New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 374
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    One issue with Strength improving Intimidate is that it doesn't help resist intimidation.

    So giants are all scared ****less of each-other? "Oh ****, that guy just snapped a steel bar in half! I mean, I could do the same thing, so could even a child, but for some reason it terrifies me!"

    As for being bigger, being a larger size gives +4 to Intimidate in PF1, and so +2 for being the same category but significantly more brawny seems about right.

    Even if we said "the modifier is the delta between Strength bonuses", that's still failing the case where someone is less strong but much more powerful. Is a low-level human with Strength 18 supposed to be scary to a demon with DR 15/good, vorpal claws, and a bunch of deadly SLAs? "I don't give a **** you bent that bar, because my skin is much tougher than iron"

    A bonus to Intimidate for being obviously more powerful makes sense, but that's a lot different than just "add Strength bonus"
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-06 at 01:36 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    So, first, making the choice to use intimidation is roleplaying - the roleplaying is in making the choice. What you’re describing is more “acting”. Don’t get me wrong, acting (especially good acting) adds to an RPG, but it shouldn’t be seen as so obviously, intrinsically mandatory as roleplaying. They’re not called AGs, after all.

    Second, even bad acting adds to the game, because it adds more color and more details, yes, but it also detracts by obfuscating the correct path at times. For example, if the highly skilled intimidator’s PC uses that’s one thing. However, what if the player is so inept, they instead use what then?
    What exactly in my scenario is the acting that is also decidedly not roleplaying?
    Is it the line, because that can be narrated rather than acted and changes nothing about my point. Feel free to pretend I narrated it rather than acted it, my point stands firm.
    Is it the part about displaying steel bending as a form of intimidation because that was narrating.
    Is it the choice to scare them? Because the choice to use strength score and intimidation skill is the DM's choice, it does not belong to the player. The player can not choose to make a dice roll. The player chooses what their character does.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Pfft. This is what taking prisoners and the speak with dead spell is for. Ask a few corpses questions, ask a prisoner, kill the prisoner, ask the corpse, next prisoner in line starts spewing info.

    As for intimidate... depends on the system. For d&d the big issue is making exactly one socal stat to rule everything and then warping the system math to require min/max builds that either dump mental & social abilities to survive combat or max mental & social abilities as a side effect of surviving combat.

    Personally I like Pendragon where you can use different virtues & vices for this stuff. Is it still "intimidate" if your famed tourney winning skill with a sword and high honor score cow the opposition into accepting terms of surrender, even while your muscles and looks are only average?

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Abracadangit View Post
    My rationale for allowing Intimidation checks to be made with Strength is that without making allowances like this (at least in 5e, I can't speak for other systems), virtually everything in the social pillar is gated behind Charisma. Combat's got a lot of neat cross-ability play going on -- Dex adds to AC, Con adds to HP, Int/Wis/Cha are spellcasting stats for various classes, etc. But if you're just going off the abilities suggested on the character sheet for social, it's Cha skills all the way down. Add in the fact that Cha is the go-to dump stat for a lot of martials, and you've effectively boxed those characters out of being effective in most social situations/encounters, which bothers some people.

    My one issue with the "bending the steel bar to Intimidate" example is what's stopping said character from carrying a steel bar with them everywhere they go, so they can proc Strength (Intimidation) whenever they want, right. At that stage, let's just make social mini-feats for everyone that work like Samurai's Elegant Courtier (add your Wis bonus on top of Cha whenever you roll Persuasion) plus one or two fun ribbons, and then people can play the character the way they'd like to play without worrying about being locked out of the whole social pillar. There can be a Strength (Performance) for people who want to play showy wrestler/carnival strongman types, an Intelligence (Deception) for manipulative spymasters, a Wisdom (Persuasion) for monks and druids with a calming zen presence, and so on.

    Of course I know that's never gonna happen -- it's a bridge too far for their hands-off approach to social stuff -- but players in my games have enjoyed the homebrew options. In conclusion, I don't allow Strength (Intimidation) specifically because I think big muscles correlate to being intimidating, but I do it because a) Intimidation thematically meshes well with buff warrior types, as opposed to Deception for tricky types and Persuasion for spiritual/scholarly types, and b) I want everyone to feel capable of contributing to social situations in a meaningful way.
    As this is obviously about D&D of certain kinds, Charisma has indeed the problem of being utterly useless outside of some skills and specific class features. Which means, if you are not a class relying on it, it is tempting to dump it.

