Intimidation should be based on Strength [Archive]

Socratov

2016-12-05, 07:38 AM

"Gentleman" Johnny Marcone, the premier crime boss of Chicago (Dresden Files) is described thusly;

He also faces down a 2000-year-old psychopath with the second-in-command of Hell bound to his soul who wears the Noose that Judas hung himself with that prevents him from all physical harm without flinching. Heck, Marcone shoots him repeatedly. He also faces down werewolves, faeries, demons, a god and an entire family of succubi.

This ordinary mortal gangster from Chicago can intimidate any single one of them. Intimidation is not a physical thing, but emotional.
Which really says something about him having Harry on Vip status in every establishment he own. Though that might jsut be mandated by his Building Insurance (though I doubt that to be effective as Harry seems to fall under the 'acts of god' clause these days)...

All silliness aside you forgot to mention something else: he has intimidated hiw way into the Unseelie Accords as a Freeholding Baron representing the humans living in Chicago. If that does not make one a Badass Normal I don't know what does.

Intimidation isn't the skill of being scary...it's the skill of convincing someone that you are.

A bear is actually scary, so it doesn't need to do any convincing. A big hulking half-orc is threatening just by being present, so rarely has to actively try to be. A small unassuming halfling, on the other hand, if he wants to make threats he'd better have a personality bigger than his diminutive stature implies...that's Charisma.

On the flipside, a bear is not very scary to a dragon and nothing it can do will convince the dragon otherwise. His Strength counts for squat. The hulking un-Charismatic half-orc is no better at convincing that dragon he's a threat. The halfling though? He's been intimidating people bigger than him all his life and a dragon is just another big-folk...
Bolding mine

right on the money: if you are scary and peoplke can see that your check is just persuasion (which is conveying yoru scariness). If you want to seem scary you use intimidate. To that effect who do you fear more? The policeman stopping your car or the forensic accountant from the IRS?

What about DnD? Well, who do you fear most: the barbarian who can turn you tino paste of the wizard who can bend reality to his will to screw you over in any way he seems fit?

Speaking of power, who has more power: the one who can benchpress 100 kg or the one who can rally a nation of people behind him?

A display of power won't ever hurt your hcances of intimidation, but unless you have a way of leveraging that power it won't mean much. It's your skill in leveraging that power what ultimately decides wether or not you can scare someone ****less.

Battlebooze

2016-12-05, 08:43 AM

Charisma is fine. It should always work. Strength or strength+athletics fits though, in certain situations. Holding someone grappled over a lava pit, for example...

Joe the Rat

2016-12-05, 09:35 AM

Something else to consider is that Intimidation is not just frightening people, it's frightening people into doing what you want them to do.

When a bear goes into intimidation mode, it's trying to make you go away. It's pretty good at that. It might want to intimidate you to leave behind the food you caught, but it can't articulate that. It just wants you to go away, and hopes you don't take the fish. Half-orc is good at frightening people, and can break stuff to demonstrate this.

Strength-based Intimidation works best when the intimidator is actively engaged in combat (to cow opponents), or is demonstrating that here and now, you do not want to mess with him. I suppose it's a little bit the reverse of charisma - it's not implying you are dangerous, it's showing you are dangerous, and willing to use it. I can see similar Constitution-based methods - breaking something over your head/back without flinching (showing you are too tough to mess with), or eating/drinking something inedible/toxic/on fire (showing that you are tough and crazy). I also love the idea of Wisdom (Intimidation) - every time they look at you, you are looking at them. "Don't do anything foolish, I'm watching you." These are action deterrents. make someone not do something (and not like you). I'd argue you need the subtlety of Charisma to get someone to do something for you (and not like you).

Mind you, strength intimidation works really well as a help other to someone else's intimidation check.

Citan

2016-12-05, 10:17 AM

One thing that really bothers me in D&D is the intimidation skill check. Right now, a typically charismatic princess is more intimidating than Mr Muscle Barbarian who has hulk speech. A bear is also somehow not intimidating because it has low charisma.

