|
|
I think the ability modifier associated with the Intimidate skill should be STR or Cha chosen by the player...no feat necessary.
I can live with that. But once decided it can never be changed
(Say for instance, fighter uses Str, and gets major strength drain from spells/undead creatures etc. Since said fighter never learned to be intimidating via his charisma he cannot now try to do so)
Robert
i mainly refered to the normal use for the check, not to demoralize in combat.
But i still think it´s more a matter of charisma than pure strengh if you can impress or frighten an opponent.
It´s not about childish things like forcing someone to give you his milk money, it´s about manipulation, similar to diplomacy (manipulate by sweet talking) or bluff (manipulate by lies).
And the fact that children can be manipulated by force depends more on their own weakness.
But think about it as an adult: Someone must have some charisma to be able to impress you by force.
So the raging half-orc barbarian can only intimidate you if he is able to impress you. If you think of him as a brainless piece of meat, he wouldn´t be much intimidating. And if you are intimidated by any orc you meet, you wouldn´t last long in a fantasy world.
Think of the highly trained Roman soldiers who weren´t intimidated by hordes of celtic barbarians.
Or think about the scene in the movie "Braveheart", where William Wallace stands still while his friend throws a heavy rock at him...
pure strengh is not necessarily intimidating.
There are many many other ways to intimidate someone, which don´t include bolily force. But all of this depend on charisma.
But because a high strengh score clearly plays a role, i would agree to take a feat or to allow the player to add his strengh bonus.
I also think it is the right way to award fighters a bounus if they take a higher charisma score, for i don´t like the fact that most fighters use charisma as THE dumping area for low scores and don´t play it out.
For me a fighter with low charisma can´t be a commander, but is the usual soldier who may fight well, but who don´t have much to say and won´t impress someone in a battle.
So i think a raging half-orc barbarian who really is able to frighten his enemy must have some charisma (which isn´t equal to beauty, as i stated), otherwise he would be just another filthy, dirty orcish grunt on the battlefield.
A feat to allow you to put in a different ability to key a skill is generally a waste of a feat. In this case, Intimidate is so lame, such a waste of a standard action in combat for such a short duration, that it's even more of a bad idea.
|
|
i mainly refered to the normal use for the check, not to demoralize in combat.
But i still think it´s more a matter of charisma than pure strengh if you can impress or frighten an opponent.
Perhaps you were - but the original post was about the "demoralize" aspect specifically. Thats what we were responding to.
And for the record, I do see Charisma as playing a role, but not as much as you testify.
It´s not about childish things like forcing someone to give you his milk money, it´s about manipulation, similar to diplomacy (manipulate by sweet talking) or bluff (manipulate by lies).
And the fact that children can be manipulated by force depends more on their own weakness.
But think about it as an adult: Someone must have some charisma to be able to impress you by force.
Here's where we disagree. I'm sure manipulation is charisma based - but Bluff is already here for that role. Either someone is manipulating via bluffing, or threatening with their ability to hurt poeple via intimidate. There's no reason to double it up.
Furthermore, you may believe that someone must have some charisma to be able to impress you by force - perhaps; but you get more results from a kind word and a gun, than you do with just a kind word. A gun might not be a use of strength - but its representative of a sword etc that can potentially hurt the target of the initimidate. Think of the Rocky 3 movie when Mr. T said in that horrible voice, "I'm gonna bust you up!" Would Obama be as intimidating if he has said that? He's got charisma! Mr T. was intimidating!
So the raging half-orc barbarian can only intimidate you if he is able to impress you. If you think of him as a brainless piece of meat, he wouldn´t be much intimidating. And if you are intimidated by any orc you meet, you wouldn´t last long in a fantasy world.Think of the highly trained Roman soldiers who weren´t intimidated by hordes of celtic barbarians.
Or think about the scene in the movie "Braveheart", where William Wallace stands still while his friend throws a heavy rock at him...
pure strengh is not necessarily intimidating.
Thats a result of training and mettle. There's a reason that targest of Intimidate receive a bonus correlated to any bonuses they get for "fear" effects. I'm willing to bet that in both of the above examples, they had resistances to being afraid.
There are many many other ways to intimidate someone, which don´t include bolily force. But all of this depend on charisma.But because a high strengh score clearly plays a role, i would agree to take a feat or to allow the player to add his strengh bonus.
