New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 374
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    There's a fatal flaw in the "muscles shouldn't improve Intimidation" argument, and that is the conflation of proficiency in Intimidation with the Charisma ability score. Invariably these arguments will talk about how the barbarian "doesn't know" how to use his muscles properly to scare someone else into doing something because they dumped Charisma, and this of course ignores the fact that the barbarian in fact has a *focus* in intimidation and therefore is actually quite familiar with how to scare people into doing what they want.
    More aptitude (higher charisma) + equal effort spent learning (equal ranks/proficiency bonus) = more knowledge. Your alleged "fatal flaw" does not exist.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-10-07 at 06:21 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    There are many ways to intimidate someone, and many possible desired outcomes someone may want for intimidating someone. It's a broad skill. The ability score should depend on what you're doing and how you're doing it, it should not depend on "uh my barbarian dumped charisma" nor should it depend on "the PHB lists charisma as the default".

    • Trying to interrogate someone - probably charisma, may also be intelligence, wisdom or even dexterity (if you use "enhanced" techniques)
    • Trying to bait an enemy into attacking you by insulting them, charisma or intelligence are fine choices
    • Trying to make an enemy NOT attack your party, strength is more appropriate than charisma
    • Trying to make an enemy attack not you, charisma and strength both makes sense, even constitution would work here TBH
    • Telling a scary story, charisma definitely, but wisdom and intelligence may apply
    • Forcing/coercing someone to accept terms or do specific tasks, charisma and strength are both viable, dex and int and wisdom too depending on details of the situation
    • Someone will probably complain that this is a very short list, it is intentionally not exhaustive because I don't have the energy to write every possible intimidation. Just examples to show how different situations calls for different ability scores.
    • But the point is that a big scary roar should use strength or con, and not charisma, and that an insult to bait an attack should use charisma or intelligence, and not strength!
    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 - #63
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    A big scary roar isn't a Strength or Constitution ability check
    The first is used for the direct application of physical force and the second for enduring something.
    Physical ability score checks are used when you do something physical. Not to influence others.

    Bending a bar is a Strength check.
    Getting a specific emotional response leading to a specific action you desire from someone else is a Charisma check. That's the ability score for influencing others.

    If the approach is "big scary roar" or "bend a bar" that might inform the modifying proficiency or the target DC or even automatic success or failure depending on the target and approach chosen. But the intent and approach are still at their root: influence another to get what you want. That's a Charisma check.

    Is it too broad what they're bundling under Charisma?
    Is it annoying that several caster archetypes automatically are good at influencing others and most other archetypes are fairly bad at it?
    Yeah, it probably is for many people.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    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 lesser_minion View Post
    More aptitude (higher charisma) + equal effort spent learning (equal ranks/proficiency bonus) = more knowledge. Your alleged "fatal flaw" does not exist.
    PHB: "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect."

    So Intimidation is a specific aspect of Charisma checks. Specifically, it's attempting to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence.

    If my barbarian has Proficiency in Intimidation, they have a FOCUS on influencing someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence.

    The Charisma score in this case is irrelevant. The proficiency tells us that the barbarian has a focus on influencing others in these ways. When someone says "the strong person wouldn't know how to convince someone..." they are ignoring the proficiency in Intimidation. They are saying that CHARISMA is how you know how to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. The skill of Intimidation is eradicated to make a point that isn't real.

    Notice also that two of the three examples given for what how you might Intimidate someone can be covered by STRENGTH; hostile actions and physical violence.

    Also from the PHB under the Variant paragraph: "... when your half-orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."

    A display of raw strength can easily be a hostile action or physical violence, which is exactly what an Intimidation check can be, which is exactly what my barbarian has a focus in through Proficiency.

    To say that someone proficient in Intimidation wouldn't know how to intimidate someone is an incredibly weak argument.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Thumbs up Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    So Intimidation is a specific aspect of Charisma checks. Specifically, it's attempting to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence.

    If my barbarian has Proficiency in Intimidation, they have a FOCUS on influencing someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence.

    The Charisma score in this case is irrelevant.
    It's completely relevant. Because the rules you just quoted are clear: Intimidation is a subset of Charisma.
    What does that mean? If you threaten someone, take hostile action towards them, or use physical violence with an intent of influencing them, it's a Charisma ability check.

