PDA

View Full Version : Intimidation and Charisma



MellowMelon
2007-03-06, 12:36 PM
I have heard some people on the boards commenting on the fact that Intimidation being linked to charisma causes some problems. This problem became highlighted in my d20 apocalypse game. The 8-ft tall four armed vampiric lizard mutant found himself very unintimidating compared to the charismatic hero.:smallconfused:
This just doesn't make sense. The mutant's player saw his low Cha as his character being abrasive and unfit for most non-violent interactions. This would make him MORE scary, not less. Right? Any ideas on how to rule this? (I am completely fine with various house rules)

Thanks

cupkeyk
2007-03-06, 12:41 PM
exchange str for cha as the relevant modifier is the most accepted one.

Gamebird
2007-03-06, 12:44 PM
Ideas:

1) Apply a racial intimidation bonus (or penalty) to each mutation/template/etc.

2) Don't forget to apply the Intimidation bonus due to size.

3) Don't forget to apply common sense on the part of the target. He might not be "intimidating" as per the skill, but they can see the big muscles, sharp weapons and put 2 and 2 together. They know he's dangerous. They just don't get any creepy vibe off him. He's like an alligator or a shark. Sure - dangerous as all get out. People who fear dangerous things will fear him. So?

4) Allow dangerous brute characters to switch STR for CHR for Intimidation checks that allow them to physically threaten the target. Now here you run into the fact that the bumbling, tongue-tied mutant freak can somehow become very articulate when he grabs someone and shoves them against the wall. Really - the DM should NEVER run the NPCs as so mindless and dice-roll-driven that they can't react appropriately to being assaulted, regardless of someone's CHR or Intimidate.

goat
2007-03-06, 12:47 PM
Give him an almightly situational bonus?

I think low Charisma characters aren't as intimidating, not because they're not as threatening, but because they don't know how to express that they are about to dice-and-slice/politically ruin you. A guy who's an amazingly talented actor/orator/performer is more likely to know how to push the buttons that make people afraid, and how to act in order to appear like you can, and will, carry out your threats.

A low charisma character, while they may be big and scary looking, doesn't know how to add anything to their big-and-scaryness. For instance, in combat situations, they should be effective (on some people at least) from appearence alone, and probably should get a bonus somewhere. But in social situations, they're probably going to be pretty useless. They don't know how to put that edge in their voice, that swagger in their stride. They're just a big guy who can get carved up by the city guard if he threatens you.

Gorbad the Limb Rippa
2007-03-06, 12:51 PM
My roleplaying group allows str to be used if the PC uses it by showing of his physical prowess,
e.g.:an orc breaks a table in half to show that his not joking.
Or
the minotaur breaks an iron sword in half to scare the puny guard.

What you could do is give the character a circumstance bonus to Intimidate depending on how strong or scary he/she is.

The White Knight
2007-03-06, 01:04 PM
The reason for having Cha as the relevant ability score for Intimidate is that intimidating someone can often be just as dependent on how you convey the message. Take two average [humanoid] Joes, each with identical ranks in Intimidate, but Joe 1 has 8 Charisma whereas Joe 2 has 16. They're both, say, masters in some form of martial art. Joe 1 and Joe 2 are seperately walking home from work, when they are each mugged. Joe 1 steps up to the challenge - "you'd better back off, or I'm gonna beat you up!" he declares, after a brief portrayal of martial prowess. Joe 2's turn - "I've had a long, STRESSFUL day, I've the training to kill a man in seconds with nothing more than my BARE HANDS, and you're on my LAST NERVE. Try something, I DARE YOU!"

Who's scarier?

I do, however, agree that more monstrous creatures should have racial bonuses to intimidation. If Joe 1 Polymorphs himself into an Umber Hulk, the mugger's gonna wet himself. Bonuses like that would likely have to be adjudicated by the DM at the time of usage, though, since an Umber Hulk is probably not much more intimidating to an Old Red Dragon than either Joe.

EDIT: The orc breaking a table seems like a pretty good example for using Strength in place of Charisma, but just substituting it on a whim without some tangible means to prove your relative strength doesn't seem overly reasonable to me.

Roderick_BR
2007-03-06, 01:15 PM
The problem with Intimidation, is that, in D&D, it has nothing to do with physical looks, but with <i>how</i> you do it.
A classic example: In a Spiderman story, he captures some solder from some organization. He menaces him, trying to look intimidative, showing off some strenght, but the guy is unafased.
Then Silver Sable, a "international professional mercenary" gets near the guy, shows him a very small dagger, and whispers "a bullet would be faster". The guy start telling eveything he knows about his boss.
So, that was charisma and training vs simple strenght and looking menacing.
Not saying it's right, but it's an idea on how it works.

Gamebird
2007-03-06, 01:18 PM
There is a level at which the DM should not be rolling dice to see how the NPC reacts. If the orc breaks a table or the minotaur bends the iron bar, the human Warrior 1 guard is going to get the point that he's next, regardless of the PC's Intimidation result.

If a Fighter 18 hacks to pieces 50 of the orc band's finest warriors, their barbarian chief, shaman and three summoned animals in four rounds, do you really need to have the Fighter roll Intimidation (which he has 0 ranks in and a -3 CHR mod) to determine the reaction of the two level 1 orc Warriors who saw this carnage being enacted as they ran up to help? NO!! The orcs would turn around and flee like their lives depended on it, which they do. They don't need a stupid Intimidation roll to tell whether they're scared. Of course they're scared!

In my campaign, I removed all the skill functions that change an NPC's attitude because most of them don't make sense, or don't take into account situational modifiers like your mutant four-armed vampiric beastie. If I can't tell how the NPC will react, I determine it randomly. Makes more sense than having the PC invest skill ranks into something and having *that* modify random things the PC has no control over (like the NPC's past, his prejudices, his morale, his opinion that there are guards within screaming distance and he'll get a chance to scream, etc.)

Tor the Fallen
2007-03-06, 01:26 PM
I agree with Gamebird.
A counterpoint in charisma's favor, however, is the diplomatic intimidation you'd see between say, Paul Atreides and The Guild. He could start flipping out showing of his mad witching ways, but the Guild diplomat is just going to shrug. Instead, he's all "Yo bossman, you don't recognize me as ruler, we shut off the spice. Forever. Water of Death, beeotch."

And the diplomats all "Shhhheeeeeat, you one crazy motha****a!"

InfiniteMiller
2007-03-06, 01:32 PM
One of my DMs allowed us to switch out Cha for Str depending on circumstance. Charisma is more of a verbal-threat sort of intimidation, I guess. The barbarian I played when this first came up wasn't much for speech, and decided, as most barbarians probably do, to let his fists do the talking instead. The threat of of having his skeleton pulverized was enough to make that captured bandit give up the location of his comrades (and also soil his pants).

Artanis
2007-03-06, 01:37 PM
You could also give a big circumstance bonus for being physically intimidating, such as breaking a table in half.

Dhavaer
2007-03-06, 01:37 PM
They don't need a stupid Intimidation roll to tell whether they're scared. Of course they're scared!

The problem there is that Intimidation doesn't make you scared, it makes you intimidated. (Well, the combat use does, but that's a different situation) In this case, as you said, they would run the hell away. But if they couldn't run, they'd stand and fight like trapped rats. Sure they're scared, but not intimidated.

Intimidation doesn't necessarily make someone run away. Intimidation makes someone do what the intimidator wants them to. Sometimes this may be running away (see the movie Snatch, the scene in the bar where Bullet-Tooth Tony intimidates Vinny, Sol and Tyrone) sometimes it might be tying the rest of the hostages up before allowing the same thing to be done to you. And to do that, you need Charisma. Strength doesn't help. Wisdom or Intelligence might, but Charisma is the main thing.

NullAshton
2007-03-06, 01:37 PM
I think the intimidation skill as presented in the SRD is more 'subtle' sort of intimidation. It's not the "Do what we say or we kill you" type of intimidation, it's a more subtle kind used by diplomats.

