|
The general D&D philosophy seems to be that raw power is the basis for effectiveness, and finesse is an option expressed in feats and add-ons. I propose this should be the same for Intimidate. In a sword and & sorcery world the threat of a strong fist should the most commonly understood form of intimidation. The inclusion of size modifiers suggests that strength is a factor, but it sidesteps the need for skill to be more primal. It’s the realm of the thug – and only feats should make it the realm of the courtier or the sly deceiver.
Thanks!
Mental torture or anguish is a far better weapon to intimidate someone than physical harm. Whatever game world you use, death via physical damage is never too far away and therefore the norm for most evil beings.
|
|
Mental torture or anguish is a far better weapon to intimidate someone than physical harm. Whatever game world you use, death via physical damage is never too far away and therefore the norm for most evil beings.
In extravagent scenes, yes, it is. But I'm talking about a system which makes the 'mental' torturer pay for a feat and not the common bouncer. The current system is conceptually upside-down, imho.
I apologize if this sounds familiar, however I can't say this any better, so I'll repost what I said the last time this came up...
.
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.
In extravagent scenes, yes, it is. But I'm talking about a system which makes the 'mental' torturer pay for a feat and not the common bouncer. The current system is conceptually upside-down, imho.
There is certainly disagreement as to whether it is upside down or right side up. Regardless, everyone with any kind of training is probably intimidating to us commoners and experts.
This is ripe for a houserule for those who feel it is inverted from the natural order, since it is easy enough to flip the skill around, and create a feat, Intimidating Presence, which allows you to add Chr to intimidate checks.
The current system is conceptually upside-down, imho.
Not really.
Diplomacy doesn't use a physical stat. Bluff doesn't use a physical stat. These have "in-combat" uses, however the basic concept behind the skill is a Mental Activity, not a Physical one.
Using Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate are primarily mental activities. Charisma is about how you present yourself, which can include using your physical features more prominently if you have them (using an appealing figure for diplomacy, or a strong figure for intimidate) but your muscle mass isn't what allows you to intimidate someone.. it's knowing how to display that muscle, or when to, to get the desired result.
A strongman that "overdoes" the Intimidate (fails the check) flexed his muscle too soon in the conversation, and the person just says what he wants to hear so he'll let him go... at which point he turns around and ignores what he told him to do.
This is the difference Charisma makes to the skill.
|
This is the difference Charisma makes to the skill.
i agree whole heartedly to both your posts Kaisoku
changing intimidation to strenght would mean than only burly men with muscles would beable to scare a person by moving their muscles
i believe that looks and the promise behind them can scare alot more than physical damage
intimidation to charisma is right on my book
Mental torture or anguish is a far better weapon to intimidate someone than physical harm. Whatever game world you use, death via physical damage is never too far away and therefore the norm for most evil beings.In extravagent scenes, yes, it is. But I'm talking about a system which makes the 'mental' torturer pay for a feat and not the common bouncer. The current system is conceptually upside-down, imho.
I hear you, but I think the method of intimidation will depend of the character doing the intimidating. The current system excludes Strength as intimidate was allocated to Cha. Maybe it should be either/or ?
A house-rule seems to be the best solution as one could make a good argument for either!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If strength is the relevant ability, I guess intimidation is impossible over the phone or internet. Which is odd given that the pain these arguments cause me could easily result in me cooperating with anyone who could stop these threads forever.
Will this topic ever get old? Look, I understand there's a vocal minority that always makes this argument. It's a mediocre argument, it will always be a mediocre argument, and it will always be a minority position because it does not jive with the common understanding of charisma, strength, or intimidate.
Do yourself a favor - accept that this is a minority view and just adopt a house rule. There's nothing new to be said about this topic.
[rant]Please god, no. Strength needs no more awesome than it already has. If you want an intimidating fighter, he cant dump stat charisma, suck it up.[/rant] Please note i do not know if Selk wanted this change for reasons such as making it easier to minimax or anything. My comment is more an expression of my frustration at this arguement than a dig at him.
|
|
If strength is the relevant ability, I guess intimidation is impossible over the phone or internet. Which is odd given that the pain these arguments cause me could easily result in me cooperating with anyone who could stop these threads forever.
Will this topic ever get old? Look, I understand there's a vocal minority that always makes this argument. It's a mediocre argument, it will always be a mediocre argument, and it will always be a minority position because it does not jive with the common understanding of charisma, strength, or intimidate.
Do yourself a favor - accept that this is a minority view and just adopt a house rule. There's nothing new to be said about this topic.