    Now, if your DM uses the Variant rule to allow Intimidation focus to apply to a different ability score, the question remains: what are you trying to resolve?
    Is it a question of if you succeed in "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force"? Strength.
    Or is it a question of if you succeed in "ability to interact effectively with others"? Charisma.
    Thus, it is still Charisma base check, modified by some focus. Not a Strength (something) check. If you bend a bar, you make a strength check to see if it bends. If you try to threaten someone, that's a Charisma check. At most, it might be a Charisma (Athletics) check if you bend a bar to threaten them.

    Basically, you're trying to rule it an Intimidation (Strength) check, which isn't a 5e thing. Ability check is determined first based on Intent and Approach, not Skill proficiency.

    It questionably could be in 3e though, where it's a Skill (Ability) check, not an Ability (Skill) check.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    To say that someone proficient in Intimidation wouldn't know how to intimidate someone is an incredibly weak argument.
    The idea is that two characters with ranks in intimidate both know something about how to intimidate. The higher charisma character just knows more. Your whole argument is attacking a strawman.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-10-07 at 08:54 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    A big scary roar isn't a Strength or Constitution ability check
    The first is used for the direct application of physical force and the second for enduring something.
    Physical ability score checks are used when you do something physical. Not to influence others.

    Bending a bar is a Strength check.
    Getting a specific emotional response leading to a specific action you desire from someone else is a Charisma check. That's the ability score for influencing others.

    If the approach is "big scary roar" or "bend a bar" that might inform the modifying proficiency or the target DC or even automatic success or failure depending on the target and approach chosen. But the intent and approach are still at their root: influence another to get what you want. That's a Charisma check.

    Is it too broad what they're bundling under Charisma?
    Is it annoying that several caster archetypes automatically are good at influencing others and most other archetypes are fairly bad at it?
    Yeah, it probably is for many people.
    A big scary roar isn't a strength check? Says who? When I DM I ask for strength (intimidation) check for big scary roars. Sure you can use charisma in that situation, but if you can't give a strong compelling reason why strength isn't a viable choice then I'm not convinced by your declaration.

    I'm not sure what this "physical vs influence others" dichotomy is. Influence others is an outcome, not a task. It's a goal of a task, not the task itself. Bending a steel bar is a task, the desired outcome depends on the situation. Maybe you're trying to escape jail, maybe you're intimidating people, maybe you need the bar bent at a specific angle to help the artificer in his latest invention.
    Talking to someone is a task, for that charisma should certainly be the premier ability score if you want to convince someone of something, lie or threaten. But talking is but one of many options when you have the goal of influencing someone.

    Intimidation is IMO not too broad for game time, but it is too broad to say it definitely singularly belongs to one and only one ability. I'd say the same goes for most skills. I think this thread has a huge problem, which is that we speak too broadly about intimidation, this thread is full of posts so vague I can barely tell what points people are trying to make!. The devil lies in the details and they are being completely ignored. The details are where the roleplaying happens, if you sit at the table and declare "I intimidate the NPC to do X" then I'm sorry to say but that's shallow and boring roleplay, you're basically skipping an entire pillar of the game. I mean, imagine if combat was adjudicated with a single d20 test every time, of course combat would be boring too.
    Last edited by Mastikator; 2022-10-08 at 05:54 AM.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    A big scary roar isn't a strength check? Says who? When I DM I ask for strength (intimidation) check for big scary roars. Sure you can use charisma in that situation, but if you can't give a strong compelling reason why strength isn't a viable choice then I'm not convinced by your declaration.

    I'm not sure what this "physical vs influence others" dichotomy is. Influence others is an outcome, not a task. It's a goal of a task, not the task itself. Bending a steel bar is a task, the desired outcome depends on the situation. Maybe you're trying to escape jail, maybe you're intimidating people, maybe you need the bar bent at a specific angle to help the artificer in his latest invention.
    Talking to someone is a task, for that charisma should certainly be the premier ability score if you want to convince someone of something, lie or threaten. But talking is but one of many options when you have the goal of influencing someone.

