I am runing a dwarf barbarian with giant instinct that wear a really big waraxe.
He is not a charismatic dude. He don't talk a lot, he follows his leader without thinking a lot and he have an overprotection instinct on his party members.
We are having troubles becouse in social encounters when I try to protect someone becouse of my prsonality I am using intimidetion checks, and becouse of my stats (Cha 8) the checks are super low.
Examples:
My lider is in negotations with people in the bridge that want us to pay if we want to cross. My lider said ·we wont pay, you have not rights to do it·.
The guys in the bridge say: "Pay or go away little rat" (is a goblin).
I join the conversation and say: "repeat it again and considere yourself dead".
My DM ask for intimidation check and it always goes bad. The guy is not scared and I have to attack him (becouse of my personality)
An other exemple.
My lider ask me to stay in a door and not let anyone enter. Someone comes and I tell you can't pass, and I block the door with my body and my waraxe. My GM ask for intimidation check. Goes bad.
We are talking with the GM that don't make sense that we can not use Constituion or Strength for intimidate. But at the same time if I use the Strength for intimidate my class is to broken.
Do you GM considere to use Str or Con for intimidate but only for social encounters and rolplay. ¿But not in combat to give enemys negative effects?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you don't get to use charisma skills if you don't invest in charisma. Take Intimidating Prowess if you want to simulate your burliness making you scarier.
If the GM deems it appropriate for a certain situation, however, they might have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC.
So the rules certainly support the GM allowing you to use a different stat but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Charisma isn’t just what you say, it’s your entire presence.
Even the skill feat for using strength to demoralise only adds a bonus and doesn’t replace charisma. Now, if you had just performed some really impressive feat of strength and role played it into an intimidation I would let you get it on that occasion but you have to invest in Cha if you want to use it reliably.
Yeah, with CHA 8 not many people take you serious. At least not until you whack them with the waraxe. That is the guy you created.
As for your second example:
If someone that really want's to go through the door and will pick a fight over it comes along, an Intimidation check is in order. But a normal commoner should stop and turn around when a armored dwarf with a waraxe stand in the dor withou any check neccesary.
Yeah, you created a non-charisma character with a charisma based skill.
At level 1, you could have chosen to invest primarily in strength, dex, con, and charisma.
You can very easily start with an 18 str, 14 dex, 14 con, and 10 charisma, to get rid of the penalty. You're still not the best at intimidation, but you're not a charisma focused class.
Even if you we're comparing to a build with higher charisma, like 14, you're still only 2 points behind.
The unfortunate reality is that at level 1, you just don't have much of a bonus and the outcome is almost entirely dependent on the roll.
Well, intimidate isn't just about physical menacing.
It's about making the threat "I'm going to kill you, and your friend, and all your families if you don't do what I want" and making the other person believe you. Or at least believe you enough that they think they're better off complying.
At best, being physically menacing is represented by the skill feat, Intimidating Prowess.
A side note but an important one for this context, is that a certain level of treating NPC's like rational actors helps with this; your guy won't be able to make an Intimidate check but Average Joe from Small Village is going to pretty well immediately recognize that you'd kick his ass and not to pick a fight with you without a check. This doesn't mean that he is going to follow your orders like he would with a proper Coerce check, but it does mean that he'll try to avoid pissing you off.
Of course, this logic goes out the window with characters who think they can take you in a fight, which the armed guard in the first example probably did.
Being big, strong, and scary is only a small part of intimidation. With intimidation, you not only scare somebody but you are able to direct their fear towards doing what you want them to do. Without intimidation, the best you can do is trigger a fight/flight response.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To give a couple of extreme examples: Tsunamis and fires can be extremely scary, but they definitely cannot intimidate you.
I think the take away here is, if you want to intimidate invest in Charisma.
Even if you start with a penalty from your race you can end up with an okay charisma.
As a side effect, you get better at lots of other things.
