My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
Because the halfling has a knife and knows how to use it.
Orcs aren't that smart to know that my halfling could take them down just because he knows how to use his rapier and dagger. My halfling isn't the type to torture them, and I'm pretty sure orcs would judge by size. I still can't see this happening.
Orcs aren't that smart to know that my halfling could take them down just because he knows how to use his rapier and dagger. My halfling isn't the type to torture them, and I'm pretty sure orcs would judge by size. I still can't see this happening.
I'm sure a few parents and/or teachers could help here :-)
Knowing what "buttons to press" to get a creature to do something out of anger, fear or other knee-jerk emotion is what you need from Intimidate (as opposed to Bluff which is about bamboozling your enemy intellectually). Perhaps the halfling has convinced the orc into thinking he's not "man enough" unless he does what the halfling wants,or the halfling is holding some important piece of social embarrassment over its head.
My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
A classic question.
Intimidation is not simply "growling" and making overt physical threats. The skill's key ability score is Charisma, the same as for Bluff and Diplomacy. Clearly, the skill is not about physical force, it's about force of personality.
I'm lucky not live a life in which I need to know how intimidation works in the real world, but I think it's clear that simply making your target fearful isn't the whole story. Sure, if I know someone can and will hurt me, I'll be afraid of them, but I'm likely just to flee from them or (if I'm a D&D-type hero) fight them. If I know someone can hurt me, but they've got me convinced that they won't as long as I do what they say, then I've been successfully intimidated, in the D&D sense. A hulking orc can make me fearful, but a smooth talking halfling can effectively intimidate me. I'll flee the orc, but I'll do what the halfling tells me.
In D&D, a halfling can hurt an orc directly. No problem there. But even if he can't he may be able to _convince_ the orc he can, with his charismatic words. And there's more than just direct physical harm to worry about. Look at "The Princess Bride." Vizzini the Sicilian is less physically powerful than both Fezzik the Giant and Inigo Montoya. Either of them could take him down with a twitch of their muscles, yet Vizzini is an imposing personality that keeps them both cowed. So, even if a halfling _couldn't_ hurt an orc, maybe he can talk about halfling thieves and assassins taking out the orc and his tribe while they sleep.
Think Joe Pesci.
Alternatively, I'm imagining this sort of dialogue:
"Hey, you. Yeah, I'm talking to you, me, the guy with the dagger half an inch from your #@$%. You like to use that? You wanna keep using it? Then Let. Us. In."
He undoubtedly has no intention of actually hurting the orc. But the whole point of intimidate is that he doesn't let the orc know that. ;)
well, if you read the whole description for the intimidate skill, you also get a +/- 4 on your intimidate check for every size catagory difference -- that's huge.
also, in my games, I allow characters to use the better of either STR or CHA for intimidate
Are you using it in battle, or once the orc is tied up? Because once the orc is tied up, it doesn't matter how big the halfing is, just how much free time he has on his hands to use that knife in creatative, painful ways. Think less of a battle roar from a fierce warrior and more of the little itty guy in the corner with an unhealthy love of anything sharp who lovingly refers to each blade by their name as he uses them. The big guy will just break your bones, the little guy will make it MUCH worse.
Are you using it in battle, or once the orc is tied up? Because once the orc is tied up, it doesn't matter how big the halfing is, just how much free time he has on his hands to use that knife in creatative, painful ways. Think less of a battle roar from a fierce warrior and more of the little itty guy in the corner with an unhealthy love of anything sharp who lovingly refers to each blade by their name as he uses them. The big guy will just break your bones, the little guy will make it MUCH worse.
true -- but now you're just adding circumstance bonuses. I think BoVD has some torture rules that touch on this.
well, if you read the whole description for the intimidate skill, you also get a +/- 4 on your intimidate check for every size catagory difference -- that's huge.
also, in my games, I allow characters to use the better of either STR or CHA for intimidate
Um, what whole description are you reading? I just read through it again, and I don't see anything about a penalty or bonus to intimidate checks based on your size catagory...
Um, what whole description are you reading? I just read through it again, and I don't see anything about a penalty or bonus to intimidate checks based on your size catagory...
That's from 3.5, and good riddance to it.
Um, what whole description are you reading? I just read through it again, and I don't see anything about a penalty or bonus to intimidate checks based on your size catagory...
That's from 3.5, and good riddance to it.
oh, 4e. my bad.
it would make for a very reasonable house-rule; would it not? i mean, just think about it -- what would be the simgle biggest factor in an orc not being afraid of a halfling? Answer: because he's so friggin' small.
think about it from a RL PoV -- if you had a dog that was growling and chasing you, would you be more inclined to run from a toy-poodle, or from an english mastiff; a linx or a lion; a spider-monkey or a gorilla? (need any more examples?)
I would say it depends on circumstance. I'd be more afraid of the Toy Poodle then the Mastiff if the Poodle shot frikkin' laser beams from its eyes. The argument being, in the real world where the Mastiff will always win, in DnD there is magic and Sheer Awesome which is why you often kill the dinky ones in the robes first if possible.
Then again, orcs in 4e are kinda dim, having about 8 INT. Depending on their familiarity with other races, they might simply assume that the biggest ones are the biggest threats. However, if they employ their own clerics and casters, they might realize that size isn't everything. If, given the campaign setting, continiously raid other races, they might realize that halflings are tougher then they appear if halfling settlements continously push back orc raiders. Of couse, if halflings employ hit and run or ambush tactics, then a halfling in the open still isn't threatening.
Um, what whole description are you reading? I just read through it again, and I don't see anything about a penalty or bonus to intimidate checks based on your size catagory...
That's from 3.5, and good riddance to it.
I don't find sawed-off little runts intimidating in the slightest. Why shouldn't they take a -4 to intimidate me?
Much as I enjoy 4E, some of its 'simplifications' make me twitch.
PtM
Um, what whole description are you reading? I just read through it again, and I don't see anything about a penalty or bonus to intimidate checks based on your size catagory...
That's from 3.5, and good riddance to it.I don't find sawed-off little runts intimidating in the slightest. Why shouldn't they take a -4 to intimidate me?
Much as I enjoy 4E, some of its 'simplifications' make me twitch.
PtM
Because, if one of them successfully intimidates you, you are now afraid of at least that particular sawed-off runt, who is wielding a weapon at approximately groin level.
I would say it depends on circumstance. I'd be more afraid of the Toy Poodle then the Mastiff if the Poodle shot frikkin' laser beams from its eyes. The argument being, in the real world where the Mastiff will always win, in DnD there is magic and Sheer Awesome which is why you often kill the dinky ones in the robes first if possible.
Then again, orcs in 4e are kinda dim, having about 8 INT. Depending on their familiarity with other races, they might simply assume that the biggest ones are the biggest threats. However, if they employ their own clerics and casters, they might realize that size isn't everything. If, given the campaign setting, continiously raid other races, they might realize that halflings are tougher then they appear if halfling settlements continously push back orc raiders. Of couse, if halflings employ hit and run or ambush tactics, then a halfling in the open still isn't threatening.
My whole point was that, with all other things being equal, bigger things are typically more intimidating than smaller things.
It had nothing to do with "oh, well, if the smaller thing has a nuclear warhead pointed at you, and the bigger thing is bound, gagged, and sitting at the bottom of a 50 hole ....."
Could there circumstances that would even things out? Yes; but those other circumstances are irrelevant to the point that I was making.
Then I would argue that intimidate, being an RP skill, cannot be easily divorced from circumstance. True, all other things being equal, the physically intimidating person might be more intimidating. However, I don't see how using circumstance and setting to justify use of an RP skill is not a bad idea, nor unrelated to the OP wondering how to use the skill. If he wanted to use it in combat without slaying an enemy first, yes, that's a problem. But he has mentioned that he's been using it on prisoners, so circumstance is in fact, quite present.
Intimidate, as a skill, is not the same thing as percieved or actual threat. While the latter is certainly more scary and intimidating, neither a toy-poodle nor a mastiff are actually using the Intimidate skill.
Intimidate is a social skill that represents your ability to, in whatever way appropriate, protray yourself as a threating entity with a presence strong enough to psychologically force-compel others to act in your favor regardless of your apparent threat level.
it would make for a very reasonable house-rule; would it not? i mean, just think about it -- what would be the simgle biggest factor in an orc not being afraid of a halfling? Answer: because he's so friggin' small.
Not any more so than houserulling any of the social-based skills in a similar manner.
Why would a orc ever be more receptive to a tiny, insignificant, tasty halfling's words (diplomacy) or ever accept anything they say as truth (bluff).
Intimidate, like Diplomacy and Bluff, are social skills that allow you to bend a social situation in your favor in ways that become more logic defying as you increase in level (which is true of just about any skill). In a normal situation with normal orcs and normal halflings, there is no reason why an Orc would be intimidated by an Halfling. But a PC halfling is not just a halfling, he's Batman.
Social skills are all about using leverage where it exists and creating leverage where it doesn't.
Let's see, Charles Manson is 5' tall and 100 lbs soaking wet. Nyah, he's not scary at all.
i can't add anything not posted, but i've got to say that this entire thread is sheer badassness bottled up and sold. (that's a good thing)
Let's see, Charles Manson is 5' tall and 100 lbs soaking wet. Nyah, he's not scary at all.
My point exactly. A little crazy halfling, with that problematic glint in his eye, a dagger he likes to play with a little too much, and a personality totally out of proportion with his height, is just as scary as a massive muscle bound half-orc. Possibly more so. I'd be more scared to meet manson in an ally then the local quarterback. The local quarterback is probably a good deal bigger.
Um, what whole description are you reading? I just read through it again, and I don't see anything about a penalty or bonus to intimidate checks based on your size catagory...
That's from 3.5, and good riddance to it.I don't find sawed-off little runts intimidating in the slightest. Why shouldn't they take a -4 to intimidate me?
Much as I enjoy 4E, some of its 'simplifications' make me twitch.
PtM
Because, if one of them successfully intimidates you, you are now afraid of at least that particular sawed-off runt, who is wielding a weapon at approximately groin level.
The operative word here is "if." I'm more likely to point and laugh at the little cuss, just before I drop-kick him into the middle of next week. He's also at -4 to escape a grab, remember?
Nope, still neither scared, nor convinced I should be....
PtM
Then I would argue that intimidate, being an RP skill, cannot be easily divorced from circumstance. True, all other things being equal, the physically intimidating person might be more intimidating. However, I don't see how using circumstance and setting to justify use of an RP skill is not a bad idea, nor unrelated to the OP wondering how to use the skill. If he wanted to use it in combat without slaying an enemy first, yes, that's a problem. But he has mentioned that he's been using it on prisoners, so circumstance is in fact, quite present.
Intimidate, as a skill, is not the same thing as percieved or actual threat. While the latter is certainly more scary and intimidating, neither a toy-poodle nor a mastiff are actually using the Intimidate skill.
Intimidate is a social skill that represents your ability to, in whatever way appropriate, protray yourself as a threating entity with a presence strong enough to psychologically force-compel others to act in your favor regardless of your apparent threat level.
it would make for a very reasonable house-rule; would it not? i mean, just think about it -- what would be the simgle biggest factor in an orc not being afraid of a halfling? Answer: because he's so friggin' small.Not any more so than houserulling any of the social-based skills in a similar manner.
Why would a orc ever be more receptive to a tiny, insignificant, tasty halfling's words (diplomacy) or ever accept anything they say as truth (bluff).
Intimidate, like Diplomacy and Bluff, are social skills that allow you to bend a social situation in your favor in ways that become more logic defying as you increase in level (which is true of just about any skill). In a normal situation with normal orcs and normal halflings, there is no reason why an Orc would be intimidated by an Halfling. But a PC halfling is not just a halfling, he's Batman.
Social skills are all about using leverage where it exists and creating leverage where it doesn't.
zomg. am I in the twilight zone here?
yes, part of intimidation is what you say/do. however, to try to say that size has nothing to do with it is simply insane.
as I read it, the OP was looking for some verisimilitude; and I simply provided a way that could be used to do that.
Like I said, this is with the idea of "all other things being equal". part of that would include equal levels of convincing trash-talk, etc., which is what would be represented by the training in the intimidate skill. you can come up with all the "what if" senarios and convoluted explanations that you want, and it still doesn't change the fact that an ogre is going to me more intimidating than a halfling just in terms of sheer physical presence -- and anything else is simply conditionally and situationally dependent.
Let's see, Charles Manson is 5' tall and 100 lbs soaking wet. Nyah, he's not scary at all.
My point exactly. A little crazy halfling, with that problematic glint in his eye, a dagger he likes to play with a little too much, and a personality totally out of proportion with his height, is just as scary as a massive muscle bound half-orc. Possibly more so. I'd be more scared to meet manson in an ally then the local quarterback. The local quarterback is probably a good deal bigger.
this would be represented by things such as level of "training" in the skill, and potentially reputation -- hence, making it a conditional situation.
Um, what whole description are you reading? I just read through it again, and I don't see anything about a penalty or bonus to intimidate checks based on your size catagory...
That's from 3.5, and good riddance to it.I don't find sawed-off little runts intimidating in the slightest. Why shouldn't they take a -4 to intimidate me?
Much as I enjoy 4E, some of its 'simplifications' make me twitch.
PtM
Because, if one of them successfully intimidates you, you are now afraid of at least that particular sawed-off runt, who is wielding a weapon at approximately groin level.
The operative word here is "if." I'm more likely to point and laugh at the little cuss, just before I drop-kick him into the middle of next week. He's also at -4 to escape a grab, remember?
Nope, still neither scared, nor convinced I should be....
PtM
right.
so, let's take 2 senarios:
1) ol' charley manson is sitting there describing how he is going to cut your still-beating heart out of your chest.
2) brock lesner is standing there letting you know that he is about to turn your head in to a blood stain on the concrete.
And let's just say for arguement's sake that they are both equally convincing. who's gonna be more intimidating? well, sense I actually have an honest chance of defending myself from "uncle charley", and not so much as a prayer against brock, I'd say that brock is gonna be more intimidating. Why? um, because he's a huge mountain of man-meat, and charley is a squirrelly little old man.
this has nothing to do with diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, whatever. (of course, i guess you could sense motive to see if they're bluffing, giving you a circustance modifier -- but then again, that is situationally dependent; and thus irrelevant to my point).
if this is not painfully obvious as being a self-evident reason that size differenences should be accounted for in the intimidate, then hope for humanity is gone.
And it is represented by things such as level of "training" in the skill, and potentially reputation. But I see no good reason why a smaller person should have a harder time of being good at such things than a bigger person, however. Because, the more you penalize a character with small stature, the less chance someone will choose the penalized skill as their strong skill. However, as evidenced by history, most of the scariest people in history were not large. Hitler, Charles Manson, most of the gunslinger "outlaw heroes" of the American West, these people were not large.
As for that Brock Lesner vs. Charles Manson comparison, that is ridiculous. First of all, I didn't even know who Brock Lesner was until I googled him. Charles Manson was known to be one of the most fearsome people to be in a room with. Why is it that ones reputation has spread but the others has not? Because Charles Manson is more fearsom. Brock Lesner is a tv persona. People interview/film him all the time (by extension). Meanwhile, when Charles Manson was arrested, many tv reporters didn't want to interview him because they were scared to be in the same cell. Why is that? Its because when it comes down to which man is the scary man, between Brock Lesner and Charles Manson, Manson wins hands down.
If Charles Manson isn't armed, he probably can't do as much damage to you as Brock Lesner can. But Charles Manson comes across as a lot more likely to choose to cross social boundaries and perform grievous bodily harm to you. His personality is more fearsome. And yet, he is smaller. Obviously size isn't all that big of an issue as to who is intimidating and who isn't.
Right. In a world rife with magic, the Orc is going to judge the halfling based on his size? And Gandalf was a wizened old man who needed a walking stick to get around; Hannibal Lector was capable of being intimidating when he was on the other side of a plexiglass wall.
Being intimidated goes well beyond believing that the intimidator is capable of inflicting immediate, physical harm. The goal of intimidation is to convince the target that they are in over their head, that they are not capable of handling the situation, or that they do not understand the situation. It is about the mental response; it is about fear.
Are you afraid of facing Mr. Manson in a stand up fight? No.
Are you afraid of coming home from work one day and finding out that Mr. Manson's family decided to spend the day getting personally acquainted with your family? Probably very.
It is not always about the threat you know about or can see. It is about your limititations and weaknesses - and everyone has both. A skilled intimidator is adept at discovering and exploiting tthose limitations and weaknesses. A successful Imtimidate check (whether you are trained or not) means you have pushed the right buttons for that target.
And it is represented by things such as level of "training" in the skill, and potentially reputation. But I see no good reason why a smaller person should have a harder time of being good at such things than a bigger person, however. Because, the more you penalize a character with small stature, the less chance someone will choose the penalized skill as their strong skill. However, as evidenced by history, most of the scariest people in history were not large. Hitler, Charles Manson, most of the gunslinger "outlaw heroes" of the American West, these people were not large.
As for that Brock Lesner vs. Charles Manson comparison, that is ridiculous. First of all, I didn't even know who Brock Lesner was until I googled him. Charles Manson was known to be one of the most fearsome people to be in a room with. Why is it that ones reputation has spread but the others has not? Because Charles Manson is more fearsom. Brock Lesner is a tv persona. People interview/film him all the time (by extension). Meanwhile, when Charles Manson was arrested, many tv reporters didn't want to interview him because they were scared to be in the same cell. Why is that? Its because when it comes down to which man is the scary man, between Brock Lesner and Charles Manson, Manson wins hands down.
If Charles Manson isn't armed, he probably can't do as much damage to you as Brock Lesner can. But Charles Manson comes across as a lot more likely to choose to cross social boundaries and perform grievous bodily harm to you. His personality is more fearsome. And yet, he is smaller. Obviously size isn't all that big of an issue as to who is intimidating and who isn't.
while i believe that your perspective is ..... peculiar (?), I'll go with it:
charley became so feared because of his reputation of mass-murderer. back in the day, his followers believed that he was the second coming of christ (hence why they were willing to kill for him). how did he achieve this? because he was/is such a charasmatic guy. his "diplomacy" was through the roof. he didn't rule by fear; his control over people came from their agape love for him. That's charisma.
on a side note: out of morbid voyeuristic impulse, I usually try to make it a point to watch mr. manson's parole hearings (which are every 5 years). even though I know who this guy is and what he's about, I still find myself semi-agreeing with his perspective and sympathizing with him by time he's done -- at which point I have to turn it off and get a reality check.
Brock Lesner on the other hand has almost no charisma at all. Trying to listen to him talk is like watching old people (fill in the blank). However, he is 6'3", 275 lbs. He is also a former NCAA national wrestling champion; and is currently the undisputed UFC heavyweight champion. (so, both have formitable reputations).
In order to successfully intimidate someone, not only do they have to believe your intentions, but they also have to believe that you are fully capable of pulling it off in the given situation. While, yes, charley is a scary individual, I have no doubt that I could stomp a mud-hole in him and walk it dry. Brock, on the otherhand, would squash me like a mosquito.
EDIT: so, given this, if mason intimidates you more than lesner, then this would be a function of charley's charisma being able to outshine the physical threat that is posed by lesner.
Right. In a world rife with magic, the Orc is going to judge the halfling based on his size? And Gandalf was a wizened old man who needed a walking stick to get around; Hannibal Lector was capable of being intimidating when he was on the other side of a plexiglass wall.
Being intimidated goes well beyond believing that the intimidator is capable of inflicting immediate, physical harm. The goal of intimidation is to convince the target that they are in over their head, that they are not capable of handling the situation, or that they do not understand the situation. It is about the mental response; it is about fear.
Are you afraid of facing Mr. Manson in a stand up fight? No.
Are you afraid of coming home from work one day and finding out that Mr. Manson's family decided to spend the day getting personally acquainted with your family? Probably very.
It is not always about the threat you know about or can see. It is about your limititations and weaknesses - and everyone has both. A skilled intimidator is adept at discovering and exploiting tthose limitations and weaknesses. A successful Imtimidate check (whether you are trained or not) means you have pushed the right buttons for that target.
2 things:
1) I never said that size was the end-all be-all. I simply made point that it is (or at least should be) a relevant consideration when determining the effectiveness of intimidation -- especially in a combat situation (which is the context that I'm working from). A non-combat situation is potentially a completely different thing.
2) why are you guys insisting on bringing in conditionally dependent situations that are irrelevant to my point? this is ridiculous. none of what you guys are saying takes away from the actual point that I was trying to make -- so why continue to argue a pointless position?