An example would be you're trying to get into a building, but guards are in the way. To use intimidation to get past the guards, you wouldn't threaten to kill them outright. It would be more along the lines of "You're not really paid enough to defend against us entering, so let us through without trouble, will you?" that doesn't set off any alarms. But if you confront the guards with, "Thog rip you in half if you no let Thog pass!" it would probably set off alarms of some kind, and the purpose of using intimidation would be defeated. They're intimidated, sure, but they're not intimidated with the skill they're intimidated with your power.

Something like that anyway.

Scartore
2007-03-06, 01:42 PM
I think the biggest problem we are dealing with here is game mechanical... what most people are looking for with an intimidate check is not really covered by the d20 rules as well as say... a presence attack in Hero System. You almost have to leave such decisions to gm's choice or good roleplaying because the actual intmidate rules are, to put it bluntly, wussy.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2007-03-06, 02:09 PM
Yah; I'm with circumstantially subbing STR for CHA when it comes to Intimidate. My permanancied Reduce Person (loooong story, has to do with an alternate Rod of Wonder) Pixie Sorcerer is not that Intimidating when you look at her; but she can be downright scary when it comes to her control spells.

ThunderEagle
2007-03-06, 02:23 PM
Just read this comic:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0101.html
and you will know why Intimidate uses charisma, not strength.

Mewtarthio
2007-03-06, 02:28 PM
Charisma represents your presence, your ability to make people do what you want: Whether they fear you or love you, they notice and obey you. If a 6-CHA barbarian walks in the room covered in blood, people will be afraid of him, but in the same manner that they'd be afraid of a lion or even a stampeding rabid cow. If he demands money, they'll probably give it to him, but only because they want to appease him so that he doesn't kill him. If they got the idea that they could get out of the situation any other way (eg "Hey, look over there, it's big, shiny distraction!"), they'd do that instead. If the Barbarian asked for information, they'd probably give him something fake that they think he'd like to hear to make him leave. As soon as he's gone, they're calling the police or the paladins or what have you. They never really take the Barbarian seriously.

If, however, a 16 Cha buisinessman walks in and makes a successful Intimidate check, the people are actually cowed into obeying him. He has a commanding presence, and the people won't just view him as a dangerous threat that they need to escape somehow. They view him as something powerful that they have to appease. That's why the attitude shift lasts for a short time after the Intimidator leaves: The victim still thinks of him as someone who shouldn't be trifled with.

SpiderBrigade
2007-03-06, 02:38 PM
Yeah, as others have pointed out, there's a difference between someone being intimidated, and Intimidated, if that makes sense. The non-combat use is not just "making them scared of you," that's easy. It's a very specific "making them just scared enough, and exerting pressure so that they do what you want." That takes skill and charisma. Edit: and, as Mewthario mentions, in the rules they actually act like they're friendly. The 6-Cha barbarian gets the answer that will keep him from hurting them, which may be a complete lie, or calculated to screw him over later ("the evil vampire's only weakness is Inflict Critical Wounds"). The 18-Cha guy will get the truth, because they're so scared that they won't take a chance on lying to him.

Similarly, the combat use of the skill is different from scaring the enemy. In the example of the orc mooks, yes, they would be scared of your ability, and run, because that's smart and they're not mindless. But the skill intimidate can't make your enemies run; it can only make them shaken, which is a very specific thing in the rules. This isn't showing the enemy that you can hurt them, they presumably know that, and are (usually, given the D&D world) pretty used to the idea of fighting things, possibly to the death. Intimidate is about making them extra scared, in such a way that it hinders their effectiveness. That requires charisma. Think of the Princess Bride, with the whole "now we fight...to the PAIN" thing. Well, that's bluff, too. But it's great intimidation as well.

Kantolin
2007-03-06, 02:51 PM
An additional flaw with strength-intimidate is that, well, that doesn't matter so much in a lot of cases. Everything I'd go with as a circumstance bonus.

The half-orc bending an iron bar shouldn't in the slightest even amuse the minotaur he's trying to intimidate. Or, more logically, the other half-orc who can do similar enough. I wouldn't give a bonus here.

The epic level wizard is not likely to be impressed by it either, and he's also likely to be extremely intimidating despite having lousy of both strength and charisma. Circumstance modifier. Especially if he has a quickened wish or something just waiting for this particular strong fighter to get uppity.

If you're intimidating by 'better-than-you', I'd focus that on a circumstance modifier. Leading to a lot of 'You don't scare me, ya clumsy oaf'. I mean, when a random townsfolk is standing in a public area with a decent amount of guards nearby, the fact that the person in front of them could beat them to a pulp may or may not scare them.

Sure, you can hold someone up at the bank, take their wallet, and tell them to remain on the ground and count to 100. If you're not actually that intimidating but happened to be holding a gun, the instant they believe the coast is clear enough they'll grab their cell phone and call the police. The intimidating guy is the guy who has people sitting there "F-fourty three mi-mississippi" long after he's probably gone, but they're not sure.

Wolf53226
2007-03-06, 02:56 PM
I have two words for you: Circumstance Bonus.

It's your friend.

Ditto
2007-03-06, 02:59 PM
Cha is what you use when interacting with people, so if you walk into a room and break a chair over your head... awesome. You haven't told anyone what you want yet. That's Cha. As indicated above, if you don't have any finesse to it, they'll tell you something just to get you to go away.

I'm a fan of using a given attribute to get a bonus - and not just strength. I think a great example of Int being used to intimidate is in Good Will Hunting. Ben Affleck's janitor guy starts spouting off all this research from a technical journal, and the priss who's harassing Matt Damon is totally taken aback. Any show of 'strength' will do - and that's usually called 'Force of Personality', in the end. Which is Cha. But by no means should you have a bonus just by sheer dint of having a high number on a piece of paper. Size modifiers, racial bonuses, those make sense.

Gamebird
2007-03-06, 03:20 PM
I have two words for you: Circumstance Bonus.

It's your friend.

Which is another way of saying the DM makes up a bonus or penalty based on the situation at hand, and then applies it to a d20 roll that the player adds their Intimidate ranks and CHR modifier to.

The end result is what? What can someone achieve by rolling Intimidate that they can't achieve by role play?

Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#fear)). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated.
or

Demoralize Opponent...the target becomes shaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#shaken) for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#attackRoll), ability checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#abilityChecks), and saving throws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#savingThrows).

The first one is (or should be) entirely the province of role play. The second is marginally useful.

Whether or not an NPC or monster can be intimidated into cooperating with the PC should be entirely based on role play.

Either that, or turnabout's fair play and the NPCs and monsters should be able to force the PCs to cooperate by using Intimidate on them.

Matthew
2007-03-06, 08:46 PM
You could look at this another way.

Have the player roll for intimidation and then roleplay the result. He doesn't need to know the DC, and the DM can roleplay the NPC in accordance with the results, adding a circumstance bonus when the roleplay suggests. A compromise can be reached through rolling and roleplay, so long as everyone is aware that the results aren't cut and dry.

Turnabout is fair play, but the same logic can apply. If you have an NPC with a high intimidation skill, roll the die, roleplay him in accordance with the results and expect the players to roleplay as well. It's not a perfect solution, but it works well in my games.

Titanium Dragon
2007-03-07, 02:50 AM
I think there's a bigger reason. Frankly, a lot of the classes which are physically intimidating have Intimidate as a class skill. If you don't spend your points on it, then you aren't going to be that great at it. However, the more articulate you are, the more intimidating you are. The scariest thing isn't an unthinking monster, is that guy who you know will stab you in the face 47 times not because he likes to, but because he wants you to talk, and you know he'll stop if you do. Or the lawful evil fighter type who isn't about smashing stuff, but simply speaking in a voice that carries that "you're going to do this or die" tone. Darth Vader is way scarier than some giant space worm for this reason.

Dhavaer
2007-03-07, 02:55 AM
The end result is what? What can someone achieve by rolling Intimidate that they can't achieve by role play?

Same thing as through rolling attacks instead of roleplay. Legitimacy through mechanics. It doesn't matter how nicely you describe your attacks, a first level fighter isn't bringing down a Great Red Wyrm.

