So, what is Charisma for Anyway?

[Bacon Barbarian]

Sorry, if this is the wrong place, but I think this is the place where it (best) belongs. So, I realize Charisma isn't simply how beautiful some one is as it also has to do with their ability to lead, and how "magnetic" they are. So why on Earth is Charisma the stat that determines Intimidate? I mean, a fugly xenophobe is as entitled to intimidating someone as a pretty socialite is. So, I guess what Im trying to get around to, is how do I fix the Intimidate skill. I have 2 possible ways of thinking for this. The first is to make it a feat-tree, but who would bother when their are so many more beneficial feats out their? The second is to have it rely on a different ability, though, none work as well as Charisma, and Charisma doesnt make any sense in the first place. Help?

[Temotei]

There was a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159845) about increasing the use for Charisma very recently.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120530)'s a proposed change.

Intimidate could work with Strength, if you wanted. Charisma also covers someone's ability to look however they want, essentially. If they want to look scary, they can, regardless of how someone would normally perceive them.

[Chronos Flame]

Maybe make intimidate based off of strength or charisma, whatever is higher for the given character. That would show that some characters intimidate you by threatening to rip off your arms and some do it by threatening to destroy your social standing or whatever.

[Milskidasith]

Problematically, while charisma is worthless it is also the focus of the greatest number of class features, so buffing it can easily lead to power boosts for cha reliant classes.

[Bacon Barbarian]

There was a thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159845) about increasing the use for Charisma very recently.

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120530)'s a proposed change.

Intimidate could work with Strength, if you wanted. Charisma also covers someone's ability to look however they want, essentially. If they want to look scary, they can, regardless of how someone would normally perceive them.

Thanks for the insight :)

I thought about Strength influencing Intimidate, but not every intimidating person is buff either. I do like the idea in the second link though, it's definitely a good idea that I think I'll try. I also thought about Wisdom determining Intimidate, but coercing somebody to doing something doesnt (have) to work with intimidating them into doing something ...


Problematically, while charisma is worthless it is also the focus of the greatest number of class features, so buffing it can easily lead to power boosts for cha reliant classes.

But what classes that get Intimidate are Charisma reliant in the first place?

[Volthawk]

Problematically, while charisma is worthless it is also the focus of the greatest number of class features, so buffing it can easily lead to power boosts for cha reliant classes.

Yeah, Charisma is really an all-or-nothing stat.

[Milskidasith]

But what classes that get Intimidate are Charisma reliant in the first place?

I was talking about the proposal for buffing charisma to do something besides determine intimidate. You seem to have completely missed my point.

[Bacon Barbarian]

I was talking about the proposal for buffing charisma to do something besides determine intimidate. You seem to have completely missed my point.

Yes, apparently. I thought you were saying there was already some (official) class that had worked its way around this

[lesser_minion]

The reason it determines intimidate is that:

Strength doesn't determine the amount of power at your disposal. Magic, martial arts, incarnum, binding, and so on, are all very important.
Charisma also influences your apparent conviction and the degree to which people take you seriously. Having the strength of a thousand men (about 60, for future reference) is irrelevant if your opponent doesn't think you'll use it.


The truth is that the listed key ability for a skill isn't always the most appropriate for the situation. The DMG has an explanation of this problem and offers a variant that fixes it.

[Jane_Smith]

Allow me to recap this into a easy to understand example as to why Charisma fits Intimidate.


3-8 Charisma Half-Orc Barbarian Intimidate: "I SMASH PUNY PINK HEAD IN WALL LIKE UM.... um.... wut's dat word for the green... pink inside... stuff? LIKE A MELON!"

Low Charisma: Tends to have difficulty with social interactions, putting together sentences, tends not to have a 'in door voice', and usually rambles to themselves, mumble or otherwise talk to themselves in third person. They seem more comical then intimidating.

14-18 Charisma Half-Elf Rogue/Assassin Intimidate: ""I say who lives. I say who dies. Im coming for your family, your friends, and your associates. And when I am done? I will come for you..."

High Charisma: Can think up more complex, button-pushing, gutt-wrenching threats, typically comes threw loud and clear as a said threat, and usually has the body language and expression that reeks of "I mean it, bi-otch." Ever tick'ed off the queen of england? Sure. Shes a little old lady and doesnt LOOK threatening, but considering with a flick of her wrist she can have you killed without flinching while drinking a cup of tea? You learn to respect, quickly.

[I_Got_This_Name]

Charisma was a wargame stat that meant how leaderlike the character was. It's been left in D&D ever since just because, and has slowly shed the duties it did in its wargaming days and picked up random odds and ends to replace them.

As a leadership stat, it makes more sense for making people obey you (through whatever means) than anything else.

[Harperfan7]

Is Arnold Swar....terminator scary?

Scary in that he could kill you, but not really scarry.

Anton Chigur? Very ****ing scary.

Thus guy? (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lauren_leigh/3398077935/)

Not so much.

[Rainbownaga]

To successfully intimidate someone you've got to show both that you

a) have the capacity to inflict unacceptable harm on your target
and
b) are willing to do so

Displays of strength may help for a, but they acheive nothing for the second category. In reality, displays of dexterity with a finesse weapon or displays of brute magic power would be just as effective as this.

What you really want is a natural talent for convincing people to see things your way, something that changes how they feel rather than relying on a purely logical risk-reward schema.

Fortunately, one of the 6 main stats covers that quite effectively.

[Cahokia]

You don't need strength to intimidate someone, and being strong does not exactly help you to intimidate. As others have said, it's the ability to make people afraid of you, something which muscles can't always do. Example:

MAN 1: I am big and strong! Do what I say!
MAN 2: Yeah, no.
MAN 1: But why? Look at my muscles!
MAN 2: Look at my cellphone. Look how easy it is for me to call 911, right now. Or just shout, "Hey, this guy is threatening me! Somebody else should do it!" You're dumb, but not dumb enough to risk prison, and what the people there BIGGER than you will do to you.
MAN 1: You raise an excellent point.

If you want a character who doesn't have a strong force of personality, but you want to be good at Intimidation? Well...put some skill points in there. You'd still be scarier if you were big and strong and had a forceful personality.

As Rainbownaga said: Intimidation is not about logic, because if someone logically has a reason to do what you say, than you don't need intimidate, you need diplomacy. Intimidation is about convincing the other person that, even though logic would dictate you could be stopped or you're not strong enough, there's just something about you that makes testing you not worth it.

[imp_fireball]

Wisdom could work for intimidate too - being unmovable and unreacting to things that people would normally react to (like not showing fear) can be intimidating.

Like the cold dissaproving stare of a zen master wise man. Pi Mae from kill bill? That guy was creepy.

The thing with strength is that, people know not to be intimidated when they are well aware that there are other methods of access to power.

Which is why the 'uncivilized' all stereotypically have barbarian levels and high strength scores for smashing - they don't have access to this power since they aren't civilized and don't have money, etc. So they go for the most mundane, easiest method being strength (not strong? lift some weights and done. It's tough but it's simple).


•Charisma also influences your apparent conviction

Conviction towards influencing people you mean. Not necessarily conviction in general. If it involves magic linked to charisma, it's all about convincing the magic to work for you, imo.

[For Valor]

So, the general consensus is that Charisma does close to nothing, except for the classes that focus on it. Frank Trollman sugested writing the mental stats as such:

Intelligence,
Perception, and
Willpower.

Willpower affects your Will saves (yeah, I know, same words. Sue me). Intelligence affects your skill points, and Perception affects your initiative.

The social interaction skills are very tricky, and you could honestly make the case to say "Intelligence is knowing what to say, Perception is reading how your opponent reacts, and willpower is your steadfastness to the topic". Putting those three together is what makes you initimidating, diplomatic, good at doing UMD stuff, so the Cha-based skills either get split up among the three attributes or get pitched (as they should). As a result of Bluff getting pitched, though, so would sense motive. Which is fine.