But if it you're doing so without true intent of carrying it out - its just manipulation and falls back into the Bluff skill category. Intimidate implies that you intend to truly carry out the harm and instill fear.
I also think it is the right way to award fighters a bounus if they take a higher charisma score, for i don´t like the fact that most fighters use charisma as THE dumping area for low scores and don´t play it out.
For me a fighter with low charisma can´t be a commander, but is the usual soldier who may fight well, but who don´t have much to say and won´t impress someone in a battle.So i think a raging half-orc barbarian who really is able to frighten his enemy must have some charisma (which isn´t equal to beauty, as i stated), otherwise he would be just another filthy, dirty orcish grunt on the battlefield.
I'm not talking about what makes a good commander. I dont think the art of intimidation is mutually inclusive. So long as you're charismatic and respected - as shown in the Leadership feat/score schematic.
I can provide examples all day of cinematic or literature of things/people terrorizing others just by the sheer strength and size of them: King Kong, Jaws, Terminator, dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park, Hulk, Jason, Michael Myers....none of which can be considered anywhere close to Mr.Congeniality. Yet when these things roar, display their stregnth, and others see what they can do to another - everyone else runs and screams. Charisma has nothing to do with that.
Once again, I'll agree that perhaps it plays a role - but I think its more geared towards the "Bluff" and manipulations and pscychology into making one THINK they are in peril. The truly terrifying intimidation comes from something big, fierce and amazingly strong!
Robert
|
|
I'll say again that using STR or Cha (players choice) is a good idea. A fighter or a barbarian are not typically charismatic. A sorceror usually is. It seems ludicrous that a 6'2 215 lb. platform of brute strength has less chance of intimidating someone than a 5'8" 160 lb. sorceror. Thats not to say that the sorceror can't intimidate someone...he just does it through force of will and perhaps a display of arcane might. His victim can sense that the sorceror is very capable and willing to do him harm.
I always remember back in one of the first dragonlance chronicles books. The group had been captured and were being made to surrender their weapons along with a magical item they didn't want to fall into the enemies hands. The big bruiser sort of pressed between the stuff and the enemy and their foes just kind of laughed because it was obvious they were captured and they would just kill the fighter and take the gear.
Then the mage touched the warriors arm to stop him and dipped down to place his hands the items and chanted some magic, then told the enemies that the objects were protected by this powerful curse of a worm that would devour them from within if they disturbed them. It was enough that they did not want to even come near the weapons and when forced to carry them they kept them bundled in blankets so they never touched them.
Sometimes it is a matter of knowing what to say and looking as if you could back it up that adds a lot of fear to your words.
Sure the hulking bruiser looks like the could squash you flat, but that rogue twirling the dagger with his fingers(whether he's really any good with it or not) who gives that small smirk that says he would stab you in the square in front of everyone, or that not even your family would be safe from him, can do a lot more to rattle someone. There is a lot more to intimidation then just brute force, there is also the ability to pick up on what will rattle the foe(same as being able to see what con they will fall for, or what will win them over).
-Tarlane
Sure the hulking bruiser looks like the could squash you flat, but that rogue twirling the dagger with his fingers(whether he's really any good with it or not) who gives that small smirk that says he would stab you in the square in front of everyone, or that not even your family would be safe from him, can do a lot more to rattle someone. There is a lot more to intimidation then just brute force, there is also the ability to pick up on what will rattle the foe(same as being able to see what con they will fall for, or...
agreed.
And all of your examples can´t be categorized into the bluff skill.
Bluff means to trick your enemy, not to actually threat him. But there ARE many other means of threatening than pure force.
Take the Terminator as an example (for he was brought up). He would demonstrate a lot of charisma if he just had to look at someone to cause fear.
If it would just be a matter of bodily force, he would have to show this strengh (by breaking someones arm, e.g.) to demonstrate what he is able to do (as it was in the first movie, if i recall correctly).
Or take the Obama / Rocky example: Someone like Obama could threaten an enemy effectively without his own strengh (just let the bodyguards do the trick or use the own influence to make life difficult for his enemy)
I watched "Batman begins" tonight: The mafia bosses (Falcone) power to intimidate isn´t related to his own bodily force. Likewise Bruce Wayne wouldn´t need a mask and cape to intimidate criminals if it was purely a matter of muscles.
