Player Pet Peeve thread:

>>49176787
>Wants the world to be realistic and not rely on set piece adventures.
>Nothing ever happens.
>Even when you're proactive, things don't naturally flow into an adventure and you have to constantly try to force things along.
Shit's boring and frustrating.

>>49176787
No roll/ no save bullshit on a character that happened to miss a session, i recently dropped a game for that bullshit. Also hired NPC's not rolling when in the party and contributing to group success or detection/perception.

We had the motherfuckers on watch along with the guy that missed the session and none of them got a roll. w almost got one-shotted in the ambush we "couldn't detect" I was pissed and dropped that night. Fucking asshole DM.

File: 4ADD7.jpg (194KB, 496x583px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 496x583px

>>49176787
>insists that we roleplay social skills
>does character voices
>wastes the group's times with 'colourful' and 'interesting' descriptions that can be as many as four sentences
>doesn't always play RAW, invokes rule 0 and the Golden Rule when we complain
>says "anime is not automatically a bad source of inspiration" like the weebtarded faggot he is
>SJW shit like having females with equal stats to males
>has beastfolk in his setting (FURFAG ALERT)
>uses generic Savage Worlds instead of specialized 5e
>hosts the games at his house so he can 'be the boss'
>has a shit beard

>>49177133
Seriously, Virt, it's like you're not even trying. Where's the good old days when you could make half of /tg/ have an aneurysm without even batting an eye? You've gotten stale.

>>49177239

What? Who's Virt?

>cut scenes that invalidate any and all abilities the party has

Drove me away from playing for three years when every dm in our group started doing because one made it work. Also, fuck any dm that uses the fey just to go "lol, you fail".

>>49177239
>uses generic Savage Worlds instead of specialized 5e

>Accusing someone of being virt when they've praised "DnD next".

How new are you?

>>49177239
Dude, stop. Don't summon that asshole.
Just because someone is obviously baiting and/or a shithead doesn't mean it's the SAME shithead.

>>49177364
His exact words were "Run Generic Savage Worlds over Specialized 5e"

His comments are all dumbass complaints meant to trigger /tg/. That's the giveaway. Virt loves Savage Worlds, hates 5e. In this case he's presenting Savage Worlds as the "obvious" better option, over 5e.

>>49177405
It's him. It's got all the little ticks that denote virt. >>49177532 is the dead giveaway though.

>>49177567
But he's complaining about the things his DM does.
>[my pet peeve is that my GM] uses generic Savage Worlds instead of specialized 5e

>>49177532
>Virt loves Savage Worlds, hates 5e.
I thought he eventually disavowed SW mainly due to bennies and bursty dice

>>49177638

B-b-b-b-b-but it's totes Virt! ;_;

>>49177646
Nah, he gave a review of it. He cuts out the +2 increments and runs without Bennies.

>>49177638
His previous comments were things like "roleplay social skills" and "gives up to four sentences of description." You know, the stuff that actually makes a game good.

>everything is grey
>there are no badguys

Haven't found a DM this lame but I constantly dread it because this is a real fun-killer.

File: 1383281420745.png (255KB, 354x367px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 354x367px

>have character be good in thing, bad in another
>DM ALWAYS throws "things you are bad at, at you"

>never describes the general sense of the area
>miss large important thing any sane person would have noticed from walking into a room

>object you don't know what it is
>try every skill and spell from everyone including deity involvement
"you don't know what it is"
Ok. I guess it's not important then.
>it was an important clue of course

>encounters that take 3 hours because of bloated HP totals

>>49177892

I dread players like you because you're plebs who want everything to be corny and black-and-white.

>>49177133
This guy sounds like a good gm though

>>49177307
Name fag who got banned for either being super autistic or a very dedicated troll.

>regular xp farm enemiel like kobolds, gobbos and bandits never retreat or give up, fight to the last hp
THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE SCUM OF THE EARTH
EVEN IF THEY DEFEND THEIR LAND, RULE "It's not losing if you can win anoher day" EXISTS

>>49181117
What's wrong with corny in a play pretend swords and magic game?
If anything, shades of grey are less suited.

>>49176787
I once gave our DM the advice I use DMing. "Come up with the problem, not the solution"

Whilst I give leeway to problems solved through clever player input, he just adds new facets to the problem until it's unsolvable, play grinds to a halt and he gives us a deus ex machina to solve the fuckup he made.

He's getting better, but fuck me sideways does this grind my gears.