    Intimidation is IMO not too broad for game time, but it is too broad to say it definitely singularly belongs to one and only one ability. I'd say the same goes for most skills. I think this thread has a huge problem, which is that we speak too broadly about intimidation, this thread is full of posts so vague I can barely tell what points people are trying to make!. The devil lies in the details and they are being completely ignored. The details are where the roleplaying happens, if you sit at the table and declare "I intimidate the NPC to do X" then I'm sorry to say but that's shallow and boring roleplay, you're basically skipping an entire pillar of the game. I mean, imagine if combat was adjudicated with a single d20 test every time, of course combat would be boring too.
    Some people break things and come across like terrifying badasses. Others break things and come across like petulant children. Deciding between the two is either a charisma check or a charisma-based skill check.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-10-08 at 07:05 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Some people break things and come across like terrifying badasses. Others break things and come across like petulant children. Deciding between the two is either a charisma check or a charisma-based skill check.
    An ogre with a negative charisma modifier breaks things, certainly a moron, probably not a badass, but definitely terrifying to a low level PC or commoner. There is a broad multidimensional spectrum between "terrifying badass" and "petulant child". Badass and terrfying are different axis.

    Again. Intimidation is broad, don't leave out specifics.

    Oh and petulant children can definitely be terrifying.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    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.
    There's already a strategic social game whenever the game master and a player are acting out roles of their characters. One of the biggest unasked questions is "should social skills follow the same model as all the other skills?"

    A lot of 3rd edition's flaws exist chiefly because it ties the main uses of social skills to same few basic formats as everything else. For that reason, some consultants during 5th edition's design cycle adviced WotC to drop social skills entirely. WotC didn't do it, but the simple fact it was suggested should tell "roll d20, add modifiers" isn't universally accepted as a great model for social interactions.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Thanks to this thread, I’m now picturing a BDF covering his teddy bear’s eyes before wincing while bending a metal bar as a critical failure on an unskilled intimidate check.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    An ogre with a negative charisma modifier breaks things, certainly a moron, probably not a badass, but definitely terrifying to a low level PC or commoner. There is a broad multidimensional spectrum between "terrifying badass" and "petulant child". Badass and terrfying are different axis.
    Do you make people roll height checks to see how tall they look? People who see a big strong ogre are generally well aware that they're looking at a big strong ogre. What is the ogre actually hoping to achieve with its display?

    There are plenty of possible outcomes here -- "The commoner faints"; "The commoner readies his arms and steps forward with a look of grim resignation"; "The commoner runs screaming, urine flowing down his legs and creating a trail behind him as he runs"; "The commoner takes off at a brisk pace, heading directly towards the nearest shelter"; "The commoner throws a magicked signalling stone at the ogre, alerting a patrol of gnomish warmechs, then starts running". Depending on setting and campaign tone, any one of them might be a completely valid response to any strength-based (or height-based) check the ogre might make in this scenario. The check to get the most favourable one still seems charisma-based to me.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-10-08 at 08:32 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    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 lesser_minion View Post
    The idea is that two characters with ranks in intimidate both know something about how to intimidate. The higher charisma character just knows more. Your whole argument is attacking a strawman.
    Projection projection projection.

    If the idea were that a higher charisma character "knows more" as you are trying desperately to assert here, then the conclusion would be the higher charisma character has a better chance of succeeding. But that's not what people are saying. They're saying Strength CAN'T Intimidate. Not only that, but people just give examples of failures on low rolls as if the roll couldn't actually be a success and an example of strength succeeding.

    Some examples, from this thread, of Intimidation proficiency not providing a knowledge of how to Intimidate someone and being irrelevant in the explanation of how Intimidation works:

    There are two major flaws in the "barbarians should have beefy intimidation bonuses because they're big and scary" argument.

    ........

    Second, the idea that someone who's scared will do exactly what the intimidator wants in order to avoid discomfort. This is only true in the simplest case like a mugging where the action is clear and immediate, and even then it's only mostly true. Scared people can do surprising things, and that becomes much more likely as soon as they're out of your presence. The huge, scary barbarian will suck at selling a protection racket. And if they try to scare someone into coming along with them, the person might well believe that they'll have better odds if they kick up a fuss here than going along with you.
    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.
    Intimidate isn't just scaring someone. It's scaring them in a way so they do what you want them to do.

    Sure, the OP muscled barbarian can scare a goblin. But what does the scared goblin do?
    Getting the goblin to run away would be easy.
    But what if the barbarian wanted the goblin to surrender quietly? A failed Intimidate could have the goblin running away while screaming loudly.
    What if the barbarian wanted the goblin to tell him some secrets? A failed Intimidate could have the goblin crying and babbling incoherently.
    As for rationalisation : Charisma is the stat for influencing others. You not being able to be menacing when you completely lack it is reasonable.
    So just think about this. No other stat is treated this way. I have an 8 Strength, but I have proficiency in Athletics and a total modifier of +3. Can I make an Athletics check to swim? This is how people would respond "No, Athletics isn't just about moving physically, it's about moving physically and getting where you want to go. Sure, a person with Athletics might know how to move their arms around and kick their legs, but if you lack Strength you won't know how to do that in such a way as to propel your body through the water." What people don't understand, and this is the fatal flaw, as I mentioned, is that the arguments they make are arguments that without Charisma you can't succeed. We all know this is not true.

