New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 374
  1. - Top - End - #121
    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

    5e specific:
    How many folks here would allow Intelligence (Sleight of hand) to pick a lock because you recall a piece of lore about this lock? Shouldn't it be Dexterity (History)?

    Or more humorously, would you allow Charisma (Athletics) to climb something successfully because you first talked to the rock face and told it how much you respected it? Shouldn't it, at best, be Strength (Persuasion)?
    obviously this isn't comparable, it was going to be my first example but I spotted the flaw. As a climber, I still find it funny tho.
    If the PC knew the mountain was really a stone giant, yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  2. - Top - End - #122
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    Then, if you remove charisma or just play a different RPG that doesn't have charisma, what ability would you use with intimidation?
    If you didn't have Charisma, you could use INT for your knowledge about the targets and/or about torture methods, you could use WIS to understand what the target really fears and yes, you could also use strength. It is really not that difficult to find other stats and reasons.

    But as long as Charisma is a stat, it should be the relevant stat.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    As a note, the classic "nice place you've got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it." type of intimidation only works because the speaker has (or is) imposing, thuggish individuals who are ready to do brute physical harm/set fire to things and you can't stop them. In the real world, most intimidation does rely on threats of physical violence and a demonstrated willingness to perform said violence. A weak-but-charismatic guy (say a used car salesman) can certainly make those threats, but unless he's backed up by goons it's not going to work.
    If you have goons (or party members), your personal strength does not really matter, even for physical threats.

    And even a car salesman who is both weak and alone would be far more threatening if he had a weapon than if he only had muscles.
    Last edited by Satinavian; 2022-10-10 at 01:49 AM.

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    If you didn't have Charisma, you could use INT for your knowledge about the targets and/or about torture methods, you could use WIS to understand what the target really fears and yes, you could also use strength. It is really not that difficult to find other stats and reasons.

    But as long as Charisma is a stat, it should be the relevant stat.
    Out of curiosity do you feel the same about other skill + ability combinations, athletics is always strength, medicine is always wisdom, sleight of hand is always dex? The variant skill rule in the PHB should be ignored, the examples in Xanathar's should never be used? intelligence (sleight of hand) to tie a knot is one such example.
    Or is it specifically intimidation that should be married to charisma until death (of charisma) does them apart?
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    Out of curiosity do you feel the same about other skill + ability combinations, athletics is always strength, medicine is always wisdom, sleight of hand is always dex? The variant skill rule in the PHB should be ignored, the examples in Xanathar's should never be used? intelligence (sleight of hand) to tie a knot is one such example.
    Or is it specifically intimidation that should be married to charisma until death (of charisma) does them apart?
    I feel similar about the others. But as mentioned, the man reason is that dumping stats should actually hurt. If there are other reasons everyone needs stat X, i am more open to replace stat X in skills. But CHA and INT have nothing at all beyond skills if it is not the main stat of your class, while CON and DEX are needed much more by everyone.

    But that is all only in the D&D framework. There are certainly many other skill systems i like far more and where i would give different answers.

  5. - Top - End - #125
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Elves's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Great post

  6. - Top - End - #126
    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 Satinavian View Post
    I feel similar about the others. But as mentioned, the man reason is that dumping stats should actually hurt. If there are other reasons everyone needs stat X, i am more open to replace stat X in skills. But CHA and INT have nothing at all beyond skills if it is not the main stat of your class, while CON and DEX are needed much more by everyone.
    I don't really understand this sentiment honestly.

    My current party has a wizard, a ranger, a monk, and my fighter. No one has charisma as a focused stat. I'm not sure how unilaterally deciding that an Intimidation check can never be Strength-based protects Charisma.

    Not to mention, when it comes to Charisma vs Strength, charisma is far and away the more useful stat, as it governs the spellcasting modifier for four classes, and four skill proficiencies.

    Strength, meanwhile, covers a single skill proficiency, and melee attacks. But in the case of melee attacks it can be replaced by Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, depending on class.

    All that said, wanting to protect charisma is an argument that I can at least make heads or tails of, as opposed to the "physical force isn't intimidating" nonsense that others are spouting.

    Speaking of what Strength governs...

    Intimidation skill - When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check.

    Strength ability score - Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.

    Threatening someone by squeezing their neck, bending their arm, boxing them in the ears, etc. is Intimidation and can reasonably be applied to a Strength check, as instead of charisma beams magically making the person do what you want, the force of your pressure around their neck or against their ears/temple convinces them they better do what you want because they can't or don't want to withstand your physical power.