>>49176787
That bunny looks like mine.

>>49181117
>>49181759
>discussing kinds of fun

>>49181827
>still believing that fun can't be objectively judged

>>49181842
>Fun can be objectively judged
I don't even.

>>49181117
>>49181759
>>49177892
You should have black, white, and everything in between. Have Lord Skullraper the Bastard on one side, and Saint Peaches and Cream on the other. Have them be the extremes arund which events of the world pivot, with everyone in the middle just trying to nake it with varying levels of cuntiness.

>>49176787
Going multiple sessions where it's more like an episode of Survivor than an adventure. Yeah it can be neat to sometimes see what we can come up with the survive in a realistic harsh environment...but I'd really love to use my sword some time.

>Be Paladin, Oath of Devotion.
>Setting is DM's grimdark, edgeland.
>Party members include, red eye assassin looking for vengeance, literal faggot wizard looking for lost boyfriend's soul, and former Amazon slave turned gladiator barbarian.
>Every third NPC encounter is designed to make me fall.
>From option of refusing food to refugees, to bringing judgement onto war orphans.
>Got to the point where sitting in a tavern will bring out a bunch of goblins being beaten the crap out of.
>Where goblins are scummy rape machines if left unchecked in this setting.

>>49181530
He's still around, and he seems about as reasonable as most people on here honestly.

http://virtualoptim.tumblr.com/

>>49181998
>Campaign is grimdark
>I play noblebright hero
Maybe he's passive agressively saying roll up a more suitable character?

>>49181851
Actually we can talk about that if you like why not.

To define fun objectively we need to look at its purpose and then extrapolate relative to that purpose.

For the individual, fun has the main purpose of pleasure. That's simple, though there are other things that come into it. If we also think about right living and self-improvement as objectively good overarching goals then those factor into fun as well. So while mindless edgy fun might not be objectively bad, fun that has intellectual, moral or character-building aspects is objectively better. Objectively bad fun would be kinds that encourage ignorance, falsehood and immorality, and that pander to negative personality traits.

Next we have to look at fun in a group context, and we start with the premise that group fun is a social activity, and social activities have the purpose of creating social bonds. People do this by bringing pleasure to others in the group, learning about their personalities, and fostering a sense of communality by jointly creating something, even if it's creating something abstract. To that end, malicious individuals within a group who find pleasure in indulging their selfish and antisocial whims to the detriment of others are having objectively bad fun. People who inadvertendly thwart the group's goals though stupidity or laziness are also having objectively bad fun, though not as bad. In /tg/-related situations, these are all objectively bad players, aka That Guy.

The same points about right living and self-improvement can also apply to group fun.


In conclusion, badwrongfun is that which causes the individual to stagnate or deteriorate as a person, and/or that works against communal group goals and priorities. Liking black-and-white uncreative settings is an example of an individual stagnating or deteriorating intellectually.

>>49182233
Too Autistic, didn't read.

>>49182044
>he seems about as reasonable as most people
That ain't saying much, still interesting to hear he's still around.

>>49182261
>too smart for me, couldn't understand it

It's OK anon, but with your <90 IQ you should probably just lurk. :)

>>49177892
>Haven't found a DM this lame but I constantly dread it because this is a real fun-killer.

>>49181117
>I dread players like you because you're plebs who want everything to be corny and black-and-white.
This is dumb.
You are dumb.
You should merely hope you don't get players like anon because they're plebs who constantly live in fear of something they've never seen or experienced but are 100% certain that it's a huge problem because /tg/ says it happens sometimes.

Shit like this is why being familiar with /tg/ is a red flag.

>>49182271
It's entire premise was flawed.
And no, contrary to what Mommy told you, Autism =/= Smart.

>>49182282

Take your weak b8 agenda and leave, kid.

>>49182293

It's premise is sound and it's conclusions are correct.

And yet here you are reduced to merely shrieking "LE AUTISM, LE AUTISM" because that's such a super smart argument.

Stay rekt.

>>49182271
>>49182312

Your premise is built around the idea that "fun" can be quantified scientifically.

Autism speaks and nobody brought the ball gag this time.

>>49182312
>Fun can be objectively measured
That's a sound premise?
>"right living"
Weasel Words.
>Objectively bad fun is based on immorality
Morals are subjective.

You may not like it, but it reads like an autistic person wrote it. Grasping the concepts, but not truly understanding them.