    A half-orc rogue with 8 charisma and Expertise in Intimidate might have a +7 modifier to Intimidation. If I roll a Cha(Intimidation) check, the arguments being used assert that I can't actually Intimidate anything because I "completely lack" Charisma or "don't know" how to Intimidate. This is false.
    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Some people break things and come across like terrifying badasses. Others break things and come across like petulant children. Deciding between the two is either a charisma check or a charisma-based skill check.
    Unless you use an application of Physical Force (Strength) to influence someone through Hostile Actions or Physical Violence (Intimidation). You don't get to say one auto fails and the other succeeds. That's what the die roll is for.
    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Do you make people roll height checks to see how tall they look? People who see a big strong ogre are generally well aware that they're looking at a big strong ogre. What is the ogre actually hoping to achieve with its display?

    There are plenty of possible outcomes here -- "The commoner faints"; "The commoner readies his arms and steps forward with a look of grim resignation"; "The commoner runs screaming, urine flowing down his legs and creating a trail behind him as he runs"; "The commoner takes off at a brisk pace, heading directly towards the nearest shelter"; "The commoner throws a magicked signalling stone at the ogre, alerting a patrol of gnomish warmechs, then starts running". Depending on setting and campaign tone, any one of them might be a completely valid response to any strength-based (or height-based) check the ogre might make in this scenario. The check to get the most favourable one still seems charisma-based to me.
    The commoner could do any of these with a Charisma check as well; you're just listing various failures. Are you suggesting that a charisma check can't fail?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    It's completely relevant.
    It's irrelevant to the idea that you know how to Intimidate people, because you're proficient in Intimidation. It's irrelevant to the reality that you can succeed at Intimidation checks despite not having a positive Charisma modifier. Remember, I'm speaking to the flawed arguments being made here. The game doesn't check to make sure you have sufficient Charisma before it allows you to roll Intimidation checks. It just lets you roll and is only concerned about the total roll you achieve. The way people speak about Charisma in these threads is that you can't succeed without it, and the game shows us that this is so obviously not true.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Do you make people roll height checks to see how tall they look? People who see a big strong ogre are generally well aware that they're looking at a big strong ogre. What is the ogre actually hoping to achieve with its display?

    There are plenty of possible outcomes here -- "The commoner faints"; "The commoner readies his arms and steps forward with a look of grim resignation"; "The commoner runs screaming, urine flowing down his legs and creating a trail behind him as he runs"; "The commoner takes off at a brisk pace, heading directly towards the nearest shelter"; "The commoner throws a magicked signalling stone at the ogre, alerting a patrol of gnomish warmechs, then starts running". Depending on setting and campaign tone, any one of them might be a completely valid response to any strength-based (or height-based) check the ogre might make in this scenario. The check to get the most favourable one still seems charisma-based to me.
    If the ogre wants a commoner to pee his pants then charisma is the right choice for intimidation. If the ogre wants to scare a commoner into fleeing then strength is the right choice. Should the commoner just automatically flee? That depends on the situation, the situation makes the difference. If it's just a commoner alone in the wilds vs an ogre there's no need for a check, the commoner just flees and hides. If the ogre is attacking a defended village- defended by commoners hiding behind barricade with spears and the ogre wants to scare the commoner to abandon their station and flee, THEN I'd make it roll a strength intimidation check.

    Always look at the specifics of the situation, use logic. The variant ability check rule exists for this exact reason, it's actually RAW to use different ability scores depending on the situation, what someone is trying to do and how they're doing it.