Intimidation is really less about harsh words and more about a show of power. Shouldn't it be tied to Strength instead of Charisma?
I think it is fine as is, because a demonstration of strength is rarely by itself something to fear.

With that said, I usually allow a player to run an Intimidation check based on Strength if he describes to me a way of acting or special action that carry the intimidation intent.

I often take the following example to illustrate: a Barbarian negotiating with someone who just harshely denied a request, that silently destroys the table with a single punch while ardently eyeing his interlocutor (well, it's not my best example to be honest, but nothing great on my mind right now). ;)

Laurefindel

2016-12-05, 10:18 AM

Maxilian

2016-12-05, 10:22 AM

OP there is a Variant Rule that let you use other skills with other modifiers, one of the examples is Intimidation with STR

Falcon X

2016-12-05, 10:36 AM

OP there is a Variant Rule that let you use other skills with other modifiers, one of the examples is Intimidation with STR
It's not even a variant rule. In 5e, the DM is making the call every time of which ability score to match with a skill. The book just gives the most usual skills they are linked with.

That is, if you want to tie Intimidation to Strength, it's not even homebrew. It's in the rules. Just do it.

Tanarii

2016-12-05, 10:48 AM

Shouldn't it be tied to Strength instead of Charisma?
Describe an action you're taking as a character in which you're expecting me, as your DM, to rule it as a Strength (Intimidation) check instead of a Charisma (Intimidation) check ... and which I shouldn't just automatically have succeed and determine an appropriate outcome, because you are an actual threat.

Edit:

It's not even a variant rule. In 5e, the DM is making the call every time of which ability score to match with a skill. The book just gives the most usual skills they are linked with.

That is, if you want to tie Intimidation to Strength, it's not even homebrew. It's in the rules. Just do it.It is a variant rule, PHB 175. That's distinct from homebrew though.

RickAllison

2016-12-05, 10:58 AM

Im eying off the frightened condition if the situation merits.

Or the NPC just does what you want (and hates you for it).

Or reacts in an appropriate manner. In one arc, we were trying to reach this scholar in a city, but his secretary refused to let us in to see him. So my bird-man kicked open the door and glared at the secretary as an intimidation check to keep quiet. Instead, she ran screaming about the violent bird-man. I had to scram, but the guards spent their time chasing after a bird-man who had already fled on top of a tower while the rest of the party was chatting with the scholar. I then got to pull an Assassin's Creed by going around with my hood up, subtly tearing down wanted posters, and habitually stealing from everyone I passed on the street.

Inox

2016-12-05, 11:00 AM

Shouldn't it be tied to Strength instead of Charisma?

There are plenty of large, muscular men who lack the courage of their convictions. Experienced people-- especially those with a predator mindset--can detect their timidity and lack of fighting spirit. It's in their gaze, their body language, etc.

Similarly, some people have a certain posture and a hard-as-nails cold stare that tells you they will surely destroy your happiness. While the latter are not always physically imposing people, they tend to make an impression when they want to.

Which almost never involves flexing muscles. Confidence--and the perception of competence it generates--is key.

Also, bear in mind that a good DM will have ordinary NPCs generally reacting to what they see at first glance. If the party contains a 7' goliath, the merchant at the village will probably be a bit cowed by that character's presence in their shop, at least initially.

Nerdynick

2016-12-05, 11:09 AM

To throw in my two cp, physical force doesn't require strength to throw around either. Once you have a blade at someone's throat, it doesn't take an Olympic athlete to kill them. If the person is already restrained, then that's Charisma to convince them you would go through with it, and if they're not, then it's Charisma to convince them that you could if you wanted.

hymer

2016-12-05, 11:12 AM

I'm reminded of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E84VqqCPI7w).

Ronnocius

2016-12-05, 11:27 AM

One thing that really bothers me in D&D is the intimidation skill check. Right now, a typically charismatic princess is more intimidating than Mr Muscle Barbarian who has hulk speech. A bear is also somehow not intimidating because it has low charisma.

