Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 elebritch Aug 25, 2014 7:24:17	I am a half orc with a charisma of 9 (-1 modifier). I am a half orc proficient in Intimidation (+2 prof). Is it safe to assume that my +2 prof outweighs the -1 mod, or am i somehow a Not-Very-Scary Half-Orc with a +1 in Intimidation?   Thanks
#2 onceMoreIntoBreech Aug 25, 2014 7:29:45	elebritch wrote:
#3 mellored Aug 25, 2014 7:30:32	You add them.   2 (prof) -1 (cha) = +1 (total). So you're only very slightly scare.   Compaired to a half-orc sorcerer. 2 (prof) + 2 (cha) = +4 (total)     Note that proficency goes up.  So you learn to be more scary as you level.
#4 Elothan Aug 25, 2014 7:33:32	I belive you would end up at +1 intimidation.   Otherwise negative modifiers would mean a lot less, and be negated by proficiency.
#5 CorwynnMaelstrom Aug 25, 2014 7:38:17	As a note, Strength (Intimidation) is a common substitue skill check. Always go knuckle-cracking, shoulder-leaning, growling when you intimidate. Never veiled threats. ;)
(Reply to #5) onceMoreIntoBreech	CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
(Reply to #5) Hailrobonia	CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
(Reply to #7) onceMoreIntoBreech	Luke-Lightning wrote:
#9 mellored Aug 25, 2014 7:59:36	CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
(Reply to #9) CorwynnMaelstrom	mellored wrote:
#11 Captain_Kobold Aug 25, 2014 8:38:56	Remeber that Intimidation is not just to scare someone. Its to influence someone to do what you want. Its more about impression. Knuckle-cracking, shoulder leaning and growling are still using your charisma. Starting to break stuff is strength based and scary but its a question of whether the scared people do what you want or treat you like a two-bit-thug and call the guard.   A character able to impress people just by flexing, growling etc has a high charisma. The high strength, low charisma character tends to be ignored or come across as an indiscriminate menace needing to be dealt with rather than someone who needs to be obeyed.
#12 uglyvan Aug 25, 2014 8:39:29	sorry, but if you want to play a brute and allow only a 8 to charisma, then you are not impressive regardless of your strength or constitution score;   charisma for a brute represents exaltation, or presence;
(Reply to #12) CorwynnMaelstrom	uglyvan wrote:
(Reply to #13) 2Chlorobutanal	CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
#15 CorwynnMaelstrom Aug 26, 2014 4:10:33	I was using a metaphor in the first place when I should have been more explicit. Sorry. Forgot everyone needs everything spelled out literally in order to play this game about imagining things. Picking up a fire poker, looking at the fire, shrugging and bending it in a curly-q instead of heating it up is sufficient for a Strength check to intimidate. I look at it this way:   Every single skill had to have a default attribute. That doesn't mean that that will always be how you check that skill, and it doesn't even mean that's how your specific character will go after using the skill. Circumventing shortcomings to succeed is how people have been getting ahead for a long, long time. Besides, this entire concept (half-orc having problems being scary) fails the most basic tests of common sense and fun. It's a game. It's entertainment. Overbalancing it isn't a good thing, no matter how much you wish the half orc hadn't dumped Cha. ;) And the game wholly supports utilizing "the wrong stat" ... it's RAW.
