Results 151 to 180 of 374
-
2022-10-10, 09:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
It's D&D. Everyone knows the Strength-based classes (Fighter, Barbarian) are the least powerful, so obviously high Strength characters are worthless.
Only casters are truly powerful, so low Strength characters are scary.Last edited by GeoffWatson; 2022-10-10 at 09:55 PM.
-
2022-10-10, 10:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Sure, but charisma is rarely relevant to influencing someone because they fear what you would do to them. Your own example about threatening the family showed that. Strength (or the appearance of it) is often relevant to influencing someone because they fear you hurting them.
We can dance around and give different examples of good roleplaying or poor roleplaying, or having weapons or not. But the problem with you argument still remains - charisma has little to do with it.
The way I was using 'scary' was to mean looking physically imposing. That is not a firm of charisma.
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 Liquor Box; 2022-10-10 at 11:01 PM.
-
2022-10-11, 12:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
I'm not a trained combatant, under the real life rules engine where a spot of bad luck could easily lead to serious injury or death even for the favored party. My D&D character is a trained combatant in a system where injuries are common but lasting ones are rare. I can't help but think that the rules should be calibrated around PCs and the beings they're most likely to meaningfully interact with, moreso than commoners in either their world or ours.
The gun counterargument is that there are plenty of other ways to make people scared of you other than being a shredded mountain of muscle. Since we're making arguments from real life I'd be super spooked if someone's eyes glowed red and the ground trembled when they spoke, but as a D&D player I know that's the effect of a simple cantrip. The ideas that strength score is always easily visible from build, and that displays of strength are more effectively intimidating than displays of other power, are not borne out in D&D. And I say this as someone who accepted that certain forms of Str-intimidation make sense as a kludge for the 5e skill system.
For any form of interaction more finely grained than making someone back off or want to flee, however, people skills are absolutely relevant in knowing just how far to push. Hulk is a lot more likely to make me run away than Captain America. If you want to reduce the risks of having someone collapse into an incomprehensible blubbering ball or deciding that their best chance of making it out requires an all-out attack - both things that scared people have been known to do - Cap is probably the better bet. The idea that a failed intimidation check results in a blase, unscared target is another one of those assumptions that doesn't necessarily pan out. Unproductively scared is very much a possibility.
-
2022-10-11, 01:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Lol, get off your high horse here. Apparently those in the "only Strength matters" camp would be totally unphased if threatened by a crazy-looking guy waving a knife around, or even a grenade, as long as he was scrawny.
Is anyone even contesting that a big brawny person could be scary? Because I'm not. I just think they're not specially and uniquely scary in a way that someone with a gun or carrying a severed arm or visibly an organized crime boss aren't. Danger is danger. By all means have a modifier for it, but muscles are not the only form.
-
2022-10-11, 02:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
-
2022-10-11, 04:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
So you'd be on board with something like this?
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; 2022-10-11 at 04:59 AM.
-
2022-10-11, 05:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
No I'm not on board with that, just use one ability score. Which should most of the time be charisma.
How do I put this?
Everyone agrees charisma should be the default for intimidation.
Not everyone agrees the default ability score should always and forever be used for skills.
When you argue that strength shouldn't always be used for every intimidation then you argue against nobody.
When you argue that strength should never be used under any circumstances, then you argue against me (and other people).
These are the two camps:
Always use the same ability score for the same skill, with no exceptions.
Sometimes use a different ability score for the same skill, depending on situation.
The "always use strength" camp is empty.Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal
-
2022-10-11, 05:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Ok, but that alternate ability score could still be Dexterity, or Int/Wis (the level of the spell demonstrated makes more sense IMO, but it could be the ability score to keep the scale consistent), or a flat bonus for weapons, etc?
-
2022-10-11, 05:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
I don't see why not.
Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal
-
2022-10-11, 06:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
I didn't say that looking strong is more effective than other displays of power in DnD or real life. I accepted that in real life a gun might as intimidating or perhaps more so. In DnD other displays of power might be as intimidating or more so (probably depending somewhat on the setting). So looking strong is just one display of power.
So, as I have suggested several times, str should give an intimidate bonus, but a alternative display of power could give a circumstance bonus instead. I've said that a few times, and your points above seem consistent with it,so perhaps we are furiously agreeing? If not, perhaps you could point out where we disagree.
For any form of interaction more finely grained than making someone back off or want to flee, however, people skills are absolutely relevant in knowing just how far to push. Hulk is a lot more likely to make me run away than Captain America. If you want to reduce the risks of having someone collapse into an incomprehensible blubbering ball or deciding that their best chance of making it out requires an all-out attack - both things that scared people have been known to do - Cap is probably the better bet. The idea that a failed intimidation check results in a blase, unscared target is another one of those assumptions that doesn't necessarily pan out. Unproductively scared is very much a possibility.