    But for me that is all the more reason to not take one of those few uses away from it. People dumping a stat should always pay something for it. If it doesn't hurt somewhere, the system doesn't work as intended. So far for balancing.

    As for rationalisation : Charisma is the stat for influencing others. You not being able to be menacing when you completely lack it is reasonable. Also situational modifiers for social skills have existed for over 2 decades now. If you want those, use them.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Dr.Samurai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ICU, under a cherry tree.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Except it isn't, as my gnome example demonstrates.
    Are you saying that if Strength is allowed without a demonstration of strength (as in the case of a big clearly muscled strong warrior) then it must be allowed in this way all the time even if it doesn't make sense (as in the case of a small gnome warrior)?

    I don't know what your example is demonstrating. I mentioned in my post that a demonstration might be needed depending on circumstances.
    You claim reality, after immediately using the same flawed argument that high Str score = scary size.
    But you're arguing that a small gnome warrior wouldn't be scary? Why are you arguing that? And how do you argue that without then understanding that a large half-orc warrior might be scary?

    Why is small not scary, but large is also not scary?

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    GitP, obviously
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    So giants are all scared ****less of each-other? "Oh ****, that guy just snapped a steel bar in half! I mean, I could do the same thing, so could even a child, but for some reason it terrifies me!"
    “He’s got a sword!l”

    “Idiot, we’ve all got swords!”
    Something Borrowed - Submission Thread (5e subclass contest)

    TeamWork Makes the Dream Work 5e Base Class Submission Thread




  7. - Top - End - #37
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Except it isn't, as my gnome example demonstrates.
    .
    Does it?

    Again 32 lbs nothing that just crushed stone with their tiny hands now with their hands on my throat sounds terrifying.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    The OP's contention, as I'm reading it, is that the only situation in which physical stature should affect an intimidation attempt is when the result will be so obvious that it's a foregone conclusion and requires no roll - like a giant vs a goblin - and any time there is any doubt about the results on an NPC, charisma would be the deciding factor and not one's physical appearance. I don't think that's reasonable - it's completely plausible to me that physique could be the determining factor when one human is attempting to threaten another human of nearly the same size. If the strength attribute isn't the one which indicates the status of one's physique and muscles, what is?
    This isn't to say that we need to treat it in a simplistic fashion and allow physical (or any sort of) intimidation to equally affect all targets regardless of their own size and other factors. The point is, physique has an effect when someone is trying to be physically threatening, and it makes sense for that to be given a definitive mechanical effect of some sort. There's no reason to arbitrarily decide that physical stature's effect on NPC's should always be subjectively decided by the GM, but threatening arguments or performances require an unbiased mechanical resolution to decide the NPC's reaction, especially if players had to choose between investing in their character's physique (strength) vs investing in their ability to influence and perform (charisma). I suppose the counter argument is, that characters who want to influence people should suffer in physical abilities, and physical ability should detract from ability to influence, in all situations - since the game is not meant to be so detailed as to account for these factors I'm bringing up.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    The actual issue is that when d20 made Intimidate (as well as Diplomacy etc.) into a skill, it folded a bunch of other rules into them that it really shouldn't have. Namely, reaction rolls and morale.

    The big difference was that reaction rolls and morale were primarily on the game master's side, not the player's. So the game master could calibrate how friendly, hostile, cowardly or courageous monsters were based on their nature. This was largely independent from ability scores (which most monsters strictly speaking didn't even have) or level, so you could have big, strong monsters that'd flee at first opportunity, as well as tiny, weak monsters that were utterly fearless.

    Morale was checked based on what was done to a monster - examples included being injured or losing 50% of group strength. Results varies from surrender to fleeing etc..

    This meant a big, strong fighter didn't need to do or have anything extra to intimidate their opponents - applying sword to face would cause them to check morale sooner or later anyway.

    That's what's missing from later mechanics. Now, a reasonable game master will account for nature of characters and demonstrations of strength anyway, but nothing explicitly tells them they should. This is how you end up with characters who can kill others in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. As well as characters who keep fighting even after its obvious they've lost.