(Reply to #15) 2Chlorobutanal	CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
#17 CorwynnMaelstrom Aug 26, 2014 4:41:59	When players ASSUME that you can only roll a given skill on a single stat it cheapens the game and removes depth. This entire thing is a dumb argument. A half-orc who is not charismatic is not going to just shrug and walk away. "Sorry guys, I just can't intimidate this guy. I'm only allowed to glower and snort." I don't really care how people run things. Half-orcs with low charisma and muscles for days don't run into too many problems being scary in my games. Never have. They can't sweet-talk, and they're not going to get very far any time there's polite society involved (won't even get in the door of the bank, or private club, perhaps) but shaking down some boat captain to ensure the party gets out of town before the watch catches up? Yeah, that's right up the bruiser's alley.   If they weren't so busy simplifying (and gamifying/checking/balancing) the skill system they would have just given a list of common checks and common stats. "Break pottery in shop, Intimidate uses Strength. Threaten economic ruin, Intimidate uses Intelligence. Cajole with menacing jokes, Intimidate uses Charisma." There's loads of ways to approach any given task, and the players always doing what they can to find the way which best suits their characters isn't metagaming: it's doing exactly what real people do. If you ask me why I always try and use my brains when confronted with a problem which could easily be solved by brute force I'll explain to you that I'm an aging, sedentary writer who is much better at puzzling out how to gain leverage than I am at lying around in bed for days after throwing my back out. I don't leave it for other people to do because it's not a brilliant plan to subject my wife to extreme physical strain. (And for the most part I'm stronger anyway.) Everything is a nail to most people. We have definite strengths, and tend to use them. I'm not going to go for strength and constitution checks in real life if I can avoid it. The half-orc in question isn;t going to try and sway people on the force of their personality. Not when the force of their biceps is so much more effective. ;)
(Reply to #17) 2Chlorobutanal	CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
(Reply to #18) CorwynnMaelstrom	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#20 Thoughts_My_Aim Aug 26, 2014 6:27:53	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #19) grendel111111	CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
#22 Thoughts_My_Aim Aug 26, 2014 6:42:39	grendel111111 wrote:
(Reply to #22) grendel111111	Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
#24 mellored Aug 26, 2014 7:22:14	I don't see a reason why Int couldn't work under some circumstances.   or any other stat for that matter.
#25 Thoughts_My_Aim Aug 26, 2014 7:27:07	grendel111111 wrote:
#26 Yunru Aug 26, 2014 7:42:42	IDK, I'd appose an Int (Persuade) with an inversed Int check on occassion. Can't outsmart a stupid person, they just look at you blankly.
(Reply to #25) 2Chlorobutanal	Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
#28 Chaosmancer Aug 26, 2014 11:19:26	I think the "thug" concept is a good explanation for the dissonance we have here.   You walk into a room with 3 gys, two big bruisers and a suave businessman. The bruisers are a threat sure, and they may even be able to physically intimidate you by walking up and flexing saying they'll break your arm.   However, we all know from the set-up ho the really scary guy is. It's the business guy who will calmly explain how he will have your legs broken and your business burnt to the ground, preferably during his afternoon tea because he likes drinking by firelight.   He's not a physical threat, it's the presentation and demeanor. Besides, PC's are powerful forces too. Do you think a U.S. Marine is scared of the local tough guy? The marine can kick him into next week, so he's a lot less scary. That's thelimit of physical intimidation do they player's or the NPC's have a good reason to believe they can take you in a fight? If they can you're less scary
#29 h347h50 Aug 26, 2014 11:38:32	onceMoreIntoBreech wrote:
#30 CorwynnMaelstrom Aug 26, 2014 14:33:24	RE: Intelligence being "intimidating" at times, I already pointed out that potentially threatening someone with stuff like financial ruin (this law, and such tax, and the King's due, blah, blah) could be an Intelligence-based Intimidation check.   As for am I using Athletics to cheat? I still have to negotiate the course at some point. I'd make it an Int-based Athletics check to be able to know what I'm doing well enough to fake it (otherwise I can't convince anyone) and throw in a second check for something like Stealth or Deception (also both potentially int-based) for one or both of the points where the course is left. This would mesh well with multiple checks I'd be requiring for Athletics (based on Con!) to actually run the race for someone doing it straight up.   In the games I run I plan to allow a wide range of attributes and skills to be used based on what suits the characters' skills, goals and the situations they've found themselves in. That's going to mean checks get a lot more complex than those outlined in the basic rules, but that's fine, because there's the rule which covers exactly what I intend to do, meaning it is legal, by RAW, even in AL play.
