A sugestion about the intimidation skill

[Perspicacity]

It seems to me that the way intimidation works is kind of backwards.

You have on one hand Eldwin the Drow bard. He's a hansom, though frail, fellow who has a knack for the lute.

On the other hand you have Godrick the Dwarven barbarian, hes tough as nails but uglier than a mud fence.

Now forget that you know there class or levels you see a 4 and a half foot tall mountain of muscles and scare tissue carrying an axe bigger than your head walking toward you from the north and a pleasant looking fellow who looks easily broken and is obviously not dressed for combat walking toward you from the south. who would intimidate you more?

This example is my own colorful way of explaining why I believe intimidation should not be a charisma based ability, it doesn't make sense, we are not intimidated by the pretty we are intimidated by the ugly. Making Intimidation a charisma based ability makes the least intimidating races have a higher check than the ones who are most intimidating. Dwarf and Warforged are easily the scariest races and should have a bonus to intimidate not a permanent irrevocable penalty to it. While drow (though powerful) are not that scary looking to the uninitiated.

It would take a bardic knowledge check to truly be aware of the powerful threat a drow can pose but then we're not talking about an intimidation check any more we're talking an "I know better than to mess with that guy" check.

yes a person could "act tough" which would be justification for a cha based skill but in combat you don't have time to act tough. That orc wont wait for you to finish your Robert Deniro speech where you ask the if he's talking to you. In general if you asked an orc or hobgoblin (Hypothetically speaking) this would be the response: Dwarf= tough ones, tread lightly. Warforge= OMG RUN! elf or drow= dinner. They will always be more intimidated by a Dwarf or WF than a drow.

So the question becomes if not charisma then what stat should intimidation be based on? Well it seems to me that if the measure of how intimidating some one is in battle is how tough they are than con is the only logical choice. No mater what you threaten to do if you don't look like you can follow through with the threat you can expect them to blow you off. High con means that you look like you mean business even if your not as strong as you may look. Cha has a dozen skills based on it where con has only one, concentration. This would add both balance and logic to the game. There is no down side here.

End result here: Barbarian will have the highest intim with little to no min/maxing effort (As it should be) followed by the fighter in a very close second (also as it should be) and the paladin in an even closer third (not sure why they don't get intim as a class skill but I've seen pallys manage just fine none the less) while anything drow or halfling is always going to be less intimidating than the tougher races. That just makes sense.
I know that my barbarian would see a 14 point rise in his intimidation score and he should be intimidating, hes a barbarian for crying out loud!

To any devs that see this, consider it for the next patch. It's just good sense.

[Visty]

in the masters of the wild book was an optional rule where you used str for intimidate for exact that reason
there was also another one where barbs in rage get another +4

though in ddo with str scores in the high 60s it would totally unbalance the intimiskill cause some chars still itnimitank but have a low str and those high str chars will have skyhigh intimi which mobs have to be balanced against. then the lowstr tank is screwed

[Perspicacity]

in the masters of the wild book was an optional rule where you used str for intimidate for exact that reason
there was also another one where barbs in rage get another +4

though in ddo with str scores in the high 60s it would totally unbalance the intimiskill cause some chars still itnimitank but have a low str and those high str chars will have skyhigh intimi which mobs have to be balanced against. then the low str tank is screwed

True, however weather it's a strength tank or a finesse fighter, every tank has high con score (at least every tank I have ever seen) which is why I suggest using con it makes more sense than str, IMO.

[Visty]

imo the guy with more muscles is scarier then the guy with high endurance

con seems totally wrong imo

[Bunker]

This example is my own colorful way of explaining why I believe intimidation should not be a charisma based ability, it doesn't make sense, we are not intimidated by the pretty we are intimidated by the ugly. Making Intimidation a charisma based ability makes the least intimidating races have a higher check than the ones who are most intimidating. Dwarf and Warforged are easily the scariest races and should have a bonus to intimidate not a permanent irrevocable penalty to it. While drow (though powerful) are not that scary looking to the uninitiated.

.

Charisma is not just about "looks".

Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

[chaos_master]

On the other hand, the 6 charisma Arnold Schwarzeneger role model could be standing there looking stupid, while the charismatic elf can be expressing a tirade of curses and insults, threatening your well-being, family and genitalia. I know who I'd jump to flatten ...

I think there's a long lasting misconception about Charisma at the base of the OP's way of thought. A lot of people I've played PnP with are considering Charisma as equal to a Good Appearance score. Charisma reflects your personality a lot more than it does your good looks and the strength of that is the idea behind bards and sorcs having it as main skills.

However, balancing issues aside, I can see a feat shifting your Intimidate base from CHA to STR or CON. :)

[Baahb3]

In the DnD game Charisma is more than just comliness it is force of personality and presance and how well you can project them. In the case of intimidate, force your that persona on someone else.