[imp_fireball]

MAN 1: I am big and strong! Do what I say!
MAN 2: Yeah, no.
MAN 1: But why? Look at my muscles!
MAN 2: Look at my cellphone. Look how easy it is for me to call 911, right now. Or just shout, "Hey, this guy is threatening me! Somebody else should do it!" You're dumb, but not dumb enough to risk prison, and what the people there BIGGER than you will do to you.
MAN 1: You raise an excellent point.

Actually it's more like this.


MAN 1: I am big and strong! Do what I say!
MAN 2: Yeah, no.
MAN 1: But why? Look at my muscles!
MAN 2: Look at my cellphone. Look how easy it is for me to call 911, right now. Or just shout, "Hey, this guy is threatening me! Somebody else should do it!" You're dumb, but not dumb enough to risk prison, and what the people there BIGGER than you will do to you.
MAN 1: Aww... dammit, now you're humiliating me, instead of me you. Let's forget this ever happened.
MAN 2: Suits me.

People aren't really always convinced by charisma - quite often it's more of a feeling of shame. High charisma makes you very good at judging people and getting away with it.


The social interaction skills are very tricky, and you could honestly make the case to say "Intelligence is knowing what to say, Perception is reading how your opponent reacts, and willpower is your steadfastness to the topic". Putting those three together is what makes you initimidating, diplomatic, good at doing UMD stuff, so the Cha-based skills either get split up among the three attributes or get pitched (as they should). As a result of Bluff getting pitched, though, so would sense motive. Which is fine.

That could just as easily be roleplayed, with intimidate DC depending entirely on circumstance. If a guy is hanging from a 1000ft. cliff, then he may be more intimidated then if he were at a parent/teacher conference. If they happen to be particularly resistant to fear (feat, template, subtype, type, race, trait, etc.), then the DC is modified by X.

[For Valor]

Actually, I think it's more like this...

[quote]
MAN 1: I am big and strong! Do what I say!
MAN 2: Yeah, no.
MAN 1: 'kay.
-*MAN 1 punches MAN 2 in the face and continues beating MAN 2 until MAN 2 is unconscious*-

the only reason MAN 1 would get in trouble is if he was dumb enough to do it where people who cared could see it... and that's not a Charisma problem. Charisma would only help MAN 2 if he was on a relatively equal level with MAN 1, or if MAN 1 thought MAN 2 was at least some sort of threat.

So, yeah, Charisma = not helpful in that situation.

[lesser_minion]

So, yeah, Charisma = not helpful in that situation.

Except that you're wrong.

If Man 1 tries to follow through on his threat, he's failed. And even on a failed intimidate, Man 2 retains enough command of the situation to, you know, run off.

Intimidates work by frightening the victim enough that they do something that's actually irrational. So, yes, if Man 2 passes an intimidate check to convince Man 1 that he could easily get help, man 1 will accept it.

And the game takes account of character level. There's a fair chance that he failed because Man 2 can actually take him any day of the week.

[Milskidasith]

Actually, I think it's more like this...

[quote]
MAN 1: I am big and strong! Do what I say!
MAN 2: Yeah, no.
MAN 1: 'kay.
-*MAN 1 punches MAN 2 in the face and continues beating MAN 2 until MAN 2 is unconscious*-

the only reason MAN 1 would get in trouble is if he was dumb enough to do it where people who cared could see it... and that's not a Charisma problem. Charisma would only help MAN 2 if he was on a relatively equal level with MAN 1, or if MAN 1 thought MAN 2 was at least some sort of threat.

So, yeah, Charisma = not helpful in that situation.

You do realize that the fun of beating somebody up is probably not worth jail time, right? Or that, you know, in D&D, anybody could easily be a spellcaster, or a dexterity based warrior, or whatever.

[For Valor]

Except that you're wrong.

If Man 1 tries to follow through on his threat, he's failed. And even on a failed intimidate, Man 2 retains enough command of the situation to, you know, run off.

Intimidates work by frightening the victim enough that they do something that's actually irrational. So, yes, if Man 2 passes an intimidate check to convince Man 1 that he could easily get help, man 1 will accept it.

And the game takes account of character level. There's a fair chance that he failed because Man 2 can actually take him any day of the week.

Except I'm not.

If MAN 1 is strong, he will wail on MAN 2 until MAN 2 goes down. If MAN 2's only options are "cell phone" and "scream", he's screwed. And if he's got an intelligence over 6, he should realize that. The fact that MAN 2 isn't good at talking doesn't matter if he's, say, a foot taller than MAN 1 and could obviously snap major bones with his hands.

The fact that there's a guy who's promising to hurt you if you don't do X is usually intimidating... no matter how poorly or in what language he talks. If you don't believe this, I suggest walking the streets of downtown seattle waving $20 bills in the air at midnight or something.


[QUOTE=For Valor;8957573]You do realize that the fun of beating somebody up is probably not worth jail time, right? Or that, you know, in D&D, anybody could easily be a spellcaster, or a dexterity based warrior, or whatever.

Woops, I thought they were pedestrians. If MAN 2 were a spellcaster, he wouldn't bring up crap like a cell phone. If MAN 2 were a dex-warrior, he wouldn't bring up crap like a cell phone.

oh and does the thought that you can warn the police AFTER someone finds your slightly mangled body comfort ANYONE? I doubt "I'll be able to call the police when he's done with he" will prevent someone from being intimidated.

[lesser_minion]

The fact that there's a guy who's promising to hurt you if you don't do X is usually intimidating... no matter how poorly or in what language he talks. If you don't believe this, I suggest walking the streets of downtown seattle waving $20 bills in the air at midnight or something.

But not intimidating enough that you do exactly what they say instead of running.

He might be scary enough that you don't want to face him, but he's not so scary that you lose all grip on reality. That's the difference between a successful intimidate check and a failed one.

And no, intelligence is not helpful. The entire point here is that an intimidated character behaves irrationally. Instead of running, fighting, or trying to get help, he does whatever the first guy says.

Your point doesn't follow. You're claiming that charisma is irrelevant in a situation where two characters both failed their intimidate checks.

Man 2 explaining that he can easily contact the police is an intimidate check. Even if he's in a massively inferior position, he's trying to convince the other guy that he isn't.

It should be pretty obvious how charisma comes into play here.


oh and does the thought that you can warn the police AFTER someone finds your slightly mangled body comfort ANYONE? I doubt "I'll be able to call the police when he's done with he" will prevent someone from being intimidated.

On the other hand, it might just be good enough to stop them carrying out their threat after they've failed to intimidate you.

[Dienekes]

But not intimidating enough that you do exactly what they say instead of running.

I very much disagree, having been confronted by a much stronger man before.

Besides intimidation can work with both Charisma or Strength. For an awesome example of charisma look no further than Princess Bride. For a realistic example of Strength intimidation talk to a local bouncer, that's pretty much their job.

[lesser_minion]

I very much disagree, having been confronted by a much stronger man before.

Did you in fact take the time to stat out this person? They might have had a charisma score worth noting. Or ranks. A real person only has d20+1 on their check to resist intimidation.


For a realistic example of Strength intimidation talk to a local bouncer, that's pretty much their job.

Or they could just have ranks in it. You're assuming that all bouncers are opped for intimidate, when they can do their job extremely well in D&D terms without having a particularly high charisma score.

Legally, several bouncers are going to be first aiders. Do you think those ones have high wisdom scores?

[Dienekes]

Did you in fact take the time to stat out this person? They might have had a charisma score worth noting. Or ranks. A real person only has d20+1 on their check to resist intimidation.

I wasn't honestly paying attention to this because I was too busy noticing that the guy was huge. That is what scared me, not his words, not his force of personality, hell I don't even remember his face or exactly what he said, it was the fact this guy could have torn me to shreds.