#31 Xenuite Aug 26, 2014 20:29:22	The half-orc slams the captured hobgoblin's head into the table, then kicks the chair leg out from under him. After firmly planting a boot on the hobgoblin's chest, the half-orc grunts, "Talk. I can keep this up all day." Example of a Strength-based Intimidate check.   The rogue has the half-orc hold the hobgoblin's hand to the table, fingers outstretched. The rogue produces a dagger, and proceeds to stab the blade down between the hobgoblin's fingers, slowly at first, then faster. "It's only a matter of time before I miss. Maybe you should say something." Example of a Dexterity-based Intimidate check.   The wizard sits across a table from a corrupt city magistrate, poring over a small pile of parchment. "Let's see, a mistress in Neverwinter, three illegitimate children in Waterdeep, and a neglected sister locked away in an asylum. It would be a shame should these things come to light and you lose the peoples' respect." Example of an Intelligence-based Indimidate check.   The warlock locks eyes with the priest. "I will destroy everything you've ever loved. I will burn your home to the ground. And when I am finished, I will dance among the ashes." Example of a Charisma-based Intimidate check.   It seems to me that all Indimidation implies a threat of some kind. It's how the threat is illustrated that determines what ability can be used in its execution. I feel that illustrating the threat requires taking an action that the person being indimidated wishes to stop. The half-orc can flex in the corner all day and not make an impression, but once his fists slam mercilessly into your gut over and over and oh god please stop...
#32 Captain_Kobold Aug 27, 2014 11:07:14	Xenuite wrote:
#33 Hailrobonia Aug 27, 2014 11:15:42	I'm just tired of players who dump charisma and try to use their strength for everything; in my experience these players tend to dominate every social interaction. There you are, talking to the duke, when all of a sudden PunchKick the Barbarian decided to start smashing up the place. My opinion is "don't want a penalty to intimidate? Don't dump charisma!" Aon't forget, the game specifically says that confidence is tied to charisma. A guy with an 8 charisma, no matter how strong, does not come off as convincing or sure of himself.
#34 CorwynnMaelstrom Aug 27, 2014 11:29:09	The situation you describe is not without consequences. Threatening the Duke is a lot safer than actually smashing the place up. While the guards outside the Duke's chambers might not notice quiet conversation, they WILL notice (and respond to) smashing furniture. Don;t make them fail to terrify the Duke. Make them have to engage in an unwanted fight, or a trip to the dungeon.   Hammering those nails can draw a lot of attention.   (All of the characters currently statted out in my campaign have a minimum of +1 CHA. My players appear thus far interested in making friends.)
#35 NN1 Aug 27, 2014 12:02:08	The "Skills with Different Abilities" is a varient rule (where strenght(intimidation) checks are explicitly identified), so check with your DM to see if he or she is using it and note that even if he or she is, you must ask permission each time.  Charisma is the default and will work in almost all situations where intimidate can be used while strength-based intimidation is more of an exception.  However, a strong half-orc might actively seek to use strength based intimidation and reasonably find that his strength helps in most situations which he or she is likely to try intimidating people.  However, pure strength-based intimidation should be unsubtle, immediate, and brutish.  Strength-based intimidation should be more "show" than "tell".  You can't just imply "something bad could happen" to someone, you have to show that you can make it happen, often by breaking something.     Using a different ability should limit the scope and utility of the skill somewhat, but a brutish half-orc throwing his or her weight around as their only social ability sounds like fun.  It reminds me of a Deadlands character I had (Deadlands is a horror, steampunk, fantasy, alternate history, Western, pen and paper rpg).  Deadeye Bill was a murder machine with twin pistols whose favored tactic was to shoot enemies 4 times in the head in one action.  His non-violent tactic of choice was scaring people.  His "hinderances" were such that he got a penalty to any sort of "friendly" social interaction but a boost to unfriendly means of coersion which added to his "edges" (think feats) which further buffed his ability to scare people.  One spectacular roll let him intimidate a bar full of armed men to hand over their weapons in accordance with the town's law (thank you exploding dice).
#36 uglyvan Aug 27, 2014 12:55:39	as for Int intimidate, you could use psionic attacks