    Best solution: reinstate morale and reaction rolls, do away with social skill checks, or at least handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    GitP, obviously
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.
    Test Your Might!
    *cue mortal kombat music*
    Last edited by animorte; 2022-10-06 at 08:40 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Dr.Samurai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ICU, under a cherry tree.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by animorte View Post
    Test Your Might!
    *cue mortal kombat music*
    This made me laugh out loud


    But seriously folks, the image for Intimidate in the PHB is a big ol' barbarian looming over a guard and grabbing him by his helmet. To suggest that size and strength are completely divorced from this and it's all magic invisible charisma beams is ignoring reality, and even the suggestion in the PHB itself that Strength can apply.

    Another way to look at it is that Charisma based checks allow for anyone to be able to Intimidate someone. Strength characters are an exception that can still Intimidate people in a different way.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The actual issue is that when d20 made Intimidate (as well as Diplomacy etc.) into a skill, it folded a bunch of other rules into them that it really shouldn't have. Namely, reaction rolls and morale.

    The big difference was that reaction rolls and morale were primarily on the game master's side, not the player's. So the game master could calibrate how friendly, hostile, cowardly or courageous monsters were based on their nature. This was largely independent from ability scores (which most monsters strictly speaking didn't even have) or level, so you could have big, strong monsters that'd flee at first opportunity, as well as tiny, weak monsters that were utterly fearless.

    Morale was checked based on what was done to a monster - examples included being injured or losing 50% of group strength. Results varies from surrender to fleeing etc..

    This meant a big, strong fighter didn't need to do or have anything extra to intimidate their opponents - applying sword to face would cause them to check morale sooner or later anyway.

    That's what's missing from later mechanics. Now, a reasonable game master will account for nature of characters and demonstrations of strength anyway, but nothing explicitly tells them they should. This is how you end up with characters who can kill others in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. As well as characters who keep fighting even after its obvious they've lost.

    Best solution: reinstate morale and reaction rolls, do away with social skill checks, or at least handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.
    I was thinking that, as well. The 5e DMG optional morale rule is ridiculously anemic. Relying on the reasonableness of individual DMs, without giving much or any guidance for new players to learn how to become a reasonable DM is a problem I have with this sort of system. I generally advocate for D&D using more robust morale rules and reaction rules rather than predetermining enemies' willingness to fight and always playing combat to the death (or basing the decision completely on GM fiat/narrative reasons).

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    Also situational modifiers for social skills have existed for over 2 decades now. If you want those, use them.
    They've been around a lot longer than that, people just used different words and several non-d&d games were more explicit.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Phhase View Post
    I actually made a thread about this topic a while ago, and gave some examples (quoting my OP below) about how any skill could be applied to Intimidate...and how the difference between success and failure (despite nonetheless being an impressive demonstration of the skill in use) could be chalked up to, well, Charisma.

    That said, I think in the vein of 3.5, effective RP based of the synergizing skill ought to allow one to roll a skill check with it to potentially allow a +2 to the intimidate roll.
    When and where did you make that thread? How did I miss it? Great stuff!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    The point of using Strength to intimidate is not roaring or flexing. It's breaking something or otherwise physically altering such as bending a metal bar. Strength is used for combat, so showing off strength implies the ability to harm - the intimidation. It's non-verbal.
    It may be nonverbal, but that doesn’t make it “antisocial” / not Charisma. If you’re a health nut, and spend 15 minutes stretching and warming up and properly hydrating before bending the bar, it might not be as intimidating as you pictured in your head. If your line is, “see that? That’s your big toe.”, it might not be as intimidating as you pictured in your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    I'm curious how we can go the other way here and give people what they want.

    Someone playing your archetypal barbarian wants their character to be scary, to be able to get other people to back down in a confrontation and maybe be able to do things like interrogate enemies through cowing them. All viable things for a character to do, and a limited subset of the things that full intimidation proficiency can do. The charismatic mob boss is better at directing how fear manifests and has a better chance of making the fear persist over long term behaviors, but that's likely not what the barbarian's player is looking for.