You might be able to come up with examples where more nuance is required and higher charisma is more useful than being physically imposing. In those cases charisma is probably worth using. But I don't think that detracts from str being useful in a wide variety (probably most) intimidate scenarios.
I notice that once again, your non-strong character needs a knife or grenade to be intimidating. I think most people here have (or would) agree that having something like a grenade or knife (when your target does not) deserves some sort of intimidate bonus. As I think people have told you lots of times, being strong is not the only way to be intimidating, but it is one effective way.
Is anyone even contesting that a big brawny person could be scary? Because I'm not. I just think they're not specially and uniquely scary in a way that someone with a gun or carrying a severed arm or visibly an organized crime boss aren't. Danger is danger. By all means have a modifier for it, but muscles are not the only form.
It could possibly be dexterity or intelligence in some very particular circumstances I suppose. But those would be much more infrequent and niche than strength.
This is for two reasons. First, desterity and intelligence is much less visible than strength. Second, they are much less inherently intimidating (in that a strong person can usually obviously give you a hiding, but it is much less obvious that the clever or dexterous one can use that ability to harm you).
I think weapons usually only matter where one person has them and the other does not - in this case i think they should give a bonus decided on by the DM but not tied to an ability score. I think that if the character can demonstrate the ability to cast spells that the target perceives as powerful , then they should get a flat bonus for that untied to an ability score, but if they are trying to persuade the target that they might cast a spell on them (not demonstrating it) this is probably charisma.Last edited by Liquor Box; 2022-10-11 at 06:19 AM.
-
2022-10-11, 07:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- ICU, under a cherry tree.
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Okay but... you're not always going to be trying to Intimidate super powerful beings. I don't know why arguments keep being formulated that don't support the unilateral "Strength can't work" position you are all taking.
If we just killed your cultist pals, and now I want to Intimidate you to betray your zealous loyalty to your high priest and spill the beans, why wouldn't Strength be Intimidating? Now, if you're talking about a giant, that towers over the barbarian and is way stronger than him? Sure, maybe Intimidation through Strength couldn't work. But there's an issue with your argument still, because you, and others, keep scaling everyone up in the D&D world except for the fighters! My fighter, as I mentioned in a thread on the 5E forum, just used Action Surge to kill a hill giant in 1 turn. Why would another hill giant that witnessed that not fear my Strength if I roll an Intimidation check against it? I'm not saying an auto-success here, but why might it not with a successful roll of the die?
The gun counterargument is that there are plenty of other ways to make people scared of you other than being a shredded mountain of muscle. Since we're making arguments from real life I'd be super spooked if someone's eyes glowed red and the ground trembled when they spoke, but as a D&D player I know that's the effect of a simple cantrip. The ideas that strength score is always easily visible from build, and that displays of strength are more effectively intimidating than displays of other power, are not borne out in D&D. And I say this as someone who accepted that certain forms of Str-intimidation make sense as a kludge for the 5e skill system.
For any form of interaction more finely grained than making someone back off or want to flee, however, people skills are absolutely relevant in knowing just how far to push. Hulk is a lot more likely to make me run away than Captain America. If you want to reduce the risks of having someone collapse into an incomprehensible blubbering ball or deciding that their best chance of making it out requires an all-out attack - both things that scared people have been known to do - Cap is probably the better bet. The idea that a failed intimidation check results in a blase, unscared target is another one of those assumptions that doesn't necessarily pan out. Unproductively scared is very much a possibility.
But even if you were to provide some special unique niche example of Intimidation that requires precise future-proofing, I disagree that Charisma is some magic ability score that extends mental control into the future.
As has been explained, there is no "only strength matters" camp.
Again I ask, why is a scrawny guy with a knife scary but a big strong guy with a sword not scary?
Is anyone even contesting that a big brawny person could be scary? Because I'm not. I just think they're not specially and uniquely scary in a way that someone with a gun or carrying a severed arm or visibly an organized crime boss aren't. Danger is danger. By all means have a modifier for it, but muscles are not the only form.