>>49182201
I'm not even playing it straight noblebright, mate. But rather as a ptsd paladin looking for redemption through deeds and in the bottom of a bottle

>>49182362
>>49182343
But fun can be quantified.
You guys just sound like the asshole That Guys in my group when I tell them they're fun is bad on a social level

Everything after the words "Roll initiative."
Combat is so goddamn boring, especially if you have players who don't even plan their turns out and stall for five minutes. I thought 5e's combat was supposed to be faster, but so far nobody ever thinks of their options nor does anything creative happen.
Even worse is when my character fails a save and can't take their turn or any reactions, so I get to play the waiting game while everyone hems and haws for upwards of five minutes each. Something like that can be a harrowing effect, sure, but not when other players are so slow that you're fairly certain sloths can play faster.

>>49182383
Oh. Then maybe he wants to play up your quest for redemption mechanically? If it were me, I'd play your Paladin pre game fallen, trying to regain his Paladinhood.

>>49182389

>But fun can be quantified.

Fun is subjective by nature, meaning that it cannot be quantified in any scientific research.

If you believe otherwise then you obviously don't understand what "objective" actually means.

>>49182389
>That Guys
>Plural
To me it sounds like the group isn't That Guy, but one player lacking self awareness is.
But I hope this has passed into the point of " I was just pretending to be retarded/autistic".

>>49182261
>>49182233
Thog Edit:
>I like talk
>What fun?
>Fun is enjoyable. Good fun is enjoyable and make anon better person. Bad fun is enjoyable and make anon worse person.
>Group Fun is social and make bonds. Bad people in group who enjoy stopping others in group from having fun is bad fun.
>People who enjoy fun by being stupid or lazy is also bad fun.
>Group fun can be good fun.
>Badwrongfun is fun that not make anon or group better

>Liking black-and-white uncreative settings is an example of an individual stagnating or deteriorating intellectually
[This part too dumb for Thog. Thog guess talky-man say if you like what he not like, then you bad.]

>>49182303
Which agenda would that be?
That fearing Grey Moral GMs you've never actually dealt with is dumb?

>>49182407
I once had a guy take over an hour every turn in a boardgame.

>>49182410
I wouldn't mind, except that every redemption is designed around the stupid 'kill one to save five or allow five to die instead of killing one'.

>>49182476
Maybe talk to him?
It's no fun to feel punished for your class.

>>49182491

As a martial he should be used to it.

>>49182491
I did. Hence, the gobbie dindu nuffin in the middle of the tavern.

>>49182564
>You talk to him
>He throws you a bone
>Still mad
Players...

>>49176787
No ability to improvise at all. I have to couch him and give him ideas. Half the time I feel like I'm the DM.

>>49182407
This. I hate silly cunts that go full imagined-Kasparov on the enemy and have trouble deciding if they're gonna use a 1d6 attack or a 1d4+2 attack at level fucking 10.
I also hate dual wielders/mutliple attackers on either side because I just know that the shitlord will take aeons to calculate the damages and hits.

>>49182580
>Throwing a bone with baby gobbies
>When party just went through last 2 sessions clearing a goblin fort filled with goblin raiders and kidnapped women and failed adventurers used as cattle and breeders.

Like the thread said, pet peeves stories, not 'That GM'.

Just proof the gm internet defense force is still alive and well.

>>49182362
>Fun can be objectively measured

As developed in my post, yes. You have failed to offer counterarguments other than to simply state the opposite.

>Weasel Words.

This isn't wikipedia, kid.

>Morals are subjective.

Nope. Trendy nihilism might be your cup of tea, but morality is objective. Certainly it can be relative, but that's not the same thing. But you probably don't yet grasp this.

>>49182412
>blah blah I'm so smart, I state things without proof and then call others stupid

You've got nothing. Your entire argument is one big "no u", extended high up into the wafflesphere.

You're not smart. You're not insightful. You're not philosophically articulate. You're just another shitposter, only slightly more verbose and a lot more pretentious.

>>49181740
a couple of my players complain that i make the bandits attempt to flee when more than half dies, it's only natural to flee when you're losing when the only reason why you fight is the next big cash grab

>>49182826
>morality is objective
Morality is a social construct.

>>49182826
Just tell us, oh master of thought, what do you and your divine grace find fun?

>>49182837

Which makes it an object, which makes it objective.

Keep up, dear.

>>49182845

Demolishing the puny intellects on this shit board, for one.

>>49182826
>Morality is objective
Thank you for confirming you are retarded or bait.