Or they could just have ranks in it. You're assuming that all bouncers are opped for intimidate, when they can do their job extremely well in D&D terms without having a particularly high charisma score.

Legally, several bouncers are going to be first aiders. Do you think those ones have high wisdom scores?

Now we're seeing differences between game world and real world. I honestly don't think most doctors have a high wisdom. And in this age of reading how to perform surgeries out of textbooks I don't see how having a high wisdom would help in any case.

You can accept that in certain situations a man's force of personality has little to no effect on being intimidated by them, or you can not. Really it doesn't matter to me.

That is part of why I like Conan d20. They actually gave a list of ways other stats can be used for Intimidation and gave each a new skill name to suit the character (though I thought that Constitution intimidation was pushing it).

[lesser_minion]

I wasn't honestly paying attention to this because I was too busy noticing that the guy was huge. That is what scared me, not his words, not his force of personality, hell I don't even remember his face or exactly what he said, it was the fact this guy could have torn me to shreds.

Sorry to drag this out, but I think you're describing the results of a successful check. That's very different to describing what led the check to be successful.

What happens if the assailant in the original hypothetical is a smaller guy with a knife? Would you honestly be re-assured by the fact that you're bigger?

How about five smaller guys who may be armed but you don't know?

[Dienekes]

Sorry to drag this out, but I think you're describing the results of a successful check. That's very different to describing what led the check to be successful.

What happens if the assailant in the original hypothetical is a smaller guy with a knife? Would you honestly be re-assured by the fact that you're bigger?

How about five smaller guys who may be armed but you don't know?

I believe there are rules for being at a clear disadvantage such as being unarmed against an armed opponent, or outnumbered.

This doesn't change the fact his charisma had nothing to do with why I was afraid. His strength, however, did. If the man had been of no greater size than me and unarmed as he was, and we were in the same position, I may have responded the same, I may have tried to defend myself. I have never been in this exact position so I cannot know for certain. However, I like to think that I would have tried to, unless he pulled a gun or knife or something. But then I think everyone likes to think that they would fight until the opportunity actually presents itself.

[lesser_minion]

This doesn't change the fact his charisma had nothing to do with why I was afraid. His strength, however, did. If the man had been of no greater size than me and unarmed as he was, and we were in the same position, I may have responded the same, I may have tried to defend myself. I have never been in this exact position so I cannot know for certain. However, I like to think that I would have tried to, unless he pulled a gun or knife or something. But then I think everyone likes to think that they would fight until the opportunity actually presents itself.

My point is that the difference is between completely losing it and staying in control and trying to work out the best course of action.

I was in the situation with five smaller guys. I certainly didn't fight them. What I did manage to do was keep track of where I was, and make sure I was running towards safety.

If I'd failed the level check, I'd have probably panicked.

That's the difference. Intimidate checks don't tell you whether or not a character notices they're completely outclassed. They tell you whether the character is able to keep some idea of what they were doing.

If there's a clear advantage or disadvantage for one side, that's a circumstance bonus. Not an excuse to arbitrarily dump charisma from the equation.

[imp_fireball]

For a realistic example of Strength intimidation talk to a local bouncer, that's pretty much their job.

Well, it's hard to say really.

Bouncers and the like use something called 'fast talk' which isn't really covered by D&D (presently anyway).

Example of Intimidate: I could crush the very life out of you with a spell. I know many spells. Do you want to learn each of them? I could walk you through them. I really could, y'know.

Example of Fast Talk: Yah, no, can't accept it. Get goin'. Bust.

It's a bit hard to explain.

Really, the appearance of a bouncer is to dissuade people from certain decisions - if the bouncer had to do any actual convincing through conversation, then he'd be intimidating. Otherwise, it's roleplaying and frightful presence (although that only applies to certain monsters, but technically any monster can be scary when you know it can kill you).


This doesn't change the fact his charisma had nothing to do with why I was afraid. His strength, however, did. If the man had been of no greater size than me and unarmed as he was, and we were in the same position, I may have responded the same, I may have tried to defend myself. I have never been in this exact position so I cannot know for certain. However, I like to think that I would have tried to, unless he pulled a gun or knife or something. But then I think everyone likes to think that they would fight until the opportunity actually presents itself.

The fact that the other guy is bigger is a circumstance. Just like being unarmed, outarmed or outnumbered. Charisma is a different story.
-----

As for resolve, it's mostly just your ECL. If you have to mentally stave off the affects of something that's invading your brain, then that's a will save.

[For Valor]

This argument has diverged from its origin.

The argument: Strength works for intimidation checks.

Why? Because strong people are scary. They can hurt you, and it's obvious they can hurt you. All living beings are ingrained with a natural fear of people who are strong. You're not scared of a smart person unless they're a wizard, but you're always scared of big things with muscles.

Yes, charisma can be scary, too. But we're not dumping charisma here, we're making it work as an either/or.

[Owrtho]

I have a fairly simple way I use to explain charisma to people who have trouble understanding it.

Charisma is how good you are at getting people to respond the way you want them to. More specifically, it is an ability to judge what actions will best get the desired result with a given person.

The ability to judge that though doesn't automatically make you able to perform said actions (I remember reading something where a character was able to perfectly predict every move that anyone would use and as such be able to determine what would be the best action to counter it. When he ended up having to fight one on one he forfeited almost immediately because he himself actually had no skill at fighting so would have been able to do nothing despite knowing what moves were coming). That's where the other skills come in. In diplomacy it would aid you in telling just what kind of terms you could press without going overboard. In bluffing just, what kind of things they will consider believable lies and telling when you're getting out of hand. For performances it would be reading the audiences mood and making subtle adjustments to your performance to get the desired emotions and responses.

As for intimidate, it would have to do with figuring out how to best throw your weight around, determining subtle differences in stance to figure out what will be most effective to show yourself off as more powerful. Telling just how far you can take a threat before it causes the wrong type of reaction like making them angry and wanting to attack you, decide it isn't actually in your power to deliver, or just break down or snap.

That isn't saying that strength doesn't have a part in intimidation, but much more important can be ones bearing and making sure that you give the impression that you're bigger and stronger.
If someone was bigger than you, but tried to threaten you while slouched back, wearing baggy made it hard to see they had any muscle, had a kind looking expression that seemed unlikely to go through with it, and spoke in a tone that more like they were joking and couldn't keep a strait face, it would likely be hard to take them seriously and not seem particularly intimidating at all (mind in some cases such a sloppy manner could be used to seem even more intimidating due to the contrast of their appearance and actions, but that is a different thing). That would be an issue of low charisma and low intimidation skill. They wouldn't be putting their superior size and strength to the best advantage they could while trying to intimidate you.

Owrtho

[For Valor]

@Owthro: The only thing that doesn't account for is the powers of the Sorcerer and all SLAs... so, magic. If you've got a way to make that account for magic, I can see it working.

Also, big people are still scary. Athatchs probably slouch. They also speak poorly and look kinda ridiculous with their third arm sticking out of their chest. However, if one said he was going to break my face unless I gave him my money, I definitely would.

[Analytica]

The way I see this: if you use strength for intimidation, you are still not actually breaking or lifting something. You are trying to convince the other person that you can and will do so unless you get your way. Your capacity for getting this point across is one of the things that charisma concerns, mechanically.

Alternately put, if you have high strength and low charisma, your audience might not actually notice your full strength and violence capacity unless you actually use it. They might assess you as a poser, or someone who really wouldn't go through with it anyway. That might well be an incorrect assessment, but it still means that just flexing your muscles would not work, you would actually have to start the fight. On the other end of the scale, with low strength and a high charisma, your audience might incorrectly assess you as far stronger than you actually are, or otherwise scary and dangerous. Perhaps you talk exactly like that childhood figure who disciplined them, and unconsciously you begin to fear them as you did that person.

As someone said, those assessments will indeed not be rational. But skills like bluff, diplomacy or intimidate are all about exploiting irrational tendencies in people, and make them behave differently from how they probably should have behaved, if they had made a rational assessment of the situation as it actually stands.