The best solution i read by now was to let the player select a feat to use strengh instead of charisma.
I don´t think it would be a waste. Think of feats like "Deceitful", which gives you +2 on disguise and forgery. Being able to intimidate by strengh would be a similar effect, maybe stronger.
@rougerouge: if you think it´s a waste, just don´t take it.
I wouldn´t grant fighters a bonus for not investing into social skills at all by granting them social influence.
If you want to be able to manipulate others effectively, you have to invest something.
|
|
Then the mage touched the warriors arm to stop him and dipped down to place his hands the items and chanted some magic, then told the enemies that the objects were protected by this powerful curse of a worm that would devour them from within if they disturbed them. It was enough that they did not want to even come near the weapons and when forced to carry them they kept them bundled in blankets so they never touched them.
That was a bluff. A well worded one, and effective and played to the ignorance and fears of "evil magic" of the burly dudes. But a bluff nonetheless, and thanks to bluff being a Charisma based skill, the words he said were convincing because he was charismatic.
Bluffing is when you want someone to believe you when you're not being honest. There is nothing withing the above example that falls outside the very definition of a bluff.
Read the skill Bluff "...try to get someone to believe something that isn't true." I'm guess that the weapons weren't really cursed.....
I'm sure no one can successfully argue and be convincing that this could not be considered a bluff.
Now read Intimidate "frighten an opponent with verbal threats and displays of prowess."
Robert
|
|
Now read Intimidate "frighten an opponent with verbal threats and displays of prowess."A mage can do this just as well as a warrior. he just does it differently. Thats why STR or Cha would work with the intimidate skill. Its true that some of the previous examples could be construed to be a use of the bluff skill. Consider this though, if a weedy mage makes a threat of harm...is it really bluff if he can back it up?. In the case of a brute, I don't think the use of the words, "Hulk Smash" is Cha based. His threatening words are effective because of his size and strength. The small rogue with the dagger is effective because you believe he might cut your throat while you sleep...more likely Cha based.
I do see a thin line between Intimidate and Bluff though.
"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5? Well, in all this confusion, I lost count myself. So I guess what it comes down to is, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
Bluff or Intimidate? I'm going with the latter.
|
|
That said, size (not strength!) should be taken into account, too. I'd say getting a +4/+4 per size category different than Medium is the way to go. If you really want to include Strength, then it shouldn't grant more than 1/4 the bonus, because it's unreasonable to think that someone can tell how strong you are by eye. There are bulky muscles and there are lean muscles.
Size does matter!
3.5 does have a size modifier for the skill
Robert
|
|
"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5? Well, in all this confusion, I lost count myself. So I guess what it comes down to is, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
Bluff or Intimidate? I'm going with the latter.
Bluff. No different from poker. Making the guy wonder if you're telling the truth or not. Clint bluffed him into thinking he really didnt know so that he could kill him. I was actually going to use that as an example earlier.
Actually at this point, since everyone is blurring the lines between the two and that its charisma for both - why don't we just eliminate one since they seem just foolishly interchangeable.
Robert
|
|
"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5? Well, in all this confusion, I lost count myself. So I guess what it comes down to is, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"Bluff or Intimidate? I'm going with the latter.
Bluff. No different from poker. Making the guy wonder if you're telling the truth or not. Clint bluffed him into thinking he really didnt know so that he could kill him. I was actually going to use that as an example earlier.
Actually at this point, since everyone is blurring the lines between the two and that its charisma for both - why don't we just eliminate one since they seem just foolishly interchangeable.
Robert
Could you give an example of what you think would be an Intimidate check then? Because to me that is a classic Intimidation to demoralise attempt.
|
|
After all the views that have been posted regarding intimidate, I went back the the PHB to do some searching. I noticed that only three classes were given intimidate as a class skill and none of them are particularly charismatic... er, that is not if they are created in the typical format. The three classes are Barbarian, Fighter and Rogue. Three of the most charismatic classes were not given the skill: Bard, Paladin and Sorcerer. What was the original intent for the skill then? I know that a player can build a fighter, barbarian, or rogue with high charisma but I'm betting that most people who play these classes use it as a dump stat. Charisma is certainly not listed as an important stat for these classes either. Does anyone have an opinion on this? These classes are three of the most physical violent; intimidation seems natural for them...except for the fact that it is charisma based.