Hallavast
2007-03-07, 03:00 AM
Same thing as through rolling attacks instead of roleplay. Legitimacy through mechanics. It doesn't matter how nicely you describe your attacks, a first level fighter isn't bringing down a Great Red Wyrm.
The fighter could win if the Dragon lies down and makes itself helpless and lets the fighter coup de grace it, then fails it's fortitude save to stay alive. The dragon might only let you do this if your swing is particularly overdone and fancy looking. :smallcool:

Shalist
2007-03-07, 04:54 AM
Same thing as through rolling attacks instead of roleplay. Legitimacy through mechanics. It doesn't matter how nicely you describe your attacks, a first level fighter isn't bringing down a Great Red Wyrm.

Thank you, and I couldn't agree more. These "I have a -3 mod in something but don't wish to be inconvenienced by it" (aka 'charisma bashing') threads are a pet peeve of mine. As gamebird says, why waste stat and skill points on charisma when you can just RP a charismatic character? It's no worse than a character with 4 strength arm wrestling ogres because his player goes to the gym once in a while. Sarcasm aside, I don't entirely disagree. As things stand now, most of what charisma does seems like a direct substitution for actual roleplay, which is rather contrary to the point in the game.

---

I think it's safe to say that if someone has 4 intelligence or wisdom, they'll be ignorant, short tempered, feebleminded, etc. If someone 4 dex or str, they wouldn't be able to walk without tripping or lift more than 40 pounds. But since charisma is a purely RP'd trait, the only penalty for having a low score in it is that some blurb in your char's sheet about how he baths infrequently or some such--certainly no conceivable mechanical disadvantages.

I'm apparently in the minority in seeing self-confidence as the single greatest contributor to charisma. Someone with a -3 modifier is someone I'd expect to be shy, stuttering, and plagued by doubt about their own abilities, and virtually unable to make eye contact--not brashly running around trying to intimidate everything in sight as if you're the local mafia boss's right hand man.

---

If you want to intimidate through strength, ask yourself, how special are you? Are 4-armed mutant lizards so rare that the mere sight of one leaves people trembling? Possibly, yes, which would fall under a racial or circumstancial bonus completely unrelated to your strength score. How about half-orcs with more brawn than brains? Hardly. If you wish to get the most out of your brawn, let the charismatic type do the talking, ala "..pay back the money or Bruno here will smash your legs..."

Other than that, if a scrawny 16 charisma monk looks you in the eye and says in a confident and chillingly cold voice, "Move, now," as he approaches you without slowing, it will be a lot scarier, and stay fresh in your memory a lot longer, than even a quite beefy monk stuttering out a "mo-mo-move out of m-m-my way pl-please, I do-don't want to hu-hurt you." while he stands there looking anywhere but at you and holding his quarterstaff in a white-knuckled grip.

---

My last bit...The average anything has 10 charisma, so the average monk will not be particularly shy, nor the average half-orc particularly self-efacing, etc. The fact that so many players use charisma as a dump stat makes their characters rather unusual in this regard though, and often very much unlike their literary counterparts. Significant negative modifiers should result in significant disadvantages. In charisma's case, it's largely up to the player to enforce them though.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-03-07, 05:51 AM
Apply an inverse-charisma bonus as well as a charisma bonus. If it's got a Cha of 3 and it's not because it's mute, give it the negative as a positive to Intimidate.
Alternatively, or also, add its highest physical score.
Strength: Duh.
Dex: Ever wonder what a star wars thug must feel when he sees a guy in robes do a quadruple-backflip and deflect his shots? That's gotta be a trip.
Con: It'd be pretty scary to smack someone hard across the back with a club and have them not even flinch. That sort of tolerance or durability is unnerving.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-07, 08:31 AM
It is a common misconception to think that someone with low Charisma would automatically stutter. And just because you speak well doesn't necessarily mean that the local thug/gangster/punk will step aside to let you through. Mr Muscles needs merely to move in your general direction, and you will be falling all over yourself to get out of his way. For a more modern analogy:

Well-dressed Fop tries to intimidate the Bouncer into letting him in: "Do you know who I am?!" Bouncer merely glares, then resumes stony stare into space.

Fellow bigger than the Bouncer pushes his way to the front. Bouncer will either call for backup(in which case, he's already showing he's not confident he can safely take the guy himself), or he will try to call his Manager to check. Either way, he's not likely to even physically stop the guy. He'll step aside first.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Charisma should be completely dropped from Intimidate in a combat situation. "I don't care how good you look, how well you speak, who the hell your scion is, you're not going to be able to shake me in a fight unless you can prove you're a threat to me."

Cyborg Pirate
2007-03-07, 08:41 AM
It is a common misconception to think that someone with low Charisma would automatically stutter. And just because you speak well doesn't necessarily mean that the local thug/gangster/punk will step aside to let you through. Mr Muscles needs merely to move in your general direction, and you will be falling all over yourself to get out of his way. For a more modern analogy:

Well-dressed Fop tries to intimidate the Bouncer into letting him in: "Do you know who I am?!" Bouncer merely glares, then resumes stony stare into space.

Fellow bigger than the Bouncer pushes his way to the front. Bouncer will either call for backup(in which case, he's already showing he's not confident he can safely take the guy himself), or he will try to call his Manager to check. Either way, he's not likely to even physically stop the guy. He'll step aside first.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Charisma should be completely dropped from Intimidate in a combat situation. "I don't care how good you look, how well you speak, who the hell your scion is, you're not going to be able to shake me in a fight unless you can prove you're a threat to me."


WOW

You can not be more wrong. How did you ever arrive at these conclusions? Speaking from experience, a big burly guy acting tough without the personality to back it up will get nowhere with a proper bouncer or bouncer team. A well-dressed man good looking man who can talk the talk can get into any place. Ofcourse, I wouldn't know why anyone would try and intimidate a bouncer in the first place. If there's a group of people on this planet who are Specifically trained to resist intimidation, it's the bouncers in the world.

Getting a good talk on with them and getting to know them a little will get you into any club much much faster. With all the benefits of never needing to wait in line.



Is it me, or do a lot of people here not understand the nature of intimidation?

Raum
2007-03-07, 08:42 AM
@ AtomicKitKat

I suspect Shalist was using a stutter as an example and not trying to say all low charisma individuals have a stutter. The point is simply your "presence" or charisma means far more to intimidation than physical size or strength. Your "Mr Muscles" won't even have the self confidence to force his way in if he has a low enough charisma.

Frankly, when role played properly, a low charisma should have more of an effect on the game than a low constitution.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-07, 09:19 AM
I just want to make it clear that stuttering is a physical disorder. It has nothing to do with self-confidence or force of personality.

Clementx
2007-03-07, 09:27 AM
There are two distinct things in DnD that are covered by the colloquial term, "intimidating". There is an opponent taking an appraisal of you, and realizing from the situation and your demonstrated abilities that he has no chance of resisting. This is where showing off your Str or BAB, slaughtering his friends, already having them manacled in a jail cell, etc. This is purely RPing, and incidentally the most common way of applying it to PCs so they don't feel railroaded. We all have had the BBEG show up at lvl2 or stuck the PCs with a quest/penance for breaking laws or generally screwing up. Perhaps this should be referred to as, "imposing", as it is mostly what you are and how the situation is.

Then there is Intimidate (and as an extension, all the magical fear spells and auras). Intimidate forces action without or in addition to the obvious potential for violence. Intimidate can turn your combat position into a defined penalty (Shaken) instead of a desire to not be in someone's threatened area. Intimidate can temporarily sharpen your opponent's Disposition beyond their standard (indifferent for some random guy, unfriendly for the ogre walking down the street, hostile for the city guards, etc.) to Friendly because you have put social pressure on the opponent. Intimidate can even make a person wary of you without having to use more than words.

Putting a knife to someone's throat is a credible threat, and everyone should judge the situation as dangerous without a check. But most times, you don't want to actually pull that knife, because being able to imply it forcefully is more intimidating, or you are just lying about your willingness or ability to harm.

Gamebird
2007-03-07, 09:55 AM
Intimidate is a poorly defined skill and is often used as a crutch or replacement for role play. See also Diplomacy and Bluff.

This is a problem for all of D&D's social skills. There are two extremes:
1) What I advocate, where you ignore the social skills and rely on the role playing ability of the player, augmented by dice rolls only in unusual circumstances. Such dice rolls do not dictate the NPC's reactions, but rather the PC's portrayal. An NPC might choose to remain unmoved by the PC.

