[CONAN] Tweak to Optional Intimidation Rule

[Supplement Four]

Looking through a number of threads on this board about buffing barbarian characters seems to neglect the fact, a little, that barbarians at mid to high levels are leaping, jumping, berserk, savage killing machines. They hardly ever get caught flat footed, (if at all), do not provoke AoO, can dodge more or less at will, (even traps), and are hard enough to kill even when they have no hit points left! A little lack of natural intimidation at low levels isn't going to put players off from choosing to play barbarians. And they only have to watch out for the odd powerful Sygian sorcerer later on, which is as it should be...

My response to that would be: It is a game inspired by a Barbarian. And, we're not talking about Wulfgar, the D&D barbarian from the Icewind Dale area of the Forgotten Realms--just one of many "star" party members. We're talking about Conan.

If Conan is "it", I wouldn't expect his main class to be weak, trival, forgetable, or even ordinary.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Conan isn't just a barbarian, he's also a thief, pirate, reaver, slayer, king, etc., etc.. He's intimidating not because he's a barbarian, but because he's Conan.

I think it's safe to assume that there are also, supposedly, thousands of barbarian types living out quite ordinary and unexceptional lives in Cimmeria during Conan's lifetime. Being a barbarian shouldn't make you exceptional in game terms. Being a great player should make your characters exceptional, whatever you choose to play.

 

[Supplement Four]

Being a barbarian shouldn't make you exceptional in game terms.

I disagree. If you happen to be writing a new rpg set in James Bond's universe, then the Double Oh character class of the MI6 agency should be a powerful class to play that is attractive to players.

If you happens to be writing a new rpg set in Conan's universe, then the Barbarian character class of the Cimmerian race should be a powerful class to play that i attractive to players.

 

[Ichabod]

Funny, on the AEG forums, a few people are whining incessantly about how unfair it is that L5R makes ronin schools weaker than clan schools, which is entirely consistent with the setting.

I keep being tempted to post in the thread about how different my views are with Conan than with L5R. In Conan, it annoys me immensely that barbarian is the only fighter class worth playing - might as well just say that borderer, nomad, and soldier are NPC classes. In L5R, I couldn't care less about how ineffectual ronin might be for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with this forum and don't even have to do with how the setting supports a tier system in L5R.

Anyway, worrying about the Intimidation bonus is so corner case to me that I couldn't really care one way or the other which stats one uses. Use all of them simultaneously, if you want. That way Conan, whose stats are far higher than anyone else's in nearly every case, which is why he is superior mechanically to pritnear everyone else, will Intimidate like crazy.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Being a barbarian shouldn't make you exceptional in game terms.

I disagree. If you happen to be writing a new rpg set in James Bond's universe, then the Double Oh character class of the MI6 agency should be a powerful class to play that is attractive to players.

If you happens to be writing a new rpg set in Conan's universe, then the Barbarian character class of the Cimmerian race should be a powerful class to play that i attractive to players.

This debate, in a nutshell, illustrates the issues of class based rpgs. *shrug*

 

[Supplement Four]

This debate, in a nutshell, illustrates the issues of class based rpgs. *shrug*

I can even argue that. :wink: Is the Conan RPG a class based game? On the surface, it certainly looks like it is. The game has character classes.

But, a Barbarian that steals in this game is a thief. He doesn't necessarily have to multiclass into the class. He could use many of his Barbarian skills and be a certain kind of thief.

A Nomad that joins the army of Turan is a soldier. But, like the above, the Nomad doesn't necessarily have to take levels in soldier to be a soldier.

A Pirate who lands on one of the Barrachan Islands and becomes worshipped by the Picts there is a priest or a shaman--never having to change classes into Barbarian or Scholar or anything else.

In addition...

As is pointed out in Vincent's Firecest/Finest/Fallen books, a character who multi-classes can become more than the combination of the two. A Borderer/Scholar combination can be considered a Guide. There is no need for a "Guide" class.

A Marine might be considered either a Pirate alone, or a Soldier/Pirate mix.

A Scout might be a Soldier/Borderer, Just a Borderer, a Barbarian/Borderer, just a Barbarian, and maybe some other combinations.

A Barbarian/Scholar mix could be considered a Shaman. So the straight pirate class that is worshipped as a god can be considered a Priest or a Shaman without powers. Or, a Barbarian/Scholar can be considered a Shaman.

A Soldier with a CHA might attain rank and be an officer. OR, a Soldier/Noble mix would make for a good officer, too.

And, you can work the system backwards, too. If you want to create some Gurilla fighters, maybe consider Soldier/Thief combos. Or, if you have a Marco Polo type Explorer, maybe a Noble/Pirate/Borderer mix?