Given this, I feel that characters that should be intimidating SHOULD by rights have at least mediocre charisma. The bouncer, the thug etc. - these people exploit reputations, stressful situations, expectations and so on. To adequatly represent them, either as PCs or NPCs, require some charisma and points in social skills. If this means not 100% of their available character creation choices can go towards physical combat, then perhaps that means that characters optimized for combat to the exclusion of all else shouldn't exist.

The counterexample of extremely combat-capable and intimidating characters; well, what's to say they do not, in fact, have high ranks in intimidate and other social skills?

Having said that, I would award a situational bonus if a very strong person tried to intimidate on the basis of strength. Obviously this works only in cases where they could, in fact, get away with starting a fight - if you are in chains, surrounded by guards, or writing a letter, your strength should be of no help, whereas charisma still would. Again, someone with low charisma but high strength might not come across as strong to the same extent as they would with high charisma, but even then, if combat seems like an actual risk, and they demonstrate their actual strength through some act such as casually killing a bystander with a backhanded blow or whatever, then certainly, add that circumstance bonus from strength.

This is how I interpret things. Your perspective may be different.

[For Valor]

Alrighty, so you're saying that a guy who is 6' 4" and could bench a loft bed might not look intimidating because of his clothing choice and whether or not he flexes his muscles?

I mean.... honestly...

[Owrtho]

@Owthro: The only thing that doesn't account for is the powers of the Sorcerer and all SLAs... so, magic. If you've got a way to make that account for magic, I can see it working.

In the case of magic you would be judging the arcane energies (or whatever type they are), and figuring out the various minute changes that you need to make to have them react how you want. Same idea, just applying it to non-human things. As with people though you still need the skill and/or training to actually be able to properly make the needed adjustments, and in this case likely to be able to sense it to be able to tell what adjustments need to be made in the first place.


Also, big people are still scary. Athatchs probably slouch. They also speak poorly and look kinda ridiculous with their third arm sticking out of their chest. However, if one said he was going to break my face unless I gave him my money, I definitely would.

That is why creatures get a bonus to intimidate checks if they are bigger. Also there is a difference between looking ridiculous and looking non-threatening. A rhino might be seen as looking ridiculous, but it also looks quite dangerous. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of huge people that look like they wouldn't hurt a fly. It has to do with the way they bare themselves, and charisma is about knowing how best to act and bare yourself to give the desired impression (such as knowing how to act to look like you want to hurt someone vs. look gentle). Facial expression, gestures, tone of voice, and choice of words also play a large part (as can other things). That doesn't mean you need to speak intelligent, or even be great at interacting with people in a non intimidating fashion, but you do need to be good at using what you have to the best of your advantage with regard to how the other might react.

Owrtho

[For Valor]

Concerning magic... so your charisma is how you predict and react to other people, and how you predict and react to magic?

Euhhhhh... but I guess that's why everyone has a different opinion.

Concerning being big and scary: Fine, if an anthropomorphic polar bear came up to me and told me to give it my money, I would. Does that make you happier?

And while we're talking about rhinos... did you know a rhino has 2 Charisma and twenty-six strength? Sooooo, if you think a rhino is scary... as in it intimidates you... then you've just proven my point.

[Strudel110]

Concerning magic... so your charisma is how you predict and react to other people, and how you predict and react to magic?

Euhhhhh... but I guess that's why everyone has a different opinion.

Concerning being big and scary: Fine, if an anthropomorphic polar bear came up to me and told me to give it my money, I would. Does that make you happier?

And while we're talking about rhinos... did you know a rhino has 2 Charisma and twenty-six strength? Sooooo, if you think a rhino is scary... as in it intimidates you... then you've just proven my point.
Owthro is right you know? also rhinos don't make attempts to intimidate PCs, they just gore them. Most heroes wouldn't be afraid of a rhino anyway.

[For Valor]

Owthro is right you know? also rhinos don't make attempts to intimidate PCs, they just gore them. Most heroes wouldn't be afraid of a rhino anyway.

Ahhhhh straw straw straw.

First, the reason I think Owthro is wrong is obvious from my responses. So no, I don't know he's right. I know something completely different.

Second, please learn some ecology before trying to teach me anything. A female rhino with her young will not attack a party of four, since her priority is the one calf she is protecting, and charging one person would result in the other three potentially getting to the baby. Her first attempts to ward off attackers would be to scare them... via intimidation.

Oh, and yes, most tier 3 heroes above level 4 wouldn't be afraid of a rhino. But that's because most heroes are metagaming players who don't actually feel the pain of being speared by a 1.5-foot-long horn and know that battle mechanics are in their favor. The skill Intimidate seems to reflect a more realistic approach.

[Owrtho]

Actually I've never really known rhinos to be scary. Doesn't mean I would go out of my way to provoke one. I've also never known a rhino to threaten someone for money, but if one did do so to me, I'd likely give it the money if I was unarmed and without immediate help. I'd also expect it had higher than 2 charisma.

I've also never found the D&D stats of normal animals to seem particularly accurate. I'd likely be somewhere between a commoner and an expert if translated into d&d stats, and I highly doubt a normal house cat could kill me (mind one with some dangerous and contagious disease might, but that wouldn't be a normal house cat). I'd also point out that rhino is large, giving it a +4 bonus to intimidate against a human. But when it comes down to it, if I was confronted by one, I doubt I'd have trouble keeping control of myself and reasoning out what to do.

You also overlook the possibility of ranks in intimidate to make up for a lack of charisma. And there is a distinct difference between confronting something that you know is quite likely to kill you (such as an animal defending territory or that has decided to eat you), vs. being intimidated by a person. Intimidation is usually done with the hope of not having to make good on the threat.

Also on the magic, outside sorcerer, I've found that many charisma based casters draw their power from some more powerful entity, so it makes sense. Also who's to say that magic can't be read in a manner similar to people. There is also the fact that if you look at the more simplified version of how I defined charisma (ability to get others to do what you want), it makes sense that when lacking a better option, they might just say it works or the magical energies too.

Owrtho

[Mando Knight]

Alrighty, so you're saying that a guy who is 6' 4" and could bench a loft bed might not look intimidating because of his clothing choice and whether or not he flexes his muscles?

I mean.... honestly...

Yes. Superman and Batman, while both strong heroes, can change into a business suit and adopt a different demeanor to become completely non-threatening. Until they show someone they're really actually rather strong, Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent won't intimidate anyone by means of strength.

It's sort of a "force of presence" that makes someone intimidating. Being musclebound is a source of that force, but Charisma better represents the ability to project that force. You might be intimidated quite easily by an ugly oaf with a massive cudgel and a terrible demeanor, but far more intimidating is a clever man who with but a few choice words makes you fear fates worse than a trip to the ER.

[Strudel110]

Ahhhhh straw straw straw.

First, the reason I think Owthro is wrong is obvious from my responses. So no, I don't know he's right. I know something completely different.

Second, please learn some ecology before trying to teach me anything. A female rhino with her young will not attack a party of four, since her priority is the one calf she is protecting, and charging one person would result in the other three potentially getting to the baby. Her first attempts to ward off attackers would be to scare them... via intimidation.

Oh, and yes, most tier 3 heroes above level 4 wouldn't be afraid of a rhino. But that's because most heroes are metagaming players who don't actually feel the pain of being speared by a 1.5-foot-long horn and know that battle mechanics are in their favor. The skill Intimidate seems to reflect a more realistic approach.

You know it's a friendly discussion I'm not dissing you. Ok example of strength not being a surefire indicator. Bruce Lee. Yes Lee was a small Asian man of slight build, but if conflict arises Lee rips his shirt off, lets loose a kung-fu scream, and adopts a fighting stance. Intimidate check passed, enemies shaken not because Lee is huge but because he acts scary. a.k.a. Charisma. He knows how people will react to what he does, fighting stance alone isn't much but most people aren't use to being roared at by an angry, half naked man.