Yup, charisma is not attractiveness, it isn't gift of the gab, it is raw personal presence.
Hitler was highly charismatic, the rock is highly charismatic, freddy(of horror movie fame) is highly charismatic.
It represents your body language, stance, cadence and similar :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given 2 characters with the same charisma score, which one is going to look more like a threat to your safety? The big muscular guy hodling a weapon or a scrawny and seemingly unarmed teenager in rags?
It's less true in PF2, but in general the LESS weapons, armor and STR a character has the MORE scary they are. The unarmed sorts are probably spellcasters after all :-)
As others have mentioned, there is a feat to help a bit. Or going expert and using assurance at least lets you intimidate the mooks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, charisma is not attractiveness, it isn't gift of the gab, it is raw personal presence.
Hitler was highly charismatic, the rock is highly charismatic, freddy(of horror movie fame) is highly charismatic.
It represents your body language, stance, cadence and similar :)
Yes, definitely the above.
To understand what might be going through your GM's mind is that when you are making that threat, they are potentially imagining you fidgeting or hesitating before or even during the words, when you are making low intimidate rolls.
As another more real world example, I've seen people play rude characters as low charisma characters. But in situations in character the player expects the NPCs to cow-tow to the rude individual's every demand, expecting no less than complete obedience, of everything. And this is the player's expectation, not just the character's expectation. However, this expectation is a very HIGH CHAR character. In real life, I've seen some really rude people in life, and despite being rude, people they don't even know, just seem to do what they ask and try to move on. It is fascinating to watch it happen, especially when compared to the next example.
I've also seen rude people who behave rashly and end up rubbing the others in the situation the wrong way, and end up getting kicked out of a building, or not getting their request, when someone politely asks momentarily later in another corner and they happily comply with the request without a second thought. This last situation is what a low CHA individual who is rude should expect. (the being kicked out, not politely accepted)
CHA is your ability to influence others. If you have a low CHA, you have a low ability to influence other's opinions. If you have a high STR, you may have a high ability to 'influence' the other person's HP count, but not so much their opinions.
Keep that in mind, and make sure you didn't invest wrongly in your stats to reflect what type of person you really want to be. Potentially ask your GM if you can re-arrange some of them if this is a significant enough stretch for your concept. Another thing you can do when making an intimidate check would be to potentially have a card that lists the minimum and maximum damage listed for an attack that is a hit that you could silently raise up while you make your intimidate check so that the GM can keep in mind if the NPC is one that would feel like even risking antagonizing the individual in front of them.
However, thugs you meet on a toll bridge, you should really assume they will not let you pass unless you give them money, or something else they want, or have a really good intimidate check. [or potentially, you donate all their blood to the nearby blood bank]
edit: @pauljathome your idea of using assurance for intimidation is actually a really good one to help insure you affect your more basic foes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah Assurance ignores your ability score all together, which is bad for most characters but really good for you.
In English:
The opposite of strong (high STR) is weak (low STR). That matches.
The opposite of graceful (high DEX) is clumsy (low DEX). That matches.
The opposite of robust (high CON) is sickly (low CON). That matches.
The opposite of smart (high INT) is educationally challenged (low INT). That matches.
The opposite of wise (high WIS) is oblivious (low WIS). That matches.
The opposite of friendly (high CHA) is arrogant/rude/demanding (also high CHA). That doesn't match.
Low CHA is actually 'forgettable' or 'socially inept'. But this doesn't fit the pattern.
I think the archetypical "Low Cha Dwarf Barbarian who is nonetheless terrifying" in my mind is Oghren from Dragon Age. As competent as he is in a fight, he's someone who is basically impossible to take seriously outside of one; alternating as he does from "grating" to "pathetic" to "thinks he's funny" to "incoherent."
Two problems with those high/low definitions:
1) The opposite of smart is stupid. Neither word has anything to do with education directly.