My point is that, in class based games, the classes are usually strong. Take 1st Edition AD&D where the classes were very strong. Only the Thief could pick locks and had any kind of climbing ability. Only the Ranger has woodsman abilities. Only the Cleric could be considered a priest.

But, the lines of class are real blurry in Conan (and 3rd edition D&D in general).

In this game, if you want to make a thief all you have to do is start stealing things. It's not required that you ever take even one level in the Thief class. And, you can be a quite successful thief without ever leveling in that class.

So...is that classless? I dunno. But, I think the Conan game is closer to a skill based game than it is a hard character class base game.

 

[Jeraa]

S4, your mixing jobs with classes. There is a difference between a soldier (job), and a Soldier (class - note the capitalization.) Not every thief is a Thief, not all barbarians are Barbarians. One is mearly descriptive, the other determines a lot about the character.

Conan is very much a class based game. The classes determine what you can do (via class abilities, number of skill points, and how easy it is to spend those skill points on certain skills [class skills]) You want sneak attack? You have to be a Thief or Pirate. You want spells? Be a scholar. (granted, there is a feat that can do this, as well as another class in another book.) Conan (and all of the d20 system) at least allows you to take multiple classes, but your still forced to take certain classes to get certain abilities.

A class-less game doesn't restrict you like that, instead usually giving everyone a number of character points or something. You want Sneak Attack? Fine, buy it. Spellcasting? Just buy it. Anyone can get any ability as long as they can afford it.

The closest the d20 system gets to a classless system is either d20 Modern, or the generic classes (warrior [combat based], expert [skill monkey], spellcaster [spells]) in Unearthed Arcana.

(Side note: I hate class and level based games. Too restricting. Unfortunately, I have yet to find a classless game I like.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Conan is very much a class based game.

Not really. It only looks that way.

Go back to 1st edition AD&D. THAT is a class based game.

If you want to pick locks, you HAVE to be a Thief class. If you want to cast spells, you HAVE to be a Mage or Cleric class (unless you just want limited Paladin, Ranger, or Bard spells at high level). You can't turn undead unless you have a Cleric in the party (or a higher level Paladin). If you need a tracker in the party, that character must be a Ranger.

In Conan, although it does have classes, there are several ways to get to that point, either through the appropriate class or without it.

In reality, the Conan RPG isn't that much different from a purely skills based game without any classes.

 

[Spectator]

Whoops, topic drift.
Back to the original question, about alternate Intimidate factors.
My big gripe is the Intimidate alternate in Shadizar Box Set where it allowed INT modifiers to be used. I thought that was kinda lame.
Str and Cha could be used together.
Something to think about though, the worse someones CHA is, may actually kinda be a positive. If I see a ugly, scarred, slow speaking neanderthal type, I might not want to be his pal (low Cha and all), but I'd sure want to beat feat away from him.

 

[Supplement Four]

Something to think about though, the worse someones CHA is, may actually kinda be a positive. If I see a ugly, scarred, slow speaking neanderthal type, I might not want to be his pal (low Cha and all), but I'd sure want to beat feat away from him.

My thought was that CHA was needed to "sell it". We're all experts at reading body language. We've been doing it since we were born. Put the exact same person, wearing the exact same get-up, but having something different about him...maybe a stance...just an atmosphere about him...and we may be intimidated by one and thinking "this guy is trying to be tough" with the other.

This is why I decided to allow the character to use his highest stat for some Intimidate checks and the demoralize opponent throw but also penalize him if he had a CHA with penalties.

Thus, there may be a big, hulking giant of a man standing in front of you with a 20 STR, but he's not really selling it. He reminds you of a big, hulking simpleton that has a good heart and wouldn't hurt a fly. Thus, the CHA penalty, if there is one.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

At the risk of being contentious, there is now some talk of body language not actually being terribly relevant or present in human beings. This sounds counter intuitive, I know, but 'body language' isn't, actually, a proven scientific fact. On top of this, self-aware mammals can consciously or unconsciously use these apparent body signals to deceive others of the same species, by feigning submissive behaviour, etc.. A submissive stance can just as easily become a dominant one. Laughter, for instance, can be used submissively or dominantly, the open hand gesture could easily be an offer of fake friendship. With this in mind, you can easily see why a 17 year old, seven foot, muscle-bound barbarian could be seen as laughable rather than intimidating, in an urban environment, for instance.

Onto whether or not Conan is a class based game.

Well, yes it is. In the same way that most D20/OGL games are class based. Some D20 games drift far from the the core family, (like Mutants & Masterminds), but the Conan rpg isn't one of them. It's very similar to 3.5. 3.5 may be more flexible than AD&D because of market pressures, but it's still closer to AD&D than BRP, Hero, GURPS or the Storyteller System. If classes don't matter, why talk about giving specific classes particular class-only buffs? Is it because of a certain notion of game balance, (between classes)? Only recently was it highlighted in a thread that Barbarians can never get a base parry bonus of +8, denying them the Reflexive Parry feat. It is in this way that the class system steers its PCs towards a kind of game balance. Sure, the system is more relaxed than it was, allowing for a 'system mastery' approach, but classes exert quite an influence still, upon character abilities and actions.