2) The other extreme, which has hardly any role play at all, instead relying on skill checks to determine whether your character spoke well or tripped himself up. This casts social interaction as no more than another form of combat (and in my opinion, viewing it that way cripples character development). Talking to NPCs is usually essentially adversarial, with you and they rolling dice to determine who "wins" the discussion.

Find a happy medium that works for you. I've played using #2 and it's boring as hell. But if it works for you, go for it.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-07, 10:42 AM
If there's a group of people on this planet who are Specifically trained to resist intimidation, it's the bouncers in the world.

Getting a good talk on with them and getting to know them a little will get you into any club much much faster. With all the benefits of never needing to wait in line.

Is it me, or do a lot of people here not understand the nature of intimidation?

Actually, Bouncers are more resistant to social intimidation than physical intimidation, if only because of their experience, since most of the time, they're the toughest guy in a 100m radius. They're used to every B or C list "star" who thinks they're hot to trot trying to get in by flashing money, or status. They just don't give a crap. When someone more physically imposing than themselves comes along, they will be less capable of turning the guy away through simply "looking tough".

Now, if you'd wanted to argue against my case, you should have brought up "Door Bitches". These are sort of a combination bouncer/concierge. They decide who goes in or out of the club, but generally leave the actual physical throwing out to the goons standing nearby. On the other hand though, that's more social than combat, which still supports my point.:smallbiggrin:

Edit: For some odd reason, my previous edit failed to go through. Go figure. As I was trying to say before. Stuttering has no correlation to Charisma, only perhaps reaction checks. Nicholas Brendan(Xander on Buffy, also plays that other guy on Kitchen Confidential) had a stuttering problem in his youth(may still have it, just less obvious when he's acting, I guess), but many will certainly agree that he's got "better than average" Charisma.

Telonius
2007-03-07, 10:53 AM
It seems to me that intimidation (the actual act of intimidating somebody, not the D&D "Intimidate" skill) relies on two things: what you're threatening, and your target's belief that you can and will carry out what you're threatening. If a 98-lb weakling threatens to snap a thug in two, no matter how charismatic he is, the thug is going to see that there's no way he can make good on that threat. There's no chance of the intimidation succeeding. But, if the 98 lb weakling happens to be a well-connected politician and threatens to make life "very difficult" for the thug, then he might just shut up and do whatever the little guy wants. (The reverse is also true; the 98 lb weakling would believe the big muscley guy could snap him in two, but might not believe that he has connections in city hall).

So in D&D terms, if I were building this from the ground up, I'd say that there are two components of the Intimidate check. 1. Communicating a threat, which is (and should be) Charisma-based. 2. Believability of the threat.

My problem with the way the skill currently works is that the target gets a wisdom bonus to resist the effect; so if you're wiser, you'll be less likely to be intimidated. This doesn't necessarily make sense to me - wouldn't it be an unwise 98-lb weakling that didn't think the thug could/would hurt him?

There are a couple of ways I would consider for making the skill work. One would be to do it like a Bluff check. Bonuses and penalties for how believable the threat is (believability determined by the DM). The good part about this is that it isn't dependent on any other core ability. The bad thing is that it's subjective (what if the target is something like an even match? How does the DM determine what's "believable?").

Another possible way to adjudicate it would be to have the current system, take away the Wisdom bonus on the defender's side, and give a situational bonus to both attacker and defender based on the nature of the threat. Strength if the threat is physical, for example; Charisma if the threat is social. The good point of this is that it leaves the current system largely in-tact, while getting rid of the part that doesn't make sense. The bad part is that it would be hard to determine which stat to use for the particular threat used.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-07, 11:14 AM
My problem with the way the skill currently works is that the target gets a wisdom bonus to resist the effect; so if you're wiser, you'll be less likely to be intimidated. This doesn't necessarily make sense to me - wouldn't it be an unwise 98-lb weakling that didn't think the thug could/would hurt him?
This is where Wisdom's current state as a mish-mash of only tangentially related traits comes in.

Wisdom's role in resisting Intimidation has nothing to do with "Wisdom as Common Sense," but instead with "Wisdom as Willpower". It's the bit of your Wisdom score that represents how easy it is to mentally shake you. The same part that represents your resistance to other mental and fear effects. Sure, a wise person has the common sense to know that the thug can hurt him and is likely willing to carry the threat out. But that person also has enough Willpower to carry on whatever course of action he (the wise person) wants, rather than letting thoughts of impending harm get to him.

Mewtarthio
2007-03-07, 11:35 AM
My last bit...The average anything has 10 charisma, so the average monk will not be particularly shy, nor the average half-orc particularly self-efacing, etc. The fact that so many players use charisma as a dump stat makes their characters rather unusual in this regard though, and often very much unlike their literary counterparts. Significant negative modifiers should result in significant disadvantages. In charisma's case, it's largely up to the player to enforce them though.

I imagine it's sort of self-selecting. You see, the reason these people become adventurers is that nobody really wants to have them at home.


Apply an inverse-charisma bonus as well as a charisma bonus. If it's got a Cha of 3 and it's not because it's mute, give it the negative as a positive to Intimidate.

A guy with low Charisma is just a guy unable to command respect. If somebody walks in the door with one eye, half his face melted, and a spiderweb of scars over his bare torso, he doesn't necessarily have low Charisma. If he's got high Charisma, you'll think he looks like a tough guy who shouldn't be messed with. If he's got low Charisma, you'll think he's either some loser who can't pick his fights well or an escaped ICU patient.


WOW

You can not be more wrong. How did you ever arrive at these conclusions? Speaking from experience, a big burly guy acting tough without the personality to back it up will get nowhere with a proper bouncer or bouncer team. A well-dressed man good looking man who can talk the talk can get into any place. Ofcourse, I wouldn't know why anyone would try and intimidate a bouncer in the first place. If there's a group of people on this planet who are Specifically trained to resist intimidation, it's the bouncers in the world.

Getting a good talk on with them and getting to know them a little will get you into any club much much faster. With all the benefits of never needing to wait in line.



Is it me, or do a lot of people here not understand the nature of intimidation?

Yep, I imagine you're right. Charisma, too.

Telonius
2007-03-07, 11:38 AM
This is where Wisdom's current state as a mish-mash of only tangentially related traits comes in.

Wisdom's role in resisting Intimidation has nothing to do with "Wisdom as Common Sense," but instead with "Wisdom as Willpower". It's the bit of your Wisdom score that represents how easy it is to mentally shake you. The same part that represents your resistance to other mental and fear effects. Sure, a wise person has the common sense to know that the thug can hurt him and is likely willing to carry the threat out. But that person also has enough Willpower to carry on whatever course of action he (the wise person) wants, rather than letting thoughts of impending harm get to him.

I see where you're coming from there. If it's using the "willpower" part of Wisdom, couldn't we use the Will save of the target to modify the check, instead of the Wisdom?

d20 + Will Save + bonuses vs fear,
instead of
d20 + Level/HD + Wisdom bonus + bonuses vs fear.

It would still have the mechanical effect of "higher level characters and really wise people are harder to intimidate," and make a little bit more sense fluff-wise. At the same time it would make it much more possible for the Intimidate skill to be successfully used. (It's a rare thing when that happens, at least in my experience).

Gamebird
2007-03-07, 11:41 AM
So in D&D terms, if I were building this from the ground up, I'd say that there are two components of the Intimidate check. 1. Communicating a threat, which is (and should be) Charisma-based. 2. Believability of the threat.

Good point. There's also a third component, 3. Consequences of the threat. You see, Intimidate offers all the same problems as Diplomacy.

As the skill reads right now, you use it and the target turns "friendly" while you're there and will do what you want (to the limits of the ill-defined "friendly" reaction category). That's where the flaw is - the system doesn't give a good definition for "friendly". Will the bouncer let you into the club if he thinks you're there to kill someone and cause trouble, thus getting the bouncer fired? Perhaps the bouncer is the sort of person who'd stop even his best friends from doing something so stupid. How does the DM decide?