Intimidate is natural for them. That's why they've got the skill only costing one point rather than 2 (cross-class skill in 3.5). Thus it is very easy to build an intimidating Fighter, and a lot of my Fighters and Barbarians had the skill, regardless of their Charisma. If you keep up the skill point spending, it can overcome a low Charisma. (Even at 1st level, my Dwarvern Barbarian [Battrager] was intimidating, even though he couldn't sell water to a man dying of thirst.) But Intimidate is clearly a Charisma skill. After all, not everyone who's strong is intimidating and not everyone who's intimidating is strong.
Sorry for the comic book examples but: Superman, strength out the wazoo. Intimidating? Not so much. Batman, normal human. Intimidating? Yeah, I think we can say so. Or for Marvel, who's more intimidating, the giant made of metal or the midget who's threatening to carve his initials in your lungs (Colossus and Wolverine)? Strength ^= Intimidate.
|
|
Paul...I agree with your Superman/Batman example but only because of how they are written in the comics. If Superman suddenly decided he was tired of being a good-guy, I'm guessing he could be extremly intimidating. The Colossus/Wolverine example is harder. Both would be extremely intimidating to face.
Your comments about class versus cross-class skills do make sense to me though. In the end, Intimidate is a skill and if you want a fighter to be intimidating,putting points in it is probably more important than the ability modifier associated with the skill.
If a Fighter actually does something with their strength, I'd certainly let them use the Strength bonus for the Intimidate check, but without an actual demonstration, it all comes down to pure of force personality, and that's Charisma. Also, to be fair, Superman's Charisma must be pretty sky high so, yeah, untrained he'd be intimidating too. ;-)
This arguement again? I've always felt that charisma is the only way to go with inimidate. The key here is the ability to focus intent at your opponents.
The factors of Str, size, threatening gestures and wicked weapons have nothing to do with the skill. They are merely facts. This man has large muscles and an impressive sword. This monster drools down atop me from an amazing height. Those facts- and the facts alone- scare people. When presented with the large beast in a foul mood, the reaction of fear isn't because of some skill the beast employs. It stems from the belief and perception that you are unequal the task of neutralizing the threat involved. A cocky fool might laugh a challenge, or a wise veteran might give way... The choice is not up to the threat on how the target responds.
The skill seems to be convincing through some method the idea that you are something to be feared for some reason or another. Charisma is the stat that allows you to focus your intent at a task- to inspire, impress, or convey using various methods your mindset.
Were a warrior to draw a line in the sand with his sword and declare to his foes that he will kill those who cross, there is a chance for him to impress his resolve and will on his opponents. If he truly intends to kill, or if he has a very violent mindset, he might use his Cha to convice his foes of such and roll intimidate. If he has no beleif in his own ability to do exactly as promised, but wants people to think he can... then we use Cha on a bluff check. If he simply drew a line an gave a warning, then there is no skill being employed. Just a line in the sand and a choice to be made by those on the other side. And those that cross will have to deal with the consequences- whatever they may be.
Did that rant a bit like nonsense? I'm kinda sleep deprived right now... Anyway, I really don't like the idea of Str for intimidate. Demoralizing an opponent is so much more than merely flexing. To break his spirit, you have to get under his skin somehow, and deliver a message- one perhaps of power, or skill, or what have you. To deliver a message or convey and communicate an idea is Cha, every time. Accept no subsitutes.
An afterthought about the comic book examples... Both Batman and Superman are both very charismatic. One inspires fear and the other trust. Sups doesn't intimidate or bluff much because even he doesn't think he'll do what he threatens. That's what, a -10 on the bluff scale? Batman studies how to unnerve opponents- you could translate that into ranks.
Intimidate is based primarily on Charisma. Think of Full Metal Jacket; the drill instructor is not the most physically impressive guy, but he has everyone scared of him.
The feat Intimidating Prowess in Pathfinder Alpha 3 allows a character to substitute their Strength bonus in place of Charisma. However, it is not something everyone should be able to do, so keeping it a feat makes sense, IMO.
Intimidate isn't about looking scary. It's about forcing someone to think or act a certain way.
If all it required was to look imposing, then anything a size larger than you should automatically have, and force an intimidate check on you. This isn't the case.. because this is already assumed to be occurring in some fashion beyond the rules.