 

[Supplement Four]

If classes don't matter, why talk about giving specific classes particular class-only buffs?

You can easily take out ever mention of "class" in the game can call it a "skill family".

The game looks very much like a class based game, but for all practical purposes, it's more like 80% class-less and 20% class based.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Well, no. Though the options are there if you're fully conversant with the system, it's still D&D, effectively, (with an ease-of-use multi-classing system and the prestige classes ripped out of the core). D&D (D20/OGL), is a class-based, level-based rpg system.

Consider the following feats,

Greater Weapon Specialisation prerequisite Soldier level 12

Eyes of the Cat may only be taken at 1st level

Adept prerequisite Scholar level 12

Greater Weapon Focus prerequisite Soldier level 8

Pirate Code Expert prerequisite Pirate level 2

The list goes on, consider, too, all those class features at specific levels...

No. There's a class-based mechanic behind most character abilities, and some restrictions are even quite subtle. D&D 3.X made the nod towards greater system flexibility simply to arrest the downward sales spiral. You merely have to read writers blogs these days to find out their thinking at the time. Most are quite open about it all.

 

[Supplement Four]

I still don't like the ways I've come up with to integrate the optional Intimidate rule (where you can use a different stat).

Should I make players buy the skill under the CHA stat and then just let them use whatever stat is appropriate when they use it?

Or, should the player buy the skill under the stat he mostlikely will use the skill most?

Should there be a Feat that "enables" this use of the CHA based Intimidate skill? That might work.

Should this be a "special ability", like the Barbarian's Fearless and Uncanny Dodge ability?

Or....what about if this were a combat maneuver with Intimidate as its prerequisite?

Any thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

OK, I think I've come up with something I can live with. Let me throw this out there and see if any of you disagree or have any strong comments about it one way or the other.



My Point of View

I want to keep Intimidate as a CHA based skill because I think CHA best describes a character's ability to present his personality in different ways. If you get in someone's face, smile savagely at them, and thump them in the chest with your finger, that's one way of expressing your force of personality.

If you are looking to intimidate someone by just the way you look, you're not going to slump at the shoulders, drop your axe to the ground with just your finger tips on the end of its haft, pick your nose, and then look at your finger to see what you've discovered there, all the while humming a tune you heard last night in the brothel.

What you're going to do is take a meanacing pose, hold your weapon at the ready, stare into the eyes of your enemy and be deadly silent. This again is a social expression, and in this game, social expressions are covered using the CHA stat.





Intimidation Without High Charisma

OTOH, I do see Vincent's point when he writes in Fiercest that a Barbarian can often be quite intimidating even though he might have a low CHA score.

So...how to rectify the two?

Vincent's rule was to separate the Intimidate skill so that it is really six related skills, each based on a different stat. If you used your skill points to buy Intimidate (Bully), your intimidation is based on your STR, and this type of intimiation is what I described above where you get into someone's face and thump them in the chest.

If someone slaps you as hard as they can with their war club, and you take the blow easily, smiling at them in return, Vincent would have this as a use of the Intimidate (Frighten), based on CON.

I think Vincent has an outstanding point in that the mechanics of the game don't support the reasonable expectation that a Barbarian can be quite intimidating even if his CHA is low.





Skills Should Remain Broad-Use

What I don't like about Vincent's approach, though, is that he has weakend the Intimidate skill, narrowing the use of it accoriding to the type of intimidation, when the original skill included all uses of intimidation. For example, if you've got Intimidate (Bully), and you swing your weapons around in a flashy pattern attempting to intimidate your enemy with your mastery of your weapon, under Vincent's rules you'd be using Intimidate (Overawe), which is based on DEX. And, thus, any skill points you put into Intimidate (Bully) wouldn't be appropriate for the type of intimidation you are trying.

I think skills should be broad-based. Skill points are limited, and too many skills in the game have already set the precedent that skills should remain broad based. Profession (Hunter) covers a lot of different areas. Survival is used for it's logical uses plus tracking, and maybe even hunting or primitive weapon making under certain circumstances. Even a skill that may seem specific, like Craft (Weaponsmith), has a ton of uses from crating weapons, valuing them, repairing them, to making the weapon crafter some silver coins for a weeks work.

Those few skills that are very specific in use seem to be ignored by players. How many of your characters use the Perform skill? Probably not many. Skill points are too rare. And, if it's a skill like Peform (Pict Mating Ritual Dance), chances are that your Pict PC that is on the hunt for a mate doesn't have the skill.