[For Valor]

On magic: So it's your own opinion, and not an idea that you think needs to be widely reflected. We've finally gotten to the point where you kind of admit that, and you've also admitted the system has awkward holes. We move on.

On rhinos being scary: Alrighty, so you don't find the stats accurate. Congrats. Just let me tell you that rhinos are BIG and HAVE LOTS OF MUSCLES.

If a rhino was making loud noises, setting itself back on its hind legs, and shaking its head at you, you wouldn't be scared? I recommend not traveling into unsettled territory in the United Republic of Tanzania, Mozambique, or Kenya.

Also, you're talking like if someone fails an intimidation check, they simply drop everything they're doing and gtfo... that's wrong, wrong, and also wrong. Mechanically, the rhino shifts you 1 step closer towards Helpful. Normally you'd be indifferent, and with proper intimidation, you'd be friendly. Which means you'd do what the rhino wants and move away. You wouldn't lose control of your mind or something stupid, and you wouldn't forget how to reason things out... you'd just act as though you were Helpful for a few rounds until you walked out of the Rhino's danger zone.

About ranks: I don't care about ranks. I'm assuming a no-rank system here, where you're looking at a guy covered in muscle and some charismatic demon or something. All that muscle is scary, and so are the words of said demon.

About Superman and Batman: OK, fine, sure. So during intimidation, people with charisma pose and talk. People with strength break things and flex.

Some crap about choice words: People who talk don't scare me unless they have something to talk about. This guy "who with but a few choice words" can scare the pants off of me has yet to exist. Honestly, find him for me and let's see if he really has the qualities you describe.

About "dissing": You said "Owthro is right you know?" and dismissed all of my comments. I apologize for taking that as a "diss"... but it really really seemed like it.

About Bruce Lee having high charisma: I don't think that guy had very much charisma. If he did, they'd have given him some better dialogue. The reason he was famous was because he was so badd*ss and strong. Ripping off his shirt=strength=intimidating. Screaming=not charisma-exclusive. I think you reinforce my point here.

[Strudel110]

On magic: So it's your own opinion, and not an idea that you think needs to be widely reflected. We've finally gotten to the point where you kind of admit that, and you've also admitted the system has awkward holes. We move on.

On rhinos being scary: Alrighty, so you don't find the stats accurate. Congrats. Just let me tell you that rhinos are BIG and HAVE LOTS OF MUSCLES.

If a rhino was making loud noises, setting itself back on its hind legs, and shaking its head at you, you wouldn't be scared? I recommend not traveling into unsettled territory in the United Republic of Tanzania, Mozambique, or Kenya.

Also, you're talking like if someone fails an intimidation check, they simply drop everything they're doing and gtfo... that's wrong, wrong, and also wrong. Mechanically, the rhino shifts you 1 step closer towards Helpful. Normally you'd be indifferent, and with proper intimidation, you'd be friendly. Which means you'd do what the rhino wants and move away. You wouldn't lose control of your mind or something stupid, and you wouldn't forget how to reason things out... you'd just act as though you were Helpful for a few rounds until you walked out of the Rhino's danger zone.

About ranks: I don't care about ranks. I'm assuming a no-rank system here, where you're looking at a guy covered in muscle and some charismatic demon or something. All that muscle is scary, and so are the words of said demon.

About Superman and Batman: OK, fine, sure. So during intimidation, people with charisma pose and talk. People with strength break things and flex.

Some crap about choice words: People who talk don't scare me unless they have something to talk about. This guy "who with but a few choice words" can scare the pants off of me has yet to exist. Honestly, find him for me and let's see if he really has the qualities you describe.

About "dissing": You said "Owthro is right you know?" and dismissed all of my comments. I apologize for taking that as a "diss"... but it really really seemed like it.

About Bruce Lee having high charisma: I don't think that guy had very much charisma. If he did, they'd have given him some better dialogue. The reason he was famous was because he was so badd*ss and strong. Ripping off his shirt=strength=intimidating. Screaming=not charisma-exclusive. I think you reinforce my point here.
I think it would work as a synergy of sorts half your strength bonus rounded down added to intimidate checks. Or you could decide to use strength instead of charisma. This could backfire if used against say? an ocean giant. The same way coming up with a elaborate threat against a lizard would be futile.

[For Valor]

That's the idea.

Both Strength and Charisma can work for an Intimidation check, as proposed. You take your highest one and get to use that.

I'm glad you have a similar outlook as me.

[Owrtho]

I'll admit that there are issues when it comes to applying it to magic. However it fits well enough to work (or at least ignore it). But then magic doesn't exist in the real world, and for what does exist, my definition of charisma works quite well.

As for ranks, you can't assume a rank-less system. The ranks are there because there is variation in how well someone can use their abilities for certain things. Being able to read the mood and tell what needs to be changed in a performance doesn't mean much if you lack the technical skill to make said changes. Similarly, someone who has high charisma might be bad with people because they rarely do anything but intimidate others into doing what they want.

On the other side of things, even without being able to read people well, with practice and observation you can learn to be intimidating or good at performing, or convincing others to do things just through practised skill or natural baring (though you may not have the ability to read people that lets you then act in other manners as you only know how to act that one way).

The issue of people with strength flexing or breaking things to intimidate would actually fall under charisma (reading that that will make the most beneficial impression to make them fear you) and/or ranks (having practised what has the best effect in general to make people fear you).

As for what intimidation does, my point was that when intimidated successfully, you do what they say because you fear them and they told you to, rather than because rational reasoning tells you it is the best option or choice. When it comes to animals defending territory, food, or young the rational best choice and what they want you to do (go away) often coincide. You have little reason you risk your life when a minor detour will serve just as well. This is not the same with people threatening you to give them something, degrade yourself, etc. particularly as you know that being people, they are susceptible to laws that could punish them harshly if the follow through, or actually kill you. They also rarely are just asking you to leave, so in many cases running away is not doing what they want you to do and would be going against them.
In short, just because I pass my intimidate check, doesn't mean I have to disobey the one trying to intimidate me. It just means I can if I feel that to be the best choice (or just feel like it).

Owrtho

[Strudel110]

Yup but how often do players use it? I think it's a bit under-rated, I was DMing once and a level 3 player used intimidate (He had a full face tattoo so he got +2) to scare 16 thugs away from an innocent. I was so surprised that he didn't just club 'em to death that I gave bonus experience. I agree with owthro's description of charisma but using strength instead of charisma on intimidate checks could make sense in certain situation. Now back to Charisma as a whole there certainly has to be some more uses for it.

[Owrtho]

Also forgot to mention, that when it comes down to it, strength does help with intimidation, it just isn't as important as charisma (the ability to properly display your strength). If I felt it was an issue, I'd likely just house rule adding half strength mod to intimidation checks. Alternatively I might say that if you have at least 4 ranks in it you may choose to use strength or charisma (your choice upon attempting it).

Edit: Just noticed both ideas were mentioned already. Oh well. Troublesome when others post while I'm typing and I miss it.

Owrtho

[For Valor]

On ranks again:Umm... alright, let's make our example encounters either 2 opponent's with no ranks or 2 opponent's with full ranks. What I'm doing here is saying that everything is equal. I'm not taking into account magic items, ranks, or situational bonuses (like a fully-tatooed face :smallsmile:)

Breaking things = Charisma?: Breaking things DEFINITELY fits under ranks ("this is how I scare people") NOT charisma. Sure, charisma does that a little, but your average thug knows that smashing stuff scares civilians. Charisma would fit under "This guy backs up when I throw my hands in the air. I'm going to throw my hands in the air more now", because it's an observation and adaptation stat, just like you said. Don't go flipping your own argument around on me.

What you think intimidation is: Yeah, that's not what the SRD talks about. If you intimidate something that's hostile, you shift it to indifferent for the intimidation duration. If you tell someone who is indifferent to move away, they usually move away.