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Satinavian View Post
    I feel similar about the others. But as mentioned, the man reason is that dumping stats should actually hurt. If there are other reasons everyone needs stat X, i am more open to replace stat X in skills. But CHA and INT have nothing at all beyond skills if it is not the main stat of your class, while CON and DEX are needed much more by everyone.

    But that is all only in the D&D framework. There are certainly many other skill systems i like far more and where i would give different answers.
    That's a consistent ruling based on balance reasons, so I respect it. But TBH I'd feel it that was a bit immersion breaking
    Last edited by Mastikator; 2022-10-10 at 08:22 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 - #128
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    Not to mention, when it comes to Charisma vs Strength, charisma is far and away the more useful stat, as it governs the spellcasting modifier for four classes, and four skill proficiencies.

    Strength, meanwhile, covers a single skill proficiency, and melee attacks. But in the case of melee attacks it can be replaced by Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, depending on class.
    Yes but jumping especially but even climbing clearly happen far more than talking in a properly designed campaign.

    I've actually found Str gets rolled far more often than Cha in both my own campaigns and back when I played in AL. But joking aside, obviously that's hugely YMMV and campaign dependent.

    Plus I'm not really interested in niche protection.
    Just the best-kind-of-correct technically correct reading of the rules, for the bonus internet points.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    That's a consistent ruling based on balance reasons, so I respect it. But TBH I'd feel it that was a bit immersion breaking
    Conversely, I find that strength based intimidation is best justifiable as a kludge for 5e, in that it enables a certain range of social interactions for characters who'd be archetypically good at that band of interactions but not others. All D&D characters lumped together might not value strength highly and indeed it's a common dump stat, but barbarians and hulking fighters tend to like it. (Plus a lot of paladins, but both having a use for Cha and character archetype make them less relevant here.)

    The problem I have with strength based intimidation arguments is that they always come down to the idea that a high strength score always makes you huge and jacked (in which case fantasy is full of both deceptively strong characters and shape shifting/disguise effects, which massively complicates the issue), or that high strength is a good way to display your capacity for violence in a world where most PCs and a sizeable chunk of the creatures they encounter can dish out violence quite well and can hint at their capacity quite well. Strong man competitor vs. scrawny teenager who flashes a gun.

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Hmmm. You say you wont disabuse my innocence, then go on to try and disabuse it anyway by implying my innocence is misplaced. It's almost as if you used the excuse of not disabusing my innocence to avoid having to provide any reasons or evidence (or even anecdotes) to back up your assertion.

    Anyway, in your haste to assert your experience in dangerous situations you missed the point. I didn't say that having a gun is pointed at you is not scary. What I said is that a person may interpret the gun as more scary in the hands of the deranged person than the calm one. Feel free to disabuse my innocence on this point by providing something to back up any assertions that you make.
    Touché? In retrospect, certain cases of both are similarly scary, for similar reasons. I pictured what I was familiar with on both sides, but concede that my perception was skewed. Which does present a problem for me in analyzing how one would evaluate and adjudicate such situations - including the possibility of the target being oblivious, and misinterpreting the scenario they find themselves in. “You can’t intimidate him - he’s too clueless!” (I swear there was a scene like that in a movie…).

  11. - Top - End - #131
    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 Quertus View Post
    Touché? In retrospect, certain cases of both are similarly scary, for similar reasons. I pictured what I was familiar with on both sides, but concede that my perception was skewed. Which does present a problem for me in analyzing how one would evaluate and adjudicate such situations - including the possibility of the target being oblivious, and misinterpreting the scenario they find themselves in. “You can’t intimidate him - he’s too clueless!” (I swear there was a scene like that in a movie…).
    This is certainly possible, but it shouldn't be assumed that someone with a 10 or 8 charisma will always have this outcome when they intimidate someone. That's what the roll is for.

    Somewhat unrelated... I think people treat Intimidation as a Deception check. See below:

    Player - "If you don't tell me what I want to know, I'll hurt you!"

    DM - Roll Intimidation.

    Player - I rolled a 12.

    DM - Ok, the thug laughs in your face, "Yeah right, you don't have the guts!".

    This is wrong. It's not a deception check. You are threatening someone. If you don't intend to carry out on that threat, then you're bluffing. That's a deception check. A better response would be:

    DM - Ok, the thug regards you for a moment before saying, "I can take it." He refuses to say any more.