The skill says an intimidated target "will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf." It doesn't say they'll sell out their other friends, loan you their magic sword or prized possession, or do anything that would incriminate themselves. There are certainly interactions where light conversation or very limited help is useful: small talk with a guard to learn his name or his busy days, getting a guard to overlook a very minor infraction, getting a wealthy stranger to give you a gold or two as charity.

It doesn't say they'll do things that endanger themselves. So you're back where you started with the DM having to decide whether the NPC considers your request endangering. The PCs try to intimidate a prisoner into selling out his companions, instead of torturing the information out of him. The prisoner knows the PCs are going to go kill his companions, so it's up to the DM to decide if the PCs can force him to talk anyway.

My problem with Intimidate is that most of the things PCs try to use it for (or I read on this board people seem to think it will do) are well outside "friendly". The skill allows you to make someone temporarily friendly, but then PCs ask the target to do things you couldn't get a friendly person to do.

Examples:

Then Silver Sable, a "international professional mercenary" gets near the guy, shows him a very small dagger, and whispers "a bullet would be faster". The guy start telling eveything he knows about his boss.

And his boss will get killed - the person who pays this guy, supports him and has some sort of relationship with him. Maybe the soldier doesn't care. But maybe he does. How does the Intimidate skill check help a DM run this situation? It really doesn't, because it's up to the DM to decide if this particular NPC is a stick-in-the-mud, dyed-in-the-wool loyalist who will die for his boss, or if he's a more normal person who looks out for himself. And if he's a normal guy who looks out for himself, then why does the PC need to roll Intimidate? How about just telling the guy "Hey you, bub, get out of our way or we'll kill you too!" Do PCs have to make skill checks to relate basic bargains to NPCs?


A counterpoint in charisma's favor, however, is the diplomatic intimidation you'd see between say, Paul Atreides and The Guild. He could start flipping out showing of his mad witching ways, but the Guild diplomat is just going to shrug. Instead, he's all "Yo bossman, you don't recognize me as ruler, we shut off the spice. Forever. Water of Death, beeotch."

Why do you need a skill check for this? Are you saying that the skill check reflects whether Paul picks a useful strategy or a less-useful one? Do you use dice rolls to determine if your character picks a useful feat or a less-useful one? Do you use a dice roll to decide how much Power Attack to use? More relevantly, do you use a dice roll to decide whether to fight it out or flee an encounter?

Most games, the player is in charge of deciding how much Power Attack to use, which feats they pick, and whether to fight or flee. Intimidate is not analogous to an attack roll in combat, because in combat your opponent can fight back. With Intimidate, it's save-or-lose for your target. You have unlimited uses per day of what amounts to Charm Person, but the skill doesn't then tell you what you can talk this person into.

What's wrong with letting the players pick their character's strategy (witching ways or a take-it-or-leave-it approach) and letting them suffer consequences or reap rewards based off their choice, rather than the roll of a d20?


Intimidation makes someone do what the intimidator wants them to. Sometimes this may be... tying the rest of the hostages up before allowing the same thing to be done to you.

Does that fall under 'friendly'? If I were DM, I'd only have it fall under 'friendly' if the intimidator made it very clear the hostages would be set free later on (now, he might be lying, but that's different). Otherwise you've got a Flight 93 situation where the hostages, knowing their captors will kill them anyway, willingly risk their own lives to resist and overpower their captors.


The threat of of having his skeleton pulverized was enough to make that captured bandit give up the location of his comrades (and also soil his pants).

Again, a lot depends on the relationship of the bandit to his comrades, and what the bandit expected the PCs to do to them if he gave them up. If they were his brothers, best friends and father, and the PCs were going to track them down and kill them, then using an Intimidate check to make him 'friendly' won't get you anywhere. Now it might loosen his tongue insomuch as he might offer the PCs options: "Let me go and our group will never bother your lands again" or "Listen, don't you know you were set up? It was really the baron's hired thugs that have been robbing people along this road!"

On the other hand, if the bandit has no loyalty to his associates, or he believes the PCs will capture and arrest them (and they aren't facing a death sentence), then maybe he'll talk. But in that case, did you really need an Intimidate check to figure that out?


An example would be you're trying to get into a building, but guards are in the way. To use intimidation to get past the guards, you wouldn't threaten to kill them outright. It would be more along the lines of "You're not really paid enough to defend against us entering, so let us through without trouble, will you?"

But what if they are paid enough? What if their boss is Xykon and they know that anyone who doesn't follow orders is killed and reanimated as a zombie? What if they are religious zealots protecting the holiest shrine of their faith?

The thing is, success with Intimidate doesn't depend on the PC's skill. It depends on the NPC's situation and personality. Only the DM really knows those factors. A d20 roll might be appropriate if the DM wants to determine it randomly, but there's no reason why a PC's skill ranks would affect that random determination.

Orzel
2007-03-07, 11:59 AM
There are so many big dudes who couldn't scare a kitten. Charisma is your ability to make other feel the way you want them to feel. Eye control. Voice control. Stopping your natural insincts to run or fight. A person with low Charisma cannot control their body and have trouble performing actions they are not used to doing.

When you can't look into someone's eyes and your voice cracks or lowers every other word, you are less intimidating.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-07, 11:59 AM
I see where you're coming from there. If it's using the "willpower" part of Wisdom, couldn't we use the Will save of the target to modify the check, instead of the Wisdom?

d20 + Will Save + bonuses vs fear,
instead of
d20 + Level/HD + Wisdom bonus + bonuses vs fear.
I imagine it would have been a Will save except for the scaling issue. Skills scale faster than saves. If resisting Intimidate was based on a Will save even a mid level character that's put only a moderate investment into Intimidate would have checks that were nearly impossible to resist.

Orzel
2007-03-07, 12:11 PM
Yeah. Typically a skill vs a save is a bad idea. A Maxxed Skill is double a poor save and 10+ over a good one before ability bonuses.

Telonius
2007-03-07, 01:03 PM
Apologies for the super-long post.

I figured out a few possible scenarios for the "will save" idea.

Scenario 1. Fighter 1 vs. Fighter 2. Assume both have CHA around 10 and WIS around 12 (reasonable, I think), and Fighter 1 maxes out Intimidate. I won't factor in any magic items.
Level 1. Fighter 1: +4 (4 ranks + 0 Cha), Fighter 2: +1 (Base 0 + WIS 1). Fighter 1 ahead by 3.
Level 5. Fighter 1: +8 (8 ranks + 0 Cha), Fighter 2: +2 (Base 1 + WIS 1).
Fighter 1 ahead by 6.
Level 10. Fighter 1: +13 (13 ranks + 0 Cha), Fighter 2: +4 (Base 3 + WIS 1).
Fighter 1 ahead by 9.
Level 15. Fighter 1: +18 (18 ranks, +0 Cha), Fighter 2: +6 (Base 5 + WIS 1)
Fighter 1 ahead by 12.
Level 20. Fighter 1: +23 (23 ranks, +0 Cha), Fighter 2: +7 (Base 6 + WIS 1)
Fighter 1 ahead by 16.

Scenario 2: Fighter vs. Sorcerer. Assume Fighter has Cha 10, and Sorc has Wis 12.
Level 1. Fighter: +4 (4 ranks + 0 Cha), Sorcerer +3 (Base 2 +1 Wis). Fighter ahead by 1.
Level 5. Fighter: +8 (8 ranks + 0 Cha), Sorcerer +5 (Base 4 + 1 Wis). Fighter ahead by 3.
Level 10. Fighter: +13 (13 ranks + 0 Cha), Sorcerer +8 (Base 7 +1 Wis). Fighter ahead by 5.
Level 15. Fighter: +18 (18 ranks, +0 Cha), Sorcerer + 10 (Base 9 + 1 Wis). Fighter ahead by 8.
Level 20. Fighter: +23 (23 ranks, +0 Cha), Sorcerer + 13 (Base 12 + 1 Wis). Fighter ahead by 10.

