Results 211 to 240 of 374
-
2022-10-14, 06:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- 61.2° N, 149.9° W
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
So, TLDR is that the move from d&d charisma among rolled stats being leadership & first impressions, to d&d charisma among point buy stats being all social capabilities & aptitudes plus magic, has screwed up & confused a bunch of stuff and kicks the fighters/barbarians in the balls because now being anything but dumb muscle is the same as saying "I want to be less effective in combat than the bard". At least in d&d because almost all other games don't have this issue. That right?
-
2022-10-14, 08:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
-
2022-10-14, 10:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Combined with the fact that stats matter a lot more in wizards of the coast era d&d so a bad/ unexceptional stat means you shouldn't even try and the tendency to solve things by rolling rather than roll playing.
Of course the real reason is because we don't want fighters to be allowed to do anything but swing a sword. I mean if fighters were allowed to actually interact effectively with the game world outside the combat aspect the world would just shatter. No no better for each character to take turns interacting with the game world when its time to talk the barbarian and the fighter get to sit in a corner and keep their mouths shut, let the bard and sorcerer hog the spot light. Then when its time for a fight the barbarian and fighter will get to share the spotlight with the casters well share might be a strong word, they can participate to the best of their limited abilities.
-
2022-10-14, 10:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
D&D skill systems have historically been one sort of mess or another. This is not news.
There's a difference, though, between saying that we'll accept strength-intimidation as a kludge to let strength characters have something to do in social encounters and saying that it's actually sensible. A lot of the pushback is towards the latter claim.
-
2022-10-15, 01:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Arguably it was a bad idea to make CHA a magic stat. This pushes some magic classes into the face role.
But the underlying problem of D&D is more in its celebration of SADness. Everyone has this one primary stat and does the stuff associated with it and basically noting else. The bard does the talking, the rogue does the sneaking, the wizard does the knowledge
Most other games don't have the issue because class and stat is less connected and it is generally also less usefull to pump a single stat. Those other games still do use Charisma or whatever equivalent for intimidation, diplomacy and so on. The difference is that you don't gimp yourself if you make a charismatic fighter or rogue or wizard.
-
2022-10-15, 03:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
On a side note, I think this is a pretty good example of a failed Strength (Intimidate) check.
The DMG does not mandate 6-8 encounters per day.
-
2022-10-15, 09:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Absolutely.
Yeah Wrestling rants are a great example of why muscles don't mean squat if you've got the charisma of a wet paper napkin, which is all of their made up personalities, even The Rock. Speaking of which The Rock vs Statham trying to out stare down and out compete each other in the one movie is absolutely hilarious because of that. Two Low Cha lunks who have made a career out of thinking muscles are imposing, trying it on each other and failing was genius writing.
-
2022-10-15, 12:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
-
2022-10-15, 12:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-10-15 at 12:52 PM.
-
2022-10-15, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
So can talking scary at them, just as much. What you're describing is a failed attempt, not anything special about the attempt. In fact, your second and third sentences are directly in opposition. If applying force (via Strength) can scare someone, it can (not must, not is the only way to, but "is possible for it to") contribute to a successful intimidation attempt. Using force does not guarantee that the person doesn't comply. They may or may not. Just like they may or may not when you take a more charismatic approach to it.
In order for Strength-based intimidation to not make sense, it would both
* never be able to produce a reaction you want.
* always either produce a counter productive response OR produce no response at all.
And that's just not true--it can work. Sometimes. Just like any other means. So it has to make sense in at least some scenarios. Possibly not all, but that's ok. No one's saying it should be the only way to do it. Merely that in some circumstances, it can be used as an additional way.Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2022-10-15 at 02:29 PM.
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.
-
2022-10-15, 02:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Unless you're physically controlling their limbs into doing exactly what you want, Strength isn't contributing though. You aren't punching their decisions into the one you want. You're just eliciting a general reaction, fear.
Now if that's what someone means by Intimidation, sure. If it's just "elicit fear and the DM decides what they do".Last edited by Tanarii; 2022-10-15 at 02:31 PM.