A kind of contraversal analogy would be Hitler, a very ugly man and not very physically imposing, judgeing from most photos I have seen, but had such a force of presence he persuaded a nation to do horrible things, some by persuasion but mostly by intimidation.

No, I think intimidation sits nicely as a Charisma based skill.

[Thrudh]

I understand what you're saying, but it's a bad idea from a game mechanic viewpoint...

There's no sacrifice for a fighter type to have a high strength... It's standard...

Therefore, all fighter types will have a high intimidate... It won't be a build choice anymore...

Trade-offs are important in this game...

[MrWizard]

go into foundation of discord, in gianthold, at the appropriate level, on elite with a group.


then, after finishing it ask yourself this question.....


when the party encounters that massive muscled dwarf and his sidekick the well dressed foppy bard.....which most scares you? Which would you want to die first? Which would you not want there?


That bard with his soundburst alone is a pain...imagine if they gave fascinate to him...

There is rational for it.


most do not use intimidate correctly anyway, so does not matter much.


Besides, intimidate is now used for end bosses in raids and a great crowd control mechanism....it is only a matter of time before that is nerfed and those characters are left wanting..

it has happened a million times before to other classes and races, and so it will be intimidate.
Ask any old time player about a 'bat man build' or 'human vesatility and umd'...and so on.

[dunklezhan]

In every RPG i've played, Charisma is only nominally a measure of looks. A dragon has an extremely high charisma. Because they inspire awe from their size and impressiveness. Not because they're 'pretty'.

Think of it as 'personal impact'. It MIGHT mean good looking. It MIGHT mean imposing. I would say the Governator for example actually has quite a high charisma score, not CHR6.

Now, in some games the social skills that are CHR based are also modified by other stats, depending on the skill.

E.g. Shadowrun 3rd ed (my game of choice) - a very low Essence (measure of how much cyberware you have) adds bonuses to your intimidation skill. Because all that metal has affected the way you act and move... so much so that even a non-augmented person can tell you are not quite... right.

In DDO, I would agree that a high Str score should affect your Intimidate, but it is primarily a CHR skill, and should remain so - its a class skill for fighters so a low CHR doesn't actually affect it that much as you can just add rank after rank to it. Of course, if Bards actually skill up in it they are better at it... but I reckon that's because while they may not look intimidating, they insult your mother first, and since they don't look frightning monsters are happier to try to stick a knife in on general principle.

Fighters on the other hand are big and intimidating. Now me, that would make me flee, not attack - but vicious monsters up for a fight anyway? When that fighter uses intimidate its clear to all around that you really ought to take them down first if you can.... hence everyone attacks them.


I reckon the simplest 'fix' for this would be that its stays a CHR skill, but you get half your Str Mod on top. Fighters and bards still get it as a class skill, and everyone else gets it as an off-class skill. But everyone gets their CHR mod + half their STR mod. That way your physical size, and your personal impact both contribute.

However, I don't actually think the mechanic is broken as it is, simply because fighters get it as a class skill so even a -3 to the skill from a very low CHR doesn't really make that much of a difference to it, at least, not to the same degree that a very high CHR improves it, if you see what I mean.

[Perspicacity]

I understand what you're saying, but it's a bad idea from a game mechanic viewpoint...

There's no sacrifice for a fighter type to have a high strength... It's standard...

Therefore, all fighter types will have a high intimidate... It won't be a build choice anymore...

Trade-offs are important in this game...

I did not say strength, I said con. If your going to critique my idea please critique my idea not some other unrelated idea. In my case balance is still maintained because you can either have strength and thus lots of DPS or lots of con and thus lots of HP and a high Intim but less DPS ability. There is still a trade off and trade offs are not all that important at all anyway, a sorc can cast bears endurance but a fighter can not cast eagles splendor, the imbalance already exists in game my idea doesn't cause it, it fixes it.

The classes that use cha DON'T NEED intimidation. Why bother to make them good at it? Cleric? Nope, when I play my cleric I don't want agro, I'm to busy healing to fight. Sorc nope they don't want agro either cause they all have like 3 hp. Bard? there lovers not fighters, they just want to rock, the last thing they want is agro. Fav soul? nope there either healers or back up fighters, let the real tanks get the agro while you wail on the guy from behind. The only one who would use it is a Pally and I have seen very few pallys with a cha above 16. They need str con dex and wis before they even think about cha. on a pally int is the only dead stat.

It just doesn't make sense as a cha stat. Could a drow sorc be more intimidating? Yeah but why would they want to? Intimidation is not a tactic a bard or a sorc would use makeing them have a high intim check is like making a stake dinner for a vegetarian, it may be great but it will just go to waist on them cause they will never ever use it. Fighter barb pally SHOULD be really good at intimidation, there the only one that use it. The intimidation ability is already to weak, lets give it some juice.