Scenario 3: Sorcerer Vs. Fighter. Assume Sorc. has 18 Cha, will bump the stat at each 4 levels, and maxes Intimidate. Fighter stats as before.
Level 1. Sorcerer: 6 (2 ranks + 4 CHA). Fighter: +1 (Base 0 + WIS 1). Sorcerer ahead by 5.
Level 5. Sorcerer 8 (4 ranks + 4 CHA), Fighter: +2 (Base 1 + WIS 1).
Sorcerer ahead by 6.
Level 10. Sorcerer 11 (6 ranks + 5 CHA) Fighter: +4 (Base 3 + WIS 1).
Sorcerer ahead by 7.
Level 15. Sorcerer 14 (9 ranks + 5 CHA) Fighter: +6 (Base 5 + WIS 1). Sorcerer ahead by 8.
Level 20. Sorcerer 18 (12 ranks + 6 CHA) Fighter: +7 (Base 6 + WIS 1).
Sorcerer ahead by 11.

Scenario 4. Sorcerer vs. Cleric. Assume Sorcerer has above stats, and that Cleric starts with WIS 18, and bumps at each opportunity.
Level 1. Sorcerer: 6 (2 ranks + 4 CHA). Cleric: +6 (Base 2+ WIS 4).
Tied.
Level 5. Sorcerer 8 (4 ranks + 4 CHA), Cleric: +8 (Base 4 + WIS 4),
Tied.
Level 10. Sorcerer 11 (6 ranks + 5 CHA) Cleric: +12 (Base 7 + WIS 5).
Cleric ahead by 1.
Level 15. Sorcerer 14 (9 ranks + 5 CHA) Cleric: +14 (Base 9 + WIS 5). Tied.
Level 20. Sorcerer 18 (12 ranks + 6 CHA) Cleric: +18 (Base 12 + WIS 6).
Tied.

Scenario 5: Fighter vs. Cleric.
Level 1. Fighter: +4 (4 ranks + 0 Cha), Cleric: +6 (Base 2+ WIS 4). Cleric ahead by 2.
Level 5. Fighter: +8 (8 ranks + 0 Cha), Cleric: +8 (Base 4 + WIS 4).
Tied.
Level 10. Fighter: +13 (13 ranks + 0 Cha), Cleric: +12 (Base 7 + WIS 5).
Fighter ahead by 1.
Level 15. Fighter: +18 (18 ranks, +0 Cha), Cleric: +14 (Base 9 + WIS 5).
Fighter ahead by 4.
Level 20 Fighter: +23 (23 ranks, +0 Cha), Cleric: +18 (Base 12 + WIS 6).
Fighter ahead by 5.

This actually looks pretty reasonable to me. Classes with good will saves and Wisdom as a mechanically useful ability like Cleric, Druid and Monk (to a lesser extent) hold up pretty well versus both high-charisma classes and classes with Intimidate as a class skill. (They only lose by +5 at most, at level 20). Classes with neither Wisdom as a useful ability nor a high will saves (like Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian) are in trouble from both high-charisma classes and Intimidate-as-class-skill classes. (As they should be, in my opinion). But even at level 20, it's possible to resist an intimidate check, if the intimidator rolls poorly and the target rolls well - the highest spread is 16. (There are no core classes with both intimidate as a class skill and charisma as a useful ability.)

EDIT: As an aside, while the intimidators can only get items that boost Charisma, the defenders can get two items that will help them resist: periapts of wisdom and cloaks of resistance. The benefits stack, for will saves.

Gamebird
2007-03-07, 01:15 PM
The real question is not who wins or loses the roll, but what effect winning or losing has.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-07, 01:25 PM
Yeah. Typically a skill vs a save is a bad idea. A Maxxed Skill is double a poor save
More than that.

Maxed skill = Level + 3
Poor Save = Level / 3

So a maxed skill is over three times what you get for a poor save.

Telonius
2007-03-07, 01:27 PM
The real question is not who wins or loses the roll, but what effect winning or losing has.

I would say that a successful check in combat (to Demoralize) has the same effect that it already does. For social interactions, I would say that the target will perform a single action that you designate, then revert to unfriendly (as per Diplomacy). Asking the target to do something that is obviously harmful grants them a +5 to their resistance.

Talya
2007-03-07, 01:55 PM
Intimidate as modified by charisma represents your ability to overstate your threat to your target. (Think of "Dread Pirate Roberts" Wesley attempting to intimidate prince Humperdink while he can barely muster the strength to stand.) You are attempting to make them think you are a bigger threat than you really look. This might be necessary for a highly skilled character to represent his actual danger to the enemy, but for a very strong one, such as a half orc with 20 strength, they can already clearly see the threat.

The way I rule intimidate is that the enemy behaves the way they normally would vs. the threat level they perceive. A courageous paladin might be intimidated into believing that fighting you represents near certain death for him, but he's defending a child, and he's willing to face that certain death, regardless. Your intimidation will have no effect.

I also like the house rule of using other abilities to represent the intimidate modifier when appropriate. I've let people perform great displays of strength or dexterity...or even magic...to intimidate. But I only let intimidate affect the target's perception of you. They will still behave as they normally would against a threat of the level they perceive.

Gamebird
2007-03-07, 02:06 PM
For social interactions, I would say that the target will perform a single action that you designate, then revert to unfriendly (as per Diplomacy). Asking the target to do something that is obviously harmful grants them a +5 to their resistance.

So, someone can roll Intimidate to make an enemy do something obviously harmful, like drop their weapons in the middle of a fight, at a +5 DC to the normal Intimidate check?

That makes it even more of a save-or-lose skill. Why bother with attack rolls or spells, when you can max out your Intimidate and totally pwn most intelligent, level-appropriate encounters with a skill check?

Telonius
2007-03-07, 02:10 PM
So, someone can roll Intimidate to make an enemy do something obviously harmful, like drop their weapons in the middle of a fight, at a +5 DC to the normal Intimidate check?

That makes it even more of a save-or-lose skill. Why bother with attack rolls or spells, when you can max out your Intimidate and totally pwn most intelligent, level-appropriate encounters with a skill check?

The social interaction use of the skill takes a minute to do; I don't foresee that as being a problem in combat.

Enzario
2007-03-07, 02:11 PM
Two words:

Circumstance Modifiers.

Anyone can be scary when they're holding you by the hair over a pit of gnomes hopped up on shrooms.
With pointy teeth.

mystikphish
2007-03-07, 02:45 PM
I'm not sure why some people have such a hard time handling this with circumstance bonuses...

Big fighter (High Str, Low chr) tries to intimidate the local generic mook, he will get his CHR based intimidate role with a +2 circ bonus if he was acting "scary". done. If something spectacluar happened in the few minutes prior (critical hit with cleave killing more than guy, etc.) maybe a +4.
Big half-orc barbarian trying to intimidate the captain of the city gate in the middle of the night? CHR-based-Intimidate, -4 circ bonus. The Captain is much more frightened of what will happen to him if agrees, not the other way around.

I also think this is applicable to all the "rollplay v. roleplay" posts, as it rewards/penalizes the PC for their "rolepalay" actions, but also rewards penalizes them for their "rollplay" stat decisions.

Obviously the adjudication of this has a lot to do with your group's style of play. The posts about CHR being *ONLY* "a roleplay stat anyway" just boggles my mind.

In my campaign, if you use CHR as a dump stat, you are going to PAY for that. When roleplaying NPCs, I always try to keep the whole PC character in mind, including their CHR.

For example, if a player makes a great impassioned speech for his cause, but his PC has CHR 4... he sounded like a pompous ass, or that annoying vegan who won't let me eat my steak in peace, or the Jehova's Witness who doesn't "get it" that I don't want them to save me. He MIGHT get the reaction he wants, but it's going to be difficult. Intimidation works the same way... roleplaying that your barbarian is saying terrible and scary things during combat is great, but if he has CHR 4 he just sounds like a doofus.

One last rambling thought... in response to the many people that suggested just replacing CHR with STR whenever a fighter flexes his muscles at someone... here's a pic that shows it's not as intimidating as you think (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg).

Telonius
2007-03-07, 03:07 PM
Honestly, I think half the problem most people have with the Intimidate skill as charisma-based is that an otherwise-equal human will be better at it than a half-orc. Orcs are supposed to be intimidating - intimidation is kind of their thing. But the way the ability scores work, an elf (fer cryin' out loud) will be better at the Intimidate skill than a half-orc, because of the half-orc's -2 charisma penalty. The mechanics just don't fit the archetype, in that regard.