    This is to say that the argument that a Str(Intimidation) can't telegraph whether you are sincere or not is misplaced because this isn't a question of truth. That's the province of Deception. Intimidation is about whether the threat that you're promising is enough to pry information or items or some other compliance from the person you're Intimidating. The check is not to convince them that you're going to do it, it's to convince them to comply because of what you will do to them. With this understanding, it's easier to see how physical force or violence can get someone to comply.

  12. - Top - End - #132
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    For my part I only care that those archetypes that are supposed to be good at intimidation such as barbarians are good at intimidation. Anything that reinforces the idea that fighters/barbarians should sit in the corner until a fight starts and not engage in any of the games other pillars is in my mind bad.

    The game should be able to model a very scary guy/monster who is not good at deception or diplomacy. How it does this would very from system to system but it is a serious design flaw if it cant do it at all.
    Last edited by awa; 2022-10-10 at 03:24 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    As a note, the classic "nice place you've got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it." type of intimidation only works because the speaker has (or is) imposing, thuggish individuals who are ready to do brute physical harm/set fire to things and you can't stop them. In the real world, most intimidation does rely on threats of physical violence and a demonstrated willingness to perform said violence. A weak-but-charismatic guy (say a used car salesman) can certainly make those threats, but unless he's backed up by goons it's not going to work.
    Yes - physical violence. Not Strength, necessarily. Are you saying the above situation wouldn't be scary if the goons had fire-starting materials and guns/knives, but weren't brawny? I'm gonna call BS on that - danger is danger, whether it comes from muscles, knives, guns, or indirect methods (imagine a corrupt sheriff threatening to plant evidence of horrible crimes in your house).

    Hero system takes that into account for Presence attacks (±1d6 roughly equals ±2 in D&D terms):
    * Attacker at a disadvantage: -1d6
    * Target at a disadvantage: +1d6
    * Exhibiting superior abilities: +1d6
    * Violent action: +1d6 to +4d6, depending how violent
    * Target in partial retreat: +2d6
    * Target in full retreat / captured: +4d6
    * Use of appropriate supporting skill: +1d6 or +2d6, depending on margin of success
    * Reputation: -3d6 to +3d6
    * Applicable Psychological Factor: -3d6 to +3d6

    So exhibiting great strength could give you several of those bonuses. But not an arbitrarily large amount - once you've already demonstrated that you're strong enough to crush the target, being even more strong doesn't matter much, does it?


    Also - "High Charisma only means spoony bard / used car salesman" is just sour grapes by people whose characters don't have high Charisma. "Bad ass" characters have high Charisma. "Natural leaders" have high Charisma. Most movie protagonists are played by actors with - you guessed it - high Charisma.

    Now I do think it's mistake, system-design-wise, to give some classes more mechanical use for Charisma than others. Sorcerers should not be more impressive than warriors as a general thing. And stat generation methods shouldn't be so stingy with the stats either - it should be entirely viable to be a high-Charisma Barbarian - like Conan, who definitely has high Charisma. But that's a problem that should be fixed on the system level, by changing how stats are determined and used, rather than by trying to pretend Charisma doesn't mean what it means.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-10 at 04:35 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #134
    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 icefractal View Post
    Yes - physical violence. Not Strength, necessarily. Are you saying the above situation wouldn't be scary if the goons had fire-starting materials and guns/knives, but weren't brawny? I'm gonna call BS on that - danger is danger, whether it comes from muscles, knives, guns, or indirect methods (imagine a corrupt sheriff threatening to plant evidence of horrible crimes in your house).
    The issue I am seeing is that any of us can say "yes, of course, a charismatic person can convince someone of a threat". However, for some reasons, others are refusing to admit that strength and physical violence can also intimidate a person.

    We can agree with the examples you give; the examples you give do not invalidate Strength, they can coexist.

    You and others, on the other hand, act as if a boorish thug with his giant meaty paws around your neck could never convince you to fork over your wallet because the threat of physical violence without sufficient charisma is completely uncompelling. Forgive me for being skeptical that you would all be stalwart badasses in the face of big strong guys threatening violence. It's a nice fantasy though.