[Bunker]

I did not say strength, I said con. If your going to critique my idea please critique my idea not some other unrelated idea. In my case balance is still maintained because you can either have strength and thus lots of DPS or lots of con and thus lots of HP and a high Intim but less DPS ability. There is still a trade off and trade offs are not all that important at all anyway, a sorc can cast bears endurance but a fighter can not cast eagles splendor, the imbalance already exists in game my idea doesn't cause it, it fixes it.

The classes that use cha DON'T NEED intimidation. Why bother to make them good at it? Cleric? Nope, when I play my cleric I don't want agro, I'm to busy healing to fight. Sorc nope they don't want agro either cause they all have like 3 hp. Bard? there lovers not fighters, they just want to rock, the last thing they want is agro. Fav soul? nope there either healers or back up fighters, let the real tanks get the agro while you wail on the guy from behind. The only one who would use it is a Pally and I have seen very few pallys with a cha above 16. They need str con dex and wis before they even think about cha. on a pally int is the only dead stat.

It just doesn't make sense as a cha stat. Could a drow sorc be more intimidating? Yeah but why would they want to? Intimidation is not a tactic a bard or a sorc would use makeing them have a high intim check is like making a stake dinner for a vegetarian, it may be great but it will just go to waist on them cause they will never ever use it. Fighter barb pally SHOULD be really good at intimidation, there the only one that use it. The intimidation ability is already to weak, lets give it some juice.

Have you had any experience with D&D before joining DDO?

[eonfreon]

Wait a minute, did you just call my Warchanter Bard a lover not a fighter ;)?

[shenthing]

Pretty much all of your skills match up to what they have always been associated with as far as stats. Now, proper classes do have the skill as a class feat so you are able to bump it up to a decent level with enough skill points.
Also, let me rephrase your colorful situation from earlier. You got an ugly barb shaking a fist at you or you have a frail bard talking **** about how he's gonna mop the floor with you... my money's on the bard getting taught a lesson.

[Lleren]

If I was going to change intimidate or diplomacy, I would want to add maintained abilities that change that characters total hate generation.

[Perspicacity]

go into foundation of discord, in gianthold, at the appropriate level, on elite with a group.


then, after finishing it ask yourself this question.....


when the party encounters that massive muscled dwarf and his sidekick the well dressed foppy bard.....which most scares you? Which would you want to die first? Which would you not want there?


That bard with his soundburst alone is a pain...imagine if they gave fascinate to him...

There is rational for it.


You just proved me right, that bard is intimidating not because hes got a high cha but because he a tough kill. His combat prowess is what makes him a threat not his cha score. If he was a wizard instead of a bard it would still be the damage not the int score that makes him a threat. It doesn't matter what stat your damage is based on, if you deal damage you produce hate and draw agro, and fascinate is not intimidating, it's irritating. There is a difference between being intimidating and being annoying. I have played many table top D&D games (got one tomorrow night in fact) and I have never herd any one say, "That bard is scary, hes got fascinate!" though I have herd many people say "I hate that ****ing bard and his stupid fascinate!" Actually I hear it allot since I'm currently playing a bard.

Another guy used Hitler as an example, Hitler was not an intimidating man it was the massive army he commanded that was intimidating, if he was just one man I could beat him up and probably wouldn't even notice who he was in the process. He became the way he was because no one feared him not because everyone did. He was compensating. again being charismatic is not the same as being intimidating. Granted being charismatic can indirectly lead to being intimidating but the operative word is 'indirectly', it's not cause and effect.

It always comes down to "How bad can this guy hurt me? That bad huh? Ok, I give."

[Bunker]

You just proved me right, that bard is intimidating not because hes got a high cha but because he a tough kill. His combat prowess is what makes him a threat not his cha score. If he was a wizard instead of a bard it would still be the damage not the int score that makes him a threat. It doesn't matter what stat your damage is based on, if you deal damage you produce hate and draw agro, and fascinate is not intimidating, it's irritating. There is a difference between being intimidating and being annoying. I have played many table top D&D games (got one tomorrow night in fact) and I have never herd any one say, "That bard is scary, hes got fascinate!" though I have herd many people say "I hate that ****ing bard and his stupid fascinate!" Actually I hear it allot since I'm currently playing a bard.

Another guy used Hitler as an example, Hitler was not an intimidating man it was the massive army he commanded that was intimidating, if he was just one man I could beat him up and probably wouldn't even notice who he was in the process. He became the way he was because no one feared him not because everyone did. He was compensating. again being charismatic is not the same as being intimidating. Granted being charismatic can indirectly lead to being intimidating but the operative word is 'indirectly', it's not cause and effect.

It always comes down to "How bad can this guy hurt me? That bad huh? Ok, I give."

/Godwin's Law

Again OP, did you ever play D&D before playing ddo?