Um, what whole description are you reading? I just read through it again, and I don't see anything about a penalty or bonus to intimidate checks based on your size catagory...
That's from 3.5, and good riddance to it.I don't find sawed-off little runts intimidating in the slightest. Why shouldn't they take a -4 to intimidate me?
Much as I enjoy 4E, some of its 'simplifications' make me twitch.
PtM
Because, if one of them successfully intimidates you, you are now afraid of at least that particular sawed-off runt, who is wielding a weapon at approximately groin level.
The operative word here is "if." I'm more likely to point and laugh at the little cuss, just before I drop-kick him into the middle of next week. He's also at -4 to escape a grab, remember?
Nope, still neither scared, nor convinced I should be....
PtM
Re: Grabs: No.
Re: If: That's what the Intimidate check is for. If he successfully intimidates you, then you are afraid of him.
Halfings are the perfect size to attack certian valuable assessets. If you know what i mean.
Halfings are the perfect size to attack certian valuable assessets. If you know what i mean.
that's only convenient, not demoralizing
See, you are right, Charley intimidates me because of his force of personality, not his physical stature. Its just that I think that force of personality is all that really counts when it comes to intimidate. Do I think Charly is going to scare the **** out of me by convincing me that he is going to kick my ass? No. But do I think its conceivable that he is going to put me in a situation where I am scared to kick the **** out of him, because if I touch him he is going to have his family pay mine a visit? Absolutely. Intimidate is not all about your ability to convince someone that you will do that physical harm. That is only one button that a person can push with intimidate. The intimidate skill is all about pushing all different sorts of buttons, all of which invoke fear in one shape or another.
Now, even if it becomes all about scaring someone that you will inflict physical harm, the gunslingers of the west were not particularly big men (by and large). They were scary. They could hurt you. Some could do things with their guns that boggled the mind. By a similar token, a halfling rogue with a dagger can use flourishes to provoke the same basic reaction: "that little guy is small, and he isn't particularly strong, but damn if that little bugger can't stick that dagger in me a half a dozen times before I have the chance to blink. I better do what he wants."
Sigh...that +/-4 thing sucks. And no, Imma not going to torture people with a blade. My halfling doesn't do that, unless maybe it was a truley evil person who harmed someone dear to him.
See, you are right, Charley intimidates me because of his force of personality, not his physical stature. Its just that I think that force of personality is all that really counts when it comes to intimidate. Do I think Charly is going to scare the **** out of me by convincing me that he is going to kick my ass? No. But do I think its conceivable that he is going to put me in a situation where I am scared to kick the **** out of him, because if I touch him he is going to have his family pay mine a visit? Absolutely. Intimidate is not all about your ability to convince someone that you will do that physical harm. That is only one button that a person can push with intimidate. The intimidate skill is all about pushing all different sorts of buttons, all of which invoke fear in one shape or another.
Now, even if it becomes all about scaring someone that you will inflict physical harm, the gunslingers of the west were not particularly big men (by and large). They were scary. They could hurt you. Some could do things with their guns that boggled the mind. By a similar token, a halfling rogue with a dagger can use flourishes to provoke the same basic reaction: "that little guy is small, and he isn't particularly strong, but damn if that little bugger can't stick that dagger in me a half a dozen times before I have the chance to blink. I better do what he wants."
again, you obviously have missed my point.
just ... fine ...... whatever ..... I get what you're saying, and haven't (really) disputed it. Why? because it's an entirely different issue.
I can simply point you back to this:
2 things:
1) I never said that size was the end-all be-all. I simply made point that it is (or at least should be) a relevant consideration when determining the effectiveness of intimidation -- especially in a combat situation (which is the context that I'm working from). A non-combat situation is potentially a completely different thing.2) why are you guys insisting on bringing in conditionally dependent situations that are irrelevant to my point? this is ridiculous. none of what you guys are saying takes away from the actual point that I was trying to make -- so why continue to argue a pointless position?
forest ... trees. got it?
Sigh...that +/-4 thing sucks. And no, Imma not going to torture people with a blade. My halfling doesn't do that, unless maybe it was a truley evil person who harmed someone dear to him.
wait a minute -- you expressed difficulty in reconsiling how a halfling can intimidate an orc, and think the size adjustment thing sucks? Are you looking for verisimilitude, or are you trying to avoid it? (seriously, I'm really asking).
My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
Use it.
An orc would be SHAMED if it were to get out that he got his ass handed to him by a damn furfoot. How's about he sends his green butt back to his tribe with a note "A Halfling's Bitch" carved onto his forhead.
I require my players to make it work, or I increase their DC. They just need to be creative.
Comparisons to this world go nowhere. Who is more intimidating: a big, bad bruising fighter, or a slip of a girl with a Sig aimed at you? In the D&D world, anybody can have that Sig, in the form of magic - either through spells or items. Physical strength is not the be and and end all of unarmed combat that it is in our world (and even in our world, skill can overcome a great deal of brute strength).
Intimidation is a state of mind. There are many ways to get somebody into that state, and direct threats of physical harm is probably the least effective way to achieve it.
Even in combat situations, I wouldn't put size near the top of the list of intimidating factors. The wizard that just turned my buddies to small piles of ash? pretty intimidating. The little halfling that tumbles around hamstringing everyone? Yep, I'd call that intimidating. A big guy with an axe who likes to grunt a lot? Not nearly so much as the first two. Any intelligentent creature will either remember encounters with or at least will have heard of combats with wizards and rogues, and know that they can put a world of hurt on you, so that carries into any encounter as well.
To me ranks of intimidate represent you figuring out whatever method of intimidation works for you and using that effectively. Large and small people may use different postures and other techniques, but that doesn't make one superior to the other.
Halfings are the perfect size to attack certian valuable assessets. If you know what i mean.
that's only convenient, not demoralizing
I fail to see the diffrence. If i had basically a little kid right there with knife in hand, I'd be pretty scared of him. Esspecially if he has a necklace.
The PHB states about Intimidate "Make an Intimidate check to influence others through hostile actions, overt threats, and deadly persuasion." This implies that one should have the ability follow through on such actions and threats, or at least convince the target that one does. As I read it, there's nothing that says the actions, threats, and persuasion need to involve any physical pain.
If you succeed on your check you "force a bloodied target to surrender, get a target to reveal secrets against its will, or cow a target into taking some other action." This action could be for the target to run away, but I think it's clear that intimidate is about more than simply scaring a target out of its wits. There has to be more to it than just inducing fear, if you want the target to do something for you rather than just flee.
Because of the "Yes, and..." philosophy in D&D, I'd be willing to consider the occasional +2 bonus for a good description that involves larger size or strength than the target, and certainly people are welcome to adopt any penalties they want for their own characters, but the intent in the game is clearly that the persuasiveness of the PC and the attitude of the target are much bigger factors than anything physical (or mental, since there was talk about how "dumb" a target was).
To address the original post, there are lots of examples in movies (and probably books and TV, though I can't think of any at the moment) of the non-physically imposing character being very intimidating. It's almost a cliche. I gave one example, and I'm sure you can come up with others. Work with your DM and fellow players to come to a description you all like for how your halfling is able to intimidate an orc.
Naw, I actually thing the size penalty is a good thing, it just sucks if I actually use intimidate...anyway, are the halflings actually called fur foots and have furry feet or is that just the Hobbits? It's just something I've always wondered about lol.
oh, okay. if that's the case, yeah, just something you have to live with.
on a side note: my vampiric priest of pelor didn't work-out very well.
I don't have a problem with unthreatening characters being good at intimidate. I do have a problem with the idea that the characters who should be good at it aren't.
Poor Orcs why are people always trying to intimidate them?
Of course it's easier for someone who is large and physically imposing to be intimidating, just as it's harder for a small person to do the same, hence the -4/+4 on size. Harder/easier is not the same thing as always/never.
Intimidating someone is a psychological tactic. Size gives an advantage, as does situation, but technique is far, far more important.
Anyone who says that they would never be intimidated by a 'pipsqueak' is naive. I spent almost a decade working as a bouncer in strip and after-hours clubs, as well as concert/personal security. I can tell you for a fact that there are plenty of 'pint-sized' terrors out there.
Effective intimidation is about convincing the target that you are not just threatening bad things, but that you are willing, if not eager, to do bad things. The first thing anyone learns, when dealing with potentially violent people, is the difference between those who look capable of extreme violence and those who are capable of extreme violence. Sometimes it's the eyes, sometimes the voice, sometimes it's volatility, sometimes it's perfect clamness, sometimes it's something completely unidentifiable. I've dragged a 7' tall biker (an independent) out of a strip club by the hair of his head and not thought twice about it. I've also treated a 5' drug addict with kid gloves because I was certain to do otherwise was an extremely bad idea.
Size matters. It just doesn't matter that much.
Size matters. It just doesn't matter that much.
If size matters, but just not that much, imposing a +4/-4 penalty/bonus is NOT a good idea. That is almost as much of a benefit as being trained in a skill. It is more of a benefit than being specialized in a skill. Personally, I think the benefit/penalty that comes with size should be small enough that it doesn't have any game mechanics attached to it. If someone REALLY feels the need to add game mechanics to the equation, a -1 penalty to small characters using the Intimidate skill check is the most I would consider a "good idea," though I think an "OK idea" might be a better term in this case.
Naw, I actually thing the size penalty is a good thing, it just sucks if I actually use intimidate...anyway, are the halflings actually called fur foots and have furry feet or is that just the Hobbits? It's just something I've always wondered about lol.
I dunno where exactly I heard them called that, but it seems like a good derogatory term to me.
Naw, I actually thing the size penalty is a good thing, it just sucks if I actually use intimidate...anyway, are the halflings actually called fur foots and have furry feet or is that just the Hobbits? It's just something I've always wondered about lol.
That's Hobbits, not halflings. At the very least, halflings wear shoes, so we can't tell.
Points to be made:
1) Intimidate doesn't need to make the target scared of YOU personally. It just needs to make the target scared. Telling the Orc that if he doesn't talk to you right now the Fighter and the Barbarian are going to treat him like a wishbone is an intimidate check too.
2) Force of personality matters far more then size. A guy can be 6'2" and a coward, and he'll break if a 5'1" guy who's got the personality. Orc's may be less cowardly, but since your halfling probably became more Charismatic then any human who's ever lived in real life at level 8 I'd say the halfling's got an advantage.
Best example(s) I can think of come from Firefly. For those not familar, Jayne is your typical BA gun toting merc type, Simon is a wimpy looking formerly rich/nobley raised doctor, and River is his crazy little sister (who looks like Summer Glau...probably because she is Summer Glau)
Its actually a double intimidation thing, but the scene is basically Jayne had tried to sell them out to the feds because they're both wanted criminals. Things went poorly and the feds tried to arrest him too as opposed to giving him a bounty so they all escaped. During one of their jobs he ended up getting injured and had to be drugged as to not cause damage to his spine. When he woke up and was still paralyzed, Simon gave a speech about how he was the doctor and all the things that could go wrong when Jayne was on his table, and then ends it by saying that none of that stuff will ever happen and that they have enough enemies already and don't need to fight amongst themselves. He leaves the room and the very tiny River says something like, "Also, I can kill you with my mind." and this leaves Jayne visibly shaken despite the fact he's much bigger/stronger then her.
*sorry for the wall o' text -- I want my spoiler blocks back*
I sit hear and read all of these examples of how "size doen't matter", and I think to my self: "self, would this really be able to be implemented in 6 seconds or less?"; and I have no choice but to answer back: "No." -- especially when the example(s) involve a long and detailed conversation. And why is this "6 second" time frame so important? Perhaps that's because that is how long a combat round is; and that is also the amount of time that is alotted to intimidating in combat.
I also see a lot of examples that involve someone having a significant reputation that preceeds them -- I'd have to say that comparing someone of known infamy with someone of absolutely no known reputation is indeed an apples-to-oranges comparison -- especially if you refuse to recognize the significance of the difference. As I have said several times already: my original point about size being a factor invovled all things being equal. When you start bringing up all these other conditions (reputation, skill, situational curcumstances, etc.), then you avoid the issue being addressed.
In a "combat" situation, if you have 2 different people who:
a) have the exact same known reputation,
b) have the exact same level of charisma,
c) have the exact same social/political/administrative standing,
d) have the exact same resources,
e) speak in the exact same manner, using the exact same words, tone, nuances,
f) they deliver with the exact same effectiveness (for "e" and "f", this would be represented by training, etc., in the appropriate skill areas),
g) demonstrate the same level of physicality,
h) demonstrate the same propensity for following through -and-
i) all of this happens in the same environment, under the exact same conditions;
Then yes, size will indeed matter -- ESPECIALLY if they only have 6 seconds in which to effectively cower you (remember, this is a combat situation).
I have listed all of these conditions, because these are all reasons/conditions that would be taken in to consideration when deciding whether or not you are intimidated by some one. Size would simply be one of many conditions. When you start bringing in all of these other things, you are no longer discussing whether or not size is a factor; you are simply discussing other possible conditions/considerations.
If some 100-lb pip-squeak is able to more successfully cower you in 6 seconds or less; moreso than a 7-ft, 400-lb behemoth, then obviously, the pip-squeak would have obtained significant advantage in one or more of the above-mentioned areas. If that is the case, then it is not a matter of size not being a significant factor; it is simply a matter of several other factors are also in play.
How is this not making sense?
Another thread covered the debate better than this one, but I can't be buggered to find it. The best point made was that an uncharismatic strongman trying to intimidate you is like being menaced by Fabio, whereas a charismatic weakling trying to intimidate you is like being menaced by the Joker or Hannibal Lecter. It's not the steak, it's the sizzle.
Also, give me a choice between angering that wrestler Lesner guy and angering crazy **** Manson, I'll take Lesner any time. Why? A walking side of beef will break ribs, knock out teeth, maybe dislocate an arm if he's feeling creative. Crazy ****s like Manson start out creative. There is absolutely nothing which says that he won't gouge my eyes out with his thumbs the instant I refuse his request.
Piss off a brute, you get an ass-beating. Piss off a maniac, you get maimed or worse.
I'd at least call the two even for straight-up 'physical harm' intimidation.
ETA: Yes, there are many other factors. Indeed, most of those are what would be considered the primary factors. With them all being equal, sure, size would probably make a small difference, but then so would hair colour, diction, accent, beadiness of eyes, facial hair, etc. The point is that you have to set aside all of those key factors in order for size to even begin to matter, which means that its effect is too insignificant to bother noting, much less accounting for mechanically.
How is this not making sense?
If size generally makes less than a 5% difference in one's ability to intimidate, then it could be effectively left out of how D&D models intimidation.
I don't see that intimidation necessarily need to have anything to do with reputation. My apologies if I have implied such.
It has been demonstrated (well, anecdotally) how a smaller person can be perfectly intimidating in tense (if not full on melee) situations. It's therefore plausible for D&D to leave Strength and size out of the equation. If a person is having trouble imagining how that works, there are plenty of fictional examples.
If it continues to bother one's sense of reality, one's welcome to houserule it to have size and/or strength matter more.
Another thread covered the debate better than this one, but I can't be buggered to find it. The best point made was that an uncharismatic strongman trying to intimidate you is like being menaced by Fabio, whereas a charismatic weakling trying to intimidate you is like being menaced by the Joker or Hannibal Lecter. It's not the steak, it's the sizzle.
Also, give me a choice between angering that wrestler Lesner guy and angering crazy **** Manson, I'll take Lesner any time. Why? A walking side of beef will break ribs, knock out teeth, maybe dislocate an arm if he's feeling creative. Crazy ****s like Manson start out creative. There is absolutely nothing which says that he won't gouge my eyes out with his thumbs the instant I refuse his request.
Piss off a brute, you get an ass-beating. Piss off a maniac, you get maimed or worse.
I'd at least call the two even for straight-up 'physical harm' intimidation.
ETA: Yes, there are many other factors. Indeed, most of those are what would be considered the primary factors. With them all being equal, sure, size would probably make a small difference, but then so would hair colour, diction, accent, beadiness of eyes, facial hair, etc. The point is that you have to set aside all of those key factors in order for size to even begin to matter, which means that its effect is too insignificant to bother noting, much less accounting for mechanically.
Pretty much the way I look at it.
Another thread covered the debate better than this one, but I can't be buggered to find it. The best point made was that an uncharismatic strongman trying to intimidate you is like being menaced by Fabio, whereas a charismatic weakling trying to intimidate you is like being menaced by the Joker or Hannibal Lecter. It's not the steak, it's the sizzle.
Also, give me a choice between angering that wrestler Lesner guy and angering crazy **** Manson, I'll take Lesner any time. Why? A walking side of beef will break ribs, knock out teeth, maybe dislocate an arm if he's feeling creative. Crazy ****s like Manson start out creative. There is absolutely nothing which says that he won't gouge my eyes out with his thumbs the instant I refuse his request.
Piss off a brute, you get an ass-beating. Piss off a maniac, you get maimed or worse.
I'd at least call the two even for straight-up 'physical harm' intimidation.
and thus, you only confirm my point. you are comparing apples-to-oranges.
WHAT PART OF "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL" ARE YOU GUYS NOT GETTING?!?!?!
No **** other factors are gonna be a consideration -- I never disputed that. but those are OTHER factors -- and ones that are independent of all the others.
Oh yes -- a pixie that is outfitted like a christmas tree carrying a staff of the magi is very much going to get my attention moreso than the ogre that is bound, gagged, and sitting at the bottom of a 50-ft hole. But know you have like 5 different circumstances going on. I WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF A SINGLE INDEPENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE. THIS IS SIMPLE 3RD-GRADE READING COMPREHENTION AND COMMON SENSE THAT A 5-YEAR-OLD CAN UNDERSTAND!
How is this not making sense?If size generally makes less than a 5% difference in one's ability to intimidate, then it could be effectively left out of how D&D models intimidation.
I don't see that intimidation necessarily need to have anything to do with reputation. My apologies if I have implied such.
It has been demonstrated (well, anecdotally) how a smaller person can be perfectly intimidating in tense (if not full on melee) situations. It's therefore plausible for D&D to leave Strength and size out of the equation. If a person is having trouble imagining how that works, there are plenty of fictional examples.
If it continues to bother one's sense of reality, one's welcome to houserule it to have size and/or strength matter more.
THAT INVOLVES A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES!!! AND I WAS TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A COMBAT SITUATION!
5%? I guess it all depends on what other circumstances are involved. in the "all else being equal" scenario, it would inherently be THE deciding factor.
WHAT PART OF "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL" ARE YOU GUYS NOT GETTING?!?!?! ... I WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF A SINGLE INDEPENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE. THIS IS SIMPLE 3RD-GRADE READING COMPREHENTION AND COMMON SENSE THAT A 5-YEAR-OLD CAN UNDERSTAND!
Oh ****, I didn't realize you had a capslock button. I surrender!
There's a vast gulf between your original 'must be this tall to intimidate' statement and the 'if absolutely everything else lines up perfectly then size matters' line you're shouting about now.
5%? I guess it all depends on what other circumstances are involved. in the "all else being equal" scenario, it would inherently be THE deciding factor.
D&D only models things to 5% accuracy. If everything is equal, but the bigger person only has a 2% better chance of successfully intimidating, then for the purposes of this game it doesn't matter.
5%? I guess it all depends on what other circumstances are involved. in the "all else being equal" scenario, it would inherently be THE deciding factor.
D&D only models things to 5% accuracy. If everything is equal, but the bigger person only has a 2% better chance of successfully intimidating, then for the purposes of this game it doesn't matter.
and i think that you underestimate the significance of it.
and no -- at this point, my mind will not be moved on the subject. it's not that i'm trying to be hard-headed about the subject -- it's just that i have a very firm grasp on my perception (and, in my opinion, reality).
as a matter of fact, it is my personal opinion that those who can't see what i'm saying have never spent any significant time with rough people with the propensity for violence; or they just have never been on the receiving end of a thorough beat-down -- and therefore have not had sufficient interaction with that type of reality to speak intelligently on the topic.
Well, from my point of view size doesn't matter.
I have a friend who is 1m60 (I'm 1m90), weighs half as much as me and is one of the cutest and friendliest looking girls I know.
But I'd be terrified if she tried to intimidate me since I know she would kick my ass halfway around the block,he takes self defense and is among the best in the country at what she does.
If she shows of her skills in combat, you could be as big as you like and as tough as you like, but you'd still hesitate if she gave you a nasty look.
Especially in combat, showing your skills is scary regardless of how big you are. And that doubles in a world where knives are not only sharp, but occasionaly steal a bit of your soul to use for eternal torment.
And it wouldn't matter to me one bit if she were as big as me, or as heavy as me, or a head taller. It's what she does that's scary.