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    You and others, on the other hand, act as if a boorish thug with his giant meaty paws around your neck could never convince you to fork over your wallet because the threat of physical violence without sufficient charisma is completely uncompelling. Forgive me for being skeptical that you would all be stalwart badasses in the face of big strong guys threatening violence. It's a nice fantasy though.
    First, a scrawny teenager with a gun is at least as scary as the professional bodybuilder. So it's not just about strength score meaning huge meaning the best way of expressing a threat.

    Second, you got it right there with the word "fantasy". You or I would probably be spooked for being at gunpoint. Fantasy characters have enough avenues to power and enough powers of their own that simply having an ogre's hand next to your neck doesn't mean anything. D&D characters being fantastical means that a lot of our real world expectations are less relevant.

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    The problem I have with strength based intimidation arguments is that they always come down to the idea that a high strength score always makes you huge and jacked (in which case fantasy is full of both deceptively strong characters and shape shifting/disguise effects, which massively complicates the issue),
    They do not come down to the idea that having a high strength score always makes you huge and jacked at all. Only that people in those worlds would perceive a correlation between being strong looking and being strong (in other words, characters that look strong are more often strong).

    In some games the relationship between size and str is baked into the rules. But even where it is not it makes sense for there to be a relationship between the two, and in my experience DMs will question characters who are super strong but are relatively normal looking.

    or that high strength is a good way to display your capacity for violence in a world where most PCs and a sizeable chunk of the creatures they encounter can dish out violence quite well and can hint at their capacity quite well. Strong man competitor vs. scrawny teenager who flashes a gun
    I agree with your analogy between most RPGs having some people who are lethal without relying on strength (because of magic) and the real world having some people who are lethal without relying on strength (because of guns). In both cases size and strength are a visible indicator of someone's ability to kick your ass, but there's always the possibility that they have a non-visible trump card in their pocket.

    But despite that larger, tougher looking people are more intimidating than those who are not in the real world. This is pretty well established. It may be that once someone pulls a gun they are suddenly more intimidating, this is true whether or not they are charismatic. As such I suggest a gun (or an overwhelming display of magical power) is best represented by a circumstance bonus in place of using str as a bonus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    You and others, on the other hand, act as if a boorish thug with his giant meaty paws around your neck could never convince you to fork over your wallet because the threat of physical violence without sufficient charisma is completely uncompelling. Forgive me for being skeptical that you would all be stalwart badasses in the face of big strong guys threatening violence. It's a nice fantasy though.
    This is accurate.

    Strength certainly isn't the only way to be intimidating, having a gun is too. But charisma being intimidating is niche, is certainly not necessary, and it is far less often applicable to intimidation than str.

    If you were going to burgle a home, what would make you rethink. A big mean guard dog barking at you ferociously, or a small but charming poodle barking at you ferociously. Size matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Touché? In retrospect, certain cases of both are similarly scary, for similar reasons. I pictured what I was familiar with on both sides, but concede that my perception was skewed. Which does present a problem for me in analyzing how one would evaluate and adjudicate such situations - including the possibility of the target being oblivious, and misinterpreting the scenario they find themselves in. “You can’t intimidate him - he’s too clueless!” (I swear there was a scene like that in a movie…).
    I agree. Both are life threatening. Different people might assess one or the other being somewhat more or less life threatening based on the context. But I don't think the assessment of which is more life threatening (and therefore scary) relates to the charisma of the person with the gun. Low charisma people can be just as dangerous (and intimidating) as high charisma people.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2022-10-10 at 06:26 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #137
    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 Anymage View Post
    First, a scrawny teenager with a gun is at least as scary as the professional bodybuilder.
    Of course. I've never asserted that something *can't* be intimidating.

    What I, at least, recognize is that the gun is scary because it represents physical harm, and a potentially lethal threat. Same with a knife. Same with two no-neck goons flanking the mobster. Same with someone even just alluding to a weapon. Same EVEN with the spooky halfling rogue with the menacing stare, ooooh ooooh so scary. The menacing scare is threatening violence.

    So when a big guy cuffs you and demands something, and you feel how hard they just hit you, you may be compelled to comply. Think about how ridiculous the alternative is:

    Barbarian - Ok, I want to intimidate him, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

    DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

    Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

    DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard but... he's not really compelled to comply. Even though you're strong, you haven't really conveyed the threat to him to get him to open up.

    Barbarian - I literally just smacked the crap out of him.

    Rogue - Hold on, let me try, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to tell him "You better give me what I want, or my friend here will hurt you." and I point to the barbarian.

    DM - Ok, roll.