Intimidation is really less about harsh words and more about a show of power. Shouldn't it be tied to Strength instead of Charisma?

As said above, you could make a Strength (Intimidation) check if the DM thinks the action is more of a Strength check than a Charisma check. But a guard would be more intimidated by someone threatening to tell his boss that he accepted their bribe than someone pretending to punch him in the face. The opposite could be true as well.

MarkVIIIMarc

2016-12-05, 12:21 PM

I am in the camp where the DM should decide which is more appropriate, Strength, Charisma, or even something else.

My crazy old mother and her pistol worry intimidate 6'4" me plenty so I always call before just dropping in. If I were a Jehovah's witness or salesman knocking on her door I'd be flush with intimidation also as she opened it armed.

One of the County VIP's like a minority owner of the Cardinals would probably not physically intimidate me. However I'd hate to rear end the guy and get sued in his favorable courts.

So by the rules a DM can skate by just using charisma. With experience he'll take all sorts of things into account.

killem2

2016-12-05, 12:54 PM

Watch fargo.that is a great example of little guy intimidating ppl. The killer is ruthless.

Falcon X

2016-12-05, 01:08 PM

It is a variant rule, PHB 175. That's distinct from homebrew though.
My bad. That's what I get for working off memory instead of looking it up. Still should be one of the most allowed variant rules though seeing as it's up to the DM to pick it.

For my opinion, I think intimidation could be strength. A guy decked out in weapons and with a build like young Arnold Schwarzenegger could act like a teletubby and still be visually intimidating.

Mellack

2016-12-05, 01:24 PM

Just to throw out another non-strength example. In Lethal Weapon, Mr Joshua intimidates by having himself burned without flinching. It shows he is ruthless and willing to do whatever is needed.

Tanarii

2016-12-05, 01:41 PM

My bad. That's what I get for working off memory instead of looking it up. Still should be one of the most allowed variant rules though seeing as it's up to the DM to pick it.

For my opinion, I think intimidation could be strength. A guy decked out in weapons and with a build like young Arnold Schwarzenegger could act like a teletubby and still be visually intimidating.I totally make mistakes working off memory all the time. For what it's worth, I agree it's a fantastic variant to use when appropriate. And that there definitely are times when Strength (Intimidation) should be allowed.

That said, many times when someone is trying to use strength to intimidate, it's actually a physical demonstration that you're actually a threat, as opposed to implying or threatening that you're a threat. In many cases, that should be automatically successful in convincing the person you're a threat, but not necessarily in getting them to do what you want them to do specifically.

Personally I go back and forth between how often I should be letting players make displays of Strength to Intimidate. I'm far more lenient with it than any other variation on applying skills to an Ability check though. Because IMO they gave all Str classes (Barbarian, Fighter and Paladin), and obviously Half-orcs, access to the skill for a reason. But obviously Cha-based Intimidation fits for other classes perfectly (Bard, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock). And the background that gives Intimidation fits either way, a Soldier might be physically threatening or a drill sergeant.

Slipperychicken

2016-12-05, 02:45 PM

The skill system is rather wonky regardless. I'll just point out that the DM can let someone use Strength (or any other ability) to base their intimidation attempt on if it seems to fit. But Intimidate doesn't have any spelled out mechanical effects, so what happens on a succesful check (and what a succesful check is) is up in the air. A bear may not need to intimidate anyone, sane people are already plenty frightened when they realize there are no bars between them and the bear.
This. 5th edition D&D already accounts for this possibility with strength(intimidate).

Also, the rules for social interaction in this game are basically nonexistent; it boils down to rolling a die, adding a number, and hoping that the GM is in a good enough mood to give you what you want. So worrying over the rules that do exist won't accomplish much.