Telonius
2007-03-07, 03:11 PM
One last rambling thought... in response to the many people that suggested just replacing CHR with STR whenever a fighter flexes his muscles at someone... here's a pic that shows it's not as intimidating as you think (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg).

Clearly, he'd been the subject of a Greater Heroism spell. :smallbiggrin:

Kantolin
2007-03-07, 03:13 PM
Insofar as I can tell, loveable and stupid is the 'default' half-orc. Intimidating seems to be a sort of afterthought that half-orc barbarians tend to utilize. That and culturally, it seems half-orcs tend to prefer to be intimidating.

Or in other words... I guess that is indeed the intent. Wizards, after all, hates half-orcs too much to give them even proficiency in their own racial weapon. :P

Orzel
2007-03-07, 03:27 PM
Honestly, I think half the problem most people have with the Intimidate skill as charisma-based is that an otherwise-equal human will be better at it than a half-orc. Orcs are supposed to be intimidating - intimidation is kind of their thing. But the way the ability scores work, an elf (fer cryin' out loud) will be better at the Intimidate skill than a half-orc, because of the half-orc's -2 charisma penalty. The mechanics just don't fit the archetype, in that regard.

Orcs aren't intimidating. Orcs are scaredy cats unless facing something they believe they could beat. Most of the Cha penalty races are filled with people with weak strength of personality. If you are not trembling when they rush you, they get confused and scared. Many of those races as pack like. You kill their leader, they run, do something stupid, or stand there in awe.

Look at Durkon, he's wise but not very intimidating. Thog's not scary either. I'd be rolling on the floor if Thog tried to scare me.

Telonius
2007-03-07, 03:31 PM
Orcs aren't intimidating. Orcs are scaredy cats unless facing something they believe they could beat. Most of the Cha penalty races are filled with people with weak strength of personality. If you are not trembling when they rush you, they get confused and scared. Many of those races as pack like. You kill their leader, they run, do something stupid, or stand there in awe.

Look at Durkon, he's wise but not very intimidating. Thog's not scary either. I'd be rolling on the floor if Thog tried to scare me.

Thog just looks sweet an innocent. I'm scared of that Celine Dion tape.

Pocket lint
2007-03-07, 04:17 PM
I'm considering giving players a choice - Str or Cha as the bonus. Those are two different strategies; Str means showing you can hurt him, Cha means showing that you will hurt them. And I make it opposed roll, using the same stat for the opponent and adding Intimidate ranks as well, since if you know the tricks, you're not going to fall for them as easily.

What this means is that you get a choice. If you're bullying some orcs, showing your muscles, which they have plenty of themselves, won't work nearly as well as showing how downright nasty you can be. On the other hand, if you're pushing a sorcerer around, you may not have half his willpower or social connections, but you sure can break him in half...

Gamebird
2007-03-07, 04:35 PM
One last rambling thought... in response to the many people that suggested just replacing CHR with STR whenever a fighter flexes his muscles at someone... here's a pic that shows it's not as intimidating as you think (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg).

That's a great picture proving that the Intimidate skill doesn't work. Because statistically, *someone* in those tanks would have succeeded in their Intimidate check and made that doofus hero move out of the way. And that's what pisses me off about the attitude-adjusting skills - they don't allow NPCs to have opinions or personalities that clash with the PCs. (If they do, then all the PCs have to do is have every party member try Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate and one of them will roll well enough to change the NPC to taffy.) It makes the NPCs spineless dweebs. Rather than negotiate something with an NPC, work towards a compromise, find out what motivates them and provide it, the game rewards a simple dice roll.

Shalist
2007-03-07, 04:40 PM
@Gamebird: I agree completely that social skills are...annoying. Given how they often try to replace actual roleplay, and given how ambiguously and poorly written they are compared to, say, anything related to combat. I just don't agree with rendering an entire aspect of the character sheet irrelevant because of it. Again, you wouldn't expect the fighter's player to show you how a sword is swung faster than the speed of sound, or the cleric's player to show you how he'd bring someone back from the dead, yet for the party social monkey, his character sheet is pretty much meaningless if he has a silver-tongue, or the opposite. As long as the player picks an appropriate strategy and 'does his best,' why fault him?

Given how much less effort it'd generally involve to simply use swords or magic to get around/through most obstacles, it seems a shame to penalize an avenue of development that doesn't necessarily involve either.

@intimidation: A character who has high charisma and ranks in intimidation has what I like to think of as "a watered down fear aura." You can use a standard action to reduce a single opponent's effectiveness for 1 round of combat, or force someone to be friendly for a while outside of combat. A 'friendly' character isn't exactly a new henchman or a CDG waiting to happen, and won't take any risks or use any real resources aiding the player. If the player overuse intimidate, or they're abuse their victims with it, they're going to piss off the wrong people pretty quick, successful checks or not.

Food for thought for str vs. cha:


You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat.Coupled with the fact that none of the (core) charismatic classes have intimidate on their skill list, the beefy types are already going to be in a rather nice place after a few levels combat-wise. Granted, a rogue with a touch of charisma has 'em both licked, and you'd probably be better off tripping or disarming an opponent...but at least it'll still be an option.

edit: If you want the npc's to be seen as unique, define the limits of diplomacy and intimidate, and reward the players for getting to know them. For instance, a chatty npc or 'background check' might help players figure out they're heading into a trap (ie revealing a personality quirk, alergy, whatever of someone the pc's thought they'd been dealing with). NPC's can be 'friendly' or even 'helpful' without being spineless puppies--and as for repeated checks, intimidate and diplomacy don't always go well together (well, good cop/bad cop...), and are very limited on retries.

Alternately, an NPC can try his/her best to be helpful, and still end up being anything but. It'd be kinda funny to throw a spineless puppy at the PC's just to have them follow some horrible advice (The Bloody Dagger is the best inn around, you certainly won't get food poisoning or be robbed blind while you sleep there. My cousin works there, so I should know!) because the npc had the best of intentions...

Gamebird
2007-03-07, 05:00 PM
...you wouldn't expect the fighter's player to show you how a sword is swung faster than the speed of sound, or the cleric's player to show you how he'd bring someone back from the dead, yet for the party social monkey, his character sheet is pretty much meaningless if he has a silver-tongue, or the opposite. As long as the player picks an appropriate strategy and 'does his best,' why fault him?

I don't think that's a good analogy. The mechanics for combat or spell casting are basically balanced (aside from tank vs. caster arguments). The mechanics for dealing with NPCs are not. That's why the DMG explicitly says the attitude-adjusting skills should not be used on PCs.

In combat, two fighters of equal level square off against each other. Assuming they have equal hit points, feats, weapons, etc., they each have a 50/50 of winning or losing.

In a social situation, two social monkeys of equal level square off against each other. Assuming they have equal skill points, levels, feats, etc., you'd think they'd each have an equal chance of winning. But there are two HUGE complications to this situation that don't come up for combat.

First off, if one of the social monkeys is a PC, then he can choose to ignore the NPC "winning" against him. A PC can decide "Nope, I don't care that the BBEG just talked to my prisoner PC - I'm not going to sell out my allies/join the BBEG/believe his lies." An NPC does not have that choice. No matter how well he rolls. An NPC fighter swinging a sword has the same chance to win as a PC fighter. This is not true for social encounters.

Secondly, by reducing the interaction to a single dice roll, you lose half the reason of playing D&D: role play. You lose the possibility of exploring other options than forcing this NPC to do as you wish. You lose the illusion that the NPC has a personality of their own, with desires, peeves and opinions that they might hold very strongly - strongly enough to stand in front of a line of tanks and die for them (though if you use the RAW, one good Diplomacy roll would get him out of the way for days).

Comparing social encounters to combat encounters uses the false assumption that the two are comparable. They aren't. It's like comparing sex with your girlfriend to sex with a prostitute. Oh, well, they're both sex, right? You're missing the picture that sex with the girlfriend takes place in the context of a larger relationship. Combat is 'slam, bam, thank you, ma'am'. It's over and done with and one of you likely will never see the other again. Social interaction is a way different animal.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-03-07, 05:44 PM
A little something from personal experience that might help the understanding of intimidation and charisma:

I often mess around with friends, a little wrestling a little sparring and all that. When I face off against someone, there are two things I can do.