Well, from my point of view size doesn't matter.
I have a friend who is 1m60 (I'm 1m90), weighs half as much as me and is one of the cutest and friendliest looking girls I know.
But I'd be terrified if she tried to intimidate me since I know she would kick my ass halfway around the block,he takes self defense and is among the best in the country at what she does.
If she shows of her skills in combat, you could be as big as you like and as tough as you like, but you'd still hesitate if she gave you a nasty look.
Especially in combat, showing your skills is scary regardless of how big you are. And that doubles in a world where knives are not only sharp, but occasionaly steal a bit of your soul to use for eternal torment.
And it wouldn't matter to me one bit if she were as big as me, or as heavy as me, or a head taller. It's what she does that's scary.
once again, this would be an example of other contributing circumstances (see the list in my earlier post). I'm willing to bet that another contributing factor is probably the fact that you are not willing to agressively defend yourself against a female (I'm not insulting you -- it's true of any guy that has a traditional sense of desency).
do you understand the concept of apples-to-apples versus apples-to-oranges?
Also, all these "examples" are of an uncommon nature. just because someone can give an anecdotal example does not mean that the example is indicative of the norm.
I've got a friend of mine that is 5'10" and weighs all of 130 lbs; and another friend of mine that is 6'2", 220 lbs with a 8% body-fat. both of them are equally capable smack-talkers and button-pushers. the first friend couldn't intimidate me unless he had a weapon and I was hog-tied. the second friend OTOH, could very easily intimidate me (if he chose) unless he was hog-tied and I had a weapon. Remember -- this is from the perspective of a 6-second in-the-moment intimidate action.
so much for anecdotes.
CONTEXT PEOPLE -- CONTEXT!!
criminy -- I can't believe that I'm actually still paying attention to this idiocy.
Well, you are free to feel that way. Personally, I am well aware that size is not at all an indicator of how dangerous someone is and will not feel more intimidated just because someone is big.
Only thing that counts is how they act and how hard they try.
It's the reason people can be intimidated by 12-year old scumbags, and have a friendly chat with a 7ft guy covered in tattoo's.
Everything else being equal; I would be equally scared of a little guy as I would be of a big guy. You can feel different if you like...
5%? I guess it all depends on what other circumstances are involved. in the "all else being equal" scenario, it would inherently be THE deciding factor.
D&D only models things to 5% accuracy. If everything is equal, but the bigger person only has a 2% better chance of successfully intimidating, then for the purposes of this game it doesn't matter.
and i think that you underestimate the significance of it.and no -- at this point, my mind will not be moved on the subject. it's not that i'm trying to be hard-headed about the subject -- it's just that i have a very firm grasp on my perception (and, in my opinion, reality).
as a matter of fact, it is my personal opinion that those who can't see what i'm saying have never spent any significant time with rough people with the propensity for violence; or they just have never been on the receiving end of a thorough beat-down -- and therefore have not had sufficient interaction with that type of reality to speak intelligently on the topic.
Now I just think you are acting a little silly. I don't agree with you. Are you saying I've never spent a significant amount of time with rough people with the propensity for violence? How would you know that? Let me tell you a little bit about my life. These days its quite and normal. I've got a kid. I've got a life partner. I'm an MA student. I never get into fights. I don't drink too much, and I don't have any contact with drugs. I've pulled my life together. Five years back or so my life was in the dregs. Sometimes I was homeless. Sometimes I lived in junkhouses and crackhouses (though I didn't use those substances). My "friends" were ****ed. So was I. Almost every single one of them had a propensity for violence. Most people who knew me at the time thought I was on the fast track to prison. I don't shave my head anymore, because my scalp is crisscrossed with scars received from beat-down's with brass knuckles. I've hit a couple people with boat chains in a street fight, one or two of which might have ended up in a hospital. I slashed one persons head open with a broken beer bottle (which I broke over his head). I've had others attempt to do the same to me. I've hung out with bikers (affiliated) ****ed up on cocaine. My experiences are totally personal, subjective, and thus I didn't bring them into the context of this discussion (until you made that rather silly statment). But, from my experiences, size (while it did matter) was the least important part of the equation when it came to who I was scared of at the time, and who I wasn't. The very least important. Probably the scariest person I knew at that time was just over 5 feet tall. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they don't have fairly extensive personal experiences on which to base their disagreement. I am sure the person on these boards who worked as a bouncer, didn't mind tossing out rather large bikers, but was once scared to toss out a 5 foot tall junkie, would agree.
You are right, assuming all other things are equal, in a situation where a person has under 6 seconds to intimidate someone, size will probably matter. The question is, just how much will it matter? Your +4/-4 suggestion will make it matter almost as much as training, more than skill focus, and as much as 8 points worth of charisma. That is HUGE. That will make size the PRIMARY consideration when it comes to intimidating someone else. At that point in time, small characters are better off not training in the intimidate skill, because they will be so far behind larger characters when it comes to their ability to be good at the intimidate skill that they may as well not bother. But, the thing is, that flies in the face of both fictional tropes, and the subjective experiences that many people seem to have. Most of the scariest characters in fiction are not big characters. Most of the scariest characters I have met in real life were not big people. That makes your +4/-4 idea a TERRIBLE idea.
You want to talk about "situational"? I'll tell you what is situation, an intimidate check that must involve a threat of violence, and must be resolved in under 6 seconds. The intimidate skill covers a host of possible situations. The one you are specifically trying to hinge your argument on is one very specific situation. It is not the only, or the primary, situation in which the intimidate skill will be used. Thus, while I agree that if all other things are equal, in that one particular situation size will probably matter, I am forced to conclude that size should be a situational modifier, much smaller than your +4/-4 suggestion (more like +1/-1), that is only applied by DM fiat when the DM feels that size should matter (based on the specific situation circumstances of the intimidate check).
My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
Beyond a first initial impression, size has nothing to do with intimidation.
to Cyber-Dave (i would hit the "quote" button, but it's just starting to take-up too much space):
i've already said that size isn't the end-all be-all -- it's mearly 1 condition of many.
also, as previously stated, I was simply throwing out an off-the-cuff suggestion that may help in bringing in some percieved verisimilitude. that's it -- nothing more. i never said "you must use this; it's the only way the game will work" -- nor would I. I understand that context is important -- I actually believe that context is everything. But I wasn't discounting other context -- just pointing out yet another element that should also be considered within a larger context (no pun intended).
as to my "experience" comment -- I was mearly alluding to the fact that the whole "size doesn't matter at all" philosophy often comes from an overdeveloped or delusional sense of self-confidence, and used as a defense mechanism or irrational rationalization (come-on now, we ALL know "these people" -- many of them are probably on this forum. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just stating the obvious).
with your experiences (many of which mirror mine), then you should definitly understand context. That being said, let's look at the OP scenario of the halfling vs. orc:
-- does the halfling have, like, 4 of his friends with him? there's a +2 for each one.
-- do the halflings have the orc "out gunned"? another +2
-- have the halflings already asserted their superiority? +5
-- is the orc in a helpless situation (e.g., hog-tied)? there's at least a +5
-- got a 16 CHA? there's a +3 (btw, if you don't have a high CHA, then you're probably not making much use of CHA-related skills anyway. I'm just sayin'.)
-- does your party have a fearsome or infamous reputation? there's at least a +1; maybe even as much as a +10 (just make sure that you don't give the party too much credit). For example: the Dread-Pirate Roberts? AT LEAST a +5. Chuck Norris? +50 (well, okay -- Chuck would probably be more like +infinity).
right there, you've got a +22. even if you take off the -4 for size (humor me here -- this is only for the sake of the arguement), then you still have a +18 to the intimidate check just in bonuses before you add training and the die roll. that means you could potentially have well over a 30 or 40 on an itimidate check.
My little +/- 4 doesn't seem like such a big deal, now does it?
of course, things that the 2 sides have in common should cancel each other out. does he also have 4 friends? well, you just lost your +8 (as an example).
There -- does the added context help any? If you only disagree on the degree (and not the general concept), then we have no really debate -- it's just a matter of scemantics, which I have no interest in aguing.
My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
Beyond a first initial impression, size has nothing to do with intimidation.
again, this is situational. it may also be a factor in establishing a base-line.
but whatever.
to Cyber-Dave (i would hit the "quote" button, but it's just starting to take-up too much space):
i've already said that size isn't the end-all be-all -- it's mearly 1 condition of many.
also, as previously stated, I was simply throwing out an off-the-cuff suggestion that may help in bringing in some percieved verisimilitude. that's it -- nothing more. i never said "you must use this; it's the only way the game will work" -- nor would I. I understand that context is important -- I actually believe that context is everything. But I wasn't discounting other context -- just pointing out yet another element that should also be considered within a larger context (no pun intended).
as to my "experience" comment -- I was mearly alluding to the fact that the whole "size doesn't matter at all" philosophy often comes from an overdeveloped or delusional sense of self-confidence, and used as a defense mechanism or irrational rationalization (come-on now, we ALL know "these people" -- many of them are probably on this forum. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just stating the obvious).with your experiences (many of which mirror mine), then you should definitly understand context. That being said, let's look at the OP scenario of the halfling vs. orc:
-- does the halfling have, like, 4 of his friends with him? there's a +2 for each one.
-- do the halflings have the orc "out gunned"? another +2
-- have the halflings already asserted their superiority? +5
-- is the orc in a helpless situation (e.g., hog-tied)? there's at least a +5
-- got a 16 CHA? there's a +3 (btw, if you don't have a high CHA, then you're probably not making much use of CHA-related skills anyway. I'm just sayin'.)
-- does your party have a fearsome or infamous reputation? there's at least a +1; maybe even as much as a +10 (just make sure that you don't give the party too much credit). For example: the Dread-Pirate Roberts? AT LEAST a +5. Chuck Norris? +50 (well, okay -- Chuck would probably be more like +infinity).
right there, you've got a +22. even if you take off the -4 for size (humor me here -- this is only for the sake of the arguement), then you still have a +18 to the intimidate check just in bonuses before you add training and the die roll. that means you could potentially have well over a 30 or 40 on an itimidate check.
My little +/- 4 doesn't seem like such a big deal, now does it?
of course, things that the 2 sides have in common should cancel each other out. does he also have 4 friends? well, you just lost your +8 (as an example).There -- does the added context help any? If you only disagree on the degree (and not the general concept), then we have no really debate -- it's just a matter of scemantics, which I have no interest in aguing.
1) Situational modifiers don't stack.
2) I would never want to introduce the sort of high situational modifiers you seem to like making use of. -5/+5 is the most I would ever give out, total, considering all factors.
3) Yes, I still feel that a -4/+4 for size is way over the top.
4) I still feel that in many situations size shouldn't even be a factor. It only comes into play if the intimidate skill check is making use of an immediate threat of violence perpetrated by the character making the intimidate check. And even then, I still feel it should be the most minor factor effecting the check. I potentially think that its effect on the check should be so minor that it does not come with an actual mechanical effect. I am not sure it aught to make an intimidate check 5% more likely to succeed. I certainly would never grant/impose more than +1/-1!
5) Since I am not completely opposed to a DM occasionally granting a +1/-1 to an Intimidate check based on situational cases where size would logically matter, I suppose our discussion has turned into a discussion of semantics. But I still do not think size is anywhere near as important as you seem to be indicating it should be.
1) Situational modifiers don't stack.
they do if they are derived from different situations (and if you care to have me systematically deconstruct the contrary, just let me know).
4) I still feel that in many situations size shouldn't even be a factor. It only comes into play if the intimidate skill check is making use of an immediate threat of violence perpetrated by the character making the intimidate check. And even then, I still feel it should be the most minor factor effecting the check. I potentially think that its effect on the check should be so minor that it does not come with an actual mechanical effect. I am not sure it aught to make an intimidate check 5% more likely to succeed. I certainly would never grant/impose more than +1/-1!
(emphasis mine)
THAT'S THE WHOLE FRIGGIN' POINT!! you just confirmed my position/point (seriously -- go back and read the bolded portion again).
and as i have just demonstrated, it very well might turn out to not be that big an issue.
you've already confirmed and conceded the point -- so why are you still aguing? i've already said that i'm not going to have an arguement on scemantics -- the only arguements that I care to have are ones of logic. since you've already conceded my logic (albiet minimally), then the debate is over.
1) Situational modifiers don't stack.
they do if they are derived from different situations (and if you care to have me systematically deconstruct the contrary, just let me know).4) I still feel that in many situations size shouldn't even be a factor. It only comes into play if the intimidate skill check is making use of an immediate threat of violence perpetrated by the character making the intimidate check. And even then, I still feel it should be the most minor factor effecting the check. I potentially think that its effect on the check should be so minor that it does not come with an actual mechanical effect. I am not sure it aught to make an intimidate check 5% more likely to succeed. I certainly would never grant/impose more than +1/-1!
(emphasis mine)
THAT'S THE WHOLE FRIGGIN' POINT!! you just confirmed my position/point (seriously -- go back and read the bolded portion again).
and as i have just demonstrated, it very well might turn out to not be that big an issue.you've already confirmed and conceded the point -- so why are you still aguing? i've already said that i'm not going to have an arguement on scemantics -- the only arguements that I care to have are ones of logic. since you've already conceded my logic (albiet minimally), then the debate is over.
Your argument pertained not only to the base assumption that bigger can be scarier, but also as to the mechanical implications of just how much scarier. I honestly don't know that it should be scarier enough to be modeled by any actual mechanics. I honestly think its a case of such a minor difference, that it should probably just be fluff description as to how big characters use their intimidate skill. That is what I am saying. I still don't like the mechanics you suggested. That is what I am saying.
I could live with a +1/-1, but I don't think I really like that either. Its passable. I don't know that its preferable.
In defense of the +4/-4 issue that seems to bother so many:
1. No, there shouldn't be any size modifier (or at most +1/-1) for differences between creatures of the same size class. The pint-sized terror at 5' can easily be as intimidating as the 7' biker. Size differences within the same size class (S, M, L, etc.) are probably not enough to worry about, especially in a fantasy RPG.
2. That having been said, let's remember that we aren't talking about variations among the normal population of medium sized humanoids. We're talking about the difference between a 5'10" tall, 180# human and a 9' tall, 600-650# ogre (or a 3' tall halfling and a 6' tall orc). Brock Lesner may need to duck when passing through a typical doorframe, but an Ogre has to squeeze itself, very slowly, one limb at a time, much like a human trying to enter an average crawlspace.
A 1st level, trained human can be just as intimidating as an untrained ogre who relies on his/her size, just as a 3' halfling with training or talent can be as intimidating as a 6' orc. That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to me that a creature almost as tall as a basketball goal, or a tractor-trailer truck, should receive a serious bonus. An untrained human facing an untrained ogre is going to be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to intimidation. Now, once again, this disadvantage can be overcome with training or talent, but it's still a disadvantage.
One final note: While a +4 bonus may seem to be very large, let's remember that, other things being equal, even a +4 bonus only translates into a 20% advantage. That's just a 60-40 split, and, while significant, it's not overwhelming.
I think the rule is a good one.
In defense of the +4/-4 issue that seems to bother so many:
1. No, there shouldn't be any size modifier (or at most +1/-1) for differences between creatures of the same size class. The pint-sized terror at 5' can easily be as intimidating as the 7' biker. Size differences within the same size class (S, M, L, etc.) are probably not enough to worry about, especially in a fantasy RPG.
2. That having been said, let's remember that we aren't talking about variations among the normal population of medium sized humanoids. We're talking about the difference between a 5'10" tall, 180# human and a 9' tall, 600-650# ogre (or a 3' tall halfling and a 6' tall orc). Brock Lesner may need to duck when passing through a typical doorframe, but an Ogre has to squeeze itself, very slowly, one limb at a time, much like a human trying to enter an average crawlspace.
A 1st level, trained human can be just as intimidating as an untrained ogre who relies on his/her size, just as a 3' halfling with training or talent can be as intimidating as a 6' orc. That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to me that a creature almost as tall as a basketball goal, or a tractor-trailer truck, should receive a serious bonus. An untrained human facing an untrained ogre is going to be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to intimidation. Now, once again, this disadvantage can be overcome with training or talent, but it's still a disadvantage.
One final note: While a +4 bonus may seem to be very large, let's remember that, other things being equal, even a +4 bonus only translates into a 20% advantage. That's just a 60-40 split, and, while significant, it's not overwhelming.
I think the rule is a good one.
Very well said.
My buddy Claudius is a pretty average looking fellow...he's right around six feet tall, not in incredible shape but certainly not over/under weight or anything. Anywho, he was moving our money and on the way to his car a large guy pulls a knife on him and tells him to hand over the money. Claudius stares him down and says something along the lines of "I've had a really bad day already, you don't want to do this so just leave." In a calm confident tone. They stare each other down for a few seconds and the guy puts his knife away and leaves.
Size helps, but its just one of the many contributing factors. Tone of voice, confidence levels, reputation, etc. all play a role, which is what I believe makes up the check...its not just one or the other, its all of those things. Depending on the situation though they might not all be applicable...in combat for example, your actions probably matter more then tone of voice. Just because you have a strong sounding voice won't make up for the fact you've been whacked around by a group of orcs and look like a strong gust of wind will knock you over...just like the person with the high pitched almost whimpery voice will suddenly be a scary figure if you just saw him drop three of your companions with a few punches and kicks. That's where the situational modifiers come into play.
Personally, I've stopped using the actual skill ranks and just made it all situational instead. This also cuts back on people with insane diplomacy rolls just saying "I persaude him," or something similar, they have to actually dictate their words which will determine their modifier.
In defense of the +4/-4 issue that seems to bother so many:
1. No, there shouldn't be any size modifier (or at most +1/-1) for differences between creatures of the same size class. The pint-sized terror at 5' can easily be as intimidating as the 7' biker. Size differences within the same size class (S, M, L, etc.) are probably not enough to worry about, especially in a fantasy RPG.
2. That having been said, let's remember that we aren't talking about variations among the normal population of medium sized humanoids. We're talking about the difference between a 5'10" tall, 180# human and a 9' tall, 600-650# ogre (or a 3' tall halfling and a 6' tall orc). Brock Lesner may need to duck when passing through a typical doorframe, but an Ogre has to squeeze itself, very slowly, one limb at a time, much like a human trying to enter an average crawlspace.
A 1st level, trained human can be just as intimidating as an untrained ogre who relies on his/her size, just as a 3' halfling with training or talent can be as intimidating as a 6' orc. That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to me that a creature almost as tall as a basketball goal, or a tractor-trailer truck, should receive a serious bonus. An untrained human facing an untrained ogre is going to be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to intimidation. Now, once again, this disadvantage can be overcome with training or talent, but it's still a disadvantage.
One final note: While a +4 bonus may seem to be very large, let's remember that, other things being equal, even a +4 bonus only translates into a 20% advantage. That's just a 60-40 split, and, while significant, it's not overwhelming.
I think the rule is a good one.
good call.
these are the words that I was trying to find for myself.
A 1st level, trained human can be just as intimidating as an untrained ogre who relies on his/her size, just as a 3' halfling with training or talent can be as intimidating as a 6' orc. That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to me that a creature almost as tall as a basketball goal, or a tractor-trailer truck, should receive a serious bonus. An untrained human facing an untrained ogre is going to be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to intimidation. Now, once again, this disadvantage can be overcome with training or talent, but it's still a disadvantage.
Human: level 1, bonus: +0
Ogre: level 10 AT LEAST, bonus: +5
Yep, size issue covered without any extra bonusses.
One final note: While a +4 bonus may seem to be very large, let's remember that, other things being equal, even a +4 bonus only translates into a 20% advantage. That's just a 60-40 split, and, while significant, it's not overwhelming.
It's not a 20% advantage; if you had a 50% chance to succeed, you now have a 30% chance. That's a successrate drop of 40%. You are now 40% more likely to fail.
It's the same as the difference between a +4 bonus if you could only succeed on a 20 (it multiplies your chance of success by 5, it doesn't increase it by 20%) and the same bonus if you succeeded on a 5 (it multiplies your chance of success by about 1.25, not 20%)
Also, if you give out a +18 circumstance bonus, why exactly do you need Cha and/or Training again? You'll already succeed on a 1 with a bonus like that, even if you have a Cha of 8.
Think Belkar from Order of the Stick. He intimidates an undead Skull of Fire and Fear into obeying him at one point. 3.5 rules, but I think the concept is the same.
In defense of the +4/-4 issue that seems to bother so many:
1. No, there shouldn't be any size modifier (or at most +1/-1) for differences between creatures of the same size class. The pint-sized terror at 5' can easily be as intimidating as the 7' biker. Size differences within the same size class (S, M, L, etc.) are probably not enough to worry about, especially in a fantasy RPG.