>>49182858
Well, you showed us.

Go to /pol/ and argue with the best of us. Never cast your divine light down upon us puny mortals again, oh great one.

>>49182858
>Social Construct is an Object
kek
But seriously, you're not trying any more.

>>49182826

>You're not smart. You're not insightful. You're not philosophically articulate. You're just another shitposter, only slightly more verbose and a lot more pretentious.

Wow, I was going to call you out on being a faggot but damn, you just took the words right outta my mouth.

>>49182233
>>49182826
I challenge your assertion that fun is bad if it doesn't improve the individual as well your assertion that games with simplistic morality are necessarily a.) "uncreative"; b.) stagnant; or c.) intellectual deterioration.

Simple fun can be good fun.

>"Turns are continuous and happen at the same time for every player, no time freeze shit"
>If you end your turn and you aren't over a surface you fall

>"Attack action is a series of swings and attacks, not a singular one"
>Every ranged weapon ever
>TWF gives you an extra attack with your off hand

>Intimidation depends on a stat that has nothing to do with how scary or dangerous you look, literally can be a 2 meter tall massive hulking creature that looks like comes from the abyss that you're less likely to intimidate people than a fluffy bunny

To sum up, D&D and PF in general

>>49183024
>Abstraction Bad
FTFY

>>49183024
>Rangers are deft skirmishers, either in melee or at range, capable of skillfully dancing in and out of battle.
>No acrobatics, no tumble, no perform: dance, no feature that allows you to skillfully dance in and out of battle
DnD/Paizo are so bad at descriptions.

>>49178279
>dm just keeps on describing a nonstop litany of NPC actions and events
>try to speak up loudly and state explicitly an action that my character will do
>DM pauses for a moment, looks at me like I interrupted him and goes back to NPC actions
>describes all of our characters mindlessly going along what the NPC was doing

I think in 4 hours not one PC actually performed an action that mattered

File: gg.jpg (205KB, 1349x386px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1349x386px

>>49183099
>Bad
>Implying isn't made on purpose to trick beginners
Ivory tower

>>49182858
>Demolishing the puny intellects on this shit board, for one.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This Guy right here!

>>49182407
This is never really a problem in our group, but our DM will set a time limit if we start discussing shit too much when things should be happening rapidly.

>>49183247
It makes me wish that FantasyCraft, 13th Age, or even Swords & Wizardry became the go-to fantasy game apart from D&D instead. At least then people would be playing a system that wasn't a clusterfuck of rules and trap options designed to encourage "system mastery".

>>49183247
how is a lead designer so unaware of the basics of the game they're working on

>>49183335
Because nobody at Paizo actually knows how their game works.

File: our new jap overlords aren't so bad after all.png (232KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 720x1280px

>>49176787
>critical failures and hits without confirms
>on a d20
>the strange ability to grossly misinterpret rules despite being a literal fucking lawyer
i don't understand it
other than that though, he's pretty chill, and despite throwing lethal as fuck encounters at us we've only lost one character (to a teamkill, at that)
part of why we've survived might be related to my ridiculous healing skills and critical-moment-20s but i won't take that for granted

anyway, there's another DM in the group (two more, actually, including myself on occasion) but he's super new to the concept so there's a lot of leeway while he learns. he did pick a SHIT system to start DMing though - mekton zeta is a fucking mess and i wouldn't wish its wacky tobaccy rules on anyone.

>>49177307
a faggot

>>49184212
>>critical failures and hits without confirms
I don't mind critical hits, but critical failures are retarded
>Experienced sniper fumbles in 1/20 shots and destroys his weapon

>>49184242
What pisses me off more are people who act like it is some core feature of dnd when it is an optional rule that those fuck heads do not even implement correctly.

File: 1411442596332.png (93KB, 359x254px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 359x254px

>>49184242
yeah they fucking blow, and he applies them to skill checks too
only good thing i've got out of it was a robot arm that automatically punches the nearest thing on a natural 1 for 2d8 damage
>mfw i've nearly taken out two players with that thing

>>49184284
that's really fucking irritating, yeah

>>49184284
>"It will add fun to the game"
>It actually doesn't, slows things up because now everybody doens't want to try something that requires many rolls unless they know they're going to succeed always, they end going with casters because lol no rolls, etc
FUCK.THAT.OPTIONAL.RULE.