    How would you give the barbarian their time to shine and a chance to engage in socialization in a specific niche, without necessarily letting that spill over into other categories. For bonus points, how would you let the death cultist cleric or another scary character have a similar shtick if they can't fall back on a high STR mod to do the heavy lifting?
    Just like we don’t “roll combat”, focus on it being a tactical minigame, where finding out how to intimidate the target matters.

    So, say I get Isekai’d, and join a party. And someone decides to intimidate me - by hurting one of my allies. Let’s say the party is the Konasuba party.

    Aqua? The result of the intimidate check is used to determine the DC to overcome the confusion effect I’m under from evaluating that scenario.

    Darkness? Really high DC. You’ve gotta really sell me on the idea that she’ll hate this, that this isn’t the best stalling tactic ever.

    Kazuma? The important roll here is Sense Motive, to beat my bluff that I care.

    Megumin? You’ve just threatened a child. It may be a low DC, but if I live through this, you can bet I’ll be working to find a way to do far worse to the torturer than they threatened to do to her.

    (EDIT: wait - how old is Kazuma?)

    Probably more effective to threaten a random civilian in this scenario, actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    One issue with Strength improving Intimidate is that it doesn't help resist intimidation.

    So giants are all scared ****less of each-other? "Oh ****, that guy just snapped a steel bar in half! I mean, I could do the same thing, so could even a child, but for some reason it terrifies me!"
    Yeah, a proper Intimidate tactical minigame is nontrivial to write up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    What exactly in my scenario is the acting that is also decidedly not roleplaying?
    Is it the line, because that can be narrated rather than acted and changes nothing about my point. Feel free to pretend I narrated it rather than acted it, my point stands firm.
    Is it the part about displaying steel bending as a form of intimidation because that was narrating.
    Is it the choice to scare them? Because the choice to use strength score and intimidation skill is the DM's choice, it does not belong to the player. The player can not choose to make a dice roll. The player chooses what their character does.
    Ah, I think there’s been a miscommunication here. Let’s see is I can fix it without quotes.

    Saying (effectively) “you can’t just say you want to intimidate them, you have to actually roleplay and speak the lines” translates to “you can’t just <roleplay>, you have to roleplay, and <act>”.

    Roleplaying isn’t “talky bits”, is making decisions for the character, as the character. The player in your example has already passed the bar for roleplaying by choosing what action to take (“intimidate them for information” or whatever).

    That said, other than your specific word use, I agreed that it’s important for the player to give you enough details to know if they’re threatening to, say, salt the cultist, hurt them, or expose them, as each path has a different DC. I have similar rules in place at my tables for just that reason. I just word them differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by animorte View Post
    “He’s got a sword!l”

    “Idiot, we’ve all got swords!”
    Thanks for the laugh! (Even if I remember the lines differently)
    (“Still I think he’s rather tasty”)

    Quote Originally Posted by animorte View Post
    Test Your Might!
    *cue mortal kombat music*
    Again, thanks! (Changing genre, but no, I don’t have 6 fingers on my left hand)

    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The actual issue is that when d20 made Intimidate (as well as Diplomacy etc.) into a skill, it folded a bunch of other rules into them that it really shouldn't have. Namely, reaction rolls and morale.

    The big difference was that reaction rolls and morale were primarily on the game master's side, not the player's. So the game master could calibrate how friendly, hostile, cowardly or courageous monsters were based on their nature. This was largely independent from ability scores (which most monsters strictly speaking didn't even have) or level, so you could have big, strong monsters that'd flee at first opportunity, as well as tiny, weak monsters that were utterly fearless.

    Morale was checked based on what was done to a monster - examples included being injured or losing 50% of group strength. Results varies from surrender to fleeing etc..

    This meant a big, strong fighter didn't need to do or have anything extra to intimidate their opponents - applying sword to face would cause them to check morale sooner or later anyway.

    That's what's missing from later mechanics. Now, a reasonable game master will account for nature of characters and demonstrations of strength anyway, but nothing explicitly tells them they should. This is how you end up with characters who can kill others in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. As well as characters who keep fighting even after its obvious they've lost.