    --

    Edit- Don't think of "scary" as some sort of YES/NO binary switch, it's a spectrum from "completely unscary" to "maximum scary". And that scale will have different creatures finding each other different level of scary by default, plus the situation, plus (if you make an intimidation attempt) the result of their dice.
    Which means an ogre is automatically scary to commoners, and an intimidation check can amplify that scaryness level. Again, the same ogre would also be very unscary to a big red dragon, an intimidation check would at best make the ogre seem less unscary, but the big red dragon isn't going to be afraid of the ogre no matter what. It just doesn't make sense that it would. Why would you turn these situations into some weird video game? Just do what actually makes sense if it was a real situation.
    Last edited by Mastikator; 2022-10-08 at 09:26 AM.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Wyoming
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    The idea is that two characters with ranks in intimidate both know something about how to intimidate. The higher charisma character just knows more. Your whole argument is attacking a strawman.
    This is the primary flaw in attaching skills to stats and only having skills with fixed numbers rather than point-based.

    The idea that a character with higher charisma knows more about intimidate is silly and it's what gets a lot of people into trouble at tables telling other players what they "ought to be doing" with their character. Skills should tell you how much you know on a subject, but the system no longer delineates how much skill someone has in a subject. It's just a binary switch. Either it's "on" and you know some things, or its "off" and you don't.

    A person with 5 charisma does not inherently "know" more about Intimidate than a person with +4 proficiency in Intimidate. Stats by themselves don't convey skill or knowledge. They convey ability. A person with +5 charisma may be more effective in Intimidate, but they don't have an inherent understanding of how to intimidate just because they've got a high charisma score. The same is true for every score. Having a high int score doesn't grant you knowledge, it just makes you quick witted. Having a high strength doesn't mean you know how to tie down a sail thats blown loose in the wind, only more capable of doing so.
    Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
    "You know it's all fake right?"
    "...yeah, but it makes me feel better."

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    GitP, obviously
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    Stats by themselves don't convey skill or knowledge. They convey ability.
    I though about this for a long moment and it was very nicely put. Some people naturally are capable of certain things while others actually have training or experience in that that specifically. Your proficiency in a specific area represents the ins and outs of how to do that thing because you've had the history of trial-and-error, therefore they get additional bonuses. One would also assume that they have some proficiency in that area (like a Wizard that's proficient in Perception because it's the best skill, but they only have a 12-14 because Int/Con were more important), but it isn't necessary.

    This is a prime example of, just because you're not a straight-A student doesn't mean you can't be a doctor some day. You may have to work hard and acquire the training/experience/proficiency required to get there.
    Something Borrowed - Submission Thread (5e subclass contest)

    TeamWork Makes the Dream Work 5e Base Class Submission Thread




  17. - Top - End - #77
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Do you make people roll height checks to see how tall they look? People who see a big strong ogre are generally well aware that they're looking at a big strong ogre. What is the ogre actually hoping to achieve with its display?

    There are plenty of possible outcomes here -- "The commoner faints"; "The commoner readies his arms and steps forward with a look of grim resignation"; "The commoner runs screaming, urine flowing down his legs and creating a trail behind him as he runs"; "The commoner takes off at a brisk pace, heading directly towards the nearest shelter"; "The commoner throws a magicked signalling stone at the ogre, alerting a patrol of gnomish warmechs, then starts running". Depending on setting and campaign tone, any one of them might be a completely valid response to any strength-based (or height-based) check the ogre might make in this scenario. The check to get the most favourable one still seems charisma-based to me.
    The roll is not just about what the ogre is doing, but to decide how the person responds to the ogre. No, the ogre isn't rolling to see how tall and strong they look, you'd be rolling and adding their strength to it to see whether the person is scared enough of them to run or pee their pants when the ogre wants to scare them, and it makes sense to add something representing the ogre's inherent physical scariness to that roll. How likely the GM thinks the target is to do those things will dictate what DC they set. If they are a hardened soldier who is armed and is confident in their combat ability, it'll likely be a high DC or even no roll allowed. If they are a commoner with no weapons, not so high.