[Perspicacity]

Pretty much all of your skills match up to what they have always been associated with as far as stats. Now, proper classes do have the skill as a class feat so you are able to bump it up to a decent level with enough skill points.
Also, let me rephrase your colorful situation from earlier. You got an ugly barb shaking a fist at you or you have a frail bard talking **** about how he's gonna mop the floor with you... my money's on the bard getting taught a lesson.

Nope, like I said you don't have time to talk **** in battle. All that happens it this, the bard gets out his lute, the dwarf gets out his axe, that's one round. Bard plays a tune, dwarf drives his axe in to your sternum maybe (more than once), that's two rounds. Against whom are you going to defend yourself first, the armed psycho doing a here's johnny in your body cavity or the harmless unarmed sissy with a lute? Remember you don't know that guy's a bard, hes just some sissy with a lute and hes not even attacking you.The bard is NEVER the priority in battle.

[eonfreon]

Nope, like I said you don't have time to talk **** in battle. All that happens it this, the bard gets out his lute, the dwarf gets out his axe, that's one round. Bard plays a tune, dwarf drives his axe in to your sternum maybe (more than once), that's two rounds. Against whom are you going to defend yourself first, the armed psycho doing a here's johnny in your body cavity or the harmless unarmed sissy with a lute? Remember you don't know that guy's a bard, hes just some sissy with a lute and hes not even attacking you.The bard is NEVER the priority in battle.

Well it is a skill and has to be used. It isn't a passive skill. If the Bard doesn't want aggro, then he doesn't use Intimidate.

So either the Dwarf Fighter is using Intimidate or he's generating Hate-aggro with his Axe.
Either way he's doing the intimidate in your scenario, not the Bard.

[Perspicacity]

/Godwin's Law

Again OP, did you ever play D&D before playing ddo?

I actually answered that question in the post you quoted but to be specific yes, since second ed and I have always felt this way. A barbarian should be the most intimidating class in the game bar none, other classes should not even be able to come close (save fighter who should come in second) to a barb unless they are a higher level.

Not all wizards in the D&D universe are monster slayers with maximized fireballs and rays of disintegration coming out of every orifice. Some are magical craftsmen or lore masters, not all pallys are DPS gods, some are focused undead hunters, protectors of the innocent or even healers. Not all rangers are deadly deadly snipers some serve as guides in the wilderness or live in the woods in harmony with nature. There is reason not reflexively to be afraid of those classes but barbarian and fighter are made for only three things: killing, killing fast and killing en mass. You should ALWAYS fear a fighter and especially a barbarian because barbarians are just as deadly as fighters but twice as hard to kill.

[Perspicacity]

Well it is a skill and has to be used. It isn't a passive skill. If the Bard doesn't want aggro, then he doesn't use Intimidate.

So either the Dwarf Fighter is using Intimidate or he's generating Hate-aggro with his Axe.
Either way he's doing the intimidate in your scenario, not the Bard.

So your saying I'm right. Cause that's exactly what I was saying, the bard was not intimidating. Though you do bring up a good point, I think that intimidate should be a combat mode like power attack that you turn on or off if not an out right passive ability or perhaps even a buff that allows you to generate more or less hate. You don't have to constantly re-intimidate someone in the real world, once they identify you as a threat I can't imagine they would need reminding 6 seconds latter. I am tired of running after a monster that is running after my sorc friend. I want them on me so I can kill them and intimidate as it is just doesn't cut it.

[krud]

Nope, like I said you don't have time to talk **** in battle. All that happens it this, the bard gets out his lute, the dwarf gets out his axe, that's one round. Bard plays a tune, dwarf drives his axe in to your sternum maybe (more than once), that's two rounds. Against whom are you going to defend yourself first, the armed psycho doing a here's johnny in your body cavity or the harmless unarmed sissy with a lute? Remember you don't know that guy's a bard, hes just some sissy with a lute and hes not even attacking you.The bard is NEVER the priority in battle.
but you just said - if you deal damage you produce hate and draw agro. that example is unrelated to intimidate.

Perhaps the frail and 'girly-man' bard winked and blew kisses at the mob in such a way as to bring the mob's masculinity into question. ;)

[Xenus_Paradox]

There's a big difference between the big guy who LOOKS like he can break you in half, and the guy who can explain, in great detail and with colorful language, exactly HOW he's gonna break you in half.

[shenthing]

Nope, like I said you don't have time to talk **** in battle. All that happens it this, the bard gets out his lute, the dwarf gets out his axe, that's one round. Bard plays a tune, dwarf drives his axe in to your sternum maybe (more than once), that's two rounds. Against whom are you going to defend yourself first, the armed psycho doing a here's johnny in your body cavity or the harmless unarmed sissy with a lute? Remember you don't know that guy's a bard, hes just some sissy with a lute and hes not even attacking you.The bard is NEVER the priority in battle.