Tanarii

2016-12-05, 03:00 PM

Also, the rules for social interaction in this game are basically nonexistent; it boils down to rolling a die, adding a number, and hoping that the GM is in a good enough mood to give you what you want. So worrying over the rules that do exist won't accomplish much.The DMG has quite a lot on Social Interaction adjudication. DMG p244-245. It includes a three step process breakdown, covering what the DM needs to consider from a starting situation perspective, the actual roleplaying, and (if necessary) a check at the end including tables and specific DCs for results.

So they aren't even remotely "basically nonexisitent".

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-05, 05:05 PM

In D&D world, might makes right. Intimidation should key off of strength or charisma naturally. I just don't think there are that many principled people roaming the world of Faerun and Greyhawk and Eberron that squint their eyes at the big muscled guy with an axe and ask him "Are you really going to hurt me if I don't do what you say?"

Yes, a rogue can be more intimidating than a barbarian. Can be. That doesn't mean barbarians aren't intimidating by virtue of their size and strength.

It's important to remember that typically when someone makes a charisma-based intimidation check, they are threatening physical harm. And yes, little blades are lethal. But so is a giant meaty fist, or a huge calloused hand around your throat, or an axe to the ribcage.

The rogue convinces you with a look that you will regret not doing what he asks. He has to convince you with charisma because it isn't obvious how lethal he is. With the barbarian, the danger he poses to you is clear to see, and you simply don't want to take the risk of second guessing his threat.

Both work just fine depending on circumstances.

Syll

2016-12-05, 05:38 PM

I can see the reasoning behind the OP because in real life, we are more easily intimidated by big and strong individuals. Bullies that are described as "intimidating" are usually bigger and stronger than their victims. Now do bullies also have high charisma? I guess you could say so since they usually attract their coterie of followers.

But intimidation requires a tangible and believable treat to work as such; if there's none (intimidator does not appear strong, armed or backed-up), then it's a bluff, i.e. a Charisma (deception) check. Showing strength is a threat, so I see it as a way of backing-up your intimidation check, but not as the intimidation check itself, going back to intimidation being a Charisma check.

Moral of the story; unless you want to play a gentle giant, don't dump Charisma with your barbarian (or let the face of the group use you as a mean to his intimidation check).

On the flip side, the 'gentle giant' stereotype is frequently depicted as being lonely and withdrawn due to people's assumptions that they are dangerous and thus giving them a wide berth. Paradoxically in the context of D&D this would be far less likely to occur if they had a high Charisma (which would reduce their intimidation factor, but improve their Intimidate skill check)

Edit: I would also argue that the picture in the PHB next to the description of an Intimidation skill check is a perfect example of a STR based intimdate check. It took me a minute to find because I had mis-remembered that image as the Barbarian class picture, which should say something.

I agree with the arguments for using CHR with it, but I could also just as easily see Intimidate being a STR, INT, or CON check. Given a little time I could probably think up an appropriate scenario for DEX and WIS too.

Tanarii

2016-12-05, 05:41 PM

In D&D world, might makes rightIn the 5e D&D world, all classes are equally mighty, not just the strong ones. In theory at least. By that argument, Intimidation should be an Int check for Wizards and a Wis check for Clerics.

In previous editions of the D&D world, Strength has occasionally been the *worst* way to become mighty.

(Edit: I'm devil's advocating here. As I already said I think Str (Intimidate) checks are entirely appropriate, especially since every Str class gets access to them.)

DiceDiceBaby

2016-12-05, 07:10 PM

Intimidation can be based on Strength, but it shouldn't be. It's fine in Charisma. If your DM lets you use Strength, so be it. You can even Intimidate with Dexterity; it's possible to scare someone by shooting their pipe out of their mouth with a stone.

However, it's Charisma. Anyone who has ever been scolded by a teacher or by their mother would know that you don't need muscles to frighten people into doing what they need to do. This is why the Soldier background in the PHB grants Intimidation; higher ranking soldiers can drill recruits bigger than them, because its clear who is boss. So what if your general or commander-in-chief is smaller in stature, or less muscular, than you are? Hitler and Napoleon were very intimidating people in real life, but they are around 5'1 in height. On paper, not scary. In practice...