Adding my +1 to this to clear up any confusion.Castlevania II: Dracula's Curse
Sabian Skellegue, the Unyielding Wrath
IC OOC
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
Aelki Ruasha, Void Knight of the Star Ocean
IC OOC MAP
Chult Hex Crawl
Ondros, Mazewalker of Ubtao
IC OOC Slide Deck
Retired Characters
-
2022-10-11, 08:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
If we were talking about a system that allowed arbitrary bonus stacking, sure. Although in most such systems I've seen also have intimidation as a skill that the barbarian could invest in separately as opposed to the 5e binary of proficient or not. Which is why I'm okay with strength-intimidate as a 5e kludge for "I'd invest more heavily in this skill if I could, but expertise is excessively costly and the system doesn't allow other options".
I'm just conscious of two systemic pitfalls to be avoided here. The first is that if players read the skill entry and see how to stack bonuses, they're very likely to do just that. Arguing for various situational bonuses and stat replacements is working against the logic of 5e which attempts to keep that stuff dialed down. The second is that when the argument "after I've displayed my ability to cause harm, the target is going to be scared and thus compliant" has come up at tables, it's usually been used to argue that combat skill investment should be able to make up for not investing more than a token amount into intimidation as a skill. If the system gives an option to invest in a skill and you choose not to, I'm going to look askance at your trying to gain the benefits of that skill regardless.
I don't agree. If we take the example of wanting someone to give you a thing (information or something material), in most cases it only takes sufficient people skills to be able to articulate what it is you want, and articulate or imply that it work our poorly for your target if they refuse. I don't think that this requires any real charisma. And in both cases I think Hulk would be better (I assume he can actually speak?).
If your goal is anything more complex than getting me to hand over an object on my person or making me run away, however, simple threat of pain is going to be less effective. If you put a knife to my back and ask me to lead you to the treasury, I might well take a path that runs into a large guard patrol. And in the particular case of keeping a prisoner to intimidate for information, that walks right into the hot button issue of the efficacy of torture. Where the argument in favor is "pain is scary and you'll do whatever it takes to make it stop", and the argument against is mountains of real-world evidence that it regularly fails to produce actionable intelligence.
-
2022-10-11, 08:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
- Location
- Los Angeles
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
There's many ways a system could represent this, and "adding Strength instead of Charisma to Intimidate checks" is one of the weakest takes I've seen, IMHO. (Pun very much intended )
Why? Well, for one thing, it's too damn narrow! Crushing a rock in your meaty fist may be intimidating, but so is demonstrating terrifying magical powers, and you wouldn't represent that by "adding Int to Intimidate," because not all people of high Int are possessed of deadly magical powers or the like. Moreover, such things are relative -- Mr Universe Arnold Schwarzenegger still looks like a twig to a dragon, why would his size have any bearing whatsoever? And for another thing, I'll find Bruce Lee demonstrating what he can do far more intimidating than an untalented martial artist of similar musculature. This would be even more pronounced in a fantasy universe where the difference between a skilled and unskilled fighter of equal strength can be the difference between basically being a fit commoner and caving in castle walls with your headbutt.
So what should happen instead?
The situation should establish how scary you appear relative to the enemy (using any means of demonstration you like), and then intimidate can upsell that. You don't need an Intimidate skill for people to realize Fireballs Are Scary or You Are Twice Their Size. You need an Intimidate skill to light fire in your hair and pretend you're the devil like Blackbeard, or otherwise use showmanship to make yourself appear scarier than you already are.
You could represent this any number of ways. The situation might affect the DC for the intimidate check (much like pre-existing Attitude sets the DC for Persuasion checks in 5e). Or perhaps it grants circumstance bonuses in other systems. And so on and so forth. So if you do something very scary, you might not be able to upsell how scary that is, but Ainz probably doesn't even need to roll anything to terrify those poor soldiers in the link (or if he does, the DC would be terribly low, or the circumstance bonus would be terribly high).Last edited by LudicSavant; 2022-10-11 at 09:04 AM.
Originally Posted by ProsecutorGodot
Nerull | Wee Jas | Olidammara | Erythnul | Hextor | Corellon Larethian | Lolth | The Deep Ones
-
2022-10-11, 09:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
charisma is entirely relevant to influencing someone else for any reason. It is the entire point of the ability score. And Intimidation, influencing someone else with threat or even with actual physical violence, is explicitly a subset of Charisma.
Charisma is, at least since WotC took over D&D, not just about being charming and funny and endearing. It's about influencing others through both force of personality and general capabilities of being able to interact with others in any way that gets what you want.
Before that it was leadership capabilities and seeing how the encounter went if you said 'Par-lay?'
I do kinda wish they'd bring those days back sometimes. Or at least just scrap all mental ability scores.Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-10-11 at 09:56 AM.
-
2022-10-11, 09:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- ICU, under a cherry tree.