    Rogue - I got a 17.

    DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at the barbarian and the barbarian's giant muscles and huge axe, he gulps, and he says "Ok, I'll tell you want you want to know."

    It's patently ridiculous to think this makes sense.
    So it's not just about strength score meaning huge meaning the best way of expressing a threat.
    I don't think anyone has argued that Strength is the best way of expressing a threat though.
    Second, you got it right there with the word "fantasy". You or I would probably be spooked for being at gunpoint. Fantasy characters have enough avenues to power and enough powers of their own that simply having an ogre's hand next to your neck doesn't mean anything. D&D characters being fantastical means that a lot of our real world expectations are less relevant.
    Sorry, are we talking about PCs or NPCs? Because PCs, at least in D&D, can't be Intimidated outside of a power or effect that Frightens them or something. Big strong warriors are part of the fantasy, and dismissing them as potentially threatening "because magic" is not fair and STILL doesn't make sense. So because someone somewhere can do magic, the 6ft tall armored warrior with a sword standing right in front of you is no longer threatening? I don't think so.

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    So because someone somewhere can do magic, the 6ft tall armored warrior with a sword standing right in front of you is no longer threatening? I don't think so.
    Especially since, for most people in most D&D-like worlds, "big angry person with muscles" is way more of a real-life threat than some dude who can cast spells. Because just about everyone knows someone in the first category and has a really good idea of what they're capable of. Whereas the second is something that belongs mostly to bards' tales. Sure, you know that your first cousin's sister's cousin's brother-in-law once saw a fireball being cast, but you? Most you've seen is the village priest doing his mumbo jumbo and (possibly) healing someone a bit. Magic's for them posh folks. Heck, I could even see some skepticism. "It's just tricks, right? I mean, sure there's some magic, but really now...". Heck, people in the real world say the same sort of thing about a lot that computers can do, and computers are dead common these days.

    Especially in 5e, where one of the Big Assumptions is that while the evidence of magic is common, active magic users are not. Maybe less so in 3e, where high-level casters were a dime a dozen. But remember, most people don't live in big cities. Sure, in Magicopolis, where everyone and their brother can cast spells, it may be different. But most of the world isn't like that. Adventurers get a really warped view of what the average person sees. In most settlements in FR, for instance, they may go generations between seeing even something like an orc band, let alone a high-power caster.
    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.

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    So when a big guy cuffs you and demands something, and you feel how hard they just hit you, you may be compelled to comply. Think about how ridiculous the alternative is:

    Barbarian - Ok, I want to intimidate him, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

    DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

    Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

    DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard but... he's not really compelled to comply. Even though you're strong, you haven't really conveyed the threat to him to get him to open up.

    Barbarian - I literally just smacked the crap out of him.

    Rogue - Hold on, let me try, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to tell him "You better give me what I want, or my friend here will hurt you." and I point to the barbarian.

    DM - Ok, roll.

    Rogue - I got a 17.

    DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at the barbarian and the barbarian's giant muscles and huge axe, he gulps, and he says "Ok, I'll tell you want you want to know."

    It's patently ridiculous to think this makes sense.
    Let's get these little stories straight shall we:

    Big Dumb Barbarian - Ok, I want to get him to to not run to the Guards after we leave, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

    DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

    Big Dumb Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

    DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard and ... he, like, totally swears he won't tell the guards you were here once you leave.

    Big Dumb Barbarian - That's right. You see what Strength to Intimidate can do? *satisfied look*

    Rogue - *sighs* Hold on, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to lean in and tell him "Remember, we know where you live, with that beautiful wife and cute little kids" as I caress my dagger.

    DM - Ok, roll.

    Rogue - I got a 17.

    DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at your dagger, he gulps, and he says "yes yes of course, of course, as I told your friend, I've never seen you."

  20. - Top - End - #140
    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

    Tanarii, you're missing the point and mixing up something I've already addressed.

    The point is to demonstrate how saying "strength isn't intimidating" while also using someone else's strength to intimidate doesn't make any sense. In the first case, the barbarian is doing actual harm and threatening more harm, whereas the rogue is only threatening harm. Everyone is so eager to say "b-b-b-b-ut what about guns?! guns are so scary!". Yes, they are, because they can hurt and kill you. So can a barbarian that can easily manhandle you and is armed to the teeth. No one needs a good charisma score to threaten someone with a gun. And no one has explained why the physical harm from a gun is threatening but the physical harm from a punch/kick/sword/hammer isn't. (I don't expect you to because the argument holds no water, but worth pointing out that nothing has been provided besides 'nuh-uh!'.)