-
2022-10-15, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
No. You're producing fear via physical force. Just like you're producing fear via talking at them (for the Charisma based forms). The fear then does the work (or not, depending on the check and the NPC). Talking at them doesn't control their limbs either. And can fail in all the same ways (and a few extras).
Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2022-10-15 at 02:31 PM.
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.
-
2022-10-15, 02:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
-
2022-10-15, 02:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
I disagree. Your only reasoning seems to be "I can't imagine it."
And you can have a strength based approach that uses a couple words. It just can't depend for its force on the words chosen. "Wallet," grunted by a thug whose meaty paw is around your neck lifting your effortlessly off the ground directs your reaction just as well as a more suave "we're selling mugging insurance. nice knees you've got, shame if some unscrupulous muggers were to chance along and you not paid your insurance." approach by a smaller, more talky guy.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.
-
2022-10-15, 03:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
-
2022-10-15, 03:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Sweden
- Gender
-
2022-10-15, 03:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- ICU, under a cherry tree.
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
This is why I refer to it as “magical mind control beams”, because people treat Charisma like it “controls” people, as opposed to a method (and perhaps most common method) used to influence them. Here, Tanarii equates Intimidation via Charisma to a strong person physically grabbing someone’s limbs and forcing them to take the action they want. So Tanarii thinks that a charisma check is some sort of mind control that forces the person to do what you want, as opposed to a successful check to influence that person’s actions.
That’s why the only examples we have are of failures masquerading as inevitabilities. Because charisma to some people is just literal mind control, so a success means you get the exact precise outcome you want. Other ability scores are not mind control, therefore cannot work outright.Last edited by Dr.Samurai; 2022-10-15 at 03:52 PM.
-
2022-10-16, 12:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Manipulating someone to get what you want? Sure, let's call that "magical mind control beams" if it makes you happy. But that's what you're doing, through a combination of words and body language.
Doing it with Strength would require physically manipulating their decisions. That's what would make it a Strength check, in order to actually control the reaction.
Let's compare to some other attributes. If you allow Strength (Intimidation) for a display of strength, do you also allow:
Dexterity (Intimidation) by demonstrating dagger or archery skills in close proximity to them? (Or maybe doing a somersault?)
Constitution (Intimidation) by cutting on yourself to show how tough you are?
Intelligence (Intimidation) by demonstrating you know things they don't?
Wisdom (Intimidation) by "reading" their personality flaws?
-
2022-10-16, 01:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
It's a common trope before a battle in a tv show or movie for the bad guy to juggle his gun, make flashy moves with his sword, display kung fu moves before the battle.
Often done by the crazy henchman to cut himself before a battle. Maybe even lick the blade.
A James Bond type villain or the intellectual Supervillain.
Magical villains in B-movies, often done to demoralize.
-
2022-10-16, 04:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
-
2022-10-16, 04:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
If someone notes someone looks strong, fears what that strength could do to them and changes their behaviour because of that, then the strength is what influenced them. In real world interactions that is not an uncommon form of intimidation (albeit not the only one). There's no reason for DnD to be different - in both cases there are other threats (guns or magic), but in neither case does that mean big tough guys aren't intimidating.
Those sorts of intimidate check would be much less frequent than str checks because str is more visible without a silly demonstration, and because it is more inherently intimidating because people intuitively associate with the ability to inflict violence. Having said that, as others have pointed out, all of those things you mention might be possible in some circumstances.
You can intimidate them with your muscles, and still tell them what you want. If someone is intimidated by your hulking physique, and you then tell them to give back the apple they just stole, it doesn't mean charisma is the operative stat just because you opened your mouth. It is still the fact that you look like you could break them in half that makes them more likely to obey.Last edited by Liquor Box; 2022-10-16 at 04:36 AM.
-
2022-10-16, 10:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Except that doesn't work. They'll do something in response. You just can't control/manipulate it to get what you want.
Big guys aren't particularly intimidating. Unless they project it right with their body language and words.