So what exactly should the intimidate button do then? Would you say it just looks pretty and your ranks in intimidate should just automatically make creatures want to attack? You are basically trying to make 2 different things here the same. There is intimidate- a charisma based skill that "manipulates" certain mobs into attacking you, then there is aggro- monster aggression which can be gained by anything from fighting to healing and everything in between.
It doesn't really matter how you try to tailor the situation to make yourself right, the fact is the actual skill intimidate is fine as the skillful classes can freely purchase ranks in it (and diplo in some cases) and the drow(who can make excellent Paladins) get a great bonus to it. It would be great to save those skill points for something else and rely on a high based stat to bump it up some, but that is why a number of people actually enjoy this game. You have to make choices in your build... stop asking for a handout.
Now, if the devs can figure out a feat to replace your modifier with say wisdom, I could see that making a little more sense.

[Perspicacity]

There's a big difference between the big guy who LOOKS like he can break you in half, and the guy who can explain, in great detail and with colorful language, exactly HOW he's gonna break you in half.
But he doesn't have time to explain it because as soon as he says "I'm gonna..." I bash his face in. There is not time for chat in combat.

[hermespan]

It seems to me that the way intimidation works is kind of backwards.

You have on one hand Eldwin the Drow bard. He's a hansom, though frail, fellow who has a knack for the lute.

On the other hand you have Godrick the Dwarven barbarian, hes tough as nails but uglier than a mud fence.

Now forget that you know there class or levels you see a 4 and a half foot tall mountain of muscles and scare tissue carrying an axe bigger than your head walking toward you from the north and a pleasant looking fellow who looks easily broken and is obviously not dressed for combat walking toward you from the south. who would intimidate you more?

This example is my own colorful way of explaining why I believe intimidation should not be a charisma based ability, it doesn't make sense, we are not intimidated by the pretty we are intimidated by the ugly. Making Intimidation a charisma based ability makes the least intimidating races have a higher check than the ones who are most intimidating. Dwarf and Warforged are easily the scariest races and should have a bonus to intimidate not a permanent irrevocable penalty to it. While drow (though powerful) are not that scary looking to the uninitiated.

It would take a bardic knowledge check to truly be aware of the powerful threat a drow can pose but then we're not talking about an intimidation check any more we're talking an "I know better than to mess with that guy" check.

yes a person could "act tough" which would be justification for a cha based skill but in combat you don't have time to act tough. That orc wont wait for you to finish your Robert Deniro speech where you ask the if he's talking to you. In general if you asked an orc or hobgoblin (Hypothetically speaking) this would be the response: Dwarf= tough ones, tread lightly. Warforge= OMG RUN! elf or drow= dinner. They will always be more intimidated by a Dwarf or WF than a drow.

So the question becomes if not charisma then what stat should intimidation be based on? Well it seems to me that if the measure of how intimidating some one is in battle is how tough they are than con is the only logical choice. No mater what you threaten to do if you don't look like you can follow through with the threat you can expect them to blow you off. High con means that you look like you mean business even if your not as strong as you may look. Cha has a dozen skills based on it where con has only one, concentration. This would add both balance and logic to the game. There is no down side here.

End result here: Barbarian will have the highest intim with little to no min/maxing effort (As it should be) followed by the fighter in a very close second (also as it should be) and the paladin in an even closer third (not sure why they don't get intim as a class skill but I've seen pallys manage just fine none the less) while anything drow or halfling is always going to be less intimidating than the tougher races. That just makes sense.
I know that my barbarian would see a 14 point rise in his intimidation score and he should be intimidating, hes a barbarian for crying out loud!

To any devs that see this, consider it for the next patch. It's just good sense.

Intimidate is charisma based because charisma is used to influence other creatures/people. Getting everything to attack you is a type of influence. Influence can be positive or negative, but either way your charisma determines how effective it is.

That's why intimidate is charisma based. It makes sense. Intimidate is actually a bad label for the ability, it should be called taunt. Not because that's what it's called in WoW, but because that's what you are really doing.

Intimidate: to make timid or fearful
Taunt: a sarcastic challenge or insult

The name of the ability is the opposite of what it actually does.

I think people don't understand what charisma is either.

Charisma doesn't mean "good looking and pretty". It means "a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure". It has absolutely nothing to do with your looks. That's comeliness. Being good looking does help you be more charismatic especially when you are extremely good looking, however, it's not a prerequisite for charisma. It just makes having charisma a little easier.

I've known extremely attractive women that completely turned me off as soon as they started talking : horrible charisma.

Hitler had a very high amount of charisma, however he wasn't much of a looker. His charisma allowed him to convince people to commit the greatest crime against humanity ever. Napolean, George Patton, Erwin Rommel and just about every other famous leader that didn't inherit their position were also charismatic.

Disclaimer: I only played WoW for a trial period and I couldn't stand the game after a week, so I'm about as far away as you can get from being a fanboi.