2. That having been said, let's remember that we aren't talking about variations among the normal population of medium sized humanoids. We're talking about the difference between a 5'10" tall, 180# human and a 9' tall, 600-650# ogre (or a 3' tall halfling and a 6' tall orc). Brock Lesner may need to duck when passing through a typical doorframe, but an Ogre has to squeeze itself, very slowly, one limb at a time, much like a human trying to enter an average crawlspace.
A 1st level, trained human can be just as intimidating as an untrained ogre who relies on his/her size, just as a 3' halfling with training or talent can be as intimidating as a 6' orc. That seems reasonable to me. It also seems reasonable to me that a creature almost as tall as a basketball goal, or a tractor-trailer truck, should receive a serious bonus. An untrained human facing an untrained ogre is going to be at a serious disadvantage when it comes to intimidation. Now, once again, this disadvantage can be overcome with training or talent, but it's still a disadvantage.
One final note: While a +4 bonus may seem to be very large, let's remember that, other things being equal, even a +4 bonus only translates into a 20% advantage. That's just a 60-40 split, and, while significant, it's not overwhelming.
I think the rule is a good one.
Well, I am going to have to disagree with you.
1) Ok, we are in agreement on that point.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size. All we can do is compare it to the differences in size and stature we have experienced. On that note, as we have agreed, a size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea. So, in this case, what we are left with is the base question: what is fun? Its not fun to give small PC characters a -4 penalty to Intimidate over medium sized PC characters, because it makes it virtually impossible for someone to role-play something like Belkar from Order of the Stick; it makes it impossible to role-play the scary as hell pint sized terror. But, that scary as hell pint sized terror IS a narrative trope. That character exists in multiple examples of fictions. Since ultimately the reality that D&D is supposed to be modeling is fiction, it seems like a bad idea to include +4/-4 penalty to intimidate checks based on size.
3) Your final note is absurd. Numbers mean nothing in a game without some sort of baseline of numbers against which to compare them. In a game where the baseline bonus to hit is +100, +100 isn't that special. In a game where the baseline bonus to hit is +1, +100 is huge. In D&D (4e) the baseline bonus to skill checks, for being trained, is +5. The baseline bonus to skill checks, if you take the skill focus feat, is an additional +3. Using that as a comparison, a +4 is almost as large a modifier as being trained, and a larger modifier than having skill focus. To penalize small PCs to that extent is an AWFUL idea.
4e already models your race granting a benefit to certain skill checks in a really great way. If the race you choose is supposed to look particularly imposing, that races stat block will say that you gain a +2 bonus to intimidate checks. Adding in additional modifiers and penalties willy nilly is not smart. It will unfairly give bonuses/penalties around the gaming table in a manner that will really upset the balance between various player, and destroy viable character concepts.
I don't agree with you at all.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size.
Lions are considered Large Animals - do they have the same Initimidation value as a housecat? So are Rhinocerouses ... actually, a better example would be the Heavy Warhorse. Mounted Charges do not actually fare well against disciplined infantry that holds its ground ... so why do charges succeed at all? Because people are intimidated by something really freakin' big that looks like it will trample them. Compared to a charge by infantry, cavalry charges are fairly terrifying.
Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other (AD&D), but something that's bigger does seem scarier, which also explains why cats fluff themselves and their tails, and why frilled lizards do that.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size.Lions are considered Large Animals - do they have the same Initimidation value as a housecat? So are Rhinocerouses ... actually, a better example would be the Heavy Warhorse. Mounted Charges do not actually fare well against disciplined infantry that holds its ground ... so why do charges succeed at all? Because people are intimidated by something really freakin' big that looks like it will trample them. Compared to a charge by infantry, cavalry charges are fairly terrifying.
Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other (AD&D), but something that's bigger does seem scarier, which also explains why cats fluff themselves and their tails, and why frilled lizards do that.
Your examples (lions vs. house cats, and the like) already grant the larger animals a higher intimidate, because those larger animals are (by and large) of higher level. Higher level NPCs already have a larger bonus to Intimidate checks. Adding further bonuses/penalties based on size only creates problems, and kills the ability to viably play certain character concepts that already have narrative precedent.
Sorry, I don't agree that the mechanic is a good idea.
Now, I don't particularly care one way or the other (AD&D), but something that's bigger does seem scarier, which also explains why cats fluff themselves and their tails, and why frilled lizards do that.
Nature has alot of ways of marking "danger", and size is just one of them. Poison Tree frogs, for example, you know are dangerous because they just don't care if you see them or not. In fact, BECAUSE they are so brightly colored, the other animals are like "wait, why isn't he trying to hide, or look tough? Is he must be REALLY dangerous!" and they leave him alone.
Spiders. Spiders are small, but they're dangerous enough that alot of the animal kingdom has an instinctive fear of them.
Wolverines. Would you rather run into a wolverine in the woods, or a wolf? Wolverines are small, but people fear them because they know how NUTS they are.
Nature has alot of ways of marking "danger", and size is just one of them. Poison Tree frogs, for example, you know are dangerous because they just don't care if you see them or not. In fact, BECAUSE they are so brightly colored, the other animals are like "wait, why isn't he trying to hide, or look tough? Is he must be REALLY dangerous!" and they leave him alone.Spiders. Spiders are small, but they're dangerous enough that alot of the animal kingdom has an instinctive fear of them.
But that's not Intimidation. Regarding the frogs: the markings are identifiers, and other animals ignore them because they've learned that eating them is death. It's like learning not to touch a hot stove, or grab a knife by the handle - you're not intimidated by a stovetop, but you learn not to touch it because it'll hurt.
Regarding the spiders: I'm honestly not sure if animals have the same fear that people do. A lot of spider poisons that are dangerous or deadly to humans, for example, might make a housecat dizzy, but nothing else. My cat plays with spiders all the time when she finds them.
Wolverines. Would you rather run into a wolverine in the woods, or a wolf? Wolverines are small, but people fear them because they know how NUTS they are.
I'll give you the wolverine, though I'd say that it's more of a reputation thing for them, much like the "Pesci" character style. They (and badgers) are pure aggression and rage in a very small package, and can drive much larger animals away. Wolverines are the halfling barbarian of the real world.
Intimidation is based on Charisma. Charisma has nothing to do with body size. Body size should have nothing to do with Intimidation therefore.
There is a significant difference between the type of intimidation that's incidental and the type that is constructed by an individual. When something ten times your size and twenty times your weight hypothetically walks by you, you are definately frightened of it, but it has not made any intimidation checks. But if it tried to intimidate you, y'know what it'd do? If it was smart, it'd flex and point out how big it is. While that seems like the intimidater gained benefits for its size, its intimidation scheme was all in how dangerous it was perceived to be.
A halfling rogue can definately frighten anything with 4 intelligence or up, as long as it has the skill bonus. The bonus represents how clever this halfling rogue is -- that they know the proper tone, the proper stance and the best wording to cow their victim into whatever they want. It's about that subtle twist of the blade as he stares darkly at you, the faint sinister smile conveying what seems like an almost inhumane delight at the notion of ending your life. Intimidation does not have much to do with size.
That being said, I would not find it unreasonable if there was created a feat that gave a bonus to intimidation checks against creatures smaller than you. That could be a decent feat, as long as it was more than a +2 bonus or if the bonus was untyped.
Intimidation is based on Charisma. Charisma has nothing to do with body size. Body size should have nothing to do with Intimidation therefore.
Debatable. Charisma includes physical attractiveness, which is influenced by body size. It also includes force of personality and personal magnetism, which don't seem to be influenced by body size - but it is more difficult to ignore a large person than a small person, other things equal. A small, possibly negilible affect, granted, but the link is there.
There is a significant difference between the type of intimidation that's incidental and the type that is constructed by an individual. When something ten times your size and twenty times your weight hypothetically walks by you, you are definately frightened of it, but it has not made any intimidation checks. But if it tried to intimidate you, y'know what it'd do? If it was smart, it'd flex and point out how big it is. While that seems like the intimidater gained benefits for its size, its intimidation scheme was all in how dangerous it was perceived to be.
Agree in full. What I said earlier about housecats and frilled lizards is an attempt at Intimidation - they "flex" to make themselves appear bigger and thus intimidate others into fleeing. Lions don't need to do that, as they're already big enough that nothing in the area can really match them. Poisonous frogs and spiders also don't actively Intimidate.
Well, I am going to have to disagree with you.
Feel free. Forums would be pretty boring if no one ever disagreed.
1) Ok, we are in agreement on that point.
We agree on no size modifiers for creatures of the same size class. Not a bad place to start.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size. All we can do is compare it to the differences in size and stature we have experienced. On that note, as we have agreed, a size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea. So, in this case, what we are left with is the base question: what is fun? Its not fun to give small PC characters a -4 penalty to Intimidate over medium sized PC characters, because it makes it virtually impossible for someone to role-play something like Belkar from Order of the Stick; it makes it impossible to role-play the scary as hell pint sized terror. But, that scary as hell pint sized terror IS a narrative trope. That character exists in multiple examples of fictions. Since ultimately the reality that D&D is supposed to be modeling is fiction, it seems like a bad idea to include +4/-4 penalty to intimidate checks based on size.
"A size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea" for creatures of the same size class is what we have agreed on. As for none of us having experence facing off against 9' Ogres, well, that's true, thankfully, but anyone who has had the opportunity to visit a game preserve or go on safari has, in fact, had the opportunity to face creatures that are much, much larger than a human. Closer to home, anyone who has worked with cattle or equines has had this experence as well. Yes, it is possible to face down an angry bull, or bull elephant, or gorilla, but only with training and experience. The smaller creature is at an inherant disadvantage. That disadvantage can be overcome, but it is still there. Size is not the be all and end all, but large size differences matter, significantly.
As for fun, no, don't agree with you there either. Not giving a size bonus/penalty may be fun for the halfling, but not for the half-ogre. Since no solution satisfies them both, then I'll back the rule that makes sense to me.
3) Your final note is absurd. Numbers mean nothing in a game without some sort of baseline of numbers against which to compare them. In a game where the baseline bonus to hit is +100, +100 isn't that special. In a game where the baseline bonus to hit is +1, +100 is huge. In D&D (4e) the baseline bonus to skill checks, for being trained, is +5. The baseline bonus to skill checks, if you take the skill focus feat, is an additional +3. Using that as a comparison, a +4 is almost as large a modifier as being trained, and a larger modifier than having skill focus. To penalize small PCs to that extent is an AWFUL idea.
First, no, it's not absurd. This is a D&D forum, and we all have a pretty good idea of the value of a +4 bonus. If this were a general games forum covering any game you wanted to name, then your objection would be valid. Here, it's just petty.
Second, a halfling trained in intimidate is not just equal to an untrained human, but slightly better. A pint-sized terror who is trained and has a skill focus is as intimidating to a human as an ogre would be. That's pretty much the definition of a pint-sized terror. Does the halfling have to work a little harder at it? Sure. Will he or she always be at a slight disadvantage against an equally trained but significantly larger character? Again, sure. Being physically imposing will always be an advantage when it comes to intimidation. That's just the way it works. If you choose to play a Wizard of a race that has a penalty on Intelligence, you don't get to complain because you're a little behind the curve of other characters who chose a race with a bonus to Intelligence.
4e already models your race granting a benefit to certain skill checks in a really great way. If the race you choose is supposed to look particularly imposing, that races stat block will say that you gain a +2 bonus to intimidate checks. Adding in additional modifiers and penalties willy nilly is not smart. It will unfairly give bonuses/penalties around the gaming table in a manner that will really upset the balance between various player, and destroy viable character concepts.
The same ruleset that says that some races are inherently intimidating, also says that larger races are also more intimidating. If you trust their judgement on game balance in one case, why are you so sure they're wrong in the other? And describing an opposing argument as 'willy nilly' is an attempt to demean the opposing viewpoint with insults. It's a cheap rhetorical trick usually used by those who realize that their argument, is at its core, weak and unable to stand on its own. As for "viable character concepts," all character concepts are viable until they meet the rules.
I don't agree with you at all.
Sure you do, just not very much.
"A size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea" for creatures of the same size class is what we have agreed on. As for none of us having experence facing off against 9' Ogres, well, that's true, thankfully, but anyone who has had the opportunity to visit a game preserve or go on safari has, in fact, had the opportunity to face creatures that are much, much larger than a human. Closer to home, anyone who has worked with cattle or equines has had this experence as well. Yes, it is possible to face down an angry bull, or bull elephant, or gorilla, but only with training and experience. The smaller creature is at an inherant disadvantage. That disadvantage can be overcome, but it is still there. Size is not the be all and end all, but large size differences matter, significantly.As for fun, no, don't agree with you there either. Not giving a size bonus/penalty may be fun for the halfling, but not for the half-ogre. Since no solution satisfies them both, then I'll back the rule that makes sense to me.
Difference being, a half-ogre is not a PC. It doesn't have fun one way or another. A halfling often is. Telling a halfling player, "you are going to have to suck at intimidate, or at the very least suffer a penalty that is only 1 point less than the bonus gained from being trained," is the same thing as saying "no small sized creatures will ever be intimidating at my table." Under that rule, people playing halflings are going to pick a different skill over intimidate, one where they don't suffer a -4 to their check, because -4 is a HUGE penalty. That rule effectivly kills an entire character concept, a concept with narrative backing. Its an awful rule.
First, no, it's not absurd. This is a D&D forum, and we all have a pretty good idea of the value of a +4 bonus. If this were a general games forum covering any game you wanted to name, then your objection would be valid. Here, it's just petty.
No, it is absurd, precisely because this is a D&D board. Here, on a D&D board, where we are discussing D&D, -4/+4 is a massive bonus. Its 1 point less than skill training (which grants the largest bonus to a skill of any single feat or ability found in the game), and 1 point more than the bonus granted by skill focus (which, other than a couple of rare class/race situation specific feats, grants the largest feat based bonus to a skill check), and 2 points more than the bonus to a skill granted by your race. Saying that that isn't that big of a modifier, based on the relative values of modifiers found elsewhere in D&D 4e, makes your statement absurd.
Second, a halfling trained in intimidate is not just equal to an untrained human, but slightly better. A pint-sized terror who is trained and has a skill focus is as intimidating to a human as an ogre would be. That's pretty much the definition of a pint-sized terror. Does the halfling have to work a little harder at it? Sure. Will he or she always be at a slight disadvantage against an equally trained but significantly larger character? Again, sure. Being physically imposing will always be an advantage when it comes to intimidation. That's just the way it works. If you choose to play a Wizard of a race that has a penalty on Intelligence, you don't get to complain because you're a little behind the curve of other characters who chose a race with a bonus to Intelligence.
No, sorry. I did complain about the fact that, in 3e, such things as size penalties to skills completely killed the viability of certain character concepts. Penalties to stats didn't bother me quite as much, but thats because you were only dealing with a -2 penalty to a stat, an effective -1 penalty to checks modified by that stat. -1/+1 is relativly easy to overcome. -4/+4 is not. So, that really bothered me. Its one of the reasons I stopped playing 3e (one among many). Obviously, no game is going to be able to make all concepts viable. But the concept of a pint sized terror is found over and over again in fiction. To virtually kill that concept by imposing something as large as a -4 penalty to skill checks due to small size is a really bad move. Its a really bad move because I do expect them to make standard concepts, often found in fantasy fiction, viable. Thankfully they removed that rule from 4e. Adding it back into the game is a bad idea.
The same ruleset that says that some races are inherently intimidating, also says that larger races are also more intimidating. If you trust their judgement on game balance in one case, why are you so sure they're wrong in the other? And describing an opposing argument as 'willy nilly' is an attempt to demean the opposing viewpoint with insults. It's a cheap rhetorical trick usually used by those who realize that their argument, is at its core, weak and unable to stand on its own. As for "viable character concepts," all character concepts are viable until they meet the rules.
Again, no, sorry. The ruleset I use, the ruleset found between the front and back cover of my 4e books, includes a racial +2 bonus to skills, and no penalty to intimidate checks based on size. I am not sure that the designers were right in one place and wrong in another. I am sure that the designers were, all around, correct in their design decisions. One of those design decisions was to remove penalties to intimidate checks based on size. I think the designers made a good call. I think adding that rule back into the game, willy nilly, is a bad move. And when I say that I am not using a cheap rhetorical trick, nor do I believe my argument is too weak, at its core, to stand on its own. What I mean is that it seems like a random re-addition of a poor rule that was removed from the game precisely because it wasn't the greatest rule ever written.
So, I guess we are going to have to agree to, for the most part, to disagree.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size. All we can do is compare it to the differences in size and stature we have experienced. On that note, as we have agreed, a size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea. So, in this case, what we are left with is the base question: what is fun? Its not fun to give small PC characters a -4 penalty to Intimidate over medium sized PC characters, because it makes it virtually impossible for someone to role-play something like Belkar from Order of the Stick; it makes it impossible to role-play the scary as hell pint sized terror. But, that scary as hell pint sized terror IS a narrative trope. That character exists in multiple examples of fictions. Since ultimately the reality that D&D is supposed to be modeling is fiction, it seems like a bad idea to include +4/-4 penalty to intimidate checks based on size.
A -4 penalty hardly makes it impossible... If someone really wants to play a small terror(halfling, gnome, etc), that little -4 isn't going to stop them. Honestly, it's not that hard to build such a character.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size. All we can do is compare it to the differences in size and stature we have experienced. On that note, as we have agreed, a size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea. So, in this case, what we are left with is the base question: what is fun? Its not fun to give small PC characters a -4 penalty to Intimidate over medium sized PC characters, because it makes it virtually impossible for someone to role-play something like Belkar from Order of the Stick; it makes it impossible to role-play the scary as hell pint sized terror. But, that scary as hell pint sized terror IS a narrative trope. That character exists in multiple examples of fictions. Since ultimately the reality that D&D is supposed to be modeling is fiction, it seems like a bad idea to include +4/-4 penalty to intimidate checks based on size.
A -4 penalty hardly makes it impossible... If someone really wants to play a small terror(halfling, gnome, etc), that little -4 isn't going to stop them. Honestly, it's not that hard to build such a character.
A "little" -4? No, sorry, we have been over that. 1 point less then skill training, 1 point more than skill focus, and 2 points more than a regular racial bonus, is not little. And yes, it does make it virtually impossible to play such a character. It effectivly means that your character will never be considered trained in the skill, even if they have chosen it as one of their trained skills, or taken a feat to gain training in said skill. If I was playing a halfling in a game where they were getting unfairly punished with a -4 to their intimidate skills (via a houserule), I would never choose to be trained in intimidate. Its a waste of skill training. I would find some other skill to excell at. One where I can still gain the bonus from skill training I am supposed to get, +5, instead of only gaining +1. So, honestly, I disagree with you. I prefer the 4e rules as written. It was a bad rule as written when it existed in previous editions, and its a bad houserule now.
Well, I am going to have to disagree with you.
Feel free. Forums would be pretty boring if no one ever disagreed.
1) Ok, we are in agreement on that point.We agree on no size modifiers for creatures of the same size class. Not a bad place to start.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size. All we can do is compare it to the differences in size and stature we have experienced. On that note, as we have agreed, a size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea. So, in this case, what we are left with is the base question: what is fun? Its not fun to give small PC characters a -4 penalty to Intimidate over medium sized PC characters, because it makes it virtually impossible for someone to role-play something like Belkar from Order of the Stick; it makes it impossible to role-play the scary as hell pint sized terror. But, that scary as hell pint sized terror IS a narrative trope. That character exists in multiple examples of fictions. Since ultimately the reality that D&D is supposed to be modeling is fiction, it seems like a bad idea to include +4/-4 penalty to intimidate checks based on size."A size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea" for creatures of the same size class is what we have agreed on. As for none of us having experence facing off against 9' Ogres, well, that's true, thankfully, but anyone who has had the opportunity to visit a game preserve or go on safari has, in fact, had the opportunity to face creatures that are much, much larger than a human. Closer to home, anyone who has worked with cattle or equines has had this experence as well. Yes, it is possible to face down an angry bull, or bull elephant, or gorilla, but only with training and experience. The smaller creature is at an inherant disadvantage. That disadvantage can be overcome, but it is still there. Size is not the be all and end all, but large size differences matter, significantly.
As for fun, no, don't agree with you there either. Not giving a size bonus/penalty may be fun for the halfling, but not for the half-ogre. Since no solution satisfies them both, then I'll back the rule that makes sense to me.
3) Your final note is absurd. Numbers mean nothing in a game without some sort of baseline of numbers against which to compare them. In a game where the baseline bonus to hit is +100, +100 isn't that special. In a game where the baseline bonus to hit is +1, +100 is huge. In D&D (4e) the baseline bonus to skill checks, for being trained, is +5. The baseline bonus to skill checks, if you take the skill focus feat, is an additional +3. Using that as a comparison, a +4 is almost as large a modifier as being trained, and a larger modifier than having skill focus. To penalize small PCs to that extent is an AWFUL idea.First, no, it's not absurd. This is a D&D forum, and we all have a pretty good idea of the value of a +4 bonus. If this were a general games forum covering any game you wanted to name, then your objection would be valid. Here, it's just petty.
Second, a halfling trained in intimidate is not just equal to an untrained human, but slightly better. A pint-sized terror who is trained and has a skill focus is as intimidating to a human as an ogre would be. That's pretty much the definition of a pint-sized terror. Does the halfling have to work a little harder at it? Sure. Will he or she always be at a slight disadvantage against an equally trained but significantly larger character? Again, sure. Being physically imposing will always be an advantage when it comes to intimidation. That's just the way it works. If you choose to play a Wizard of a race that has a penalty on Intelligence, you don't get to complain because you're a little behind the curve of other characters who chose a race with a bonus to Intelligence.
4e already models your race granting a benefit to certain skill checks in a really great way. If the race you choose is supposed to look particularly imposing, that races stat block will say that you gain a +2 bonus to intimidate checks. Adding in additional modifiers and penalties willy nilly is not smart. It will unfairly give bonuses/penalties around the gaming table in a manner that will really upset the balance between various player, and destroy viable character concepts.The same ruleset that says that some races are inherently intimidating, also says that larger races are also more intimidating. If you trust their judgement on game balance in one case, why are you so sure they're wrong in the other? And describing an opposing argument as 'willy nilly' is an attempt to demean the opposing viewpoint with insults. It's a cheap rhetorical trick usually used by those who realize that their argument, is at its core, weak and unable to stand on its own. As for "viable character concepts," all character concepts are viable until they meet the rules.
I don't agree with you at all.Sure you do, just not very much.
Once again, very well said.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size. All we can do is compare it to the differences in size and stature we have experienced. On that note, as we have agreed, a size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea. So, in this case, what we are left with is the base question: what is fun? Its not fun to give small PC characters a -4 penalty to Intimidate over medium sized PC characters, because it makes it virtually impossible for someone to role-play something like Belkar from Order of the Stick; it makes it impossible to role-play the scary as hell pint sized terror. But, that scary as hell pint sized terror IS a narrative trope. That character exists in multiple examples of fictions. Since ultimately the reality that D&D is supposed to be modeling is fiction, it seems like a bad idea to include +4/-4 penalty to intimidate checks based on size.
A -4 penalty hardly makes it impossible... If someone really wants to play a small terror(halfling, gnome, etc), that little -4 isn't going to stop them. Honestly, it's not that hard to build such a character.A "little" -4? No, sorry, we have been over that. 1 point less then skill training, 1 point more than skill focus, and 2 points more than a regular racial bonus, is not little. And yes, it does make it virtually impossible to play such a character. It effectivly means that your character will never be considered trained in the skill, even if they have chosen it as one of their trained skills, or taken a feat to gain training in said skill. If I was playing a halfling in a game where they were getting unfairly punished with a -4 to their intimidate skills (via a houserule), I would never choose to be trained in intimidate. Its a waste of skill training. I would find some other skill to excell at. One where I can still gain the bonus from skill training I am supposed to get, +5, instead of only gaining +1. So, honestly, I disagree with you. I prefer the 4e rules as written. It was a bad rule as written when it existed in previous editions, and its a bad houserule now.
Just because you disagree with/don't like a rule, doesn't make it a bad rule.
Also, I was not referring to 4E.
2) I don't agree with you. None of us really has any experience facing off against something that is that different then us in size. All we can do is compare it to the differences in size and stature we have experienced. On that note, as we have agreed, a size penalty/benefit to Intimidate seems like a bad idea. So, in this case, what we are left with is the base question: what is fun? Its not fun to give small PC characters a -4 penalty to Intimidate over medium sized PC characters, because it makes it virtually impossible for someone to role-play something like Belkar from Order of the Stick; it makes it impossible to role-play the scary as hell pint sized terror. But, that scary as hell pint sized terror IS a narrative trope. That character exists in multiple examples of fictions. Since ultimately the reality that D&D is supposed to be modeling is fiction, it seems like a bad idea to include +4/-4 penalty to intimidate checks based on size.
A -4 penalty hardly makes it impossible... If someone really wants to play a small terror(halfling, gnome, etc), that little -4 isn't going to stop them. Honestly, it's not that hard to build such a character.A "little" -4? No, sorry, we have been over that. 1 point less then skill training, 1 point more than skill focus, and 2 points more than a regular racial bonus, is not little. And yes, it does make it virtually impossible to play such a character. It effectivly means that your character will never be considered trained in the skill, even if they have chosen it as one of their trained skills, or taken a feat to gain training in said skill. If I was playing a halfling in a game where they were getting unfairly punished with a -4 to their intimidate skills (via a houserule), I would never choose to be trained in intimidate. Its a waste of skill training. I would find some other skill to excell at. One where I can still gain the bonus from skill training I am supposed to get, +5, instead of only gaining +1. So, honestly, I disagree with you. I prefer the 4e rules as written. It was a bad rule as written when it existed in previous editions, and its a bad houserule now.
Just because you disagree with/don't like a rule, doesn't make it a bad rule.Also, I was not referring to 4E.
No. The fact that I don't agree with/don't like the rule doesn't make it a bad rule. The fact that the rule kills off a classic character concept does.
And I was refering to 4e, with every post, unless I made a specific point to note otherwise.
Been following the thread for a while now, and I have to agree with the -1/+1 at most camp. That said has anyone considered the following as an idea, following in the 4e penalties are not fun mentality.
Large races get +4, huge get +8, +1 get +12, +1 get +16 to intimidate. And then leaving it at that.
No one gets a penalty, and so the halfling is just as good as the orc at intimidating his foes. Additionally, with intimidate not being an opposed check, no one has to worry that your small or medium creatures will not be able to intimidate their foes. BUT their foes who are huge, are going to be fairly good at it, based on sheer size alone. Top this off with no PC races bigger than medium rule of 4e means that all PC races with the same cha and no natural bonuses are just as capable as intimidation as one another.
I could see not getting upset at a DM when they whip out a rule like this, and my character is intimidated by the huge dire bullette, which has a cha of 12, and no training in it. Sure naturally, it gets +10, but it is level 18. My character is going to have a will defense of 25+. This thing has no chance, and instead of the scenario of
"PCs stumble into a nest and are rooting around, they find giant eggs, and suddenly from the floors bursts a giant armored form. It makes intimidate checks...... and fails by 400..." we get "PCs stumble into a nest and are rooting around, they find giant eggs, and suddenly from the floors bursts a giant armored form. It makes intimidate checks...... Ron, you and Bill are intimidated, go ahead and take -2 save ends [or something]"
Been following the thread for a while now, and I have to agree with the -1/+1 at most camp. That said has anyone considered the following as an idea, following in the 4e penalties are not fun mentality.
Large races get +4, huge get +8, +1 get +12, +1 get +16 to intimidate. And then leaving it at that.
No one gets a penalty, and so the halfling is just as good as the orc at intimidating his foes. Additionally, with intimidate not being an opposed check, no one has to worry that your small or medium creatures will not be able to intimidate their foes. BUT their foes who are huge, are going to be fairly good at it, based on sheer size alone. Top this off with no PC races bigger than medium rule of 4e means that all PC races with the same cha and no natural bonuses are just as capable as intimidation as one another.
I could see not getting upset at a DM when they whip out a rule like this, and my character is intimidated by the huge dire bullette, which has a cha of 12, and no training in it. Sure naturally, it gets +10, but it is level 18. My character is going to have a will defense of 25+. This thing has no chance, and instead of the scenario of
"PCs stumble into a nest and are rooting around, they find giant eggs, and suddenly from the floors bursts a giant armored form. It makes intimidate checks...... and fails by 400..." we get "PCs stumble into a nest and are rooting around, they find giant eggs, and suddenly from the floors bursts a giant armored form. It makes intimidate checks...... Ron, you and Bill are intimidated, go ahead and take -2 save ends [or something]"
The rule seems a little pointless. From what I remember, NPCs can't use intimidate against PCs. What is more, larger/more powerful NPCs already gain a bonus to their intimidate skill due to the fact that they are larger/more powerful (and thus stated at higher level). So, even in a game where a house rule allows NPCs to use intimidate on PCs to provoke something like a -2 to hit (save ends) or some such, it doesn't seem like a good idea to add further bonuses to large creatures over those they already gain. I mean, as someone pointed out, you CAN stare down a gorilla/bull with training. That training is modeled by your level. The math of the skill checks/attack rolls of monsters and PC defenses is already air tight. By adding bonuses like that, you are pretty much saying that large creatures will always succeed. That is silly. Because, honestly, a larger creature might be scary, but to an epic/demi-god of war even a large creature is going to seem like less of a threat. Telling that player that they will virtually always become intimidated by larger creatures just seems... silly. I mean, with those bonuses, larger paragon tier creatures will have a pretty easy time intimidating heroic tier players. That is just wrong.
The rule seems a little pointless. From what I remember, NPCs can't use intimidate against PCs. What is more, larger/more powerful NPCs already gain a bonus to their intimidate skill due to the fact that they are larger/more powerful (and thus stated at higher level).
.. to be honest, we left out the whole rule in our games. Diplo still flies, but intimidate is either done on the fly or as part of bluff. Unless you have a specific feat or power that asks you to roll the check. So I couldn't tell you if NPCs aren't allowed to use it.
Statted out at higher level represents a rough approximation of "some skills you just generally pick up along the way". Consider that a level 18 human with cha 12 has the same +10 to intimidate as the Dire Bullette. This gives that specific monster some benefit to it.
Although if its true and monsters can't roll the check vs PCs then you are correct and it is totally pointless. It might be nice to throw in for the camp that wants size bonuses to intimidate. "Sure really big NPCs get a bonus to intimidate. If you can get one as an NPC ally I will adjust his stats accordingly."
The rule seems a little pointless. From what I remember, NPCs can't use intimidate against PCs. What is more, larger/more powerful NPCs already gain a bonus to their intimidate skill due to the fact that they are larger/more powerful (and thus stated at higher level).
.. to be honest, we left out the whole rule in our games. Diplo still flies, but intimidate is either done on the fly or as part of bluff. Unless you have a specific feat or power that asks you to roll the check. So I couldn't tell you if NPCs aren't allowed to use it.Statted out at higher level represents a rough approximation of "some skills you just generally pick up along the way". Consider that a level 18 human with cha 12 has the same +10 to intimidate as the Dire Bullette. This gives that specific monster some benefit to it.
Although if its true and monsters can't roll the check vs PCs then you are correct and it is totally pointless. It might be nice to throw in for the camp that wants size bonuses to intimidate. "Sure really big NPCs get a bonus to intimidate. If you can get one as an NPC ally I will adjust his stats accordingly."
Yes, but as I pointed out: larger monsters tend to be of higher level. The fact that they are large, and tough, is already factored into their intimidate skill via the bonus to skill checks from their higher level. Adding further bonuses to those they already get will give them rediculously high intimidate bonuses. At that point in time, even with a nifty house rule that allows NPCs to impose minor penalties onto PCs via an intimidate check, it becomes impossible for a PC to stare down a larger creature. Lower level monsters will be able to stare down higher level PCs with relative ease. That situation doesn't seem right to me.
Yes, but as I pointed out: larger monsters tend to be of higher level. The fact that they are large, and tough, is already factored into their intimidate skill via the bonus to skill checks from their higher level. Adding further bonuses to those they already get will give them rediculously high intimidate bonuses. At that point in time, even with a nifty house rule that allows NPCs to impose minor penalties onto PCs via an intimidate check, it becomes impossible for a PC to stare down a larger creature. Lower level monsters will be able to stare down higher level PCs with relative ease. That situation doesn't seem right to me.
I think you are forgetting that intimidate is not an opposed skill, but is vs the will defense of the target. It doesn't matter how high your mod is, if your Will Defense is 0, you can be intimidated by anyone.
Story time. I am 5'9" and approximately 135 pounds. I am also a soldier and a trained killer who has been in the military my entire adult life, and i am an extremely determined individual. Its precisely because of my small size that i got saddled with one of my collateral duties outside my normal military job - hand to hand combat instructor. That means part of my job is to make guys who are younger, faster, stronger, and in allmost every case much bigger than me fear me so that i can teach them how to be aggressive and ruthless in up close and personal combat, and how to instill that fear in thier enemies so that they learn that size matters, but it isn't everything, and that the fighter who is willing to attack aggressively, ruthlessly, relentlessly and without concern for his or your own personal safety is to be feared far more than the fighter who is simply bigger and stronger, but has no heart.
I am VERY good at my job. I teach soft, pampered american teenagers what aggression really is every tuesday, wednesday, and friday when they step into the fighting circle with me by beating the hell out of them and making them really and truly afraid for the first time in thier lives, even if i wouldn't actually hurt them, and not one of them could or would honestly say that they wouldn't think twice about getting into a real fight with this small but extremely determined, skilled, and dangerous man. They would, in fact, think very hard about doing exactly what i say to avoid that fight, because they dont want to have bones broken, limbs destroyed, or appendages that they enjoy the use of made useless.
Now imagine that same amount of competence, skill, and determination amplified to extreme levels by a world where size truly doesn't matter a bit, where that four-foot tall man might just be the most dangerous killer in the world, and then you'll understand why a halfling can scare the crap out of a titan or make a god surrender without a fight to save himself any more pain from this tiny monstrosity.
People are drawing comparisons to the real world in which size is equal to strength.
This is not the DnD world. Size does not correlate with strength in the DnD world. A halfling fighter could easily be as strong as any of the orcs, not just in fighting ability, he could beat them in arm wrestling.
Please stop exaggerating.I'm not exaggerating in the least. It kills the character concept. I've noted why above. A skill penalty that large is the same thing as telling the player that he may as well choose a different skill in which to be trained.
Perhaps, but since the -/+4 is appearantly not RAW in 4E, there's really no point in continuing with this part of the conversation.
Yes, but as I pointed out: larger monsters tend to be of higher level. The fact that they are large, and tough, is already factored into their intimidate skill via the bonus to skill checks from their higher level. Adding further bonuses to those they already get will give them rediculously high intimidate bonuses. At that point in time, even with a nifty house rule that allows NPCs to impose minor penalties onto PCs via an intimidate check, it becomes impossible for a PC to stare down a larger creature. Lower level monsters will be able to stare down higher level PCs with relative ease. That situation doesn't seem right to me.
I think you are forgetting that intimidate is not an opposed skill, but is vs the will defense of the target. It doesn't matter how high your mod is, if your Will Defense is 0, you can be intimidated by anyone.
I am not forgetting that. The fact that it is based of a fixed will defense is exactly why the bonuses you are suggesting are such a bad idea. The math of the game fairly well thought out. Bonuses to hit/bonuses from skill checks give you a decent (read roughly 50/50) chance of succeeding/hitting an opponent of equal level. The second you start giving away bonuses of the size of +4/+8 to larger sized opponents, the result will be that those larger sized opponents will ALWAYS be able to succeed on an intimidate check against an equal level opponent. I like the house rule that a NPC can intimidate a bloodied PC, thus imposing a -2 penalty to hit (save ends). But, if you add in the +4/+8 bonuses to intimidate, you are pretty much saying that all larger NPCs can automatically impose that penalty on the PCs, because the NPCs will be roughly the same level as the PCs. Its a bad move. Because, really, PCs are the cream of the crop. PCs are exactly those characters who stand up to bull charges, and roaring gorillas, and usually don't flinch.
Please stop exaggerating.I'm not exaggerating in the least. It kills the character concept. I've noted why above. A skill penalty that large is the same thing as telling the player that he may as well choose a different skill in which to be trained.
Perhaps, but since the -/+4 is appearantly not RAW in 4E, there's really no point in continuing with this part of the conversation.
It was my understanding that, from the beginning, what we were discussing is whether a -/+ 4 based on size is a good idea for a house rule in 4e. If we are not discussing that, then absolutely, there is really no point in continuing with this part of the conversation. If we are, as I stated, I believe it is an awful house rule.
Let's take a look at a few creatures in the monster builder:
Level 1 Controller: Goblin Acolyte of Maglubiyet Small natural humanoid (goblin) with an Intimidate of +6
Level 2 Brute: Shadow Juggernaut Large elemental magical beast (shadow) with an Intimidate of +6
So a level 1 halfling PC trained in Intimidate with a 16 in Charisma would have a +8 to Intimidate.
Everyone keeps giving real world analogues to the Large v. Small intimidate, which keep being refuted by others with this is a fantasy world. Well in the world itself a small Goblin is as intimidating as a large shadow beast.
I thought Id throw this in to the discussion.
My two cents, I think giving negatives to small creatures is a poor idea. However giving a bonus to creatures bigger than large seems like a decent idea. A +2 per size category seems like a good number.
Hm, remembering the situation, where we beat a group of brutal human thugs, leaving one of them alive and tied him up for interrogation.
Unfortunately, we didn't make sure, that the others were really dead, so it turned out, that two of them were still alive, but unconscious, when my halfling rogue burned the...ahem...corpses.
Just had to hold a torch in my hands, and the thug told me everything I wanted to know 
I'd like to say that my experiences with my friend's halfling rogue basically made me do a double take at this thread. Suffice to say he liked working the kidneys.
Please stop exaggerating.I'm not exaggerating in the least. It kills the character concept. I've noted why above. A skill penalty that large is the same thing as telling the player that he may as well choose a different skill in which to be trained.
no, it only discourages ridiculously unrealistc concepts.stop being so melodramatic.
No, is severly discourages, to the point of making it pointless to play, a concept that YOU consider unrealistic, but is commonly present in fiction, and thus is obviously appealing to the community at large, no matter what YOUR individual tastes may be. Its an AWFUL rule, removed from the game with good reason.
So, I'm not being melodramatic. You, however, should stop assuming that you have any say over what is or is not realistic, or desirable. Obviously, as this thread proves, not everyone agrees with your subjective impressions of reality.
My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
In darksun, my little feral halfling, will not only kill and skin halfgiants, but eat them too. Halflings are as deadly as other races. More so in darksun, dragonlance and eberron.
My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
In darksun, my little feral halfling, will not only kill and skin halfgiants, but eat them too. Halflings are as deadly as other races. More so in darksun, dragonlance and eberron.
so what's your point? a 1st level halfling is no match for a 1st level halfgiant (i.e. level 1 in a character class). remember, "all else being equal".
His point is that halflings are scary, and that they don't deserve a penalty so large that players feel that they can't play a scary halfling.
Please stop exaggerating.I'm not exaggerating in the least. It kills the character concept. I've noted why above. A skill penalty that large is the same thing as telling the player that he may as well choose a different skill in which to be trained.
no, it only discourages ridiculously unrealistc concepts.stop being so melodramatic.
No, is severly discourages, to the point of making it pointless to play, a concept that YOU consider unrealistic, but is commonly present in fiction, and thus is obviously appealing to the community at large, no matter what YOUR individual tastes may be. Its an AWFUL rule, removed from the game with good reason.
So, I'm not being melodramatic. You, however, should stop assuming that you have any say over what is or is not realistic, or desirable. Obviously, as this thread proves, not everyone agrees with your subjective impressions of reality.
Oh, and I suppose that you are THE authority of what is "realistic"?
There are also those here that have agreed with me. So what does that prove? That 2 positions can have supporters on each side? What's your point?
Every sensable argument given to enforce your position (by you AND by others) all invoke circumstances that can (and should) be accounted for through other means (aka situational/circumstantial modifiers). In other words, y'all are giving apple-to-oranges comparisons. My position (as I have already stated) is looking at this in-and-of-itself, irrespective of other considerations (which do have their place, just not in the original point that I was making).
One more example:
if a 10-year-old tries to intimidate, I'm gonna laugh in his face. Why is that? Answer: because I'm so much bigger than him.
However, if that same 10-y.o. has just beat the bejesus out of someone else that I already know to be my combative superior, then yes, I'm probably gonna be more apt to be intimidated. What's the difference? Answer: the situation -- hence why I went through the trouble of listing a long list of how situations/conditions can change everything.
comparing a 10th level anything (halfling or otherwise) with a 3rd level orc is NOT an apples-to-apples comparison; and to make that type of comparison as the definitive excuse on why "size doesn't matter" is not only ridiculous, it's also highly disingenuous (at best!).
Furthermore, I don't really appreciate disingenuous and irrelelavent arguments for the simple reason that it disrespects the conversation. How can someone that will so flagrantly disrespect a conversation in such a way ever reasonably expect to be taken seriously? Seriously, I challenge you to think on that for a while.
Please stop exaggerating.I'm not exaggerating in the least. It kills the character concept. I've noted why above. A skill penalty that large is the same thing as telling the player that he may as well choose a different skill in which to be trained.
no, it only discourages ridiculously unrealistc concepts.stop being so melodramatic.
No, is severly discourages, to the point of making it pointless to play, a concept that YOU consider unrealistic, but is commonly present in fiction, and thus is obviously appealing to the community at large, no matter what YOUR individual tastes may be. Its an AWFUL rule, removed from the game with good reason.
So, I'm not being melodramatic. You, however, should stop assuming that you have any say over what is or is not realistic, or desirable. Obviously, as this thread proves, not everyone agrees with your subjective impressions of reality.
Oh, and I suppose that you are THE authority of what is "realistic"?
There are also those here that have agreed with me. So what does that prove? That 2 positions can have supporters on each side? What's your point?Every sensable argument given to enforce your position (by you AND by others) all invoke circumstances that can (and should) be accounted for through other means (aka situational/circumstantial modifiers). In other words, y'all are giving apple-to-oranges comparisons. My position (as I have already stated) is looking at this in-and-of-itself, irrespective of other considerations (which do have their place, just not in the original point that I was making).
One more example:
if a 10-year-old tries to intimidate, I'm gonna laugh in his face. Why is that? Answer: because I'm so much bigger than him.
However, if that same 10-y.o. has just beat the bejesus out of someone else that I already know to be my combative superior, then yes, I'm probably gonna be more apt to be intimidated. What's the difference? Answer: the situation -- hence why I went through the trouble of listing a long list of how situations/conditions can change everything.comparing a 10th level anything (halfling or otherwise) with a 3rd level orc is NOT an apples-to-apples comparison; and to make that type of comparison as the definitive excuse on why "size doesn't matter" is not only ridiculous, it's also highly disingenuous (at best!).
Furthermore, I don't really appreciate disingenuous and irrelelavent arguments for the simple reason that it disrespects the conversation. How can someone that will so flagrantly disrespect a conversation in such a way ever reasonably expect to be taken seriously? Seriously, I challenge you to think on that for a while.
No, sorry, we have already covered this. Your entire argument is based, from the ground up, on one single situational example. Thus your attempt to call other examples invalid, because they are situational, rings hollow.
And telling a 3rd level halfling barbarian that he is going to have to suck at intimidation in comparison to any other party member isn't fun.
You have no valid argument.
My 11th level halfling rogue is trained in intimidate, and though it has been useful to get information out of prisoners and things like that, I can't see my 3' 11" character growling and threatening a cowering orc who's 6' 1". Sure, Sam made some threats to Gollum, but that's because they were the same size. How would a halfling make threats to someone twice or more his size??
In darksun, my little feral halfling, will not only kill and skin halfgiants, but eat them too. Halflings are as deadly as other races. More so in darksun, dragonlance and eberron.
so what's your point? a 1st level halfling is no match for a 1st level halfgiant (i.e. level 1 in a character class). remember, "all else being equal".
I'll play a 1st level halfling against your 1st level halfgiant and see what happens. You say its no match and I laugh at that claim, hard. Yes, you could smash me flat with probably a single hit, but thats IF you could even hit me. While you stumble around trying to get a fix on me, I'll be ducking and weaving, wittling your HP down to nothing. Thats assuming I don't have the ability to taunt you into a insane rage, use savage poison or let my dinosaur eat your face.
I'm also not even considering what class,feats and skills we would be using. Also whether or not I get a bonus for being small, against a larger opponent.
As someone who has played many halflings and fought larger, stronger opponents, I'v no doubt in a halflings abilities. Especially if we did battle using 2nd edition darksun. Wouldn't even be a contest. Halfgiants hope for that lucky hit, where as halflings don't need hope or luck.
Dude, I was playing with a bunch of people today- I was a Drow Rogue, and I used my intimidate skill against a thug that held a poor child at knife point- he let go of the child an ran away. Then I used my intimidate skill to break up a fight between a Minotaur and a cleric shortly after...
Lolololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!
I guess no one should be able to intimidate dragons, giants or anyone bigger. Because size is all that matters. ROFL...
No, sorry, we have already covered this. Your entire argument is based, from the ground up, on one single situational example. Thus your attempt to call other examples invalid, because they are situational, rings hollow.
And telling a 3rd level halfling barbarian that he is going to have to suck at intimidation in comparison to any other party member isn't fun.
You have no valid argument.
I'm giving the only examples that I can think of that are exclusively relavent to my point. I'm intentionally removing other factors for the expressed purpose of demonstrating THIS particular factor. I have then gone on to contextually show where those other factors can come in to play in overcoming the size factor -- yes, that's right -- I'VE ACTUALLY SHOWN WHERE SIZE CAN BE EFFECTIVELY CANCELED OUT OF THE EQUATION. I don't know what else you could possibly want?
Here's the deal -- if you want to be able to acurately see the actual effect that a particular element has on a situation, you have to apply each element individually, without influence from the other factors. I seriously think you need to check-out the following links before you decide that my argument is invalid (which, by the way, you have yet to invalidate a single one of my arguments):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_contr...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruc...
www.logicalfallacies.info/
Not to mention, since smaller creatures are apparently so much less intimidating, people definitely don't buy guard dogs. Humans, being larger, are more than enough of a deterrent. Oh, wait...
And engage or don't. I could care less. I view your entire position to be laughable. You put out one single situation, attempt to rig all factors in your favor, and then pretend that that somehow proves something? You honestly think anyone buys your bunk? All it proves is that size can potentially matter, in some situations, if someone using an intimidate attempt to specifically make use of their size while being intimidating. But, a person can also make use of other factors. A person makes use of whatever is available to them that makes them look dangerous. Sometimes its size. Sometimes its something else. For a halfling, it would be something else. D&D doesn't look at any of those factors, or include any of them in the rules. D&D allows the player to choose what factors they want to include via fluff. Mechanically, none of those factors count. All that counts is your level, training, feats, and a DMs option to add +2/-2 (I sometimes go up to +5/-5, but the DMG suggests that +2/-2 be the cap) situational modifiers at his/her discretion. That is as it should be. If you fail to understand that, that is not my problem. If you don't understand the design decisions behind 4e, despite the fact that people here have explained them to you, that is also not my problem. Thing is, as people here have pointed out, size is not everything. Its not even a particularly important thing. It is one potential ability that a creature can capitalize on when intimidating another creature. Speed, agility, or whatever other abilities a creature used to knock a creature into a bloodied state (thus making an in combat intimidate check even possible) are just as important as size. People have pointed this out already. Understand it, or don't. One way or another, whether you realize it or not, or accept it or not, you have already lost the debate...
I guess no one should be able to intimidate dragons, giants or anyone bigger. Because size is all that matters. ROFL...
um ..... I've explicitly stated several times that size is NOT the end-all be-all. As a matter of fact, I even provided a very comprehensive list of various other elements that can be significant factors in the situation.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, you are taking a blank slate, and then saying, "size, look, size can intimidate! So it should have an in game mechanical representation, that seriously nerfs small characters, and makes them not fun to play, if you are attempting to play a fairly popular fantasy concept, the concept of the pint sized terror. Oh, and never mind that other factors that small characters can use to be intimidating don't get in game representation!" That is ridiculous.
You are failing to realize that these other factors don't just mitigate size, they outright take the place of it. When attempting to intimidate someone, to threaten someone with bodily harm, you highlight your most dangerous traits. By doing so, a small character can scare the crap out of something just as well as a big character can. Because of this, there is no reason to upset the balance of 4e by imposing penalties to intimate on small sized characters.
If you take two characters, and make all things exactly equal, but have one character be bigger than the other, then their ability to intimidate IS still equal. Your belief that it is not is where you fail. The reason it is equal is because you now have a 3 foot tall person who has the same physical strength as a 6 foot tall person, and an equally powerful charisma with which to drive this equality, despite their physical disparity in terms of height, home. In the real world, larger people are scarier only because they seem stronger. If a larger person is of the same strength as a smaller person, the smaller person looks far more muscle bound, because they need to fit enough muscle to provide the same force onto a smaller frame. This alone undoes, or at the very least helps to undo, the intimidating effects of height. The second the smaller person manages to provide examples that suggest that they are just as deadly as the bigger person, if not deadlier, then the impression created by the larger size disappears. In order to use intimidate in combat, you must have ALREADY proved that you are just as deadly, if not deadlier, than anyone else, whatever their size, because you would have knocked your foe into a bloody state. This means that it is illogical to provide a fixed size modifier to intimidate, outside of the DMs ability to add +2/-2 to a skill check based on specific situational modifiers. Outside of combat, any given character has an entire toolkit of threatening abilities which they can make use of to give the appearance of bite behind their bark. Once again, this means it is illogical to provide a fixed size modifier to intimidate, outside of the DMs ability to add a +2/-2 to a skill check based on specific situational modifiers. A DM would also be mistaken to always apply such modifiers. A player really has to role-play their size to great effect to earn that bonus, or really has to botch such a role-playing encounter by attempting to play on their size (when they are a small character) instead of other factors to earn that penalty.
But seriously, there is one factor that is more important than any other when dealing with intimidation that size can NEVER equal. Personal character, which translates into charisma in game terms and since halflings get a +2, that means they usually have a strong personal character/very charismatic. Which means they know HOW to be intimidating for the most part.
Infact, Halflings AND Gnomes can be MORE intimidating than dwarves, goliaths, shifters and many other races. Half orcs and tieflings can be just as intimidating as halflings and gnomes. Although, Dragonborn take the cake on intimidation.
Point is, the two smallest playable races can usually be better at intimidate than most other races.
Also, its a game and not an exact conversion of real life, hence why halflings, dragonborn, dragons and giants exist in the first place. Since you play the game and seem to enjoy it, you accept it and shouldn't complain because it offers fiction in areas you like, but also in areas you don't agree with. Your characters can kill gods. Intimidation is the LEAST of the worries when dealing with realism...
I still say size is an advantage for halflings. I'm fairly sure halflings are about the same height as several portions of my anatomy I'd like to keep a knife out of.
My 2cp.
I believe that size was not included as a factor in the standard Intimidate rules because size doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. If I'm a wizard, and an ogre wants to try to bully me, I'm less likely to be intimidated because I'm confident in the knowledge that large, brawny creatures like him are often no threat to my ultimate arcane power.
On the other hand, if a person half my size manages to suggest that he's more than he may seem, well my wizard may become uneasy, since he knows much powerful magic comes in very small packages. And that halfling, as a matter of his nature, tends to know just the right things to say and the right strings to pull to make me question his abilities.
The point being that you can't apply size as a general, universal bonus to intimidate, since not everyone considers bigger to be more dangerous. It can be, however, a situational bonus, depending on the specific creature, the target of the intimidate, the method of intimidation, and the circumstances surrounding the attempt. That said, it can't be accounted for in the standard rules.
I still say size is an advantage for halflings. I'm fairly sure halflings are about the same height as several portions of my anatomy I'd like to keep a knife out of.
That only works for human-sized humanoids, however - even something as comparatively small as an ogre is probably out of comfortable reach by a halfling. Smaller Medium-sized creatures (I'm thinking drow in particular, which tend to be short even for elves) are close enough in size to halflings for the size difference to be less noticeable, and creatures larger than ogres wouldn't have anything to fear.
Basically, you appear to be advocating Intimidation bonuses against Medium-Sized and small Large-sized humanoids.
I still say size is an advantage for halflings. I'm fairly sure halflings are about the same height as several portions of my anatomy I'd like to keep a knife out of.
That only works for human-sized humanoids, however - even something as comparatively small as an ogre is probably out of comfortable reach by a halfling. Smaller Medium-sized creatures (I'm thinking drow in particular, which tend to be short even for elves) are close enough in size to halflings for the size difference to be less noticeable, and creatures larger than ogres wouldn't have anything to fear.Basically, you appear to be advocating Intimidation bonuses against Medium-Sized and small Large-sized humanoids.
Even the Tarrasque keeps its hamstrings Achilles tendons within slashing reach of a Halfling, and if I'm so tall that my head is outside of a thrown dagger's range increment, then that's only more incentive to aim lower.
[Edited for correct anatomical terminology.]
Hello,
I've removed content from this thread because baiting and harassment are Code of Conduct violations, and to preserve continuity on the thread. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Thank you.
Ceilidhs
Even the Tarrasque keeps its hamstrings within slashing reach of a Halfling, and if I'm so tall that my head is outside of a thrown dagger's range increment, then that's only more incentive to aim lower.
This. Sure it's a little less threatening, but I think the difference between Kidney and Ankle are too minimal to make a difference (in terms of knife affinity anyway).
Even the Tarrasque keeps its hamstrings within slashing reach of a Halfling, and if I'm so tall that my head is outside of a thrown dagger's range increment, then that's only more incentive to aim lower.
Er, what? Big T is 50' tall. The hamstrings are located midway between the knee and buttocks, on the backside of the leg. Using this picture:
as a guide, its legs are roughly half its height - twenty-five feet. Even in the bent and hunched position it's in, however, its legs are *at least* nine feet off the ground at knee-height. A human (6') with a longsword (~3') is going to reach that with relative ease (hand goes up to ~7', so he's got an extra foot to work with to actually *reach* the hamstrings), but a halfling is either going to have to jump like a grasshopper, fly, have a reach weapon, or throw his weapon.
...huh. I'd always been under the impression that 'hamstring' was another name for the Achilles tendon. I'll fix my terminology. My point stands; strike at the feet effectively enough and gravity will bring the jugular within reach for you.
True ... although I'd think that that's getting away from the premise of the argument - someone hamstringing me, or slashing the Achilles Tendon, is not something that I think about unless it's actually brought up. And if it's actually brought up, the would-be Intimidator almost certainly has an obvious advantage of strength already, so the size differential isn't likely to matter.
Not to mention, since smaller creatures are apparently so much less intimidating, people definitely don't buy guard dogs. Humans, being larger, are more than enough of a deterrent. Oh, wait...
Yeah, and if that same guard dog was three times bigger it would be a whole lot scarier.
Size isn't everything but if all other factors are equal the bigger thing should always be scarier. You people are bad at this.
Yeah, and if that same guard dog was three times bigger it would be a whole lot scarier.
Not really. A big dog you can keep track of, punch it in the snout, etc. Little dogs, on the other hand tend to be dodgy motherexpletives. Admittedly I could be biased since the majority of the big dogs I knew were pretty docile and only started wrassling when aggressed by ones of the smaller, more annoying variety.
Yeah, and if that same guard dog was three times bigger it would be a whole lot scarier.
Not really. A big dog you can keep track of, punch it in the snout, etc. Little dogs, on the other hand tend to be dodgy motherexpletives. Admittedly I could be biased since the majority of the big dogs I knew were pretty docile and only started wrassling when aggressed by ones of the smaller, more annoying variety.
you've clearly never had to really deal with an attacking dog.
Not to mention, since smaller creatures are apparently so much less intimidating, people definitely don't buy guard dogs. Humans, being larger, are more than enough of a deterrent. Oh, wait...
Yeah, and if that same guard dog was three times bigger it would be a whole lot scarier.
Size isn't everything but if all other factors are equal the bigger thing should always be scarier. You people are bad at this.
If that same guard dog was three times bigger, and bigger in the sense of more powerful, not just taking up a larger area of space, then it would also be of higher level. Due to it being of higher level, it would gain a larger bonus to intimidate already. On the other hand if it is only bigger, but not tougher, then it would not be scarier. We already went over this:
If you take two characters, and make all things exactly equal, but have one character be bigger than the other, then their ability to intimidate IS still equal. Your belief that it is not is where you fail. The reason it is equal is because you now have a 3 foot tall person who has the same physical strength as a 6 foot tall person, and an equally powerful charisma with which to drive this equality, despite their physical disparity in terms of height, home. In the real world, larger people are scarier only because they seem stronger. If a larger person is of the same strength as a smaller person, the smaller person looks far more muscle bound, because they need to fit enough muscle to provide the same force onto a smaller frame. This alone undoes, or at the very least helps to undo, the intimidating effects of height. The second the smaller person manages to provide examples that suggest that they are just as deadly as the bigger person, if not deadlier, then the impression created by the larger size disappears. In order to use intimidate in combat, you must have ALREADY proved that you are just as deadly, if not deadlier, than anyone else, whatever their size, because you would have knocked your foe into a bloody state. This means that it is illogical to provide a fixed size modifier to intimidate, outside of the DMs ability to add +2/-2 to a skill check based on specific situational modifiers. Outside of combat, any given character has an entire toolkit of threatening abilities which they can make use of to give the appearance of bite behind their bark. Once again, this means it is illogical to provide a fixed size modifier to intimidate, outside of the DMs ability to add a +2/-2 to a skill check based on specific situational modifiers. A DM would also be mistaken to always apply such modifiers. A player really has to role-play their size to great effect to earn that bonus, or really has to botch such a role-playing encounter by attempting to play on their size (when they are a small character) instead of other factors to earn that penalty.
We "people" aren't bad at anything. My argument is air tight. By now, it is starting to seem like I don't even have to write new posts. By this point in time it seems that I can just start referencing people to older posts in which I (or somene else) has already refuted opposing arguments.
Not sure if it has been mentioned or not.... but Joe Pesci from Goodfellas. All that needs to be said about a small guy being intimidating.
I’ve removed content from this thread because masking and baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I'm gonna remind people of what was said and sorta passed by in this thread by another member: D&D doesn't operate like our reality.
Whereas a child the same size of a halfling can't possibly have the strength potential of a full-grown adult in our reality, in D&D 4th Edition a halfling can get 18 strength while an orc can get 20. The difference is not much. And while numbers don't translate, the idea does; halflings can be pretty much as strong as orcs.
Strength is clearly not as influenced by size in D&D. And more to the point, the amount of danger a creature represents isn't related to size, often. You can find level 29 Solos that are medium-sized and level 10 standards that are Huge (probably). And we outside of the game aren't the only ones aware of that. Anyone who hears about these beasts and beings of myth know that size isn't attached so integrally to danger.
Yes, the classic dragon is bigger as it becomes badder. That's what some monsters do. But what about enemies like dragonborn? Lich? Vampires? They can get equally challenging but manage to not change size at all. And no one is going to take them less seriously for it.
So maybe an NPC completely in the dark about how their own world works might be stupid enough to feel that the halfling infront of them couldn't possibly be a threat. But that should be a rare NPC, because even orc tribes have to deal with the fantastic creatures that make up their world, and tell stories from the past. Size has no bearing, in D&D, on threat level. That's actually a fact in the stats (size does nothing inherently), and it easily translates to a perceived concept in nature in D&D.
Very good point Caeric.
but anyone who has had the opportunity to visit a game preserve or go on safari has, in fact, had the opportunity to face creatures that are much, much larger than a human. Closer to home, anyone who has worked with cattle or equines has had this experence as well.
The reason this is a bad argument is because while, yes, charging rhinos are scary, they aren't scary in the sense of, "Oh no, a rhino is charging me! I should tell him where I hid the map to my underground lair!"
There's a difference between being scared (which causes you to run away) and being intimidated (which causes you to cooperate with the thing intimidating you).
I'm willing to bet if a rhino charged you demanding your Cocoa Puffs you would quietly comply.
Please stop exaggerating.I'm not exaggerating in the least. It kills the character concept. I've noted why above. A skill penalty that large is the same thing as telling the player that he may as well choose a different skill in which to be trained.
no, it only discourages ridiculously unrealistc concepts.stop being so melodramatic.
No, is severly discourages, to the point of making it pointless to play, a concept that YOU consider unrealistic, but is commonly present in fiction, and thus is obviously appealing to the community at large, no matter what YOUR individual tastes may be. Its an AWFUL rule, removed from the game with good reason.
So, I'm not being melodramatic. You, however, should stop assuming that you have any say over what is or is not realistic, or desirable. Obviously, as this thread proves, not everyone agrees with your subjective impressions of reality.
Oh, and I suppose that you are THE authority of what is "realistic"?
There are also those here that have agreed with me. So what does that prove? That 2 positions can have supporters on each side? What's your point?Every sensable argument given to enforce your position (by you AND by others) all invoke circumstances that can (and should) be accounted for through other means (aka situational/circumstantial modifiers). In other words, y'all are giving apple-to-oranges comparisons. My position (as I have already stated) is looking at this in-and-of-itself, irrespective of other considerations (which do have their place, just not in the original point that I was making).
One more example:
if a 10-year-old tries to intimidate, I'm gonna laugh in his face. Why is that? Answer: because I'm so much bigger than him.
However, if that same 10-y.o. has just beat the bejesus out of someone else that I already know to be my combative superior, then yes, I'm probably gonna be more apt to be intimidated. What's the difference? Answer: the situation -- hence why I went through the trouble of listing a long list of how situations/conditions can change everything.comparing a 10th level anything (halfling or otherwise) with a 3rd level orc is NOT an apples-to-apples comparison; and to make that type of comparison as the definitive excuse on why "size doesn't matter" is not only ridiculous, it's also highly disingenuous (at best!).
Furthermore, I don't really appreciate disingenuous and irrelelavent arguments for the simple reason that it disrespects the conversation. How can someone that will so flagrantly disrespect a conversation in such a way ever reasonably expect to be taken seriously? Seriously, I challenge you to think on that for a while.
Well said.
You have no valid argument.
Just because you disagree with someone's opinions, doesn't make their argument invalid.
Not to mention, since smaller creatures are apparently so much less intimidating, people definitely don't buy guard dogs. Humans, being larger, are more than enough of a deterrent. Oh, wait...
Oh wait.. humans and guard dogs(riding dogs) are both medium sized creatures.
You have no valid argument.
Just because you disagree with someone's opinions, doesn't make their argument invalid.
No, the inability for the opposing side to post a single logical statement that has not already been invalidated by a more logical statement is what makes their argument invalid. The fact that the opposing side can not adequately interact with our position, thus disproving it, is what makes their statement invalid. The fact that we no longer need to defend our position, as we can simply recall previous posts verbatim, thus already disproving the latest posts that attempt to interact with our argument, indicates that the opposing side can not adequately interact with our position. Your side is unable to say anything that disproves our position. All you have on your side is a couple of "well saids" to posts that have already been discounted as ridiculous.
What you have written, and what you have agreed with, is not well said. Its not well said at all.
Not to mention, since smaller creatures are apparently so much less intimidating, people definitely don't buy guard dogs. Humans, being larger, are more than enough of a deterrent. Oh, wait...
Oh wait.. humans and guard dogs(riding dogs) are both medium sized creatures.
Are you honestly going to try and say that all species of guard dogs employed by humans today fall into the size category of medium? Because, a lot of guard dogs I have seen in real life were roughly 4 feet long by 2 feet tall, which falls into the "same size as a halfling" category. Trying to pan off all guard dogs as a medium sized creature is a fairly straw man argument.
You have no valid argument.
Just because you disagree with someone's opinions, doesn't make their argument invalid.No, the inability for the opposing side to post a single logical statement that has not already been invalidated by a more logical statement is what makes their argument invalid. The fact that the opposing side can not adequately interact with our position, thus disproving it, is what makes their statement invalid. The fact that we no longer need to defend our position, as we can simply recall previous posts verbatim, thus already disproving the latest posts that attempt to interact with our argument, indicates that the opposing side can not adequately interact with our position. Your side is unable to say anything that disproves our position. All you have on your side is a couple of "well saids" to posts that have already been discounted as ridiculous.
What you have written, and what you have agreed with, is not well said. Its not well said at all.
I invite you to reread "my side's" eariler posts(namely those that I 'well said quoted,' as good examples.). Just because you wish to label something as less logical, ridiculous or invalid, doesn't make it so(or fact). But the great thing about these forums is that you are entitled to your opinion.
Not to mention, since smaller creatures are apparently so much less intimidating, people definitely don't buy guard dogs. Humans, being larger, are more than enough of a deterrent. Oh, wait...
Oh wait.. humans and guard dogs(riding dogs) are both medium sized creatures.Are you honestly going to try and say that all species of guard dogs employed by humans today fall into the size category of medium? Because, a lot of guard dogs I have seen in real life were roughly 4 feet long by 2 feet tall, which falls into the "same size as a halfling" category. Trying to pan off all guard dogs as a medium sized creature is a fairly straw man argument.
And when an average human gets on their hands and knees they're roughly 4 feet long and 2 feet tall as well(give or take around 6 inches). Where as an average halfling that got on their hands and knees would be half that. So really, it's hardly "same size as a halfling."
As far as 3.5 goes, if someone wishes to take away one of the penalties for being a small creature(The -4 to intimidate), then a simular benefit should also be removed(+4 to hide), for the sake of "balance."
As far as 3.5 goes, if someone wishes to take away one of the penalties for being a small creature(The -4 to intimidate), then a simular benefit should also be removed(+4 to hide), for the sake of "balance."
In 4e, they both are. So a better argument would be, if you introduce the -4 to intimidate for Small characters, you should also give them a +4 to stealth.
(Unless you all start whining now that your Human Rogue suddenly doesn't work anymore because the Halflings are so much better)
Not to mention, since smaller creatures are apparently so much less intimidating, people definitely don't buy guard dogs. Humans, being larger, are more than enough of a deterrent. Oh, wait...
Oh wait.. humans and guard dogs(riding dogs) are both medium sized creatures.Are you honestly going to try and say that all species of guard dogs employed by humans today fall into the size category of medium? Because, a lot of guard dogs I have seen in real life were roughly 4 feet long by 2 feet tall, which falls into the "same size as a halfling" category. Trying to pan off all guard dogs as a medium sized creature is a fairly straw man argument.
And when an average human gets on their hands and knees they're roughly 4 feet long and 2 feet tall as well(give or take around 6 inches). Where as an average halfling that got on their hands and knees would be half that. So really, it's hardly "same size as a halfling."
A human can squish himself into that space. He doesn't fit in it naturally. A halfling, on the other hand, naturally fits into about a 4 foot by 2 foot space, no squishing. This is the same space that many guard dogs fit in naturally, no squishing. Naturally, no squishing, humans do not fit into that space. I'm 6'5 and just 2 inches short of 2 feet across at my shoulders (my widest point on my body). That is the difference between a human and a guard dog. Stop trying to claim that they are the same size. Its a straw man argument. Dogs are not anywhere near as large as humans, by far and large. There are obviously a couple breeds that are almost as large as humans, but many of those larger breeds don't even make good guard dogs, and are in fact less scary than a number of smaller breeds of dogs. For example, I am far more scared of a pit bull than I am of a great dane.
You have no valid argument.
Just because you disagree with someone's opinions, doesn't make their argument invalid.No, the inability for the opposing side to post a single logical statement that has not already been invalidated by a more logical statement is what makes their argument invalid. The fact that the opposing side can not adequately interact with our position, thus disproving it, is what makes their statement invalid. The fact that we no longer need to defend our position, as we can simply recall previous posts verbatim, thus already disproving the latest posts that attempt to interact with our argument, indicates that the opposing side can not adequately interact with our position. Your side is unable to say anything that disproves our position. All you have on your side is a couple of "well saids" to posts that have already been discounted as ridiculous.
What you have written, and what you have agreed with, is not well said. Its not well said at all.
I invite you to reread "my side's" eariler posts(namely those that I 'well said quoted,' as good examples.). Just because you wish to label something as less logical, ridiculous or invalid, doesn't make it so(or fact). But the great thing about these forums is that you are entitled to your opinion.
I have already read "your sides" earlier posts, namely those that you said were well quoted. They have already been refuted, and in the last case was utterly ridiculous. Trying to claim that your oppositions argument is based on situational circumstances, when your entire argument is based around a situational circumstance, is a hollow argument. Trying to say that a 10 year old boy is less scary than an adult due to his height is bologna. A 10 year old boy is less scary than an adult due to the fact that he is 10 years old. He has less muscle, is thus weaker, and is less experienced, than an adult. All of which is reflected by lower stats (read charisma as well as his primary attack stats) and level (read inherent bonus to skill checks). Since that post, which you fraudulently claimed was well said, was written the argument has progressed. Maybe if you had wrote "well said" when that was the latest word in this discussion saying "well said" would have made sense. But it is no longer the latest word. Since that post, this is where the argument currently rests:
If you take two characters, and make all things exactly equal, but have one character be bigger than the other, then their ability to intimidate IS still equal. Your belief that it is not is where you fail. The reason it is equal is because you now have a 3 foot tall person who has the same physical strength as a 6 foot tall person, and an equally powerful charisma with which to drive this equality, despite their physical disparity in terms of height, home. In the real world, larger people are scarier only because they seem stronger. If a larger person is of the same strength as a smaller person, the smaller person looks far more muscle bound, because they need to fit enough muscle to provide the same force onto a smaller frame. This alone undoes, or at the very least helps to undo, the intimidating effects of height. The second the smaller person manages to provide examples that suggest that they are just as deadly as the bigger person, if not deadlier, then the impression created by the larger size disappears. In order to use intimidate in combat, you must have ALREADY proved that you are just as deadly, if not deadlier, than anyone else, whatever their size, because you would have knocked your foe into a bloody state. This means that it is illogical to provide a fixed size modifier to intimidate, outside of the DMs ability to add +2/-2 to a skill check based on specific situational modifiers. Outside of combat, any given character has an entire toolkit of threatening abilities which they can make use of to give the appearance of bite behind their bark. Once again, this means it is illogical to provide a fixed size modifier to intimidate, outside of the DMs ability to add a +2/-2 to a skill check based on specific situational modifiers. A DM would also be mistaken to always apply such modifiers. A player really has to role-play their size to great effect to earn that bonus, or really has to botch such a role-playing encounter by attempting to play on their size (when they are a small character) instead of other factors to earn that penalty.
as well as:
I'm gonna remind people of what was said and sorta passed by in this thread by another member: D&D doesn't operate like our reality.
Whereas a child the same size of a halfling can't possibly have the strength potential of a full-grown adult in our reality, in D&D 4th Edition a halfling can get 18 strength while an orc can get 20. The difference is not much. And while numbers don't translate, the idea does; halflings can be pretty much as strong as orcs.
Strength is clearly not as influenced by size in D&D. And more to the point, the amount of danger a creature represents isn't related to size, often. You can find level 29 Solos that are medium-sized and level 10 standards that are Huge (probably). And we outside of the game aren't the only ones aware of that. Anyone who hears about these beasts and beings of myth know that size isn't attached so integrally to danger.
Yes, the classic dragon is bigger as it becomes badder. That's what some monsters do. But what about enemies like dragonborn? Lich? Vampires? They can get equally challenging but manage to not change size at all. And no one is going to take them less seriously for it.
So maybe an NPC completely in the dark about how their own world works might be stupid enough to feel that the halfling infront of them couldn't possibly be a threat. But that should be a rare NPC, because even orc tribes have to deal with the fantastic creatures that make up their world, and tell stories from the past. Size has no bearing, in D&D, on threat level. That's actually a fact in the stats (size does nothing inherently), and it easily translates to a perceived concept in nature in D&D.
If you can not adequately step up to the plate to refute those logical constructs, via a logical construct of your own, your argument has already failed, and you have no valid argument.
As far as 3.5 goes, if someone wishes to take away one of the penalties for being a small creature(The -4 to intimidate), then a simular benefit should also be removed(+4 to hide), for the sake of "balance."
But this discussion is not about 3.5. It never was. I'm not advocating messing with the balance of 3.5, even though I really don't like its mechanics. In 4e, the game we are discussing here, because this is the game that the OP is playing, halflings have neither a -4 to intimidate or a +4 to hide. And in 4e, they shouldn't have either.
As far as 3.5 goes, if someone wishes to take away one of the penalties for being a small creature(The -4 to intimidate), then a simular benefit should also be removed(+4 to hide), for the sake of "balance."
In 4e, they both are. So a better argument would be, if you introduce the -4 to intimidate for Small characters, you should also give them a +4 to stealth.
(Unless you all start whining now that your Human Rogue suddenly doesn't work anymore because the Halflings are so much better)
I'm not all that familar with 4E, my preferred edition is 3.5, But I fully agree.
(Races should always have advantages and disadvantages to them. Humans can make great rogues(speaking from a 3.5 point of view). )
I'm not all that familar with 4E, my preferred edition is 3.5, But I fully agree.
(Races should always have advantages and disadvantages to them. Humans can make great rogues(speaking from a 3.5 point of view). )
It's a good rule in the simulationist style of 3.5e, but it makes no sense at all in the gamist style that 4e uses.
Not to mention, since smaller creatures are apparently so much less intimidating, people definitely don't buy guard dogs. Humans, being larger, are more than enough of a deterrent. Oh, wait...
Oh wait.. humans and guard dogs(riding dogs) are both medium sized creatures.Are you honestly going to try and say that all species of guard dogs employed by humans today fall into the size category of medium? Because, a lot of guard dogs I have seen in real life were roughly 4 feet long by 2 feet tall, which falls into the "same size as a halfling" category. Trying to pan off all guard dogs as a medium sized creature is a fairly straw man argument.
And when an average human gets on their hands and knees they're roughly 4 feet long and 2 feet tall as well(give or take around 6 inches). Where as an average halfling that got on their hands and knees would be half that. So really, it's hardly "same size as a halfling."A human can squish himself into that space. He doesn't fit in it naturally. A halfling, on the other hand, naturally fits into about a 4 foot by 2 foot space, no squishing. This is the same space that many guard dogs fit in naturally, no squishing. Naturally, no squishing, humans do not fit into that space. I'm 6'5 and just 2 inches short of 2 feet across at my shoulders (my widest point on my body). That is the difference between a human and a guard dog. Stop trying to claim that they are the same size. Its a straw man argument. Dogs are not anywhere near as large as humans, by far and large. There are obviously a couple breeds that are almost as large as humans, but many of those larger breeds don't even make good guard dogs, and are in fact less scary than a number of smaller breeds of dogs. For example, I am far more scared of a pit bull than I am of a great dane.
No squishing involved really. This is where words like 'roughly' and 'average' come in to play. You are welcome to consider guard dog breeds whichever ones you like. In my opinion many creatures I consider 'guard dog sized' are stated as medium creatures. Lets open the 3.5 monster manual(not sure about 4E but I would think it would still be the same and/or simular at least). Wolf-Medium Animal, Hyena-Medium Animal, Blink Dog-Medium Magical Beast, Riding Dog-Medium Animal(I gave this example eariler). Lets also take a look inside Races of the Wild for yet another great example of a 'guard dog,' Elven Hound(Cooshee)-Medium Magical Beast. A good example/s of a small sized 'dog' would be a coyote and/or jackal.
Either way the -/+4 to intimidate isn't part of RAW in 4E it seems, so there's really no reason to be getting worked up over it, you are free to play your pint sized terror.
Though with that said, it is quite possible to make a pint sized terror in 3.5 even with the -4 to intimidate based on size, but 3.5 is also 'balanced' with size modifiers in mind. While small creatures get a -4 to intimidate they recieve a +4 bonus to Hide.
I find baby rattlesnakes very intimidating.
Much more so that larger venomous snakes, in fact.
As far as 3.5 goes, if someone wishes to take away one of the penalties for being a small creature(The -4 to intimidate), then a simular benefit should also be removed(+4 to hide), for the sake of "balance."
But this discussion is not about 3.5. It never was. I'm not advocating messing with the balance of 3.5, even though I really don't like its mechanics. In 4e, the game we are discussing here, because this is the game that the OP is playing, halflings have neither a -4 to intimidate or a +4 to hide. And in 4e, they shouldn't have either.
This is an editionless discussion about size modifiers in regards to the intimidate skill.
The OP asked a non-edition specfic question, never stated(if he did, I missed it) which edition he plays, the only clue he gives is his halfling being 'trained' in intimidate, which could easily mean having selected it as a trained skill in 4E or having trained the skill via ranks(no ranks in a skill is untrained) in 3.5 .
I'm offering my opinions from a 3.5 viewpoint, while you are doing the same from a 4E viewpoint. Neither of us is in error, we're each discussing things from our perspective.
Now lets try to get back on topic, and keep the thread on the rails.
I've largely ignored this thread for a while, but I would like to chime in just one more time.
After further consideration (i.e., I popped open the 4e PHB to examine exactly how the skills mechanic works; and discussed this with someone with some experience with 4e), I've discovered (and fully concede) that a +/- 4 would probably be a bit much. I figure that such a size modifier should probably be in the neighborhood of +/- 2 (and found concensus with my 4e-experienced friend).
Please, if all you're gonna argue is the difference between a +/-1 or a +/-2, then don't even bother -- as I've said before, I'm not interested in such trivial nuances; and persuing such an argument will only be for the sake of trying to argue with someone (and I just won't do it).
Way back on the third and forth pages of this thread, I posted an extensive list of possible situational/conditional modifiers. There is not a single example that does not stand the test of logic -- if you want to dispute anything on that post, then do so ala line-item.
Furthermore, every single example that has been given as to why "size doesn't matter" is covered (or at least touched on) by that list. If you disagree, then explain how -- remember, my position is that all these examples are situational/conditional. I've already set down the logic, now you need to refute it in order for me to accept your counter-position -- explain how your examples are not situational/conditional (and yes, the magnatude of those listed modifiers do need to be scaled down to better fit the 4e mechanics; as they were originally adjusted for 3.5 mechanics -- this does not, however, change the basic concept).
I have made a claim, and supported it with sound logic. In your counter arguments, all that you have done is site difference of opinion and anecdotal example -- all of which have been acounted for in my original thesis.
It is not up to me to disprove you; it is up to you to prove your claim, since I have already de-constructed your arguements.
EDIT: the lists that I was referring to are actually on the 3rd and 4th pages; specifically posts #65 and #50.
This is an editionless discussion about size modifiers in regards to the intimidate skill.
But the thing is that the edition you play colors the outcome:
3e is a simulationist game, in which things simulate truth, which is why small characters hide easier, but are less scary.
4e has a much bigger focus on balance and a much smaller focus on simulation, and therefore there are no skill penalties, just because you'd think they'd make sense in reality. They just simplify this stuff and state that characters do not receive arbitrary penalties or bonusses to skills.
I've largely ignored this thread for a while, but I would like to chime in just one more time.
After further consideration (i.e., I popped open the 4e PHB to examine exactly how the skills mechanic works; and discussed this with someone with some experience with 4e), I've discovered (and fully concede) that a +/- 4 would probably be a bit much. I figure that such a size modifier should probably be in the neighborhood of +/- 2 (and found concensus with my 4e-experienced friend).
Please, if all you're gonna argue is the difference between a +/-1 or a +/-2, then don't even bother -- as I've said before, I'm not interested in such trivial nuances; and persuing such an argument will only be for the sake of trying to argue with someone (and I just won't do it).Way back on the third and forth pages of this thread, I posted an extensive list of possible situational/conditional modifiers. There is not a single example that does not stand the test of logic -- if you want to dispute anything on that post, then do so ala line-item.
Furthermore, every single example that has been given as to why "size doesn't matter" is covered (or at least touched on) by that list. If you disagree, then explain how -- remember, my position is that all these examples are situational/conditional. I've already set down the logic, now you need to refute it in order for me to accept your counter-position -- explain how your examples are not situational/conditional (and yes, the magnatude of those listed modifiers do need to be scaled down to better fit the 4e mechanics; as they were originally adjusted for 3.5 mechanics -- this does not, however, change the basic concept).I have made a claim, and supported it with sound logic. In your counter arguments, all that you have done is site difference of opinion and anecdotal example -- all of which have been acounted for in my original thesis.
It is not up to me to disprove you; it is up to you to prove your claim, since I have already de-constructed your arguements.EDIT: the lists that I was referring to are actually on the 3rd and 4th pages; specifically posts #65 and #50.
Wrong. You have not deconstructed my argument or position. To do so, you would have had to interact with the following logical constructions:
If you take two characters, and make all things exactly equal, but have one character be bigger than the other, then their ability to intimidate IS still equal. Your belief that it is not is where you fail. The reason it is equal is because you now have a 3 foot tall person who has the same physical strength as a 6 foot tall person, and an equally powerful charisma with which to drive this equality, despite their physical disparity in terms of height, home. In the real world, larger people are scarier only because they seem stronger. If a larger person is of the same strength as a smaller person, the smaller person looks far more muscle bound, because they need to fit enough muscle to provide the same force onto a smaller frame. This alone undoes, or at the very least helps to undo, the intimidating effects of height. The second the smaller person manages to provide examples that suggest that they are just as deadly as the bigger person, if not deadlier, then the impression created by the larger size disappears. In order to use intimidate in combat, you must have ALREADY proved that you are just as deadly, if not deadlier, than anyone else, whatever their size, because you would have knocked your foe into a bloody state. This means that it is illogical to provide a fixed size modifier to intimidate, outside of the DMs ability to add +2/-2 to a skill check based on specific situational modifiers. Outside of combat, any given character has an entire toolkit of threatening abilities which they can make use of to give the appearance of bite behind their bark. Once again, this means it is illogical to provide a fixed size modifier to intimidate, outside of the DMs ability to add a +2/-2 to a skill check based on specific situational modifiers. A DM would also be mistaken to always apply such modifiers. A player really has to role-play their size to great effect to earn that bonus, or really has to botch such a role-playing encounter by attempting to play on their size (when they are a small character) instead of other factors to earn that penalty.
and
I'm gonna remind people of what was said and sorta passed by in this thread by another member: D&D doesn't operate like our reality.Whereas a child the same size of a halfling can't possibly have the strength potential of a full-grown adult in our reality, in D&D 4th Edition a halfling can get 18 strength while an orc can get 20. The difference is not much. And while numbers don't translate, the idea does; halflings can be pretty much as strong as orcs.
Strength is clearly not as influenced by size in D&D. And more to the point, the amount of danger a creature represents isn't related to size, often. You can find level 29 Solos that are medium-sized and level 10 standards that are Huge (probably). And we outside of the game aren't the only ones aware of that. Anyone who hears about these beasts and beings of myth know that size isn't attached so integrally to danger.
Yes, the classic dragon is bigger as it becomes badder. That's what some monsters do. But what about enemies like dragonborn? Lich? Vampires? They can get equally challenging but manage to not change size at all. And no one is going to take them less seriously for it.
So maybe an NPC completely in the dark about how their own world works might be stupid enough to feel that the halfling infront of them couldn't possibly be a threat. But that should be a rare NPC, because even orc tribes have to deal with the fantastic creatures that make up their world, and tell stories from the past. Size has no bearing, in D&D, on threat level. That's actually a fact in the stats (size does nothing inherently), and it easily translates to a perceived concept in nature in D&D.
You have not done so, which means you have not deconstructed anything. My position remains unassailed.
Moreover, your lists in page 50 and 65 are irrelevant. They further show that you do not understand the premise of 4e. Certainly, they are a list of situational modifiers. Certainly, those situations do effect things. But, what you fail to understand is, your entire argument is also based off another situation. Generally, a DM should assume that most of the situational modifiers of any given encounter result in a net modifier of +0 to a players skill check roll. According to the 4e DMG, the DM always has the ability to use fiat to grant up to a +2 bonus or impose up to a -2 penalty. If a DM really thinks that size should matter more than anything else in one particular situational encounter, he can grant a +2/-2. But when he does so, what that means is that he believes that after taking into consideration ALL of the situational modifiers taking place, he thinks that in this particular encounter size is the most important one. A DM who always makes that call would be abusing the rules of the game. Any time a DM grants a larger/smaller total situational modifier to a skill check, that is an invocation of rule zero (the DM can break any rule of the game), and should be done with great consideration. Higher or lower penalties often amount to saying "you can gain an automatic success, or you will take an automatic failure," and DMs should say that only when doing so enhances the fun of the game for all parties involved. Regularly imposing a -2 penalty to intimidate checks on a pint sized terror, even when that pint sized terror never refers to his size during his role-played attempts to impose fear, does not enhance the fun of the game for all parties involved. Neither does increasing the size of a penalty that pint sized terror will take to a number larger than -2 (unless that player is a masochist, in which case that changes everything).
Generally speaking, due to the logical constructs above, and the fact that 4e works under the assumption that most of these situational modifiers work as a set of checks and balances that usually end with a net result of zero mechanical situational modification, and a +2/-2 modification at most, no flat modifier to intimidation checks based on size is desirable. The way 4e works, a halfling should not receive any penalty to their intimidate check based on size, and a Goliath should receive no benefit based on size. However, if for some reason the halfling tries to use its size during its attempt to role-play its intimidate check, instead of referring to its more imposing capabilities, a DM is free to impose a -2 penalty. Likewise, if a goliath uses his size to great effect during an attempt to role-play its intimidate check, a DM is free to grant a +2 bonus.
In brief summation: +2/-2 isn't the situational bonus/penalty one should be granting based off size, its the total bonus/penalty a DM should be granting/imposing on any given skill check after eyeballing ALL of the situational modifiers he sees in play. A DM is, of course, free to factor size into that eyeballing. However, a DM who does factor size into that eyeballing, and regularly uses size to impose penalties on small characters (even though those small characters never refer to their size when using their intimidate skill), would be abusing their power as a DM.
So, I guess after a little consideration, a diplomatic phrasing of my conclusion would be this: jgumbyrx, I am not disagreeing with all of your basic premise. I think the statement that "all things being equal, except for height, then the taller person is more intimidating," is false. Because, honestly, a short person who is the same strength as a tall person looks a good deal more muscle bound, and that is in itself imposing. However, you are right, there are many situational modifiers to skill checks. Your list does refer to many situational modifiers. Size, however, is just another situational modifier. What you don't understand is the manner in which the 4e rules are intended to work. 4e assumes that when factoring all those situations into the equation, the net modifier should result in +0, with some factors always canceling out others. If a DM really feels that after factoring all situational considerations into the equation that the net modifier, for one particular check, should not result in a a net modifier of +0, he should be adding a +2/-2 total situational modifier to that specific roll. This modifier factors size, and everything else, into account. That modifier should not be a modifier he is applying to every single roll that a given character makes.
If you agree with the above bolded statement, or don't want to argue against anything that you disagree with in the above statement, or believe that the differences between the above statement and your position are semantic (and thus don't want to argue with them), then we are on the same page. If not, then you know my position. Feel free to post an argument against it...
This is an editionless discussion about size modifiers in regards to the intimidate skill.
But the thing is that the edition you play colors the outcome:
3e is a simulationist game, in which things simulate truth, which is why small characters hide easier, but are less scary.
4e has a much bigger focus on balance and a much smaller focus on simulation, and therefore there are no skill penalties, just because you'd think they'd make sense in reality. They just simplify this stuff and state that characters do not receive arbitrary penalties or bonusses to skills.
Yes and I've made it clear that I my opinions are from a 3.5 viewpoint while others have made it clear that their opinions are from a 4E viewpoint(as I pointed out previously in the post you quoted).
Again, lets try to stay on topic and keep this thread on the rails.
So, I guess after a little consideration, a diplomatic phrasing of my conclusion would be this: jgumbyrx, I am not disagreeing with all of your basic premise. I think the statement that "all things being equal, except for height, then the taller person is more intimidating," is false. Because, honestly, a short person who is the same strength as a tall person looks a good deal more muscle bound, and that is in itself imposing. However, you are right, there are many situational modifiers to skill checks. Your list does refer to many situational modifiers. Size, however, is just another situational modifier. What you don't understand is the manner in which the 4e rules are intended to work. 4e assumes that when factoring all those situations into the equation, the net modifier should result in +0, with some factors always canceling out others. If a DM really feels that after factoring all situational considerations into the equation that the net modifier, for one particular check, should not result in a a net modifier of +0, he should be adding a +2/-2 total situational modifier to that specific roll. This modifier factors size, and everything else, into account. That modifier should not be a modifier he is applying to every single roll that a given character makes.
I guess it does boil down to scemantics, and how we think they should be ordered.
As I see it, you have just described what I feel to be inherent flaws in the 4e system. I'm not trying to make an edition war, nor am I trying to "hate" on 4e -- I'm simply making an observation (i.e. inherent flaws in the system).
by nature, a larger creature is going to be stronger; provided that the only real difference in anatomy is in the scale; and not in shape of design. (i.e.; the only real difference between a halfling and a half-orc is scale; a dog, OTOH, has a completely different design, and thus complicates any analogy).
but as it has been said by your side before: 4e doesn't care about reality.
by nature, a larger creature is going to be stronger; provided that the only real difference in anatomy is in the scale; and not in shape of design. (i.e.; the only real difference between a halfling and a half-orc is scale; a dog, OTOH, has a completely different design, and thus complicates any analogy).
but as it has been said by your side before: 4e doesn't care about reality.
Erm... looks like someone didn't read the post where it was so cleverly stated (on the level of genius, one might say) that D&D often throws logic out the window, to the point that logic is simply different in the D&Dverse. Who said that? ME. Why is Cyber Dave the only one that has acknowledged that argument?
In D&D, most creatures should be aware that they live in a world where the tiniest floating skull could turn out to be a demilich. Or a floating skull. And while I understand that size in D&D does lean towards dangerousness, we all know of exceptions. Many, many exceptions. In any edition, there are exceptions. Need I list them? Liches, Vampires, NPCs with class levels, and so on. And y'know, they can beat the bigger baddies. How would even the lowliest peasant kobold not know that size clearly isn't a qualifier for danger level?
Let's take the argument to 3.5, as is being suggested as the problem here. Sure, the rules specify a +4 Str/Con bonus from Medium to Large, and +8 from each size upwards. But that's neither here nor there in a universe where strength is not even remotely close to the best way to be threatening. In our world, an elephant is a real threat. In D&D worlds, there are way bigger fish than elephants. How many of those bigger fish are scary because of their strength? Strength is the least of your worries when combatting a Great Wyrm Red Dragon.
This is an issue of what doesn't conform to our reality, but you guys are missing it. D&D doesn't conform to our reality. Yet there are believable components; such as the notion that people living in this world know the truest dangers and spread the word. Magic is a lot scarier than physical strength, by far. At least, in 3.5. And you never know who's packing magic, or who is infused naturally with it in some way. So why should size be of concern to anyone?
So, I guess after a little consideration, a diplomatic phrasing of my conclusion would be this: jgumbyrx, I am not disagreeing with all of your basic premise. I think the statement that "all things being equal, except for height, then the taller person is more intimidating," is false. Because, honestly, a short person who is the same strength as a tall person looks a good deal more muscle bound, and that is in itself imposing. However, you are right, there are many situational modifiers to skill checks. Your list does refer to many situational modifiers. Size, however, is just another situational modifier. What you don't understand is the manner in which the 4e rules are intended to work. 4e assumes that when factoring all those situations into the equation, the net modifier should result in +0, with some factors always canceling out others. If a DM really feels that after factoring all situational considerations into the equation that the net modifier, for one particular check, should not result in a a net modifier of +0, he should be adding a +2/-2 total situational modifier to that specific roll. This modifier factors size, and everything else, into account. That modifier should not be a modifier he is applying to every single roll that a given character makes.I guess it does boil down to scemantics, and how we think they should be ordered.
As I see it, you have just described what I feel to be inherent flaws in the 4e system. I'm not trying to make an edition war, nor am I trying to "hate" on 4e -- I'm simply making an observation (i.e. inherent flaws in the system).by nature, a larger creature is going to be stronger; provided that the only real difference in anatomy is in the scale; and not in shape of design. (i.e.; the only real difference between a halfling and a half-orc is scale; a dog, OTOH, has a completely different design, and thus complicates any analogy).
but as it has been said by your side before: 4e doesn't care about reality.
Well, I can't say that I agree with you. I don't think it is an inherent flaw. I think it is a genius way in which to model a game. It both gives a slight nod to the realism present in narrative, and keeps in mind what is important: a balanced, fun game, that models narrative reality and not actual reality.
Oh, and your second example is false. A larger creature is not going to be stronger. That is false by your own terms. You stated, "all things equal, except for size." Well, all things equal except for size, and the two creatures have the same stats. The same stats indicates that the smaller creature is actually more muscle bound. Despite the two creatures differences in size, one is not stronger than the other. Thus, we are not actually comparing two creatures where the only difference is scale. What we are comparing is two creatures where the only difference is height, and anatomical design. Under that situation, a smaller creature can be as physically imposing as a larger one. The larger one is taller, but the smaller one is more muscle bound. In the end, both seem equally threatening.
If you attempt to twist the argument towards a situation where we have two creatures of equal scale, but different sizes, then one actually IS stronger than the other. If one IS stronger than the other, then its more imposing stature is modeled via a higher level and thus better stats. In this case, it will appear more imposing, because it will a) have a better bonus to Intimidate checks from level and b) be more physically capable, and thus better able to push an opponent into a bloodied state (at which point in time it may attempt to make an Intimidate check in combat, the particular situation you are talking about). Thus, its bigger size is already factored into the game. It both gets a bonus to intimidate from level, and can make intimidate checks in combat sooner due to its ability to push opponents into the bloodied state sooner.
But of course, then you are going to try to say something like "different physical sizes, different strength scores, but equal level." In which case, if they are equal level, whatever makes the smaller character equally tough in combat, despite its weaker physical stature, will be the card it plays when attempting to intimidate foes. And, since foes will have seen this smaller, physically weaker, but equally tough opponent use its capabilities, in order to bloody a foe, so that it can make that Intimidate check in combat in the first place (because that is what your situational argument revolves around), there is no reason for its size to matter anymore. By this point in time, the smaller creature has proved that others should fear it. Because, honestly, when a midget starts shooting fireballs from his hands, or whirling weapons and striking people with amazing grace and accuracy, I'm going to back down... even if I am 6'5.
That's the problem with your argument. You actually think one version (3.5s method) is more or less realistic than another (4e). The truth is, its not. Both are equally bogus. One just attempts to simulate some aspects of its logical reality, while completely ignoring others, and the other chooses to ignore them all equally for the sake of game balance and playability (due to rules that are easy to use, and don't require a digital operating system in order to keep the mechanical operations and calculations happening at an acceptable speed for a game). 4e tells the DM, "be a DM, eyeball a situation, and make a best call as to a total modifier that falls somewhere between +2/-2." 3e gives you rules for static modifiers that take only a small portion of reality into account, thus still creating a bonus scenario anyway, and then tells a DM, "here, take a 1001 situational modifiers, make up some more of your own, and then calculate them before anyone makes a check. Or you can only use the RAW, and then totally skew the check in favor of one set of realistic simulations instead of another, and thus still create an unrealistic result."
Thanks, but I will take 4es method of dealing with these rules any day. I'm sure some prefer the other way. And that's fine. But I certainly don't share your perspective.
by nature, a larger creature is going to be stronger; provided that the only real difference in anatomy is in the scale; and not in shape of design. (i.e.; the only real difference between a halfling and a half-orc is scale; a dog, OTOH, has a completely different design, and thus complicates any analogy).
but as it has been said by your side before: 4e doesn't care about reality.
Erm... looks like someone didn't read the post where it was so cleverly stated (on the level of genius, one might say) that D&D often throws logic out the window, to the point that logic is simply different in the D&Dverse. Who said that? ME. Why is Cyber Dave the only one that has acknowledged that argument?
yeah, I understand that. some of us appreciate a more simulationist gaming -- it provides for a little more verisimilitude. Can you do that with everything? No; it just becomes too complicated. Can you do it with some aspects fairly easily? Yes; and when I do, my groups have expressed a greater level of enjoyment.
In D&D, most creatures should be aware that they live in a world where the tiniest floating skull could turn out to be a demilich. Or a floating skull. And while I understand that size in D&D does lean towards dangerousness, we all know of exceptions. Many, many exceptions. In any edition, there are exceptions. Need I list them? Liches, Vampires, NPCs with class levels, and so on. And y'know, they can beat the bigger baddies. How would even the lowliest peasant kobold not know that size clearly isn't a qualifier for danger level?
again, these are exceptions. Even in D&D, the large majority of species follow basic natural precepts. Crazy monsters are the exception (or at least, should be).
Let's take the argument to 3.5, as is being suggested as the problem here. Sure, the rules specify a +4 Str/Con bonus from Medium to Large, and +8 from each size upwards. But that's neither here nor there in a universe where strength is not even remotely close to the best way to be threatening. In our world, an elephant is a real threat. In D&D worlds, there are way bigger fish than elephants. How many of those bigger fish are scary because of their strength? Strength is the least of your worries when combatting a Great Wyrm Red Dragon.
I never said that size/strength is the single best way to determine intimidate; otherwise, I'd have ascribed a modifier greater than any other in the game (if you notice, I scaled down the modifier to fit 4e mechanics). I meerly mentioned it as yet another circumstancial modifier among many.
As a side note: I really cannot believe that you guys have taken so personally and created such a s***-storm over someone suggestion a single possible conditional modifier be added to a very long list of other possible conditional modifiers. I mean, the OP seemed to see my logic; and that's who I was originally addressing.
This is an issue of what doesn't conform to our reality, but you guys are missing it. D&D doesn't conform to our reality. Yet there are believable components; such as the notion that people living in this world know the truest dangers and spread the word. Magic is a lot scarier than physical strength, by far. At least, in 3.5. And you never know who's packing magic, or who is infused naturally with it in some way. So why should size be of concern to anyone?
But iit should strive to be consistent and "real" within its own "reality". Does that resemble our reality? In many ways, no. But in many ways it does -- unless otherwise noted, the D&D world still subscribes to things such as basic physics (albeit in an abstract way, at times), and natural instincts. And natural instincs see "bigger" as stronger and scarier (which is why 3.5 added your WIS mod to resist being intimidated -- don't remember how 4e does it).
Ugh. I'm getting tired of this conversation. The outcome depends on your system, not reality. In 3e, the rules stand. In 4e the rules don't exist for very good reason.
If you find either of these systems to be wrong, play the other one.
4e gamers by and large do not want simulationist gaming; it's why they enjoy 4e as much as they do. You shouldn't blend the two systems, they don't mix and match all that well.
Ugh. I'm getting tired of this conversation. The outcome depends on your system, not reality. In 3e, the rules stand. In 4e the rules don't exist for very good reason.
If you find either of these systems to be wrong, play the other one.
4e gamers by and large do not want simulationist gaming; it's why they enjoy 4e as much as they do. You shouldn't blend the two systems, they don't mix and match all that well.
I understand this. And tend to agree with you on this. However, just as a caveat: just because an idea comes from a different edition doesn't make it invalid -- it's all in how you incorperate it (I'm actually open to the idea of using a 4e concept as a houserule in my 3.5 games; just as I use the occasional element from 2nd.ed.).
However, the OP seemed like (at least as I interpreted it) he was looking for a simulationist solution (or, at least, explaination) to as issue he had with certain concepts. I simply offered one possible option (which he accepted as reasonable); at which point an avalanche of b.s. collapsed on me. After that, I simply defended my position; and the storm still keeps going.
Concepts, yes, mechanics, no 
Anyway the OP originally asked 'how does my character intimidate?', not 'should I be nerfed?'
He might agree with nerfing his own character, but that's still not how it should be according to 4e philosophy 
Remember, in the good-cop bad-cop routine, the big bad cop is making assist checks. The good cop is making the intimidate checks.
Remember, in the good-cop bad-cop routine, the big bad cop is making assist checks. The good cop is making the intimidate checks.
I picture it more like the bad-cop making intimidate checks, and the good-cop making diplomacy checks (does that exist in 4e?); and the dicotomy/contrast working synergistically to aid each other.
just a thought.
Actually, Lotusblossom has it right. The bad cop is just acting scary, he's not actually intimidating anyone.
The good cop who threatens to let loose the bad cop on the victim, he's intimidating the victim into doing what he wants through threat of violence, without giving the victim anything in return.
Making a diplomacy check would be something like offering reduced sentence if he spills the beans.
Actually, Lotusblossom has it right. The bad cop is just acting scary, he's not actually intimidating anyone.
The good cop who threatens to let loose the bad cop on the victim, he's intimidating the victim into doing what he wants through threat of violence, without giving the victim anything in return.
Making a diplomacy check would be something like offering reduced sentence if he spills the beans.
good point. I hadn't thought of that scenario; but a very good one.
the way it was playing-out in my head was a little more like this:
good-cop is being all roses and sunshine to the suspect, trying to gain his trust, and telling the suspect that he (the good-cop) is the suspect's only chance at a fair deal (diplomacy); and then lets him know just what a loose-canon his partner is (assisting the bad-cop's intimidate).
Then, he leaves and is replaced by the bad-cop. bad-cop goes all nuts on the suspect, making all kinds of threats, etc. (intimidate). after he's done, the hope is that the suspect has developed some sort of "stockholm syndrome" with the good-cop (assisting the good-cop's diplomacy).
they tag-team back-and-forth until one of them is able to break the suspect.
of course, now that I think about it, I probably just over-complicated the matter (though I still see it a viable approach).
Hello,
I've removed content from this thread because baiting and harassment are Code of Conduct violations, and to preserve continuity on the thread. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If the conversation continues to be derailed, we will be forced to close for further review.
Thank you.
Ceilidhs