The DM describes a 30 foot tall, angry Titan. The Wizard is already scared of being squished into this guy's next pancake breakfast, he's going to act accordingly (keep away, cast defensive or impairment spells, or hide behind others for protection).
Now if the Titan wanted to break their resolve in this fight and make them even more scared, or if he wanted to get information from the wizard while he had him in a one-hand pin (basically holding him up to his face, etc), this would require some kind of mental effort in how to present himself beyond the big tough guy.
The making of the threat and convincing others you will follow through, whether by means of actual conversation, or simply a roar as you point and focus unnervingly on your target, is the difference that Charisma makes.
A typical giant will charge towards his opponents and try to hit them hard until they die.
Stomping harder than normal, swinging his weapon around in big scary flourish (possibly smacking the environment to show off how hard he can hit), shouting a battlecry or describing specifics about a particular target's anatomy he will eat/smash.
These are things a very large and strong creature would do if he had the training (ranks in Intimidate) and mental acuity (Charisma) to make himself even more imposing towards his enemies than he normally would be without it.
A giant with ranks in Intimidate and a decent Charisma would be able to demoralize his opponent using tactics similar to the above. This doesn't require Strength... the actions and verbiage take no added Strength to accomplish. He has to think of it and pull it off properly and timed correctly to get the effect across.
|
|
Stomping harder than normal, swinging his weapon around in big scary flourish (possibly smacking the environment to show off how hard he can hit), shouting a battlecry or describing specifics about a particular target's anatomy he will eat/smash.
These are things a very large and strong creature would do if he had the training (ranks in Intimidate) and mental acuity (Charisma) to make himself even more imposing towards his enemies than he normally would be without it.
A giant with ranks in Intimidate and a decent Charisma would be able to demoralize his opponent using tactics similar to the above. This doesn't require Strength... the actions and verbiage take no added Strength to accomplish. He has to think of it and pull it off properly and timed correctly to get the effect across.
I guess I won't deny you have a valid point. Perhaps I'm getting a "fearful presence" confused with my ideals of how Intimidate should work.
That being said - I suppose a large part of my frustration is due from the fact that most who get intimidate are not charismatic people - so without spending a feat ALSO - its hard to optimize the skill - and most who get it are those who dont get a lot of other skill points to spend. Giants are perfect example - they're rarely charismatic and so it's not as effective for them against PCs who are going to resist their attempts to demoralize.
In other words: a fighter - who only gets 2 skill points per round can still rarely be great at that skill - which is the only one that actually has a true combat use.
Meanwhile, rogues who are typically more charisatic (especially if wanting to take advantage of UMD) can sneak attack after a successful bluff and has bookoo skills and can optimize many of the as they are based on Dex - many of the with direct combat influences: Stealth, Tumble for example.
Its just frustrating that the only skill that a fighter can truly optimize is climb; intimidate being charisma to a fighter is like making spellcraft based on Strength from a wizards point of view.
Its just a shame. And I still say that most of the examples I've seen as Intimidation are just as viable (if not more) than a bluff a la "I've fired six shots or only five" Which to me rings of poker player bluffing to lure someone into calling or folding when they shouldn't have.
Robert
I have no problem with changing Fighters and other PCs that should have bonuses to it (combat in melee is A LOT about presenting yourself as far more menacing and breaking the enemies resolve so they turn and run).
The intimidate mechanic should stay the same though... fix it from the other end.
The best solution i read by now was to let the player select a feat to use strengh instead of charisma.I don´t think it would be a waste. Think of feats like "Deceitful", which gives you +2 on disguise and forgery. Being able to intimidate by strengh would be a similar effect, maybe stronger.
@rougerouge: if you think it´s a waste, just don´t take it.
Intimidate: spend a standard action to force an opponent in melee with you to get a -2 to their attack rolls for a round? That's a waste of an action. At least with feinting, you can set up sneak attacks.
Moreover, outside of combat, Intimidate is mechanically inferior to Diplomacy. With Intimidate, it's an opposed roll against a level check and the person's attitude worsens in 1d6x10 minutes after you leave their presence. With Diplomacy, there is no opposed roll unless there is a second use of Diplomacy opposing you, and their attitude does not change when you leave their presence.