The prop doesn't matter, it's the intent and approach.
Intent: manipulate them to doing what I want
Approach: use some kind of prop and project it properlyLast edited by Tanarii; 2022-10-16 at 10:52 AM.
-
2022-10-16, 11:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
That's the point of using the ability check, to find out if the player gets what they want.
If a player calls out a strength based action as part of their intimidate attempt, then it is absolutely appropriate to let them use their Strength for the check, with a difficulty appropriate to the individual they are trying to intimidate, and have success on that check count as successful intimidation.
-
2022-10-16, 12:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
-
2022-10-16, 12:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Gender
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Exactly like when making threats with words. They could cooperate, run away, call the cops, punch you in the face, anything. The table got the exact same everything on it than when using brute force, except they can't make an accurate evaluation of your ability to hurt them, so really you should have even less control.
Yes, I am slightly egomaniac. Why didn't you ask?
Free haiku !
Alas, poor Cookie
The world needs more platypi
I wish you could be
Originally Posted by Fyraltari
-
2022-10-16, 12:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
No, it's not exactly like it. Manipulation of another to get what you want through words and body language actually works. Manipulation of another to get what you want through direct force only works in books and movies, where writers who don't know better write it into the plot.
-
2022-10-16, 02:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
We've established that you want a credible threat if you want to intimidate someone (where said threat can include but is not limited to showing off big muscles), and that intimidation threats can leave people scared but reacting in a way other than the way you'd like.
The question is, once you've established that the threat exists, are you more likely to get the scared reaction you want through increasing the threat or through better people skills?
-
2022-10-16, 02:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Gender
-
2022-10-16, 04:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
Part of the issue with D&D is the skill system, in particular 2 elements of it.
1) Skills scale linearly, and
2) Different classes get different access to skills.
NB my comments are based more on 3.5, which is the last D&D rules I played seriously.
Skills scale linearly.
It costs one skill point to increase a skill by one level. It doesn’t matter if you have +20 in the skill already or are at +0. Once you get into moderately high character levels the difference in proficiency in a skill between a highly skilled character and a moderately skilled character is absurd.
Other games use an exponential cost system where raising high levels of skill higher cost more than raising a low level skill.
Different access to skills.
Martial classes with very few skill points are forced to pick 2 or 3 skills to focus in, and often choose skills related to combat. Skill monkeys lime rogues and bards often have so many skill points that they put points into skills that don’t fit their core character concept simply because they have to out the skills somewhere.
It’s part of the fundamental game design of D&D. The solution according to the mechanics of the system is multi-classing and level dips.
As for STR, or any other attribute you may think useful in a situation, affecting an intimidate check the important factor should be the differential between the characters, nit the raw stat. A STR 18 barbarian is mighty threatening to a STR 8 goblin, a worthy foe to a STR 18 Bugbear champion, but laughably puny to a STR 25 storm giant.
-
2022-10-16, 04:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate
I think you are wrong about this. I think that most people do find guys who look big and tough intimidating. I think that in many situations they find the big tough but uncharismatic guy much more intimidating than the weedy little charismatic guy.
Do you have any source or anything to back up your opinion that being big and tough doesn't intimidate people, or is it just your assertion based on how you imagine things might work.
I'm sure I can find plenty of real world quotes where people said they were intimidated by someone's size and physique.
For example, Joe Rogan has spoken about how intimidating he found Mike Tyson (someone who is not very charismatic), specifically because of how tough he looks. In a later interview, Mike Tyson intimidated Joe Rogan into dropping a line of questioning on his podcast
{scrubbed}
There is no doubt that people who are uncharismatic can be intimidating because of their hulking physique and get results out of it. If you doubt that, we can simply ask people participating in this discussion whether they might find someone who is uncharismatic but with an obviously powerful physique intimidating. If none would, then it is not a valid attribute for an intimidate check. If some would then it is valid (a failed role indicating those who are not intimidated by big tough guys). What do you think?Last edited by Peelee; 2022-10-19 at 12:05 PM.