    If the principle of the system is that a roll and all its modifiers always and only represents something the roller is doing actively and with intention, then perhaps characters should have a DC value assigned to them for how scary they look based on their size and physique and overall appearance, and the GM can roll a will save or wisdom or something similar to see what the DC for an intimidation check would be, or whether the NPC will just run away at first sight of the creature without any action on the ogre's part at all. (AKA, a reaction roll to decide an NPC's stance toward the character when they first encounter them).
    Of course, this philosophy would also impact other abilities, like perception. You don't actively control how good your sight and hearing are, so deciding whether a character sees or hears something shouldn't be a roll, right? The default would be passive perception value, compared to a DC or a stealth roll representing how hard something is to detect. They'd have to say exactly how and where they are looking and listening in order to get a roll that uses a mental stat, just like you need to say exactly how you're trying to intimidate someone before you get to roll intimidation.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by False God View Post
    A person with 5 charisma does not inherently "know" more about Intimidate than a person with +4 proficiency in Intimidate. Stats by themselves don't convey skill or knowledge. They convey ability. A person with +5 charisma may be more effective in Intimidate, but they don't have an inherent understanding of how to intimidate just because they've got a high charisma score. The same is true for every score. Having a high int score doesn't grant you knowledge, it just makes you quick witted. Having a high strength doesn't mean you know how to tie down a sail thats blown loose in the wind, only more capable of doing so.
    They convey aptitude. Talent. A person who naturally has what it takes to intimidate others picks it up more easily and gains more from a given amount of effort spent studying. This translates to a larger bonus that's resistant to arguments of the form "actually, what I'm doing is clearly strength-based". If that wasn't the case, varying the ability modifier would be explicitly the default, not a variant rule.

    A person who doesn't naturally have what it takes to intimidate people can absolutely use training to mitigate that, but they will need to work harder to be as good. And in the context of a forum thread, they can't do that. If the 8 charisma barbarian is proficient in intimidate, so is the 20 charisma bard. If the 8 charisma barbarian has expertise in intimidate, so does the 20 charisma bard. If the 8 charisma barbarian fails while the 20 charisma bard succeeds, the difference between the check results is exactly 6.

    Ultimately, your reasoning for wanting to change an ability score needs to be far more solid than "I don't want this check to be dependent on my dump stat" or even "the specific action I'm taking involves a different ability score". Music is clearly dex- or con-based (for instruments and voice respectively), but no one ever complains about charisma being the key ability score for performing music before an audience. Or even thinks about changing it to Dex when the check is purely about technical proficiency (e.g., reproducing a tune that you've realised is the password for a door) rather than impressing an audience.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-10-08 at 11:46 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrudd View Post
    The, you'd be rolling and adding their strength to it to see whether the person is scared enough of them to run or pee their pants when the ogre wants to scare them, and it makes sense to add something representing the ogre's inherent physical scariness to that roll.
    ... which isn't Strength mod. Because in no edition of WotC D&D (the ones with Intimidate) does Strength represent inherent physical scariness. Using it gives a big bonus to small creatures that are strong in ways that wouldn't be particularly scary.

    It also completely ignores that in D&D-landia, there are a bunch of things that could be far more scary than size-based scariness. For starters, magical and flashy weapon based scariness, so like ... any of the attributes, or even an attack roll. And yet somehow it always comes down to folks crawling out of the woodwork to argue that somehow using Strength-as-size-substitute is somehow just logical.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Troll in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    ... which isn't Strength mod. Because in no edition of WotC D&D (the ones with Intimidate) does Strength represent inherent physical scariness. Using it gives a big bonus to small creatures that are strong in ways that wouldn't be particularly scary.

    It also completely ignores that in D&D-landia, there are a bunch of things that could be far more scary than size-based scariness. For starters, magical and flashy weapon based scariness, so like ... any of the attributes, or even an attack roll. And yet somehow it always comes down to folks crawling out of the woodwork to argue that somehow using Strength-as-size-substitute is somehow just logical.
    Just because there are other things that are also scary does not mean size and strength aren't. I'd accept that a halfling's strength won't add to their intimidation except maybe when applied to other small creatures. I'd accept that being a size factor larger than a target would be as or more important than a strength score. But I also think, if there's anything on the character sheet that indicates the size and appearance of one's muscles, it would be strength, and it's justified to include that as a consideration in some way to how the character is perceived. Whether it's getting advantage in certain circumstances, or applying a modifier only against certain targets that are smaller and weaker, or whatever. There needn't be a universal rule, it certainly shouldn't be a case where players get to choose to apply their strength to intimidation whenever they want to, regardless of the situation.
    You can say that high strength doesn't always mean you look a certain way, especially with different races, but I don't think you could ever say that you look big and strong unless you have some amount of strength. So, a character who is bigger and stronger than most, like a goliath, wants to intimidate an average sized NPC- you don't give any consideration to their physical stature or the fact that they have 20 strength? It's only charisma? How exactly one takes it into account is debatable...reduce the DC, give advantage, add a flat modifier...but it surely isn't unreasonable to say that your character's strength score can indicate they have big muscles, especially if they are human or orc or goliath or something similar, and that big muscles can help in intimidating weaker and smaller characters. I think a universal rule that strength never matters is just as flawed as saying that it would always apply.
    Last edited by Thrudd; 2022-10-08 at 12:21 PM.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    ... which isn't Strength mod. Because in no edition of WotC D&D (the ones with Intimidate) does Strength represent inherent physical scariness. Using it gives a big bonus to small creatures that are strong in ways that wouldn't be particularly scary.