Generally, I think that mechanically inferior feats serve as traps for new players and gives them a bad experience. That's why "just don't take" the bad feat isn't a persuasive argument to me.
And yes, a +2 to two skills that are actually worthwhile is vastly superior to a bonus on a skill that's mostly worthless or inferior to another option.
|
|
Intimidate: spend a standard action to force an opponent in melee with you to get a -2 to their attack rolls for a round? That's a waste of an action. At least with feinting, you can set up sneak attacks.
Moreover, outside of combat, Intimidate is mechanically inferior to Diplomacy. With Intimidate, it's an opposed roll against a level check and the person's attitude worsens in 1d6x10 minutes after you leave their presence. With Diplomacy, there is no opposed roll unless there is a second use of Diplomacy opposing you, and their attitude does not change when you leave their presence.
Thats pretty much how I feel and I think the reason for my bitterness towards the way the skill is set up.
An easier pill to swallow (for me) if it actually had an optimal success rate based on the stat used by the classes who use the skill (Strength - for barbarians and fighters).
Robert
|
|
Could you give an example of what you think would be an Intimidate check then? Because to me that is a classic Intimidation to demoralise attempt.
Terminator 2 when the biker punches him in the face and Arnie doesn't even budge.
Michael Myers, or Jason when they crash through a door and send tables blocking it flying through the air terrfying all inside the room.
King Kong (new movie) beating his chest and flexing his muscles and roaring.
Darth Vader picking the rebel officer on the ship up by the throat and breaking his neck with one hand.
Hulk picking up a tank and throwing it.
Any scene in a movie where someone trapped on the other side of a metal door begin pummelling it and denting it.
I know these are hollywood-ized scenes for terrifying the viewers with the visuals - but they're examples of strength being used to terrify their foes - regardless of the actual actions - it's intimidating because it's fearsome.
To make someone believe you might be more dangerous than you really are....that to me is a bluff. Like the princess pride when he was on the bed and the prince wasnt sure if he could stand or not.....he couldn't...but the bluff worked. His charisma helped sell it.
Robert
I think the Intimidate skill is a perfect example of something where you can get a lot of mileage out of circumstantial modifiers. In combat you could modify the - still Cha-based - roll with the difference in Strength modifiers, for instance (and probably a number of other factors on top of that).
Why still Cha-based? Because it's still a skill. Using Intimidate is a skill roll, so first and foremost it's determined by your use of the skill (as evidenced by skill rank factoring in so potentially highly) and only then by your raw talent (stat). Strength is not what you use when attempting to intimidate someone in a skillful manner. Charisma is.
I think some of those examples are not what I would call an intimidate check. Some of them aren't active actions, they are passive (terminator getting punched).
I guess I feel that those examples are common sense. You can't hurt the guy, its common sense to be a little rattled. You can see and hear the giant ape making a huge roaring and chest thumping, its common sense to be scared.
Intimidate is when common sense leaves the equasion. When a guy who's half your hight tells you that if you don't turn around right now, you'll never see your wife and kids again, its not common sense to beleive him if he's implying that he will bring that fate about. Beleiving him occurs when his ability to intimidate surpassed your own common sense.
Again, size mods apply to intimidate.
|
|
I think some of those examples are not what I would call an intimidate check. Some of them aren't active actions, they are passive (terminator getting punched).
I guess I feel that those examples are common sense. You can't hurt the guy, its common sense to be a little rattled. You can see and hear the giant ape making a huge roaring and chest thumping, its common sense to be scared.
Intimidate is when common sense leaves the equasion. When a guy who's half your hight tells you that if you don't turn around right now, you'll never see your wife and kids again, its not common sense to beleive him if he's implying that he will bring that fate about. Beleiving him occurs when his ability to intimidate surpassed your own common sense.
Again, size mods apply to intimidate.
Hey bard, i already conceded that it my be mostly just my disguest that a fighter who only gets so few skills can't even optimally be good at one of his only skills without spending a feat, too, while most other classes have combat-specific skills that they can excel at optimally. It's quite pathetic actually.
That being said - I guess I can see how those things I listed are "intimidating" as opposed to an intimidate skill check.
Perhaps I'm envisioning a "fear" check a la Ravenloft instead.