[krud]

But he doesn't have time to explain it because as soon as he says "I'm gonna..." I bash his face in. There is not time for chat in combat.
He just has to motion and say "suck on this!". That would perturb most mobs.

edit - btw, the fact that you chose to bash his face in proves that his intimidate tactic worked.

[Perspicacity]

So what exactly should the intimidate button do then? Would you say it just looks pretty and your ranks in intimidate should just automatically make creatures want to attack? You are basically trying to make 2 different things here the same. There is intimidate- a charisma based skill that "manipulates" certain mobs into attacking you, then there is aggro- monster aggression which can be gained by anything from fighting to healing and everything in between.
It doesn't really matter how you try to tailor the situation to make yourself right, the fact is the actual skill intimidate is fine as the skillful classes can freely purchase ranks in it (and diplo in some cases) and the drow(who can make excellent Paladins) get a great bonus to it. It would be great to save those skill points for something else and rely on a high based stat to bump it up some, but that is why a number of people actually enjoy this game. You have to make choices in your build... stop asking for a handout.
Now, if the devs can figure out a feat to replace your modifier with say wisdom, I could see that making a little more sense.

It's not a hand out and for you to use a misplace buzz word just to make me look wrong doesn't make you right, you can try to manipulative and contort the situation all you want you can call it whatever you want your still wrong. I want logic nothing more nothing less. people like this game because the like to kill stuff. cha doesn't make sense period. and ther are still plenty of other choices to make in a fighter or barb build this is a trivial one at best.

and to answer your question yes that's exactly what I want I want intimidation to modify the amount of hate you generate. They changed cleave and great cleave from table top just for DDO why not the intimidate skill? The way intimidate works in DDO is alreayd really difrent from table top so who give a dam?

[eonfreon]

So your saying I'm right. Cause that's exactly what I was saying, the bard was not intimidating. Though you do bring up a good point, I think that intimidate should be a combat mode like power attack that you turn on or off if not an out right passive ability or perhaps even a buff that allows you to generate more or less hate. You don't have to constantly re-intimidate someone in the real world, once they identify you as a threat I can't imagine they would need reminding 6 seconds latter. I am tired of running after a monster that is running after my sorc friend. I want them on me so I can kill them and intimidate as it is just doesn't cut it.

Trust me. My Warchanter is a lot more Intimidating then most Fighters. Not only does he look badass and carry a big weapon, but he's eloquent enough to anger anyone. And as a Bard he understands the true value of insults and the proper way to deliver them.
In your example you have a frail Bard who doesn't want aggro. Such a Bard wouldn't even spend points on Intimidate, therefore the Dwarf Fighter/Barbarian or whatever, would indeed have a higher Intimidate score, provided he actually spent points on Intimidate.

[Perspicacity]

He just has to motion and say "suck on this!". That would perturb most mobs.
yes but for something like that he wouldn't get a cha bonus because it is in no way articulate or clever and that if they can even hear him over the roar of combat, this stuff is loud. Ever try to talk to some one on voice chat while combat is going? If you can hear them its only because you turned down the combat sound effects in the UI settings.

[Perspicacity]

Trust me. My Warchanter is a lot more Intimidating then most Fighters. Not only does he look badass and carry a big weapon, but he's eloquent enough to anger anyone. And as a Bard he understands the true value of insults and the proper way to deliver them.
In your example you have a frail Bard who doesn't want aggro. Such a Bard wouldn't even spend points on Intimidate, therefore the Dwarf Fighter/Barbarian or whatever, would indeed have a higher Intimidate score, provided he actually spent points on Intimidate.

yes but your bard LOOKS TOUGH. hes not an intimitank because hes charismatic, hes a tank because hes a bad azz tank! Looking tough has zero to do with charisma. and you intimidation score should be high even if your an ugly tactless nitwit, infact you should draw MORE agro if your ugly, 2 words: Meg Griffin.

[eonfreon]

yes but your bard LOOKS TOUGH. hes not an intimitank because hes charismatic, hes a tank because hes a bad azz tank! Looking tough has zero to do with charisma. and you intimidation score should be high even if your an ugly tactless nitwit, infact you should draw MORE agro if your ugly, 2 words: Meg Griffin.

You're still confusing Charisma with Comeliness.

[Perspicacity]

Intimidate is charisma based because charisma is used to influence other creatures/people. Getting everything to attack you is a type of influence. Influence can be positive or negative, but either way your charisma determines how effective it is.

That's why intimidate is charisma based. It makes sense. Intimidate is actually a bad label for the ability, it should be called taunt. Not because that's what it's called in WoW, but because that's what you are really doing.

Intimidate: to make timid or fearful
Taunt: a sarcastic challenge or insult

The name of the ability is the opposite of what it actually does.

I think people don't understand what charisma is either.

Charisma doesn't mean "good looking and pretty". It means "a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure". It has absolutely nothing to do with your looks. That's comeliness. Being good looking does help you be more charismatic especially when you are extremely good looking, however, it's not a prerequisite for charisma. It just makes having charisma a little easier.