I can take of my shirt and fight bare-chested. I'm not particularly buff, but my clothes tend to hide any muscly shapes, and I don't go around puffing my chest much, so it's always something of a surprise when I take my shirt off and my muscles show. And there's also the thing that those who know me well know I'm a lot stronger then I appear. Take this as purely strenght based intimidation. I can notice the change in my opponents. Their eyes start to wander and focus on the wrong areas, you can practically see in the way they look that they are less confident. Their breathing and stance changes. I've intimidated the person, he/she (the girls like to fight too) is slightly less sure about attacking me and will usually try and get me to attack first.

The other method however, is far, far more effective. Rather then trying to perform any show of strenght, I show arrogance. I laugh, grin, shake my ass a little, leave my hands hanging by my sides instead of keeping them high. I stroll relaxed and casually turn my back to my opponent. This, is Real intimidation, and the effects are really noticable. Instead of their eyes just wandering, they actually start getting shifty, completely unsure where to look. Their stance changes, breathing becomes shallow. The fear can practically be tasted. As long as my entire body seems to whisper the message "Come on, go ahead, do your best. You and I both know that whatever you do, I'll still be too fast for you...", they have no chance. Where they normally have a decent chance of bringing me down, after such intimidation they completely lack the confidence to put up a decent fight.

Do I intimidate people with the first method. Yes, it works, especially on people who know a little more of me. Does it benefit me? A little. There is a difference, but not really a great one. The second method however, is purely based on body language, and it's effect is so much greater then just putting up a show of strenght. The first method shows my opponent that I can beat them in the fight. The second method, makes them believe they've already lost before the fight starts.


This is why intimidate is a cha based skill, not a strenght based one, and it never should be. Use circumstance modifiers people. Your 6cha barbarian breaking a table isn't going to look impressive to onlookers, he's going to look like a bumbling oaf who makes people wonder whether he did actually break that table on purpose.



@AtomicKitKat: Sorry, we've got no "Door Bitches" over here :smallwink: . The bouncers do all the work, and trying to push your way in as a big guy is just asking for a lot of pain (seen it, winced at the sight of it). True social intimidation doesn't work too, bouncers are like I said, the last people on earth you would want to intimidate in any way (cause it never works). Being friendly with them gets you so much further.

Shalist
2007-03-07, 07:04 PM
...if one of the social monkeys is a PC, then he can choose to ignore the NPC "winning" against him. A PC can decide "Nope, I don't care that the BBEG just talked to my prisoner PC - I'm not going to sell out my allies/join the BBEG/believe his lies." An NPC does not have that choice. No matter how well he rolls. An NPC fighter swinging a sword has the same chance to win as a PC fighter. This is not true for social encounters.

Secondly, by reducing the interaction to a single dice roll, you lose half the reason of playing D&D: role play. You lose the possibility of exploring other options than forcing this NPC to do as you wish. You lose the illusion that the NPC has a personality of their own, with desires, peeves and opinions that they might hold very strongly -

In DnD, there's always going to be a multitude of ways to force the npc to do what you want--mental magics and brute force being the two most obvious. The thing that always annoys me is that it generaly takes _more_ effort (in terms of skill points, stats, feats, creating an opportunity, knowledge of target, repercussions, etc) to force an NPC to do what you want socially, and yet it's _still_ penalized left and right for being so 'overpowered'.

Having social skills is not an excuse to simply say, "I use diplomacy." The player still must roleplay the encounter, pick his strategy, etc, but the character is the one polishing these things up and presenting them to the npc in such a favorable way.

Use charisma-based methods against the PCs sometime, and use their reactions to help determine the limits. If the players say that "being helpful doesn't mean betraying my allies," why would the npc turn around and betray theirs under the same conditions?


strongly enough to stand in front of a line of tanks and die for them (though if you use the RAW, one good Diplomacy roll would get him out of the way for days).And this is unreallistic? They could back the tanks off and bluff the guy, they could try to buy him off or bargain with him or his organization, they could even intimidate him if they wished--at the very least, threats of violence to his loved ones.

Ya know what though? It'd be a helluva lot easier just to run him over, or shoot him, or club him upside the head and haul him off in chains. What gets me is that you wouldn't have anything wrong with your PC's doing that, yet having a social interaction with him would be taboo.

Your character attempts diplomacy; talks to the guy, figures out why he's there, get to know him a bit. You roll well, so he's suddenly 'helpful.' So what? How does this remove his personality? How does feeling 'helpful' force him to abandon his beliefs? Why must being 'friendly' or 'helpful' equate to being a mindless henchman? Would you set your neighbor's house on fire just because a friend asked you to nicely? Social skills have limits, however poorly written. All one needs to do is to define them, apply them, and enforce the consequences of screwing up--and I don't just mean botched rolls.


Comparing social encounters to combat encounters uses the false assumption that the two are comparable. They aren't. It's like comparing sex with your girlfriend to sex with a prostitute. Oh, well, they're both sex, right? You're missing the picture that sex with the girlfriend takes place in the context of a larger relationship. Combat is 'slam, bam, thank you, ma'am'. It's over and done with and one of you likely will never see the other again. Social interaction is a way different animal.

I'm not crusading against roleplaying. I'm comparing capabilities and resources. A fighter can kill a dozen opponents in as many seconds with a stick, a wizard can alter the fabric of reality at whim and even turn back time if he's bored, and a cleric can bring someone back from the dead. Yet, stacked against all this, lying, bullying, or generally trying to get people to see things your way without trying to kill them first is still too powerful or unreallistic to allow.

edit: I'm very much a fan of getting to know your npcs and finding creative solutions as an alternative to playing DnD as some graphic-less Diablo. What annoys me is people (apparantly not yourself, gamebird) who actively discourage such ventures by penalizing players who can't think of something clever to say with ridiculous circumstancial mods that render their character's input useless, making the player go hack 'n slash for lack of options.

AtomicKitKat
2007-03-07, 09:42 PM
Gamebird: Heh. Nicely accurate analogy, if somewhat risque.

Gamebird
2007-03-08, 10:00 AM
Ya know what though? It'd be a helluva lot easier just to run him over, or shoot him, or club him upside the head and haul him off in chains. What gets me is that you wouldn't have anything wrong with your PC's doing that, yet having a social interaction with him would be taboo.

I'd consider that a bit evil, but I don't stop people from playing evil characters. More importantly if the guy in front of the tanks isn't incredibly exceptional, then there's a good chance they just made a martyr and have a bigger problem on their hands. Thus starts the vicious spiral of terrorism.

But as to your point, no, I don't have nearly as much moral/ethical problem with someone using weapons or physical force as using bizarre social coercion. There's two things that trouble me with D&D social skills:
1) They don't work equally on PCs (not that I'd want them to - I don't want them to work on anyone for attitude-adjustment functions), and
2) The result of the roll is a weird brain-washing that might be counter to the NPC's personality and motivations.

On my wish list of things I'd like to see in D&D is a working morale system. But maybe that's a tangent.

If they're going to have social skills that change people this fundementally, then the roll shouldn't be as easy as it is anyway. It's virtually a magical power.

I'd much rather someone used a threat or negotiation tactic that I, as the DM, can understand and have the NPC react to, than roll a dice and leave it to me to figure out what the PC said that was so persuasive. Now I've got to fabricate an entire exchange and briefly play the PC for them. This is a lot more complicated than the PC attacking with a weapon, because in that case, once he's done fighting, he's done fighting. Negotiation and intimidation has repercussions, however. You set that ball rolling and it might roll for quite a distance beyond the initial discussion.


...making the player go hack 'n slash for lack of options.

Yeah, and that's sad. I dislike games that purport to be role play and then eliminate all other options. On the other hand, I don't mind a straight hack 'n slash sort of game now and then. It's like a video game on table top. Sometimes that's my cup of tea, but sometimes it's not. In a game that's about role play, where I'm immersed in my character (or trying to run an immersive world), the attitude-adjusting skills are very jarring and disruptive.