This is more that GM than a pet peeve
>If you spend resources or powers in useless crap that will never appear in the game, that's good. You spent a resource in something useful that is meant for your archetype and character concept? fuck no, fuck you munchkin, I don't care if it's something your class gets either your want it or not.
Which is basically
>You can only be good at useless crap and nothing else

>>49177133
>wastes the group's times with 'colourful' and 'interesting' descriptions that can be as many as four sentences
You are baiting, but I remember someone posting a link about some guy who talks about acording to him good role playing who actually claimed this is the only way way because since everyone has fantasy on their own it's not necessary to stimulate said with some good descriptions and only keep it at a minimum.

>>49185114
I dare say it's more that "less is more", in that it's generally better to be able to describe something evocatively with one line than four.
That said, taking four lines to describe something well is better than using one line to describe it poorly, which is about equally bad as taking four lines to describe something poorly.

However, it's one of those things that takes practice, so it's hard to fault inexperienced GMs from waxing a little lyrical

>Precon chars when everybody knows how to play
Nightmare tier
>He levels them up, you can't choose shit ever
Eldritch horrors beyond the realms of the imagination tier
>He tells you how to act and what your character will say in any situation

>>49176787
That's not a peeve, that's a bunny.
Unless it's a bunny named Peeve - in which case, well played.

>gm never ever gives us levels
I never broke level 10 in any d20 (be it PF, FC, DnD) game I played, and I played A LOT of games.
Every GM in this group does it. I like them but fuck man, I want to play at level 20 once in five years. Campaigns end by the time we are 8/10.

>>49187004
Eventually, you'll do it. And eventually, you'll learn that high level 3.5/PF is an absolute shitshow beyond 12 and that capping the level is the easiest way to keep things reasonable.

>>49182430
>Good fun is enjoyable and make anon better person
why?

>>49182430
Many thanks, Thog.

>>49185551
>I dare say it's more that "less is more"
That dude literally said it's enough for the gm just say "that's a forest" and the players imagine the rest.

>>49176787
>multiple consecutive sessions with nothing but random encounters
>doesn't actually know the rules, makes them up as he goes along, assumes no one will notice
>lets players do stupid shit like murder random civilians for no reason, there's never any consequences

>>49176787

>Hey, I know the fantasy convetion of race X is like [this]
>But MY race X is something completely different!
>Then he gets annoyed because players react like they're the stereotype.

>>49186956
I refuse to believe there're GMs that do 2 and 3

File: 1472360871075.gif (2MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x225px

>>49177133

>>49189140
I like to have variants so players can choose if they want the stereotype or not.
>Hey in my setting you've got your typical scottish dwarves, slavic cyka blyat gopnik dwarves, and not-dwarves that are really just dogmen created to guard a long dead wizard's tomb. They all have the same racial bonuses so pick what you want.

As for player peeves:
>Ask what other players are playing as so I can have an idea om what to make that will fit in with the party
>Everyone lists off race, class, and character build info without so much as a hint to personality
>They look at me like I grew a second head if I ask about their personality

>>49182858
>object = objective

literally retarded.

I had a DM once who was one big pile of ineptitude

>decides to run D20 Modern
>doesn't even bother reading the book beyond some basic shit
>doesn't know any other system and refuses to learn anything else
>has spent the last 6 years dedicating himself to perfecting modern to make it "realistic"
>this included removing all classes, class bonuses, saving throw bonuses, AC modifiers, dex modifier to AC, etc
>if you didn't take fuckloads of ranks in listen, spot and search you were going to always get ambushed.
>it wouldn't be so bad if the DC to notice said ambushes wasn't an absurd number and if you somehow succeeded, he would still be vague as to what you detected.
>would often ask the whole table to randomly roll a D20 and negate someones rolls with whatever he gathered from that calling it a "luck roll"
>always runs apocalypsies of the zombie like variety
>you can never get clear answers about his setting with famous answers about it as "nobody knows whats going on"

I gave up and just found another group.

>>49193153
Nigga, you shoulda dropped that shit at D20 Modern, the fuck's wrong with you?

>>49182826
Mate, your argument is based on itself. Pls.

>>49194236
I was had nothing better to do and occasionally get morbidly curious how far he has devolved over the years.

>>49190360
Hey, I remember reading about your fake dwarves.

Fuck you.

>>49183124
Chooo chooooo~

File: chrome_2016-08-18_21-43-38.png (60KB, 219x195px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 219x195px

>>49181998
Going oathbreaker still gives you plenty of class features. Just roll with it.