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Yeah, the technical arguments that "how can you influence someone with muscles" seem to forget about "how can you physical violence with charisma".
Castlevania II: Dracula's Curse
Sabian Skellegue, the Unyielding Wrath
IC OOC
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
Aelki Ruasha, Void Knight of the Star Ocean
IC OOC MAP
Chult Hex Crawl
Ondros, Mazewalker of Ubtao
IC OOC Slide Deck
Retired Characters
-
2022-10-11, 10:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Clearly it should be:
Charisma (Athletics) to grapple someone who is Frightened of you.
Charisma (Acrobatics) to balance on a beam you've convinced to be less slippery.
Charisma (Sleight of Hand) to pick a lock you've lied to.
Charisma (Stealth) to hide from an enemy you've gotten all the pub rumors about.
These are the reverse equivalents of using Strength (Intimidation) to threaten someone to get them to do what you want.
-
2022-10-11, 10:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- ICU, under a cherry tree.
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Sure Tanarii, keep throwing things at the wall and see if they stick.
Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to figure out how charisma governs "physical violence". Must be hitting them with that force of personality. Invisible beams knocking the bad guy around until they do what you want.Castlevania II: Dracula's Curse
Sabian Skellegue, the Unyielding Wrath
IC OOC
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
Aelki Ruasha, Void Knight of the Star Ocean
IC OOC MAP
Chult Hex Crawl
Ondros, Mazewalker of Ubtao
IC OOC Slide Deck
Retired Characters
-
2022-10-11, 11:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Instead of Charisma (Performance) when doing such things to entertain: Floor exercise, The Vault, ice skating, etc.
"Muggle magic tricks" - Legerdemain, cups and balls, playing cards, disappearing/reappearing coins, etc.
Body paint to look like the background or appear like an animal.
-
2022-10-11, 12:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal
-
2022-10-11, 01:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
That is a pretty good one, trying to be traditionally stealthy in a crowd would make you more noticeable.
I see this as a boon getting the players to think about what their characters are actually doing rather than just waiting for their mechanical lever to come along. Now I seriously want to think about alternative stats for various skills.
Depending on the granularity of the system and the specific task I might suggest keeping a penalty from a low stat.
So obviously cha to slight of hand (bumping in to someone to distract them) it has the down side that they will likely realize you were the one who robbed them but using cha to distract them so you can do the deed fits the fiction real well.
dex to climb feels pretty straight forward, as does con to swim for an endurance task
Performance could be based on strong man feats or juggling/ tumbling so allowing str or dex to be used would not be unreasonable.
-
2022-10-11, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- ICU, under a cherry tree.
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Castlevania II: Dracula's Curse
Sabian Skellegue, the Unyielding Wrath
IC OOC
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
Aelki Ruasha, Void Knight of the Star Ocean
IC OOC MAP
Chult Hex Crawl
Ondros, Mazewalker of Ubtao
IC OOC Slide Deck
Retired Characters
-
2022-10-11, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2022-10-11, 04:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
To be fair in that example at least (it looks like) the two things are working together. The problem is that it works just as well if you take the barbarian out of the picture entirely. Although even there it is believable that a rogue can bluff with no cards, but it shouldn't be better than actually having the cards.
And thirded for using charisma for social stealth (subject to the character description being compatible)
-
2022-10-11, 05:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
- Location
- Wyoming
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
One thing I noticed in the 5th edition of Legend of the 5 Rings, is that the player can link the skill they are using to an ability based on how they plan to use the skill.
Therefore, an intimidation check where you are going to break something is a Fire ring test. One where you are going to confuse them is Water. One where you are going to show them how smart you are is Air. Of course, this applies to all skill checks in the game. Your choice of ability also impacts on how you may gain or lose other resources on the test such as advantage and strife.
Is there a reason that skills should be linked to abilities? I know we are discussing D^&D and that is how they do it, but couldn't a GM just decide to "uncouple" them?*This Space Available*
-
2022-10-11, 05:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
The big benefit is twofold:
1. It makes a certain kind of logic that Strong Guy is at least a bit good at swimming by virtue of his strength, or that Charisma Guy is better than the average man at Persuading people.
2. It provides a consistent ruling, and avoids the 'Mother May I' problem where the GM has to make calls about when Strength can be applied to Intimidate and when it can't, and players need permission before they roll their Strength Intimidate. And nobody has to remember whether 12 sessions ago fixing the generator was Intelligence+Repair or Dexterity+Repair when it comes up again (consistency).