    It also completely ignores that in D&D-landia, there are a bunch of things that could be far more scary than size-based scariness. For starters, magical and flashy weapon based scariness, so like ... any of the attributes, or even an attack roll. And yet somehow it always comes down to folks crawling out of the woodwork to argue that somehow using Strength-as-size-substitute is somehow just logical.
    Are you arguing that since magical flashy weapons don't contribute to scaryness by RAW therefore strength shouldn't either? Because the way I see it all those examples you give and can think of should also have a chance to contribute to scaryness. A hobgoblin warlord with a plate of invulnerability, vorpal sword would be incredibly scary. (even to a player)

    I just don't see why strength, or any other attribute, depending on the circumstance can't be the ability score? The 5e PHB agrees with me here, it gives examples of when the DM might call for non-default ability scores with any skill. Any skill and any ability score if (and only IF) the how and when justifies it.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrudd View Post
    So, a character who is bigger and stronger than most, like a goliath, wants to intimidate an average sized NPC- you don't give any consideration to their physical stature or the fact that they have 20 strength? It's only charisma? How exactly one takes it into account is debatable...reduce the DC, give advantage, add a flat modifier...but it surely isn't unreasonable to say that your character's strength score can indicate they have big muscles, especially if they are human or orc or goliath or something similar, and that big muscles can help in intimidating weaker and smaller characters. I think a universal rule that strength never matters is just as flawed as saying that it would always apply.
    Given that a Goliath or Half Orc or even human can be tall and heavy with human normal strength, adding Str isn't the best system route to go.

    Advantage for being much bigger than the target and using it, or any other significant display that should increase odds of success, is totally reasonable.

    Of course and as a side note, intimidating by different techniques may often have a different long term consequence, even of the immediate outcome is the same. That's the link in the intent, approach, outcome, consequences cycle. Approach matters not just for determining how to resolve mechanically, but also both immediate outcome and long term consequences.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Ultimately, your reasoning for wanting to change an ability score needs to be far more solid than "I don't want this check to be dependent on my dump stat" or even "the specific action I'm taking involves a different ability score". Music is clearly dex- or con-based (for instruments and voice respectively), but no one ever complains about charisma being the key ability score for performing music before an audience. Or even thinks about changing it to Dex when the check is purely about technical proficiency (e.g., reproducing a tune that you've realised is the password for a door) rather than impressing an audience.
    In Dungeon of the Mad Mage there is a room with a harpsichord and a piece of music carved on the wall. It's an Intelligence (Performance) check to play it correctly to unlock a hidden compartment to get the treasure.

    As was mentioned, the rules already offer the idea of changing the ability score applied. Technically you never make a skill check. It's always an ability check but proficiency in a skill can allow you to add your proficiency bonus. Wanting to break a table to scare threaten someone is allowed to be a ST (Intimidate) check.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    Wanting to break a table to scare threaten someone is allowed to be a ST (Intimidate) check.
    ... because knowing how to threaten the table makes you more likely to break the table successfully.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    In Dungeon of the Mad Mage there is a room with a harpsichord and a piece of music carved on the wall. It's an Intelligence (Performance) check to play it correctly to unlock a hidden compartment to get the treasure.
    Great. Glad someone else thought of that, then.

    As was mentioned, the rules already offer the idea of changing the ability score applied. Technically you never make a skill check. It's always an ability check but proficiency in a skill can allow you to add your proficiency bonus. Wanting to break a table to scare threaten someone is allowed to be a ST (Intimidate) check.
    Variant rules are not the rules and aren't intended to be used without good reason. Which "I want to be able to dump charisma without consequence" isn't. And yet again, doing a thing is not the same thing as getting people to respond well to you doing a thing.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    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

    "Variant rules are not intended to be used without good reason and I consider any reason given to be a cynical ploy to avoid a charisma dump stat, instead of an opportunity to roleplay a character and a very common and universal trope."