>>49177319
People hate this shit in video games because it takes away agency and you always think that you could have beat that, had you control.

Why would anyone think its good to take this shit into tabletop?

>>49190360

I was actually thinking of much more significant changes.

One DM I know, has this reasonable but somewhat oddball setup for most of his campaign settings, where you usually have a set of gods, who have lesser spirits serving them.

These are "angels". Good gods get good angels, neutral gods get neutral angels, evil as shit gods get evil as shit angels.

Then, any of the above can "fall". Fallen angels trade away their immortality and incorporeality for a body and the ability to act on the Prime Material. They still (usually) retain their original outlooks. So you can have a fallen angel who is a paladin archetype. We had one game once where a new guy didn't realize this and sabotaged the equipment of a "fallen angel" because come on, that means he's a bad guy in disguise, right? Huge mess.

>>49182564
Sounds like you GM read a certain edgy manga lately?

>>49186956
So what are you all doing at the table why the Gm plays with himself?

>>49192873
You could say he's objectively retarded.

>>49176787
>>49177364
>>49177532
>>49177638
>>49177646
>>49177800
>Savage worlds
>DnD
>Hit Points

What do you guys think about having more enemies versus more HP? What do you prefer?

Savage worlds NPCs will usually go daddy wanted to hit so they end up making dozens of them.

>>49176787

>DM is a super nice pacifist irl, which is cool and all, I'm an asshole pacifist irl it works out.
>DM insists on making his worlds happy-funtime lands where no one dies unfairly and prisoners are humanely rehabilitated with flawless success rates.
>Never pits us against human/humanoid foes unless their super duper baby-eating tier evil, and even they it's frowned upon if we kill them.
>Doesn't want characters playing non-good characters.
>Most other things about his games are creative and well executed.


How the fuck am I supposed to feel like a noteworthy hero making a difference in the world when everything is already happy and fine?

How is NOT murdering the bad guys interesting if we never had the option to go all Boston PD on their asses in the first place?

I mean good grief, I don't need to be able to cut myself with the campaign setting at night while swiping through tinder and coming to the crushing realization that I'm just not attractive, but it's hard to play a heroic figure who wants to make the world a better place if the world is already fan-flipping tastic.


I'm also a little salty that after hashing these issues out with him he finally eased up on the rainbows and shit a bit, but then we brought in a new player who was a long time friend of his and he let them get away with more shit, and consequently they ruined the session and more or less killed the campaign in a blaze of dissatisfaction.

File: huh.jpg (25KB, 321x322px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 321x322px

>>49197184

>lethality is zero
>DMPCs bail us out of tight spots regularly
>basically everyone except the villains is friendly towards the party
>no conflict whatsoever outside of what is a cushy 9/5 job going out, killing monsters and coming back to a hero's welcome and a feast
DM is a super nice guy, but it feels like we're fighting paraplegic puppies with boxing gloves covered in bubble wrap sometimes

It could be more palatable in a lighthearted cartoonish kind of game, but we're CN Murderhoboes Extraordinaire: the Party

>>49182826
>You're not smart. You're not insightful. You're not philosophically articulate. You're just another shitposter, only slightly more verbose and a lot more pretentious

Didn't do more than skim his post, so I have no idea if he's right or you are, but the word you're reaching for is "thesaurus-pants".

He's hoping paper over whatever flaws his point has with complex sentence structure, long words, and elaborate construction.

Of course, dicks who do this can still be right.

>>49183024
>Intimidation depends on a stat that has nothing to do with how scary or dangerous you look, literally can be a 2 meter tall massive hulking creature that looks like comes from the abyss that you're less likely to intimidate people than a fluffy bunny
Fixable if you consider intimidation to be constructive intimidation. A huge monster is probably scarier than a skilled halfling, but the halfling is much better at convincing you not just that terrible things will happen if you don't cooperate, but also that they won't happen if you do.

>>49183024
>>Intimidation depends on a stat that has nothing to do with how scary or dangerous you look
out of all the flaws of 3.PF you pick something that makes perfect sense

let's ignore that being bigger than the target gives a bonus to intimidate, and that there is a "+STR to Intimidate" feat in PF, but skillful intimidation has much more to do with being right with words and knowing how to poke at your target's weak points than being a big bad brute

who's a better intimidator, some 6 ft hick or a suave gangster who has an offer you can't decline? I agree that STR, CON and size should give a flat non-scalable Intimidate bonus, but it's definitely a CHA skill