So, that's my argument against Vincent's expansion of the Intimidate rule found in Fiercest (and a similar, shorter version in the Shadizar boxed set). I think it reduces the power of the skill and makes it too focussed.





My Approach To the Intimidate Skill

OK, so what do we do about it? I want to incorporate Vincent's thought, which I think is a good one, that some characters are very intimidating even though they may have lower CHA stats. But, I also want to keep the skill broad and based on CHA since, in the end, the act of being intimidating is measured by how good you are at expressing yourself that way. That's a social expression, and it should be a CHA based skill.

My solution is to use the Intimate skill as it is presented in the core rulebook, but then use circumstance modifiers when appropriate.


Keep it simple.

So, if a players says...

Player: I get right in the barkeep's face, stand over him, almost touching him, cross my arms, and smile.

That's earned the character an Intimidate check. The GM considers the presences, look, height, and STR and CON scores of the PC and compares it to the same attributes of the barkeep NPC. If appropriate, the GM gives the player a +2 circumstance modifier.

Boom. We're done. Barbarians with low CHA can still be intimidating this way. There's no big rule change. STR and CON and other stats are considered. And the Intimidate skill is not weakened by dividing it into six different, specific uses.



Thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

I asked this question in a couple of other places and got this response (with my response back to him) below.



There is a feat in pathfinder that i know of: Intimidating prowess. It uses strength to add to the Intimidation check.

This makes me think: In addition to my solution above, how about adding six Feats to the list of choices?



Intimidating Prowess allows the character to add his STR mod to his Intimidation check. The type of intimidation is restricted to a character using his bulk to "get into someone's face" in an attempt to get them to cower down or comply with the character's demand.

Example: A towering, bulking barbarian stands over a shorter barkeep, thumping the poor man in the chest, his other hand on the hilt of his sword, all the while demanding free drinks for the house.





Overawing Demonstration allows the character to add his DEX mod to his Intimidation check, but the intimidation has to be centered around the character's display of prowess with his weapon.

Example: A Shemite stands in the classic attack stance, his eyes locked onto his enemy, all the while swinging his tulwar in intricate patterns around his body.





Frightening Resolve allows the character to add his CON mod to his Intimidation check, but the intimidation must come after the character survives a nasty blow delivered by the enemy.

Example: Your enemy just knocked you with a hit that did 25 points of damage. You saved your Massive Damage check, and the GM describes how you took the blow, shook it off, and your front left tooth fell out of your head. Then you stare down your enemy and smile, as if to ask silently, "Is that all you got?"





Terrorizing Moment allows the character to add his INT mod to his Intimidation check, but the intimidation has to be based around you telling your enemy what to expect after he loses the fight with you--how much pain he's going to suffer, and what you're going to do to him while he's lying on the ground with his life's blood draining out of him.

Example: You do just as I describe. When you make the check, you make your opponent aware of the terrible things that are about to happen to him.





Admonishing Attack allows the charactger to add his WIS mod to his Intimiadtion check, but the intimidation has to be centered around the character admonishing and embarrasing his enemy in front of a crowd. Works best when the target knows the crowd. Close friends are better than family members. Family members are better than fellow villagers. Fellow villagers are better than unknown people. Unknown people are better than enemies.

Example: You tell a priest in front of the faithful that he realy doesn't want to not let you in to sleep for the night, getting out of the rain and cold, because his people won't still see him as the pious person he pretends to be.





Coercion allows the character to double his CHA mod when using it on his Intimidation check, but the check has to be centered around verbal insults and deep, biting remarks.

Example: I'm sure you can think of a thousand ways to implement this feat.







What do you guys think of that?

 

[Erekose]

I feel like I'm arriving late in the discussion but from reading through people's posts I think there's a potential divergence in the implementation of Intimidate in the rules and how we might percieve it in real life.

Clearly CHA is an undervalued attribute and I would be worried about limiting it's usefulness further by removing it entirely from Intimidate in favour of an attribute that a Barabarian would already have a high ability score in for other reasons.

I think Supplement Four is on the right track but I'd be tempted to just use Intimidiating Prowess from Pathfinder; i.e. a character needs to use a feat to be able to add his/her STR bonus to Intimidate.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/intimidating-prowess-combat---final

 

[Supplement Four]

I think Supplement Four is on the right track but I'd be tempted to just use Intimidiating Prowess from Pathfinder; i.e. a character needs to use a feat to be able to add his/her STR bonus to Intimidate.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/intimidating-prowess-combat---final

Which is where the inspiration from the post directly above yours came from. There's a feat for each alternate stat (and even a feat to double CHA bonus). Character uses a feat to get the non-CHA bonus added to Intimidation.