Also, Intimidation is the Charisma skill you have to use when all your other Charisma skills fail. This is why Batman uses Intimidation; good luck trying to Persuade anyone from low level mob bosses with corrupt crime rings to the Joker, Penguin or Two Face, or any other irrational criminals who don't understand anything else but fear into doing anything. Some NPCs just can't be persuaded or otherwise reasoned with!

Mellack

2016-12-05, 07:19 PM

Tanarii

2016-12-05, 07:24 PM

A cleric use thaumaturgy to make his eyes glow, or a wizard use prestidigitation to create some sparks?In any game in which magic is feared, I'd say definitely. I just would make them Cha checks.

Edit: That's the other thing. Some NPCs might be more cowed by a show of strength than others. Grizzly intimidating human vs Grizzly intimidating dragon, for example. Similarly, using thaumaturgy might be an effective tactic vs someone who is very superstitious. In some cases, it might be the difference between automatic failure (the tactic just can't work) vs making a check (might work) vs automatic success (they know you really will cut their head off next, just like you did the last guy).

Regitnui

2016-12-06, 02:20 AM

Grizzly intimidating human vs Grizzly intimidating dragon, for example.

Dragons are supernaturally intimidating. See their Fearful Presence trait, which is just triggered by them showing up. It's a hardwired instinct built into the humanoid instinct from way back when humanoids hadn't even started putting grunts together to make syllables; "this thing will eat you".

It's only given to dragons of a certain age, though. Yes, dragons get stronger as they grow, but a baby White is equally capable of taking down a humanoid (commoner) as is an adult Gold. The difference is the ego they develop, in my opinion. It's all very good and well being able to crack skulls using your armpit like a nutcracker, but that's not necessarily intimidation unless it's employed at the proper time for the right reasons, both of which fall under Charisma, not Strength.

Lombra

2016-12-06, 02:54 AM

If you show a feat of strength (break a table, hit something, and the like) that can scare the target, you can get some bonuses to the intimidation check (or the DM can lower the DC). But this is very DM dependat (like every social skill check) and role play "plays" a big "role" in every social skill check.

djreynolds

2016-12-06, 03:05 AM

I have allowed players to use the average of the strength and charisma modifier.... 20 strength +5 and an 8 charisma -1= 4/2=2

Is that fair for you and the other players at the table who didn't dump charisma? Seems fair to me. use an average of both

I allow an intelligence PC trying to persuade a king of some natural disaster to add his intelligence/charisma to his persuasion check as he is using knowledge and facts to persuade but he still might come off as a know it all or speaks down to the king or cannot express it in layman terms.

Laserlight

2016-12-06, 05:35 AM

To build off Tanarii, if a barbarian can crush a rock in his hands to intimidate, could a dex rogue throw a dagger that cuts off a bit of the target's hair? A cleric use thaumaturgy to make his eyes glow, or a wizard use prestidigitation to create some sparks? Since all PC's tend to be pretty dangerous, couldn't they display almost any skill to show off, not just strength?

Make an attack on an inanimate object, or expendable bystander ("This is what happens to hose who fail me!"). Divide the damage you do by X, and apply (dmg/x) as a mod to your Intimidate(CHA).

EvilAnagram

2016-12-06, 08:12 AM

I've known big, strong guys who were pussycats, and I've known frail old women who could silence a room with a glare. Personally, I'm a fairly average sized man, and I've had multiple coworkers, students, and trainees tell me I scared the hell out of them before they got to know me, and I'm sure st least half of them could have kicked my ass. It's all in how you carry yourself.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-06, 10:08 AM

EvilAnagram

2016-12-06, 10:44 AM

I think anyone saying either can be used is correct, and anyone saying that strength doesn't matter, or shouldn't matter, is dead wrong lol.