Wow. Pony's got a sensitive hindquarters. I'm willing to concede if it's unpopular - these are just suggestions after all - but there's no need to be so overwrought. Pain? Really?
Intimidate isn't about looking scary. It's about forcing someone to think or act a certain way.
Exactly
Leave it alone at Chr.
A feat to allow someone to know just how "use" their STR is fine. But pure scare factor can cause hundreds of different reactions, and only one of those is the one you want. Making it be the RIGHT one is what Charisma is all about
Now see, I have to agree with Selk. I also don't think that this is a minority opinion...though apparently some folks seem to have a vested interest in maintaining that it is.
While I agree that the idea that the giant titan is going to squish you if you don't do what he says...this isn't born out by most play situations. In most game play situations I have seen the big brawny scary looking fighter would like to convince someone to do as he asks without having to pound the living crud out of them. The GM asks for an intimidate roll...the fighter has no Charisma to speak of and wouldn't be able to make this roll if he took 20. Same situation, but the tiny little gnome rogue (who does perhaps 1d3 hit points at a pop) can easily convince the reluctant opponent to do as she asks through "intimidation".
This seems totally upside-down.
In the most basic terms, the half-orc fighter has no appreciable charisma. He has no empathy and he may not even be aware of an opponent's ability to feel...a lack of empathy is a hallmark of low charisma. The terribly charismatic gnome knows exactly how the opponent feels and can easily place herself in his shoes -- she has empathy.
Who is more intimidating?
The gnome should be able to use diplomancy to convince an opponent of the error of his ways. The half-orc fighter should be able to threaten said NPC into doing what is healthy for him in the long run.
CJ
|
|
Allow me to pose the question from a different angle:
Why do people (players like you, Selk, and game designers of d20 D&D/Pathfinder) feel the need to arbitrarily tie skills like intimidation, or things like attack bonus modifier to one single attribute, and then want to punish players whose character concept does not fit this idea by forcing them to waste a feat just to get access to the other option? Seriously, why?
I didn't consider it to be any more arbitrary than using Charisma; just a view from a different angle. And I'm not against a more open-ended approach, like choosing between applicable stats. I was just making a suggestion within the constraints of the current 'one ability modifier per skill system'.
I appreciate the responses and the arguments, but I'm not here as the herald of some newfound 'Charisma to Strength' army intent on burning down the game. I thought it was a relatively minor suggestion.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
What can I say? After nearly 10 years of the same poorly-reasoned argument, I can't take anymore. Using Strength for Intimidate is a minority position and for good reason. The ability to inflict damage (represented by Strength in this simplistic view of Intimidate) is not the same as the ability to obtain information (represented by Charisma). The brawny fighter doesn't fail to intimidate because he's not capable of dishing out a huge amount of damage to the uncooperative, he fails because he can't convert the threat (or use) of that damage into cooperation. Maybe the person intimidated doesn't believe that the fighter will stop hurting him if he answers. Maybe he thinks that the fighter won't believe him.
Getting him to believe the fighter can and will inflict damage to him is not the crux of intimidate. It's convincing him that the fighter won't inflict damage or will withhold inflicting damage only if the target complies with the fighter's demands.
Thus, Charisma.
But, that argument's been made, a million times by a million people and is accepted by the vast majority of the gamers on earth and I wager all of the developers. Strength has little to do with Intimidate except as some sort of proxy for damage/pain. Guess what - the wizard can do damage too. So can the cleric. So, shouldn't Indimidate run off of Int for the former and Wis for the later? Shouldn't our poor intimidated victim also worry about the guy who burned half his tribe to death even as the big fighter leers at him?
It's a minority position and with good reason. Let the poor horse lie dead, he's been beaten for almost 10 years and you're never going to get him to cooperate, regardless of how hard you beat him with your enormous strength.
It should be "Change Intimidate from Charisma to Intelligence" because everyone knows that wizard's are the most dangerous class once you get past 5th level.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yes, that was sarcasm. Hasn't this been beaten to death?
Director of Games
|
Before this turns into more of a heated exchange, I am going to lock this one down. This has been discussed at length in previous threads. I have weighed this, and at this time, it is going to stay with Cha. We added the option, through the feat, to add Str to your check. If this does not work for your home game, feel free to reverse it. Its your game after all, but I am a strong believer in Cha for Intimidate.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Ok, Sebastian, then how is a larger intimidator more capable of implying the likelihood of violence than a smaller intimidator? How does size convey an aura of threat where strength does not? What is size if not a suggestion of physical power? If implied threat is as cerebral as you suggest, should there be size modifiers to intimidate at all?