    Best solution: reinstate morale and reaction rolls, do away with social skill checks, or at least handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.
    While I won’t deny that that would be a step in the right direction, I’m concerned that it might make it harder to build the kind of social tactical minigame we’ve been discussing. Am I off base with my fears?
    Last edited by Quertus; 2022-10-06 at 12:24 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    I'm curious how we can go the other way here and give people what they want.

    Someone playing your archetypal barbarian wants their character to be scary, to be able to get other people to back down in a confrontation and maybe be able to do things like interrogate enemies through cowing them. All viable things for a character to do, and a limited subset of the things that full intimidation proficiency can do. The charismatic mob boss is better at directing how fear manifests and has a better chance of making the fear persist over long term behaviors, but that's likely not what the barbarian's player is looking for.

    How would you give the barbarian their time to shine and a chance to engage in socialization in a specific niche, without necessarily letting that spill over into other categories. For bonus points, how would you let the death cultist cleric or another scary character have a similar shtick if they can't fall back on a high STR mod to do the heavy lifting?
    5e has a lot of ways to do this. First, it's bounded accuracy, so Intimidate proficiency even if you leave Intimidate keyed off dumped Charisma only still gets you a solid bonus relative to the things you should be capable of scaring. Second, there's the explicit guidance I linked earlier that Strength (Intimidation) is fully intended to be okay by the devs. Third, Intimidate is not an opposed check, so you are free to make the DC lower if the player describes how they're using their muscles to intimidate someone - intimidating an official in a dark alley and intimidating him in bright daylight in his office surrounded by guards are different tasks and so should have different difficulties. Fourth and final, you can always just let the Barbarian's player take the Skill Expert feat for Expertise if they truly want to be great at it without having high Charisma. You can even give them the feat as a boon or other story reward if you want.

    As for the non-strength scary character - theirs straightforwardly comes from Cha. Or you can even base it on Int. As Mastikator rightly said, the key is to first know what the player is trying to do and how, then you adjudicate it.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitability View Post
    This isn't weird or unprecedented: sufficiently favorable circumstances should always remove the need for a check
    While I tend to agree, opinions are like navels, everybody has one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrudd View Post
    So, if it's agreed that there is some objective measure
    That's the problem, right there: objective.
    Quote Originally Posted by animorte View Post
    I read somewhere not too long ago (paraphrased, of course): “Intimidation is not convincing someone that you can break them in half. It’s convincing them that you will.” Something of that nature.
    Credible threat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    I'd suggest those who feel the need for strength based intimidate have (or are) GMs who are relatively reluctant to give big circumstance bonuses.
    Some GMs are more willing to make decisions than others.
    Some need more things written down than others.
    Good point on where the variation comes from.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
    The actual issue is that when d20 made Intimidate (as well as Diplomacy etc.) into a skill, it folded a bunch of other rules into them that it really shouldn't have. Namely, reaction rolls and morale.

    The big difference was that reaction rolls and morale were primarily on the game master's side, not the player's. So the game master could calibrate how friendly, hostile, cowardly or courageous monsters were based on their nature. This was largely independent from ability scores (which most monsters strictly speaking didn't even have) or level, so you could have big, strong monsters that'd flee at first opportunity, as well as tiny, weak monsters that were utterly fearless.

    Morale was checked based on what was done to a monster - examples included being injured or losing 50% of group strength. Results varies from surrender to fleeing etc..

    This meant a big, strong fighter didn't need to do or have anything extra to intimidate their opponents - applying sword to face would cause them to check morale sooner or later anyway.

    That's what's missing from later mechanics. Now, a reasonable game master will account for nature of characters and demonstrations of strength anyway, but nothing explicitly tells them they should. This is how you end up with characters who can kill others in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. As well as characters who keep fighting even after its obvious they've lost.

    Best solution: reinstate morale and reaction rolls, do away with social skill checks, or at least handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.
    This is also how you end up with players who can kill {NPC/Monsters} in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. Exercising the role playing and dialogue muscle develops it; not exercising it leads to atrophy.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    One issue with Strength improving Intimidate is that it doesn't help resist intimidation.

    So giants are all scared ****less of each-other? "Oh ****, that guy just snapped a steel bar in half! I mean, I could do the same thing, so could even a child, but for some reason it terrifies me!"