But it certainly can be done. Plenty of games use Attribute+Skill as a standard roll. Plenty of others use skills totally uncoupled from attributes. Some only use very basic broad attributes (body, mind, spirit) with no skills as the entire game system.Check out our Sugar Fuelled Gamers roleplaying Actual Play Podcasts. Over 300 hours of gaming audio, including Dungeons and Dragons, Savage Worlds, and Call of Cthulhu. We've raced an evil Phileas Fogg around the world, travelled in time, come face to face with Nyarlathotep, become kings, gotten shipwrecked, and, of course, saved the world!
-
2022-10-11, 06:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
I'm not suggesting stacking. I'm suggesting that there are times (quite a few times) when strength should be used as a modifier to intimidate in place of charisma. Not in addition to, but instead of.
I think I kind of agree with your second point, but I don't think that the question of whether str can sometimes be used is relevant to it.
Here's the other massive issue I have here. If you stick a gun in my face and demand my wallet, I'm going to hand it over. Although again that might change if I'm an action hero running on action hero rules. And if we're talking about D&D and you want a particular item in my possession, that sounds more likely to signal the start of combat simply because D&D combat is more engaging than a simple skill roll. (Unless your play session is mugging random commoners for whatever coppers they happen to have on them. Which strikes me as a very odd and not well supported style of play.)
Putting that aside, I don't think demanding an item (whether robbery or not) is any more a signal of the start of combat than any other time you try to make someone do something they don't want to. If you default to combat every time a party shakes down a commoner, this just mean the commoner dies instead of just being robbed. There's no more reason for robbing someone to signal the start of combat than forcing someone to take you to the treasure room.
If your goal is anything more complex than getting me to hand over an object on my person or making me run away, however, simple threat of pain is going to be less effective. If you put a knife to my back and ask me to lead you to the treasury, I might well take a path that runs into a large guard patrol.
In your example you may take me to a guard patrol if you were not sufficiently intimidated. But you'd be risking your own life in doing so. I think you'd be less likely to do that if your captor(s) were physically imposing enough (or had somehow else demonstrated their power) to suggest they can snap your neck before the guards can help or defeat the guards. I think that str is just as likely to be useful as charisma in this situaiton.
And in the particular case of keeping a prisoner to intimidate for information, that walks right into the hot button issue of the efficacy of torture. Where the argument in favor is "pain is scary and you'll do whatever it takes to make it stop", and the argument against is mountains of real-world evidence that it regularly fails to produce actionable intelligence.
But intimidation for information does not necessarily imply torture. There are lots of circumstances where someone might try to extract information without using torture, either because of time constraints, privacy constraints or squeamishness.
I feel like the thrust of your points here are to suggest that cases where intimidation would be assisted by a imposing physique are niche. I don't think that's the case. Even the examples we've discussed (intimidation to make someone run away, give you something, give you info without using torture) are quite frequent potential uses of intimidate
No one has suggested it's just about being funny or charming. But non charismatic people can be every bit as threatening and scary as charismatic people in some situations. Sure, there are times when you can influence someone due to the force of your personality, but there are certainly other times when entirely uncharismatic person can be just as initmidating as a charismatic one by standing over someone and making a demand.Last edited by Liquor Box; 2022-10-11 at 06:08 PM.
-
2022-10-11, 08:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
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.
-
2022-10-11, 09:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Yes exactly. It's fine to use Charisma (physical skill) when the primary goal is to determine if you successfully influence folks. But it's just weird to try to do it when the primary goal is to be physical.
Just as it's fine to use Strength when the goal is to determine if you apply force. But it's just weird to do it when the primary goal is to influence someone.
Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to figure out how Strength governs "influencing someone to get what you want". Must be controlling their mind with your muscles. Using your hands grabbing their limbs and directing them like a puppet?
I mean, go ahead and use Strength (Intimidation) if the goal is to determine if you successful grapple someone you've Frightened. That'd make some kind of sense.Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-10-11 at 09:59 PM.
-
2022-10-11, 10:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- ICU, under a cherry tree.
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Tanarii, your argument can be used against almost any ability score swap. Just say you're against it in principle.
The DMG specifically allows the DM to swap ability scores and proficiencies. This is obviously an exception to the idea that only Charisma can "influence" people. If you can't get over that, you'll never agree with using Strength.Castlevania II: Dracula's Curse
Sabian Skellegue, the Unyielding Wrath
IC OOC
Expedition to Castle Ravenloft
Aelki Ruasha, Void Knight of the Star Ocean
IC OOC MAP
Chult Hex Crawl
Ondros, Mazewalker of Ubtao
IC OOC Slide Deck
Retired Characters
-
2022-10-12, 01:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015