Robert
Can't believe I only implied so in passing rather than hammer the point down: Strength during an intimidation attempt is always circumstantial, since it's a relative issue. A 20 Strength human barbarian is going to make a significantly different impression (and get significantly different results from) demonstrating his brawn to an 8 Str kobold, another 20 Str human and a 30 Str ogre respectively. As such, always getting a +5 would be inappropriate.
This might step on the toes of the Paladin a bit, but I've always thought that combat should have more "morale" effects on people than they do right now.
Having enemies, especially large ones, charging at you, and you KNOW they can cause some devastating damage, there should be some kind of morale effect on people.
Any class that isn't really primed for physical combat would likely not have much resilience against this kind of fear. On the flip side, unless they have a spell that changes them (polymorph, etc) he wouldn't be that imposing either.
This is where something can be given to the Fighter. He can simultaneously withstand the morale effects of a charging force (they go toe-to-toe with things three times taller than them!), as well as be imposing themselves.
In fact, I'd almost say that as a secondary effect, the Fighter would put his own allies at ease a bit, since he's laughing in the face of danger, and taking the brunt of it. The Wizard feels better because he knows the Fighter will withstand it, belittles the opposition, and will help protect him.
If morale played a bigger role in the game, the Fighter could legitimately have something a bit extra.
And then Intimidate the Skill would be used for the Charisma-based checks, like proper use during torture or conversation, as opposed to battle threatening and imposing demoralization.
Feel this needs to be brought up:
Intimidate (page 60):
I suggest that the "demoralize opponent" function be usable with STR instead of CHA.Purpose: ensure that the average gnome farmer is not more intimidating in a fight than a raging half-orc barbarian.
I see your point. I thought since CHA was also a measure of comeliness that characters and creatures with negative CHA should instead use their negative as a bonus, because big ugly and not very sociable creatures can easily scare common folk.
Some of the examples above of Intimidate aren't really uses of the skill. They're just things that happen, and people become frightened of the event. Some large creature smashing my ramparts would be unnerving- no roll required.
Now, one thing I will not only grant but also encourage is a liberal use of the circumstance modifier. Are you visibly a threatening individual, or have you previously defeated said opponent? Are you significantly larger, or well known for your worldly might? A range of +2 to +10 could be granted for things like this. Using it outside of the combat action, you could use the generic Buff modifiers as well. Is it easy to believe that the half-orc can and likely will squish your head like an over-ripe melon? +5 or +10 for that. The best part? No use of a feat required to get the bonus!
As far as who gets intimidate as a class skill, I will agree it is somewhat frustrating. But at least the Fighter and Barbarian gets some sort of social skill. It might not be Diplomacy, and it's certainly not as good in combat as an attack roll in most cases, but it's something. Besides, who says the Fighter or Barbarian can't be charismatic?? It might not be good min/maxing, but it could be good role playing. There are archetypes of each that certainly lend well to a high Cha stat. The charming swordsman in the kingdom's court, the youthfully brazen yet inspiring barbarian leader are two examples that spring to mind of a player deciding that Cha was not a dump stat. In the case of the above fighter, maybe it was Int and he's dumb as rock but so damn pretty no one says anything. The brash barbarian might make poor desicions or not think through actions because Wis is his lowest stat... You get the idea. Fighters can have Cha too.
|
STR is the base stat. without any skill in intimidate, the big guy approaching you is going to scare you more, nuff said. now RANKS in intimidate it what the small guy uses to have squinty dangerous eyes, a viscous sneer and growling voice.
a Gnome (+2 Charisma) is not scarier than a Dwarf (-2 Charisma)
you have to ask yourself, if skill is not in the equation, what is the base, unskilled determining factor for intimidating someone. Im pretty sure the answer is strength and size (it should be a friggin feat to use CHA or INT to intimidate!)
|
|
i agree with the above post, ugliness should give bonuses to Intimidate (ravenloft has a thing called OUTSIDER RATING (OL) and depending on how monstrous you are the number would be higher, dwarves were like +2 while Halforcs were +4, this number was subtracted from most social rolls, but was instead added to your intimidate rolls.
|
|
Try looking at one the several hundred threads on this topic before you hold your breath. The main reason is that Intimidate is not to make you afraid, it is to make you do stuff because you're afraid. That is far better done by the Charisma-based character than the big, dumb, ugly guy. Sure you'll be scared of him, but that doesn't mean you'll quickly comply with his wishes, or demoralise him much.