    As for being bigger, being a larger size gives +4 to Intimidate in PF1, and so +2 for being the same category but significantly more brawny seems about right.

    Even if we said "the modifier is the delta between Strength bonuses", that's still failing the case where someone is less strong but much more powerful. Is a low-level human with Strength 18 supposed to be scary to a demon with DR 15/good, vorpal claws, and a bunch of deadly SLAs? "I don't give a **** you bent that bar, because my skin is much tougher than iron"

    A bonus to Intimidate for being obviously more powerful makes sense, but that's a lot different than just "add Strength bonus"
    Bending a metal bar, no. Twisting the head off an underling giant to threaten the others, yes. Still, giants of the same species tend to have the same strength with each other so intimidation by strength won't mean anything. Humanoids have varying strength, so a feat of great strength means more.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Wyoming

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    As others have said, size and strength do not matter when using intimidation, it is the target's belief in your intent to follow through on any implied threat.

    Worse case, the GM can just give you a bonus of set a low Target Number for success based on what/how the player intends to intimidate someone with their character.
    *This Space Available*

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post



    It may be nonverbal, but that doesn’t make it “antisocial” / not Charisma. If you’re a health nut, and spend 15 minutes stretching and warming up and properly hydrating before bending the bar, it might not be as intimidating as you pictured in your head. If your line is, “see that? That’s your big toe.”, it might not be as intimidating as you pictured in your head.

    If it's not intimidating it only means you rolled low/failed the check. You still got to use Strength for the check instead of Charisma. The idea is to allow Strength for the check, not guarantee the intimidation.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Ah, I think there’s been a miscommunication here. Let’s see is I can fix it without quotes.

    Saying (effectively) “you can’t just say you want to intimidate them, you have to actually roleplay and speak the lines” translates to “you can’t just <roleplay>, you have to roleplay, and <act>”.

    Roleplaying isn’t “talky bits”, is making decisions for the character, as the character. The player in your example has already passed the bar for roleplaying by choosing what action to take (“intimidate them for information” or whatever).

    That said, other than your specific word use, I agreed that it’s important for the player to give you enough details to know if they’re threatening to, say, salt the cultist, hurt them, or expose them, as each path has a different DC. I have similar rules in place at my tables for just that reason. I just word them differently.
    Well yeah, if the player wants to question someone for information and gives no direction on how their character does it, then I have to take the wheel on their character and I'll go with what the book says. If the player was hoping for a strength check rather than a charisma check then the onus of justifying strength is on them.

    "I want to question him for information"

    "He refuses to talk"

    "I want to threaten him if he refuses"

    "Ok roll an intimidation check"

    "Can I use strength instead of charisma" <---- the player needs to <act> this or he's not getting strength. A little bit of trying goes a long way.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Duff View Post
    I'd suggest those who feel the need for strength based intimidate have (or are) GMs who are relatively reluctant to give big circumstance bonuses.
    D&D (the current edition anyway, though the OP didn't specify) doesn't have "big circumstance bonuses." Bounded Accuracy and all that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    Well yeah, if the player wants to question someone for information and gives no direction on how their character does it, then I have to take the wheel on their character and I'll go with what the book says. If the player was hoping for a strength check rather than a charisma check then the onus of justifying strength is on them.

    "I want to question him for information"

    "He refuses to talk"

    "I want to threaten him if he refuses"

    "Ok roll an intimidation check"

    "Can I use strength instead of charisma" <---- the player needs to <act> this or he's not getting strength. A little bit of trying goes a long way.
    While I agree with this, depending on who "He" is I might be pretty forgiving or even help them. For instance, this guy would be pretty easy to intimidate through strength, so it wouldn't take much to convince me of the swap.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    I think a person being physically imposing is a well established aspect of intimidation, probably much more so than any aspect of their personality. I think people have an unconscious bias to assume larger people are more intimidating even in situations where there is no real threat of physical harm. There is lots of research on the difference in success between tall men and short men (the pay gap relating to height is greater than the pay gap relating to gender), and although this can not necessarily be attributed to intimidation it does demonstrate how people of different physiques are perceived (in circumstances where violence is usually not a threat).