This may sound surprising considering how hard headed I've been about this but that actually makes sense to me. Funny how just changing 1 word can make things make more sense. See people all I wanted was some logic and he just gave me a big heaping spoon full.



Disclaimer: I only played WoW for a trial period and I couldn't stand the game after a week, so I'm about as far away as you can get from being a fanboi.
WoW you lasted a week? I didn't make it four hours.

[krud]

yes but for something like that he wouldn't get a cha bonus because it is in no way articulate or clever and that if they can even hear him over the roar of combat, this stuff is loud. Ever try to talk to some one on voice chat while combat is going? If you can hear them its only because you turned down the combat sound effects in the UI settings.
I'm sure a gesture and some appropriate facial expressions would accomplish the same thing. A sword looks awfully phallic. Hold it down there, and do a few hip thrusts. Instant hate. Think outside the box a little.

[shenthing]

Wow, ok here is sense... not that reposting makes much sense.
Intimidate- someone else was right, it should be taunt because that is what you do. It is associated with charisma because that is the primary stat used for character interaction. This is an interaction, it is not a stat, it is not a modifier, you perform this action to adjust the way something behaves towards you. If that does not need to be charisma based, I don't know what realm of D&D you were playing prior to DDO.
Hate modification- this is already available... both ways even via enhancements and PrEs. If you are interested in a more tactful manner of combat than hack and slash, you should be more interested in Fighters and Palis.
Barbarian, what is that? It's brute strength and this is your method of aggro control, pure killing. If you are tired of chasing the sorc down because he's pulled aggro, find someone else to group with or just accept it.
This is a hack and slash game, but it is not your garden variety. Maybe I was a little hasty to call this a handout, but really, come on. You should be focused in drawing ggro from everything nearby and let all the other party members pick stuff of at their discretion.

[shenthing]

You're still confusing Charisma with Comeliness.

Perhaps we should ask the devs to implement this and perception as additional stats?

[Perspicacity]

You're still confusing Charisma with Comeliness.


Comeliness is an optional stat derived by splitting it from charisma. If you don't use com, cha is partially a measure of personal appearance. DDO doesn't use com so cha is also appearance in this game.
It is pointless for me to address comeliness as comeliness is not the stat currently in question, Cha is.

[Perspicacity]

Perhaps we should ask the devs to implement this and perception as additional stats?

Interesting idea but what would they be used for? They would have to rework all the skills'n stuff. I don't think it's doable, it one thing to change one skill it's another to add whole new stats and change all skills.

[krud]

How about on the football field. Who do you think angers the opposing team more, the big burly lineman who just grunts and screams, or the skinny wide receiver who does a stupid little dance everytime he touches the ball? The burly lineman probably isn't doing anything that the other guys haven't already seen or heard, yet the guy doing his stupid little dance all the time becomes downright irritating.

[Perspicacity]

I'm sure a gesture and some appropriate facial expressions would accomplish the same thing. A sword looks awfully phallic. Hold it down there, and do a few hip thrusts. Instant hate. Think outside the box a little.

Yes but barbarians don't think, they operate on instinct and instinct says kill whats dangerous, not whats funny or annoying. In a real world scenario there is not really anything you could say or do that could turn someones attention away from something that hits harder than you do especially if your not hitting at all.

[Perspicacity]

How about on the football field. Who do you think angers the opposing team more, the big burly lineman who just grunts and screams, or the skinny wide receiver who does a stupid little dance everytime he touches the ball? The burly lineman probably isn't doing anything that the other guys haven't already seen or heard, yet the guy doing his stupid little dance all the time becomes downright irritating.

Yes but irritating does not mean intimidating. that receiver is drawing hate he is not using intimidation.

[shenthing]

Interesting idea but what would they be used for? They would have to rework all the skills'n stuff. I don't think it's doable, it one thing to change one skill it's another to add whole new stats and change all skills.

Sarcasm, use it, love it, pass it on.

[Perspicacity]

Sarcasm, use it, love it, pass it on.

I see... moving on. I am done with this thread the debate is over, I lost... no, I strategically retreated, yeah I like this word replacement thing. Have fun talking to a wall.

[krud]

Yes irritating, not intimidating. that receiver is drawing hate he is not using intimidation. OK, so 'intimidate' is not the best descriptor of the skill. The way ddo is implementing intimidate is as a hate generator. I'm giving examples of how a charisma based skill would draw agro.

Given two men of equal size, which one is going to be more intimidating? The one who knows how to carry himself, or display himself in the most threatening manner. or in other words, the one who puts on the better performance. If your performance is good enough maybe it can overcome a size difference too.

[Aranticus]

i See... Moving On. I Am Done With This Thread The Debate Is Over, I Lost... No, I Strategically Retreated, Yeah I Like This Word Replacement Thing. have Fun Talking To A Wall.