    Secondly, unless the rogue is actually going to murder this guard's wife and kids, that would be a deception check, not an intimidation check.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Let's get these little stories straight shall we:

    Big Dumb Barbarian - Ok, I want to get him to to not run to the Guards after we leave, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

    DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

    Big Dumb Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

    DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard and ... he, like, totally swears he won't tell the guards you were here once you leave.

    Big Dumb Barbarian - That's right. You see what Strength to Intimidate can do? *satisfied look*

    Rogue - *sighs* Hold on, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to lean in and tell him "Remember, we know where you live, with that beautiful wife and cute little kids" as I caress my dagger.

    DM - Ok, roll.

    Rogue - I got a 17.

    DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at your dagger, he gulps, and he says "yes yes of course, of course, as I told your friend, I've never seen you."
    Three points

    First, I think the person would be more likely to go to the guards if someone threatens his family. If I got into a scrape with someone, I probably wouldn't go to the police, but if they hinted that they'd go after my family I might.

    Second, knowing where someone's family lives or thinking of saying it has nothing to do with charisma. You could as easily have your strong low charisma character threaten his family - and it would probably be more effective coming from the strong character because you can see how easily they'd physically dominate the family.

    Third, just like the other examples with the gun, your rogue is relying on a prop (the knife, and by implication the barbarian too) to make up for the fact that he is not inherently intimidating himself. Displaying a knife against an unarmed person might give a circumstance bonus, but that is the knife doing the work, not charisma.

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    Tanarii, you're missing the point and mixing up something I've already addressed.

    The point is to demonstrate how saying "strength isn't intimidating" while also using someone else's strength to intimidate doesn't make any sense. In the first case, the barbarian is doing actual harm and threatening more harm, whereas the rogue is only threatening harm. Everyone is so eager to say "b-b-b-b-ut what about guns?! guns are so scary!". Yes, they are, because they can hurt and kill you. So can a barbarian that can easily manhandle you and is armed to the teeth. No one needs a good charisma score to threaten someone with a gun. And no one has explained why the physical harm from a gun is threatening but the physical harm from a punch/kick/sword/hammer isn't. (I don't expect you to because the argument holds no water, but worth pointing out that nothing has been provided besides 'nuh-uh!'.)
    No, I am not missing the point. The point is trying to get them to do something you want through threats, and consequences once you are no longer there to enforce it.

    If all you're doing it torturing someone at your mercy for information, there shouldn't even be a check. Eventually they give you whatever they think you want to hear to make you stop.

    Secondly, unless the rogue is actually going to murder this guard's wife and kids, that would be a deception check, not an intimidation check.
    You're trying to get what you want by threats. That's explicitly Intimidation, not Deception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Third, just like the other examples with the gun, your rogue is relying on a prop (the knife, and by implication the barbarian too) to make up for the fact that he is not inherently intimidating himself. Displaying a knife against an unarmed person might give a circumstance bonus, but that is the knife doing the work, not charisma.
    Exactly. The prop doesn't matter. Big muscles, daggers, flashy magic. Being good at influencing someone through threats is what matters. That's a charisma check, with an added bonus if you have a focus in Intimidation.

  23. - Top - End - #143
    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
    No, I am not missing the point.
    1000% you did miss the point of that example.
    The point is trying to get them to do something you want through threats, and consequences once you are no longer there to enforce it.
    No, you're adding this now to still give yourself space to deny a Strength interaction. But you and I both know that threats do not have to extend into the future. You can threaten immediate violence right then and there and get someone to comply.
    If all you're doing it torturing someone at your mercy for information, there shouldn't even be a check.
    Ah yes, either physical violence doesn't work, or it works so well it's an auto-success and no check is needed. Brilliant.

    Intimidation says you can do it through physical violence. So what's the problem with cuffing someone? Why is that "torture" now?
    Eventually they give you whatever they think you want to hear to make you stop.
    Perhaps, if you fail the check. If you succeed though, your threat is sufficient and you get what you want. That's how a game with dice rolls works.
    You're trying to get what you want by threats. That's explicitly Intimidation, not Deception.
    A threat is a statement of intention to do harm. If you don't actually intend to do the harm, that's a lie, which is Deception. Please read the skill proficiencies.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2021

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    I feel like the trend of modern ttrpgs has been to move away from GM adjudication and towards bulkier and wordier blocks of text that read more like legal documents than a game rule.