    I recall Tony Vlachos (probably the most succesful Survivor player of all time) talking about how he would always try to chat to people on slope, and stand upslope or downslope from them depending on whether he wanted them to be perceived as non threatening or not, despite physical intimidation not being part of the game.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    I think a person being physically imposing is a well established aspect of intimidation, probably much more so than any aspect of their personality. I think people have an unconscious bias to assume larger people are more intimidating even in situations where there is no real threat of physical harm. There is lots of research on the difference in success between tall men and short men (the pay gap relating to height is greater than the pay gap relating to gender), and although this can not necessarily be attributed to intimidation it does demonstrate how people of different physiques are perceived (in circumstances where violence is usually not a threat).

    I recall Tony Vlachos (probably the most succesful Survivor player of all time) talking about how he would always try to chat to people on slope, and stand upslope or downslope from them depending on whether he wanted them to be perceived as non threatening or not, despite physical intimidation not being part of the game.
    Anyone who's ever been in the presence of someone a foot and a half taller than them, and a foot wider at the shoulders, can confirm - it's pretty darn intimidating. lol I'm not sure if the people who think it has no effect are just large people who have never met someone bigger? I'm from a short family, and was almost always the smallest boy in my class. When I was 5'0" and 100 lbs, I knew some football players who were 6'5" and 300+ lbs. It wasn't their personality or anything they said that convinced me to get out of the way when they came barreling down the hallway lol. It was the fact that if they accidentally bumped into me, I'd be knocked off my feet. I knew how to fight, but if I thought there was a chance they wanted to bump into me? I wouldn't argue. lol

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Be that as it may, strength stat isn't an imposing size stat in D&D.

    If you want that, make it a Imposing Size (Intimidate) ability check instead of a Charisma (Intimidate) ability check.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Earth
    Gender
    Intersex

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Ya know this reminds me of a problem with skyrim.


    So there you are running around in *demon* armor, with a huscarl (also encased in armor), a literal *elemental* of a various types and... perhaps... a dog.

    And you get stopped by some lone figure who goes "your valuables or your life!". His is armed with two puny daggers and, perhaps, mid range armor.


    No amount of talking gets him to stand down. Unless your charisma skill is high enough. It comes to blows; usually this is me sighing behind my shield that the theif is pointless hammering on while my companions give him a once over. He is so weak they only need one.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    I doubt much that that many people fundamentally misunderstanding the intimidate skill. They understand, they don't care (they want it to be something different).

    Instead, I think there are a couple of fundamental issues going on...

    One is that charisma -- a stat originally designed to represent how many followers you could have and how loyal they were got converted over time into a generalized social ability score. That first and foremost puts the best leader, the best seducer, the best salesman, the best intimidator and the best liar all in the same bucket of 'character you want with a high Cha score' and I think a lot of people just don't like that. If all you want your beefy barbarian character* to do well is intimidate, and RP they actually aren't supposed to be good dinner company, needing to invest in Cha just for that one thing (and have good defaults for other social actions carried with) seems... I'll just say 'wrong, somehow,' for want of a better term. Secondarily, just the term 'Charisma' evokes the idea of a strong leader or glad-handing salesperson or the like. Hero System uses the term Presence for their social attribute (one more explicitly dedicated to how well you can cow or control people -- to the point where you can make a Presence Attack -- and I think that works better for Intimidation style social skills.
    *or on the DM side they want the PCs to run into the half-ghoul/half-troll barbarian leader Baby-Eater Maggotface, living embodiment of unnerving behavior, and the idea that this entity should have a positive charisma score just reads wrong.

    Another issue is the movement towards arrayed stats. Originally, the best way to build a Conan-esque character (someone who is generally good at next to everything, in particular can fight, sneak, lead, deceive, convince, seduce, intimidate, and discern) is to roll really well on most all your attributes. That has some unfortunate incentivization structures (dump stats, deliberately killing off poor-roll-characters, or of course all the alternate attribute generation methods both individual tables and the game itself started using), and people have been moving more towards making a game where you can make something someone would want to play from the average results of the basic attribute determining system. Once that comes into effect, having a character intimidating fighter character who can have a good Str, Dex, Con and Cha becomes rather hard to do.