If the intimidator successfully intimidates you, you're scared of them and act accordingly. Depending on how much you wanted to stab them in the face, you may or may not give them your address or SSN.

But this isn't even that important. What is important is the fact that strength is scary.

Concerning your quick second post: Knowing how to scare people in general has nothing to do with Charisma. That concerns ranks. Knowing how to respond to people (like you said) is charisma, and that doesn't factor into intimidation anymore than being musclebound and angry. So both Strength and Charisma can work for Intimidate.

[Strudel110]

Also forgot to mention, that when it comes down to it, strength does help with intimidation, it just isn't as important as charisma (the ability to properly display your strength). If I felt it was an issue, I'd likely just house rule adding half strength mod to intimidation checks. Alternatively I might say that if you have at least 4 ranks in it you may choose to use strength or charisma (your choice upon attempting it).

Edit: Just noticed both ideas were mentioned already. Oh well. Troublesome when others post while I'm typing and I miss it.

Owrtho

Ha! It happens some people type really fast. Hmmm alas I have nothing else helpful to add.

[For Valor]

I suppose I brought you about as close to the correct path as I could...

You now know why Strength suffices for Intimidation. Good luck in your travels (unless Owthro has something else to add).

[Strudel110]

Ha! this discussion certainly got out of hand, but rather interesting nonetheless.

[For Valor]

Actually, on that note, I encourage people interested in an alternate to Charisma to look at this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8957717#post8957717) for an alternate 3-mental-stats system.

[Owrtho]

I suppose I brought you about as close to the correct path as I could...

You now know why Strength suffices for Intimidation. Good luck in your travels (unless Owthro has something else to add).

From what I can tell, at this point we mostly agree. The trouble you had with my last post seemed to be more poor wording on my part and poor interpretation of my poor wording on your part.

As such I think this debate is pretty much wrapped up.

Owrtho

[For Valor]

Congrats. You wanna go get cookies?

[Ashtagon]

Charisma: For me, this represents a person's "presence". Does this person get noticed by all the moment he walks in? That's Charisma. Does he enrapture an audience when he speaks? Charisma. Charisma basically means people naturally pay attention to you. In that regard, it works as a modifier to intimidate very well.

Bruce Lee: He was 6th level in a world where the average person is 1st level. He passed his intimidate checks because of the level adjustment inherent in such checks. He may or may not also have had decent Charisma.

Bouncers: They may be men of few words, but they have presence, and their uniforms and stance stack the deck to boost that presence. It's worth noting that while many bouncers are 6-foot-plus, many aren't, some are female bouncers, and many 6-footers couldn't scare a baby hamster. Size helps in an Intimidate check of course (hence size modifiers built into the rule), but it is Charisma that gives you the understanding of stance and demeanour that lets people know you are a threat.

[lesser_minion]

And while we're talking about rhinos... did you know a rhino has 2 Charisma and twenty-six strength? Sooooo, if you think a rhino is scary... as in it intimidates you... then you've just proven my point.

Except they don't intimidate people.

People know to stay away from rhinos. That's just an accurate assessment of the fact that a rhino is horribly aggressive when defending itself. That's not intimidation. The rhino hasn't persuaded someone that it will murder them if they don't go away, it's just a fact.

You're now wilfully ignoring the purpose of the skill in order to make a point that doesn't actually follow.

Someone who walks up to you and orders you to hand them your money is bluffing. In your hypothetical scenario, if the first guy was ever willing to carry out his threat, he'd have done so.

You need charisma -- persuasiveness -- to convince someone that that's not the case.

[Analytica]

Alrighty, so you're saying that a guy who is 6' 4" and could bench a loft bed might not look intimidating because of his clothing choice and whether or not he flexes his muscles?

I mean.... honestly...

This person should certainly have an easier time intimidating in a situation where threats of physical violence makes sense.

Now, unless their actual strength is demonstrated, the intimidated party just fears their strength based on the fact that this person is big and looks strong. Even though those properties are body traits, in the context of a RPG mechanics system like D&D, properties that help you affect peoples feelings about you are (at least as I read it, which may be different from how others do) represented by charisma. That is, part of what goes into your strength score is how much your body can lift. Part of what goes into your charisma score is how much your body looks like it can lift. From a game mechanics system like that, it might conceivably follow that to create a character who is big, strong and muscular, and who looks like it, you are also forced to put some points into charisma.

If this is not how your game mechanics system works, then fair enough.


Concerning your quick second post: Knowing how to scare people in general has nothing to do with Charisma. That concerns ranks. Knowing how to respond to people (like you said) is charisma, and that doesn't factor into intimidation anymore than being musclebound and angry. So both Strength and Charisma can work for Intimidate.

My impression was that the relationship between an ability and a skill, is that the ability is there because it affects your capacity of doing what the skill ranks involve doing. So Strength adds to jump not because it separately impacts things, but because it determines how effectively your jumping technique is carried out. Intelligence adds to Knowledge checks because it impacts how well you remember that thing you read and so on.

Of course, this discussion is beyond meaningless (how to houserule a RPG that no longer is being issued, in an internet forum, concerning an issue I don't really care about, when I should be working etc.), but I somehow still would like to stress my point, such as it is: if you want to convince someone without actually having to break or bend or lift anything, you are not actually using your strength, in the sense of the mechanical representation of your capacity for breaking or bending or lifting things.

You are using your apparent strength. Someone with an illusion up of being a giant should get the same benefit to intimidation to someone who is actually that big and strong, for example. Moreover, it is actually your apparent strength difference. With a strength of 16, you will have an easier time intimidating the strength 6 halfling, but not the strength 26 ogre. Using the strength modifier in place of the charisma modifier does not address either of these situations, whereas a circumstance bonus for higher apparent relative strength does.

Similarly, demonstrating that you can put an arrow through a fly right next to the person you are looking down on from your city wall, say, probably helps you in intimidating them, in much the same way as strength and size does when using the threat of melee combat. This situation may be less common than the brute strength intimidation one, but as it works the same way, should dexterity be added to the check instead of charisma then?

Now, you make a compelling case that among people like those we live among, apparent and actual strength are strongly connected, particularly in the high strength ranges. For my part, I still feel a system like I describe above (which is how I interpret the D&D rules), makes most sense, even in representing such situations.


Also, you're talking like if someone fails an intimidation check, they simply drop everything they're doing and gtfo... that's wrong, wrong, and also wrong. Mechanically, the rhino shifts you 1 step closer towards Helpful. Normally you'd be indifferent, and with proper intimidation, you'd be friendly. Which means you'd do what the rhino wants and move away. You wouldn't lose control of your mind or something stupid, and you wouldn't forget how to reason things out... you'd just act as though you were Helpful for a few rounds until you walked out of the Rhino's danger zone.

Supposing I had some advanced anti-rhino weapon with me, which I knew would kill the rhino, I believe I might actually use that instead. This is hardly Helpful. If the rhino had successfully intimidated me, I might not think of that.


Some crap about choice words: People who talk don't scare me unless they have something to talk about. This guy "who with but a few choice words" can scare the pants off of me has yet to exist. Honestly, find him for me and let's see if he really has the qualities you describe.

Perhaps this person does not exist in real life? No actual person might have attributes and insights corresponding to that many ranks or that high charisma. However, just going by the game mechanics, they can exist in D&D, just as a regenerating troll, a warrior who can swim in lava, or a dragon can.

[For Valor]

About the rhino: Alright, you obviously need a lesson on mechanics. Your average person is indifferent about other beings; they have no strong dislike or strong attraction. An indifferent person is totally fine with walking past someone else on a street or shaking hands with someone.

However, a friendly person (if you asked them) would give you a berth. They'd walk around you and/or not kick your babies or whatever.

The goal of the rhino is to take indifferent people (like you and me) and intimidate them so that they give the rhino a berth. Mechanically, a successful intimidation check will shift someone's attitude to "friendly" for the duration of intimidate.

And if people know to stay away from rhinos, that proves that a rhino (some years ago) REALLY intimidated somebody, and he ran home to tell all his friends that rhinos were scary. Which.... well, jeez, just proves my point.

You're making up things about charisma: No, charisma is not how good you look. Charisma is a purely mental stat. The entire argument you've presented here is a strawman, and you're covering it with the "well, I do this in my game" tactic. If that's REALLY what you believe, then lurk moar just keep in mind you're argument is up against the entire forum.

Something about "this is pointless" and some straw: Alright, do you not want to debate anymore? Honestly, we both know you've got little to no place to go in this debate other than "Well I think so" and "Why are we arguing?" So if you want to stop, just say so.

Also, in your second paragraph, you said something about using charisma if you wanted to intimidate without breaking or lifting. Fine. However, if you want to intimidate without talking or moving from place, you need strength. So it's situational depending on what you want to deny yourself, but if you're fine with talking and breaking things, you should be able to take the higher of StrMod or ChaMod.

Anti-rhino weapon: You get a situational bonus if you know you can kick the rhino's *ss. That has nothing to do with whether or not strength is intimidating.

"It exists in D&D!": Yup, you lose. Well, if a person who can intimidate you with a few quick words exists, then why not let EVERYBODY WITH STRENGTH BE INITIMIDATING! After all, I'm sure it exists in D&D. Warriors can swim in lava, dragons exist, and strength is scary!

[lesser_minion]

About the rhino: Alright, you obviously need a lesson on mechanics. Your average person is indifferent about other beings; they have no strong dislike or strong attraction. An indifferent person is totally fine with walking past someone else on a street or shaking hands with someone.

However, a friendly person (if you asked them) would give you a berth. They'd walk around you and/or not kick your babies or whatever.

An indifferent person doesn't care one way or the other. But they are not going to do something terminally stupid.


The goal of the rhino is to take indifferent people (like you and me) and intimidate them so that they give the rhino a berth. Mechanically, a successful intimidation check will shift someone's attitude to "friendly" for the duration of intimidate.

An indifferent person also doesn't intentionally do something he knows will piss off something he knows can kill him.


And if people know to stay away from rhinos, that proves that a rhino (some years ago) REALLY intimidated somebody, and he ran home to tell all his friends that rhinos were scary. Which.... well, jeez, just proves my point.

No, you're assuming that's the case. It's actually BS, because there is no need to roll.


Something about "this is pointless" and some straw: Alright, do you not want to debate anymore? Honestly, we both know you've got little to no place to go in this debate other than "Well I think so" and "Why are we arguing?" So if you want to stop, just say so.

Learn the definition of strawman. Because she didn't commit it, and you did.


Also, in your second paragraph, you said something about using charisma if you wanted to intimidate without breaking or lifting. Fine. However, if you want to intimidate without talking or moving from place, you need strength. So it's situational depending on what you want to deny yourself, but if you're fine with talking and breaking things, you should be able to take the higher of StrMod or ChaMod.

If you don't say anything or move then you aren't doing anything. There is no such thing as a 'passive' use of the intimidate skill.


Anti-rhino weapon: You get a situational bonus if you know you can kick the rhino's *ss. That has nothing to do with whether or not strength is intimidating.

A clear advantage is intimidating, and successfully BS'ing an advantage you don't . Strength is only intimidating if it implies a clear advantage.


"It exists in D&D!": Yup, you lose. Well, if a person who can intimidate you with a few quick words exists, then why not let EVERYBODY WITH STRENGTH BE INITIMIDATING!

Because not everyone with strength is intimidating. Someone who throws a pathetic temper tantrum is going to lose whatever respect he might have gained by being able to take someone apart.

If the character visibly has an advantage, then he gets a circumstance bonus. Strength isn't always an advantage, and it's not the only advantage that's meaningful. Ergo, it offers no benefit (unless you are clearly stronger than someone who clearly has no advantages of their own, in which case you get a circumstance bonus).

So given a skill that resolves around persuading people through threats, why exactly should we use a key ability that has nothing to do with persuading people?

[Bacon Barbarian]

... When do people make Intimidate checks anyway? When I make them, I make them after I've just killed something so the DM might give me a bonus.

[For Valor]

About indifference:Um, "terminally stupid" things are like "I pee on him" and "I run towards him waving my axe and screaming". If you're indifferent, walking next to somebody isn't that big of a deal. Heck, if you're indifferent to an animal, you'll probably pet it.

However, with intimidation, you won't be doing either of those things.

I'm assuming that the rhino intimidated someone:


People know to stay away from rhinos. That's just an accurate assessment of the fact that a rhino is horribly aggressive when defending itself. That's not intimidation. The rhino hasn't persuaded someone that it will murder them if they don't go away, it's just a fact.


riiiiight.... and this came about because someone carefully looked at the rhino's mating and feeding patterns, and it's way of warding off predators, and then wrote "The rhino can kill you" on a sign so that everybody stayed away?

No. The root of this argument is you saying "rhinos don't intimidate people, but we stay away from them". That doesn't mean that rhinos can't intimidate. If you broke off from your safari group and walked over to pet a rhino, the rhino would do it's thing and scare you off. The fact that normal society says "don't touch rhinos" doesn't mean that a monster with a 1.5-foot-long horn isn't scary.

More straw, please write something constructive

If you're not talking, you're not scary: OK, if you're not breaking things, you're not scary. Derp. I said that if you wanted to intimidate by breaking things, it's strength, and that if you wanted to intimidate with words, it's Charisma. You said "well if you don't break things, you need to use charisma". I'm saying "well, if you don't talk, you need to use Strength".

It's a reversable argument, and the point of it was for you to realize that your subthesis here is useless and redundant.

Advantages: Yes, having an advantage is a situational bonus. Like I said. Having strength isn't just an advantage, it has been ingrained in all beings since the beginning of time.

Strength doesn't give a situational advantage/disadvantage. high strength makes you look scary, just like high charisma can make you seem scary. They both work.

Not everyone who is strong is scary: Umm.... that's not an argument. If a high-strength guy throws a temper tantrum, he loses respect (situational penalty). If a high-charisma guy throws a temper tantrum, he loses respect (situational penalty). I don't see how that's different for either person...

[Analytica]

No. The root of this argument is you saying "rhinos don't intimidate people, but we stay away from them". That doesn't mean that rhinos can't intimidate. If you broke off from your safari group and walked over to pet a rhino, the rhino would do it's thing and scare you off. The fact that normal society says "don't touch rhinos" doesn't mean that a monster with a 1.5-foot-long horn isn't scary.

Now, the rhino should probably have ranks in intimidate and perhaps also more charisma than it currently has - animals have plenty of social interaction, including between predators and prey and so forth.

We might actually compare the rhino to an excavation truck or similarly strong thing without a charisma score, i.e. an object. It is equally strong, and there are accidents with that too, but it is hardly scary in the same manner. Unless some weirdo, who does have a charisma score, is piloting it.


You're making up things about charisma: No, charisma is not how good you look. Charisma is a purely mental stat. The entire argument you've presented here is a strawman, and you're covering it with the "well, I do this in my game" tactic. If that's REALLY what you believe, then lurk moar just keep in mind you're argument is up against the entire forum.

Where does the game rules say that charisma is solely a purely mental stat? For that matter, where does it say that intelligence is a purely mental stat, or strength a purely physical stat? Perhaps it does say that somewhere, but I can't recall seeing it. Do note, however, that I did NOT mean that charisma would be the same as the comeliness stat of previous editions, or the appearance stat of the BoEF.


Something about "this is pointless" and some straw: Alright, do you not want to debate anymore? Honestly, we both know you've got little to no place to go in this debate other than "Well I think so" and "Why are we arguing?" So if you want to stop, just say so.

I have nothing against participating in the discussion, and obviously I consider my own arguments convincing. However, I also have a life, meaning I am a little irritated at myself at actually wasting time writing this answer, since it is actually delaying better things I could be doing. However, that is a problem for me more than for you, I guess.


"It exists in D&D!": Yup, you lose. Well, if a person who can intimidate you with a few quick words exists, then why not let EVERYBODY WITH STRENGTH BE INITIMIDATING! After all, I'm sure it exists in D&D. Warriors can swim in lava, dragons exist, and strength is scary!

The game system tries to model some real-world concepts, including what might happen when they are extended beyond the ranges they usually have in the real world. Extending the nebulous properties that go into the "charisma" stat beyond what we usually encounter would, I believe, lead to potentially very intimidating people. While as I have stated, (relative apparent) strength may also play a part, as I said, I feel that effect is more elegantly represented using different mechanics, such as circumstance bonuses. Hence, to my mind, the first part "if a person who can intimidate you with a few quick words exists" does not lead to the second "let EVERYBODY WITH STRENGTH BE INITIMIDATING". It might, of course, exist in your D&D, but I am far less certain it exists in that of the designers.

To add some other problems with using the strength modifier for intimidate: what of people who go around buffed up through magic to have very high strength scores? They will look no bigger or more muscular than they otherwise would. Do they get to use their buffed-up modifier or just their basic modifier? Does a tiny creature with a high strength score get to use its strength modifier? If so, that should hinge on their first demonstrating, through an actual feat of strength, that they can break, bend or lift (or whatever) more than they look like they can. But then the question becomes: is any such demonstration sufficient? Must it be repeated after a while?


If you're not talking, you're not scary: OK, if you're not breaking things, you're not scary. Derp. I said that if you wanted to intimidate by breaking things, it's strength, and that if you wanted to intimidate with words, it's Charisma. You said "well if you don't break things, you need to use charisma". I'm saying "well, if you don't talk, you need to use Strength".

It's a reversable argument, and the point of it was for you to realize that your subthesis here is useless and redundant.

Charisma would cover any situation that involved communication, at the very least, including body and sign language, facial expressions, making noises, writing letters or mutilating small animals to put them up in the garden of the person you want to frighthen. If frightening by breaking things with your fists is strength-based, wouldn't frightening by shooting things with your bow be dexterity-based? If two disembodied souls might fight and damage each other using some form of int-, wis- or cha-based combat, would they get to use those modifiers instead? As someone said, the Conan RPG actually has separate intimidation options for all attributes. Myself, I prefer the suggestion I have given.


Advantages: Yes, having an advantage is a situational bonus. Like I said. Having strength isn't just an advantage, it has been ingrained in all beings since the beginning of time.

Strength doesn't give a situational advantage/disadvantage. high strength makes you look scary, just like high charisma can make you seem scary. They both work.

Obviously we have different opinions on how living beings function. I say that strength only impacts scariness through apparent relative strength in a situation where violence is an actual possibility, which to me is too narrow to warrant changing the ability used with the skill. But that's fine, then. Given how you see the world, your suggested rules modification makes perfect sense.

[Jane_Smith]

Was gonna post something, but For Valor kinda ranted this thread out to the point it isnt really worth it. He complains he gets vibes from others about dissing him, and yet, he constantly says things like "Im right, your wrong if you dont agree with me" effectively (not exactly, but i get the vibe), constantly makes small, peity insults like "Good for you, have a cookie", etc, and then expects others not to see him himself as a thread-troll/disser?

Meh, this thread has outlived its purpose and you guys are digging to far into something thats simple. If you dont like how it works, then change it for games you run or suggest it to dm's. Ranting about it here after people have come up with ideas on how to fix it, and dragging it on and on and on, isnt going to help anything and this will just continue until someone says some bs that gets the thread locked and someone in trouble.


Todays Lesson: If your big and scary and strong? That is usually reflected as having ranks in intimidate, even if you have the charisma of a rock. Notice how most fighter-type classes have intimidate as a class-skill despite most using charisma as a dump-stat? Thats why.

[imp_fireball]

The fact that normal society says "don't touch rhinos" doesn't mean that a monster with a 1.5-foot-long horn isn't scary.


It's scary because reason tells you it's scary. You're walking away carefully, because reason tells you not to startle the rhino; you're not thinking irrationally. If the rhino shouted suddenly, "Come back! Now! Or I'll charge!" What would you say and feel, besides being obviously startled? Think emotionally.

What's scarier, a bull or a rhino? Again, think emotionally.

Rhinos probably put ranks into intimidate because it's instinct for them to do that.

Bulls on the other hand just get really angry.


You said "well if you don't break things, you need to use charisma". I'm saying "well, if you don't talk, you need to use Strength".


If you intimidate by breaking things, then that would only cause the other person to think, "Okay, well if I screw this up, he's going to break me." It would make you nervous and it would make you think carefully about not making any mistakes in reasoning with the other guy. But you aren't necessarily intimidated.

Intimidation isn't directly related to strength - say the guy broke a piece of wood. How strong does he need to do that? Say he broke an iron bar? How strong then? It's either he's stronger then you or he isn't - ultimately, you're thinking "That's nothing, I'm way stronger than him.", "Hey, I could do that too. Whatever, man.", "I might be stronger then him.", "This could get a little dicey.", "Darn, that guy's strong. I should try not to mess with him.", "Darn that guy's really, really strong. If I screw this up, then... I don't wanna screw this up.", "That... that's impossible. I didn't know people were that strong!".

The point is, it isn't directly related to modifiers.

Another thing is, adventurers are typically quite tough and aren't always phased by strong people - many know how to handle their emotions - after all, they're willing to risk life and limb to adventure. They usually have enough life experience to know that people can be powerful in other ways too, low wisdom score or no.

A person with charisma can convince these adventurers that they wield that other kind of power.

If you really wanna rule that strong people can intimidate, then subtract the adventurer's ECL + 3/4 Str modifier from the other person's strength modifier + their own ranks in intimidate for the purpose of intimidation. Such rules only apply to people with a will save modifier of +2 or less, however. Anyone with more then +2 will save modifier can keep their emotions under control - then the intimidate check becomes a normal intimidate check.

You can get a good assumption of another person's ECL just by witnessing them demonstrate their power. This usually only applies if the opposing person has +5 will save modifier or less. In this case, the intimidator adds their ECL to their intimidate check, but only if the other person is convinced (by opposing this with 3/4 of their own ECL; thus ECL of the intimidator must be greater then or equal to 3/4 of the opposer's ECL for their ECL to apply to the check).

If you succeed on an intimidate check by 5 or less, the target may attempt to lie to you. If you succeed by more then then 5 over the DC, then if the target attempts to lie to you, they will have a penalty on their bluff check equal to however much over 5 of the DC you succeeded on your most recent intimidate versus them (assuming the affects of the intimidate still apply).


or mutilating small animals to put them up in the garden of the person you want to frighthen.

Charisma doesn't really make you any more creative. That's sorta universal really.

If you're thinking of charismatic rock stars, then they are actually using their charisma to supplement their creativity - to externalize it.

[Venardhi]

Consider also that the players own social skiills and expectations are always going to introduce a level of metagaming in social encounters unless they try very hard to avoid it. A just like a smarter player will almost always solve a puzzle beefore dumber ones no matter their int score. The charisma stat seems set up to limit the influence of this meta on social encounters.

[Bacon Barbarian]

Consider also that the players own social skiills and expectations are always going to introduce a level of metagaming in social encounters unless they try very hard to avoid it. A just like a smarter player will almost always solve a puzzle beefore dumber ones no matter their int score. The charisma stat seems set up to limit the influence of this meta on social encounters.

... Yes well, my players and (I) are 15-16. We ... Have some trouble getting into the Role Playing part. We say we want to, but when it comes to the game, we seem to loose our creativity