2) High charisma would match better with influential than friendly. Then the low charisma "forgettable" and "socially inept" would work better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In English:
The opposite of strong (high STR) is weak (low STR). That matches.
The opposite of graceful (high DEX) is clumsy (low DEX). That matches.
The opposite of robust (high CON) is sickly (low CON). That matches.
The opposite of smart (high INT) is educationally challenged (low INT). That matches.
The opposite of wise (high WIS) is oblivious (low WIS). That matches.
The opposite of friendly (high CHA) is arrogant/rude/demanding (also high CHA). That doesn't match.
Low CHA is actually 'forgettable' or 'socially inept'. But this doesn't fit the pattern.
How can you justify high charisma as being friendly when it's the stat you use to bully people?
I think for the OP, realizing you don't always have to use Intimidation is a good starting point.
Firstly, be specific about what Intimidation actually does: either Demoralize or Coerce, but Coerce is most relevant here.
Coerce is very much about forcing them to actively do a specific thing that they otherwise weren't going to do.
It also isn't something casual or instantaneous, the game states 1 minute, at least you should be in conversation with them,
with no critical events happening immediately because you won't actually be able to make Coercion check in that case.
But your examples don't really seem like that's your intent:
On the bridge, the enemy guard is only saying "pay or go away, you little rat!"
You respond "repeat it again and considere yourself dead", but what is that actually coercing the guard to do?
It isn't coercing them to DO something, it's just a vague threat IF they do something else. You shouldn't even roll Intimidate.
IF you responded "you will shut your mouth and let your superiors pass if you value your miserable life"
THAT would be a Coercion check because you are actually trying to coerce them into specific course of action.
So you can see, you can "act intimidating" and protective etc without actually making Intimidate/Coercion checks.
In your door scenario where you are supposed to guard it and not let anybody pass, I'm not quite clear on what happened:
"Someone comes and I tell you can't pass, and I block the door with my body and my waraxe. My GM ask for intimidation check. Goes bad."
"Someone comes" could mean somebody wants to pass thru the room, or it could mean a passerby who isn't necessarily planning on entering.
I don't think there is any need for a Coercion check for anybody (everybody) passing by. In terms of how passerbys passively sussing you out, that would be distinct Warfare Lore check or similar (?), but regardless, merely an informational assessment based on your appearance and weaponry etc, not per se dictating their attitude (of course, a guard may be hostile to anybody who appears they shouldn't be in restricted area they are located in).
If they DO want to enter the room, it is enough that you are physically blocking it, which doesn't allow their passage. So THEY should be the ones Coercing YOU to try to move, although this isn't used vs players so the GM will just tell you whether they seem seriously intimidating but leave result in your hands. At that point if they want to attack you to enter the room they can, but it doesn't depend on your Intimidation check.
It isn't necessary, but you COULD try to Coerce such a person acting like they insist on entering door (or threatening YOU with hostilities or repurcussions etc), but remember to think about it in terms of what you actively want them to DO. "GET OUT OF HERE" But realize, the failure condition of Coercion check doesn't even make them hostile, it just makes them Unfriendly if not already. Crit Fail does make them hostile, but even without a Coercion Crit Fail they might act hostile under their own volition. Ultimately, if your job is just to prevent passage, it doesn't matter if you have to get in a fight to do so, right? So succeeding on a Coercion check could be convenient, but isn't strictly critical to your job. You don't need to precipate a conflict, just stand there armed, blocking the door.
Now as others said, Intimidating Prowess is an option to improve Intimidate checks even if your CHA sucks. If you can get that to "OKAY" level, you could reasonably aspire to regularly Coercing NPCs who aren't meant as significant combat threats. That's a legit niche, dealing with passerbys etc. But mostly, I think you just don't need to be making as many Intimidation checks as you (or even your GM) might think you do. Also realize, if you are in situation where you might use violence or threat of violence, letting things enter combat can be valid approach, since if you let the NPC know you just want them to do X, they very well may surrender and submit rather than die. Coercion just means you don't even have to go there, but if you're willing to, then why not? Bad Intimidate check isn't really the end of the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarf: "Let me past, or die."