    What I've found super useful in situations like the ones described here is the concept of intent and approach.
    As some others have said, players shouldn't be saying "I use (enter name of skill/trait/ability on their character sheet here)", they should be telling you what they want to achieve and how they go about it.

    If you wanted to intimidate someone, you'll probably use the Intimidate skill.
    But how you go about it matters, right? If you threaten the jaded mercenary with a koshing, it will probably be less effective than if you, say, called him out on his breach of contract with his current employer or implied that something might happen to his family or whatever.

    If someone--anyone--at my table wanted to use a show of force to cow someone, of course I'll call for Str. Or they could use Dex and slice all the buttons off someone's waistcoat in the blink of an eye. Or Con by taking a beer bottle to the face without blinking. Or Int by being crazy-smart, or Wis by being...eerily perceptive? And Cha for being smooth, confident, etc.

    Admittedly, this opens up social stuff a lot more than other rolls. Athletics might be based off Dex or Con instead of Str, but very seldom Cha (though you could do Int for a "how much do you know about mountain climbing" deal).

    But like...skill based systems are just full of blindspots and overlap like that across the board.
    When I run Chronicles of Darkness or even D&D, I'll usually offer X or Y for a skill check, or at least be open to suggestion. And I just can't find a good enough reason to say no, usually.

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai View Post
    No, you're adding this now to still give yourself space to deny a Strength interaction. But you and I both know that threats do not have to extend into the future. You can threaten immediate violence right then and there and get someone to comply.

    Ah yes, either physical violence doesn't work, or it works so well it's an auto-success and no check is needed. Brilliant.
    Unfortunately further discuss on this would require real world topics. So I'll have to leave it at the current point in discussion.
    Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-10-10 at 09:12 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Exactly. The prop doesn't matter. Big muscles, daggers, flashy magic. Being good at influencing someone through threats is what matters. That's a charisma check, with an added bonus if you have a focus in Intimidation.
    Well your own body is not really a prop. Some people are inherently intimidating because their large size lends them a menacing presence (well represented by a str bonus to intimidate). Those that are not can sometimes achieve the same effects by relying on guns or the like (well represented by a circumstance bonus to intimidate).

    You keep pointing out that str isn't the only way to represent the ability to hurt those you are looking to intimidate, but nobody disagrees with that. What you have not yet addressed is why charisma matters. Your example of the high charisma rogue threatening the family had nothing to do with the rogues charisma, and words would have been more effectively uttered by a scary looking character than a charismatic one.

  27. - Top - End - #147
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Well your own body is not really a prop. Some people are inherently intimidating because their large size lends them a menacing presence (well represented by a str bonus to intimidate). Those that are not can sometimes achieve the same effects by relying on guns or the like (well represented by a circumstance bonus to intimidate).

    You keep pointing out that str isn't the only way to represent the ability to hurt those you are looking to intimidate, but nobody disagrees with that. What you have not yet addressed is why charisma matters. Your example of the high charisma rogue threatening the family had nothing to do with the rogues charisma, and words would have been more effectively uttered by a scary looking character than a charismatic one.
    Because props and delivery aren't the basis, ability to influence someone else is the basis. Props and delivery are the tools used.

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box
    words would have been more effectively uttered by a scary looking character than a charismatic one.
    "Scary" is a form of Charisma!
    Charisma is not only "being charming", it's being impressive as well!

    And that's another thing - shouldn't the big strong charismatic guy be even better at intimidating people than the big strong unimpressive guy?

    If anything, it should be "add Strength in addition to Charisma" - which I would completely support if "add Dexterity" and "add spell level demonstrated" and "add +5 for having a gun" were also possible.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-10 at 09:37 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2022

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Nah a giant man threatening you is scary. A small man has to get creative.

  30. - Top - End - #150
    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 MaryPoppinsYall View Post
    Nah a giant man threatening you is scary. A small man has to get creative.
    That may be true for you and for me. But this thread has attracted the bravest of all people. Those that can't be moved by strong ruffians trying to cajole them. No, these people in this thread have hearts and wills of pure steel. Fearless. Bravehearts, to the last of them.

    The only thing that could possibly shake them is... a little tiny halfling man with a mean look.

Posting Permissions

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