    "Also, doing something doesn't mean you succeed at doing something, and I get to make that determination without a die roll because... I just do."

    Brilliant arguments there .

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Using alternate ability scores for things is not a Variant option in 5e. Variant Option has a specific meaning and is always called out as such in a header. Using other abilities with specific proficiencies is just something that situationally happens. Just like adding proficiency at all to an ability check. Or getting advantage. Or, in fact, having to make a check at all. Checks themselves are situational and entirely determined by the DM. Both what the DC is and what ability is used and what proficiency (or proficiencies), if any, can be applied. 5e is not 3e.

    The relevant text:

    Quote Originally Posted by DMG
    Under certain circumstances, you can decide a character’s proficiency in a skill can be applied to a different ability check. For example, you might decide that a character forced to swim from an island to the mainland must succeed on a Constitution check (as opposed to a Strength check) because of the distance involved. The character is proficient in the Athletics skill, which covers swimming, so you allow the character’s proficiency bonus to apply to this ability check. In effect, you’re asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check, instead of a Strength (Athletics) check.
    That's one paragraph out of several. No "variant" involved. That's stock RAW--although proficiency is usually applied to a single ability score, it doesn't have to be. That's just the most common default.

    Here, the relevant proficiency is Intimidation. And the task is one involving brute force and physical power. So a Strength (Intimidation) check is not an aberration. In fact, it's what's suggested. Skills are not tied exclusively to abilities. Any tie is just a default, a "most usual case". They're separate things. And the ability score is tied to how you're doing it, while the proficiency is tied to what you're doing.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Using alternate ability scores for things is not a Variant option in 5e.
    5e PHB p175
    Variant: Skills With Different Abilities

    And the task is one involving brute force and physical power.
    No, it isn't. You're (typically) not applying brute force or physical power to the person you're trying to Intimidate. It's not a question of if you successfully apply brute force or physical power to them, which would be a Strength check. It's a question of it it persuades them to do what you want.

    You break a table, unstick a door, bend a bar, or crush a helmet? Roll Strength to see if you succeed.
    You try to get someone to do what you want? Roll Charisma to see if you succeed.

    After that, what skill modifies the chance of success:
    You know the weak spot in this type of helmet due to its historical use? Strength (History)
    You're a strongman who know how to use that to impress someone with your strength? Charisma (Athletics) or Charisma (Performance) or just Charisma (Intimidation) might all apply

    Strength (Intimidation) is a check to see if you successfully break or force something by scaring it. Not a check to see if you successfully scare someone into doing what you want by threatening them physically.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    "Variant rules are not intended to be used without good reason and I consider any reason given to be a cynical ploy to avoid a charisma dump stat, instead of an opportunity to roleplay a character and a very common and universal trope."
    Again, you're arguing against things that weren't said. I said that the reason needs to be better than "I don't want to deal with the consequences of dumping charisma". On no planet does that give you license to read "any reason given will be read as an attempt to not deal with the consequences of dumping charisma".

    "Also, doing something doesn't mean you succeed at doing something, and I get to make that determination without a die roll because... I just do."
    Again, this has nothing to do with what I said. Breaking something means that the thing is broken. It doesn't mean that anyone was intimidated as a result. This should be obvious, because the DC to intimidate someone depends on how strong-willed they are, and the DC to break an iron bar depends on the thickness and quality of the bar. Objects don't mysteriously become incredibly fragile in the presence of weak-willed NPCs, and NPCs don't mysteriously become incredibly weak-willed in the presence of shoddy craftsmanship.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    ... because knowing how to threaten the table makes you more likely to break the table successfully.
    A table is a hard solid object. Being able to break it shows how easily you can break the soft tissue person you're trying to intimidate.

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Great. Glad someone else thought of that, then.



    Variant rules are not the rules and aren't intended to be used without good reason. Which "I want to be able to dump charisma without consequence" isn't. And yet again, doing a thing is not the same thing as getting people to respond well to you doing a thing.
    Variant rules means the game designers did think about it and offer it as an option. Therefore, the game does not say you are doing it wrong when you allow ST to apply to Intimidate instead of CH. Allowing for ST does not mean only using ST. The PC wanting to use ST has to do something to warrant it, i.e. show off some physical exertion. Breaking something, bending a hard to bend object, lift and throw a known heavy object, something that in itself requires strength. It's not flexing your muscles, though flexing could be used for a Strength (Performance) check.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

Posting Permissions

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