Guard 1: "Ha. Just because you've got big muscles you expect us to be scared?"
Guard 2: "Push off, shorty."
Guard 3: "Yeah! Get lost!"
Dwarf (Kills Guards 2 and 3 with a single cleaving blow of his axe.): "Let me past, or die."
Guard 1: "Nice try, but your cadence is weak and your body language is unconvincing. I'm not going to back down to a socially inept nerd like you."
|
CHA is the ability to get noticed and taken into account by others.
Low CHA means you do not get noticed nor taken into account.
That said circumstances can bring bonuses.
Also you could just stand there and let the party's face do the Intimidate check while using you as the reason why people should listen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instantly killing 2 of 3 should count as a severe buff to the intimidation check though.
Instantly killing 2 of 3 should count as a severe buff to the intimidation check though.
Severe buff in this system is like a +3.
I will lose an action during a fight answering the second one if he asks me what time it is... even if he doesn't say "Please".
Equivalent to raising your CHA from 8 to 14. Sounds pretty good actually.Instantly killing 2 of 3 should count as a severe buff to the intimidation check though.Severe buff in this system is like a +3.
I'm not disagreeing, +3 is a big bonus.
I'm reminding people that the math is much tighter if PF2. A bonus of +3 is actually a big bonus. In PF1, people would have looked at a +3 bonus to a skill and went "Okay, I guess that's a start."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarf: "Let me past, or die."
Guard 1: "Ha. Just because you've got big muscles you expect us to be scared?"
Guard 2: "Push off, shorty."
Guard 3: "Yeah! Get lost!"
Dwarf (Kills Guards 2 and 3 with a single cleaving blow of his axe.): "Let me past, or die."
Guard 1: "Nice try, but your cadence is weak and your body language is unconvincing. I'm not going to back down to a socially inept nerd like you."
Obviously the last line is ridiculous.
There is a big difference between scaring and intimidating, though. Guard 1 at this point would be scared but not intimidated. He is not inclined to carefully follow any instructions that the dwarf gives him, as an intimidated person would. Instead, he is scared into a fight/flight response, which the GM would naturally follow up with a morale check. Since he obviously can't take on the dwarf, he flees to seek help. The fact that this is close enough to what the dwarf wanted him to do is irrelevant.
If the dwarf had successfully intimidated him, he would step aside to let the dwarf pass and take no further action.
I know the topic is about intimidate, but diplomacy is another cha based skill.How can you justify high charisma as being friendly when it's the stat you use to bully people?In English:
The opposite of strong (high STR) is weak (low STR). That matches.
The opposite of graceful (high DEX) is clumsy (low DEX). That matches.
The opposite of robust (high CON) is sickly (low CON). That matches.
The opposite of smart (high INT) is educationally challenged (low INT). That matches.
The opposite of wise (high WIS) is oblivious (low WIS). That matches.
The opposite of friendly (high CHA) is arrogant/rude/demanding (also high CHA). That doesn't match.
Low CHA is actually 'forgettable' or 'socially inept'. But this doesn't fit the pattern.
Yes, which is why charisma isn't the "being mean" stat, either. It's the influence stat; you can use it to get people to like you, you can use it to force people to do what you want, or you can use it to make people believe something that isn't true.
|
The other difference is Cha-based checks are one of the only times you are directly performing the action your character is, so failure feels more ‘unfair’.
When I roll a miss with my sword, I didn’t actually swing a sword so I can easily accept the abstract miss. When I make what I feel is a compelling or cinematic threat/argument, I envision it happening exactly like I performed it, not how the abstract of my characters stats and proficiencies would have. So there is some dissonance there.
Certainly will vary by table, but adding significant bonuses or auto success if it’s what would make sense in the story and world is a way around this.