    Third is skills in general -- they came in in mid-late 1e and by 2e and the BECMI add-ons/RC were definitively attribute based. Once you have a skill system, you probably are going to include social skills because those seem as reasonable a thing to be/not-be skilled in as fire starting, reading, or horse riding. If your system is attribute-based, well then of course you are going to choose Charisma. And this was done without really rethinking the base system under it at all and deciding if that made sense. Personally, I would have enjoyed a skill system which maybe included attributes, but only minorly* (maybe +/-1-3 while character level and level of investment were 5-6 each of similar). That would make someone who isn't naturally universally charismatic but really good at one social skill much more feasible.
    *or my other oft-mentioned idea: make skills the only/main thing attributes did, and then you could have a charisma-focused fighter if you wanted. But that's a discussion for another day.

    Finally, I think that there's a lot of churn and disagreement (between people and probably within individuals) on what the D&D game us supposed to be with regards to social rules -- is there supposed to be a strategic social mini game? Are social skills supposed to be simple or complex? Realistic or cinematic/epic? Does any or all of this take away from social interactions (for some or all the players)? Etc.
    Last edited by Willie the Duck; 2022-10-20 at 07:25 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Alcore View Post
    Ya know this reminds me of a problem with skyrim.


    So there you are running around in *demon* armor, with a huscarl (also encased in armor), a literal *elemental* of a various types and... perhaps... a dog.

    And you get stopped by some lone figure who goes "your valuables or your life!". His is armed with two puny daggers and, perhaps, mid range armor.


    No amount of talking gets him to stand down. Unless your charisma skill is high enough. It comes to blows; usually this is me sighing behind my shield that the theif is pointless hammering on while my companions give him a once over. He is so weak they only need one.
    Yeah sometimes the DM should just say "yeah you look very scary and have a reputation for killing dragons, bandits are just automatically afraid of you, you don't have to roll anything".
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    I
    If all you want your beefy barbarian character* to do well is intimidate, and RP they actually aren't supposed to be good dinner company, needing to invest in Cha just for that one thing (and have good defaults for other social actions carried with) seems... I'll just say 'wrong, somehow,' for want of a better term.
    A legit problem, but not limited to Intimidate. The solution I use (since we're talking house rules anyway), is that I buffed Skill Focus and Skill Affinity (replacement for all the +2/+2 skill feats), which included this:

    Skill Focus: treat the associated stat as 16 if lower, for purposes of the skill bonus.
    Skill Affinity: ditto, but 14

    Solves not only "abrasive and a bad speaker but very scary" but also "slow and very non-agile, but has excellent manual dexterity" and "not at all smart in general, but a savant on this one subject".

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    As noted by icefractal, 3e and PF have modifiers for relative size, so that strong gnome really is significantly less intimidating than a strong orc. 3e even allows the relative size modifier to scale, so a large creature has a +8 against a small creature and so on.

    With this in mind, strength need not factor in directly as a general rule. It's more about the target's perceived threat, and that is highly circumstantial. When it's really about pure physical intimidation (e.g., the heat of battle), then yeah, a raging orc barbarian should get a bonus, but that bonus should be based the circumstances and how he looks rather than a strength score. In a more formal social setting, maybe the spoony bard is the one getting a circumstance bonus for delivering a veiled threat to the baroness in the middle of a (perfectly-executed) ballroom dance.

    I agree that it's too bad that the slobbering orc who wants to be good at intimidating must invest in Charisma - in 5e. But in 3e/PF, you don't really need the underlying ability to be pretty good at a skill. That's the benefit of a more granular skill system which puts more emphasis on proficiency instead of ability.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
    I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    Personally, I would have enjoyed a skill system which maybe included attributes, but only minorly* (maybe +/-1-3 while character level and level of investment were 5-6 each of similar). That would make someone who isn't naturally universally charismatic but really good at one social skill much more feasible.
    This is a fairly common issue in attribute for skills based systems.

    The opposite problem for independently/directly invested skill based systems is often not enough points to invest relative to the number of skills available. Or insufficiently scaling cost to get very good at a skill if you provide sufficient points, so that folks can become far too good at a narrow range of things.

    3e and 4e D&D had the worst of both worlds. Stats were overly important at low levels for basic functionality in too many things. But there weren't enough points to keep on the treadmill required to be passable at enough things at high levels.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •