|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 5:39AM
#181
|
Date Joined:
Oct 14, 2003
|
Not all strong people are intimidating. In fact, most arent.
You've never been bullied. Lucky you.
I was actually going to say something to this effect at some point. Unless all bullies are charasmatic I'd say that other stats can be used to intimidate.
This is a different situation, though. Bullies can intimidate because because their targets cannot respond effectively to their threats of violence. If any PC that looks like he can handle himself in combat tried to intimidate a bookish scholar with no means to defend himself or to call for help, most of the time this will succeed, and often without a check.
Most situations intimidate would come into play in game will be versus targets who are not completely powerless. Most combats will be against enemies who have been in fights before, or who have at least had some combat training. Many non combat situations will involve NPCs who have power to resist the threat (combat ability, protectors at their immediate call, a 'mutually assured destruction' option, etc).
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 5:45AM
#182
|
|
|
The more i think about it, the more I like the idea of seperating skill modifiers from stat modifiers. It just adds more verisimilitude to the game. So certain classes don't become automaticallt associated with certain skillsets. Like clerics and perception are in 4th edition, or rogues and sneaking in well any edition. You want to have an athletic wizard? Go for it. You want a Warrior Scholar in the classical greek tradition, that would be possible too.
Then what would be the point of ability scores at all? Surely someone who is strong will be better at athletic feats requiring strength, and one who is well-coordinated will be better at doing things that require a steady hand or specific moves. A highly intelligent character will certainly be better able to grasp the principles of magic and reason about it so he can do new things with it, etc.
In other words it seems to me to be hard to understand how you could have a system that felt at all realistic where your ability scores didn't have a significant impact on your skills. Now, maybe there could be a different way of reflecting training that would allow for more variation outside of ability mod.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:24AM
#183
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
The more i think about it, the more I like the idea of seperating skill modifiers from stat modifiers. It just adds more verisimilitude to the game. So certain classes don't become automaticallt associated with certain skillsets. Like clerics and perception are in 4th edition, or rogues and sneaking in well any edition. You want to have an athletic wizard? Go for it. You want a Warrior Scholar in the classical greek tradition, that would be possible too.
Then what would be the point of ability scores at all?
Some activities naturally correlate with an Ability. But while climbing is often strength, you should also allow a rogue to climb using a Dexterity-based parkour method.
The Abilities aren't rendered irrelevant; the skills aren't shackled to a specific Ability.
In other words it seems to me to be hard to understand how you could have a system that felt at all realistic where your ability scores didn't have a significant impact on your skills.
He didn't say your ability scores wouldn't have a significant impact on your skills! He just said skills wouldn't have a specific ability tied to it. That's how it worked in 1st edition. It was only with 2d edition's non-weapon proficiency that specific skills got tied to specific abilities, which meant you couldn't intimidate with Strength, and you couldn't climb with Dexterity, and you couldn't perceive with Intelligence.
Yes, lifting is almost always going to be a Strength-based check. And, yes, remembering that trolls are vulnerable to fire will almost always be an Intelligence-based check. But some skills are more variable. I would like it if skills aren't naturally tied to a given Ability to allow people to justify using other Abilities to modify them.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:27AM
#184
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Parkour is still mostly strength. Graceful strength, but strength nonetheless.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:28AM
#185
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Parkour is still mostly strength. Graceful strength, but strength nonetheless.
Maybe parkour was the wrong word. I still think there's a place to allow someone to use Dexterity to climb up a wall. After all, back when thieves got special skills, climb walls was modified by the thief's Dexterity, not his Strength.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:38AM
#186
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Climbing is a good example of dual-ability ownership. If you are in heavy armor/encumbered, strength is the only real option. If you are in lighter armor, dex makes sense to use instead. It would be a vast improvement to even give each skill two abilities to pick from, but I agree it should be left open to DM discretion (but providing a fair number of examples as well).
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:49AM
#187
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
do note that nowere in the article do they say that the skills on this list come with assigned ability scores.
just that there is a list of skills you can chose from instead of coming up with your own when creating a custome background.
to act as guidline so people woulden't chose skills that would be to broad or to narrow.
to prevent one player having the skill high jumping with a runing start.
and the other having atletics that gives a bonus on the same and many other things.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:54AM
#188
|
|
|
Not all strong people are intimidating. In fact, most arent.
You've never been bullied. Lucky you.
I was actually going to say something to this effect at some point. Unless all bullies are charasmatic I'd say that other stats can be used to intimidate.
Applying any six point attribute system to anything in real life is a futile attempt at best though, powerlifting (normally in game we would use str) for instance could be parts dex, (balance), str, (to lift it), con (cause endurance for multiple lifts). Which is why I generally agree with, the idea of allowing lots of substitions to checks, skill or ability.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 7:33AM
#189
|
|
|
Parkour is still mostly strength. Graceful strength, but strength nonetheless.
Yes, but it should be possible to build a Dex-based character that can still do that sort of thing easily, because such characters are prominent in fiction.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 7:43AM
#190
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2011
|
I think that a system where you could use either the skill bonus OR the ability bonus would fix a lot of things. A fighter with an 8 Cha could use his +3 Intimidate instead, and only be a little bit behind Elan, with her 18 Cha.
Oh, wait. Elan's still better at Intimidation.
So I think GrandMasterOfFlowers had a good point. You shouldn't even need to try to scare some timid farmer into giving you his money, you're a big tough adventurer, he's not going to say no to you! But if you're trying to convince a Chaotic Evil orc that he really should tell you where the lair is, you'll need to make an Intimidate check.
I also liked the suggestion (think this was Maxperson) that negatice Cha could be used positively for Intimidate.
|
|
|