Irony

[shenthing]

I see... moving on. I am done with this thread the debate is over, I lost... no, I strategically retreated, yeah I like this word replacement thing. Have fun talking to a wall.

Hyperbole?

[krud]

Hyperbole?
No, definitely irony.

[krud]

The intimidation ability is already to weak, lets give it some juice.
Not that you're paying attention anymore, but out of the three social skills intimidate is by far the most effective. I agree in part to your notion that a social skill should not be able to draw aggro so easily from something that is really hurting the mob, but that is different from what you are asking. I actually think intimidate is too powerful (and I have an inimitank). Imo, the social skills should all be single target only and require a feat (like bluff/imp feint) to make AoE. But i digress.

Think about what you are saying for a second. "...if you deal damage you produce hate and draw agro" What you are describing is hate generation. All damage causes hate. The more you do, the more agro you get. It has always been that way in game, and there are enhancements, etc to increase or decrease this effect. That is how being bigger and stronger draws agro, by dealing more damage. However, when you say mobs should go after the person who looks more badass, you are now tallkng about appearance. Intimidate is drawing aggro without damage. How does one do that? with their looks, talk, or gestures. Those are all charisma based factors.

Now look at the skill itself. The classes that should be good at it get intimidate as a class based skill. Therefore they can more easily get a higher intimidate score, as they should. A sorc or bard is going to have a lower intimidate than an equally invested ftr/barb because the skill is a cross class skill for them. What does charisma do? It is only a modifier, meaning it only adds or subtracts from the skill. All else being equal, the one with the higher charisma is better able to appear or look more badass and intimidating.

[Irinis]

All else being equal, the one with the higher charisma is better able to appear or look more badass and intimidating.

Agreed. All else being equal... the high cha person already has inherent ability to do it better... but all else ISN'T equal, because melee classes can choose to train the skill and can train it higher than non-melee.

Calling it taunt instead of intimidate would make so much more sense. But then we'd have taunttanks and that's just an ugly word!

[Junts]

I did not say strength, I said con. If your going to critique my idea please critique my idea not some other unrelated idea. In my case balance is still maintained because you can either have strength and thus lots of DPS or lots of con and thus lots of HP and a high Intim but less DPS ability. There is still a trade off and trade offs are not all that important at all anyway, a sorc can cast bears endurance but a fighter can not cast eagles splendor, the imbalance already exists in game my idea doesn't cause it, it fixes it.

The classes that use cha DON'T NEED intimidation. Why bother to make them good at it? Cleric? Nope, when I play my cleric I don't want agro, I'm to busy healing to fight. Sorc nope they don't want agro either cause they all have like 3 hp. Bard? there lovers not fighters, they just want to rock, the last thing they want is agro. Fav soul? nope there either healers or back up fighters, let the real tanks get the agro while you wail on the guy from behind. The only one who would use it is a Pally and I have seen very few pallys with a cha above 16. They need str con dex and wis before they even think about cha. on a pally int is the only dead stat.

It just doesn't make sense as a cha stat. Could a drow sorc be more intimidating? Yeah but why would they want to? Intimidation is not a tactic a bard or a sorc would use makeing them have a high intim check is like making a stake dinner for a vegetarian, it may be great but it will just go to waist on them cause they will never ever use it. Fighter barb pally SHOULD be really good at intimidation, there the only one that use it. The intimidation ability is already to weak, lets give it some juice.

going to con would actually nerf intimidate for nearly every intimidate build .. con is very hard to stack in DDO.

[Bufo_Alvarius]

Nope, like I said you don't have time to talk **** in battle. All that happens it this, the bard gets out his lute, the dwarf gets out his axe, that's one round. Bard plays a tune, dwarf drives his axe in to your sternum maybe (more than once), that's two rounds. Against whom are you going to defend yourself first, the armed psycho doing a here's johnny in your body cavity or the harmless unarmed sissy with a lute? Remember you don't know that guy's a bard, hes just some sissy with a lute and hes not even attacking you.The bard is NEVER the priority in battle.

Does magic not exist in this exercise? I think i would want to kill the guy thats making it impossible to fight the barb. You know the guy that everyone cant stop watching for some reason....

[Ashiel_Dragmire]

Intimidate is charisma based because charisma is used to influence other creatures/people. Getting everything to attack you is a type of influence. Influence can be positive or negative, but either way your charisma determines how effective it is.

That's why intimidate is charisma based. It makes sense. Intimidate is actually a bad label for the ability, it should be called taunt. Not because that's what it's called in WoW, but because that's what you are really doing.

Intimidate: to make timid or fearful
Taunt: a sarcastic challenge or insult

The name of the ability is the opposite of what it actually does.


Yes. Taunt should be the skill that draws in Aggro while Intimidate sends people scampering off (like Fear but with a shorter duration). Charisma would still be the Stat of choice to base both Taunt and Intimidate off of.