I don't think strength doesn't matter. I think strong characters could easily get advantage on a check by demonstrating their strength, but I also think that basing it off of strength is the wrong way to go. I know very large, very strong people who absolutely cannot stand up to people in a social setting. If your barbarian has a charisma of 6, then that's what he is. He's a big dopey pussycat who occasionally throws a tantrum and kills everything. This is a fun character all by itself, but he's not intimidating.

Sure, halflings are less intimidating in general, but we've all seen halfling PCs who have done vicious and terrifying things in games, so in a world with competent halfling warriors, a halfling twirling a knife who looks like he can use it could be pretty damned intimidating.

RickAllison

2016-12-06, 10:48 AM

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-06, 11:02 AM

I don't think strength doesn't matter. I think strong characters could easily get advantage on a check by demonstrating their strength, but I also think that basing it off of strength is the wrong way to go. I know very large, very strong people who absolutely cannot stand up to people in a social setting. If your barbarian has a charisma of 6, then that's what he is. He's a big dopey pussycat who occasionally throws a tantrum and kills everything. This is a fun character all by itself, but he's not intimidating.

Sure, halflings are less intimidating in general, but we've all seen halfling PCs who have done vicious and terrifying things in games, so in a world with competent halfling warriors, a halfling twirling a knife who looks like he can use it could be pretty damned intimidating.
I feel like my point is being missed.

Charismatic does not equal intimidating.

So for every very large very strong person you know that can't stand up to people, I also know charismatic people that simply aren't intimidating. They're charming, but not threatening. Done. Point made.

These examples don't disprove anything. A Halfling with a high charisma is not necessarily intimidating, just like a guy with a high strength score also is not necessarily intimidating. But he can be, and so can the Halfling.

I just don't see why you are quick to say a Halfling twirling a knife who looks like he can use it is pretty damned intimidating, but a half-orc rippling with muscles beating his fists together isn't.

It just seems to me that this is the argument people are making:

not all strong people are intimidating, therefore intimidation shouldn't be based on strength
non-threatening people can intimidate others through implications and glances, therefore intimidation should be based on charisma

killem2

2016-12-06, 11:04 AM

At about 45 seconds into this clip (http://tinyurl.com/z49h6sl) starts a scene with a weak intimidation check against a strong counter-intimidation check. All without strength being a factor. By the two participants anyway.

Intimidation is not about threatening with use of big muscles. It's about being convincingly frightening, methods are irrelevant. Charisma is best as the default because it comes first from your capability to influence others.

I'm not saying you couldn't use strength instead of charisma; there are certainly situations in which strength could work as well as Charisma, if not better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Dp0QogUI4

Here is the fargo clip I was talking about. Great use of charisma to bully a weak minded being.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-06, 11:05 AM

I'm just gonna leave this here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/79uLbeRjBVFA0lCe450.gif

Lol

I'll just point out that this has nothing to do with charisma and everything to do with reputation. Similarly, the examples about institutional power given earlier in this thread also have nothing to do with charisma. People fear the law not because law enforcers are particularly charismatic, but because people are simply aware of the consequences of breaking the law. They fear the mob because of it's reputation and it's systemic influence.

This is why I mentioned in my previous posts that people are confusing charisma with just about every other aspect of intimidation.

It also just seems weird that the guy threatening you with his muscled goon is intimidating, but suddenly when faced simply with the muscled goon you are no longer intimidated. I can see why that *might* be the case, but I can't simply say that it would always be the case.

Tanarii

2016-12-06, 11:08 AM

Charismatic does not equal intimidating.Yes, but charismatic does not equal D&D Charisma either.

Charismatic means "exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others"

D&D 5e Charisma: measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

So it's charismatic PLUS lots of other stuff.

Geddy2112

2016-12-06, 11:13 AM

The Deathwatch/Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader 40k roleplaying systems allow for intimidation to be charisma, intelligence, or strength based;the key is to which one you are using when you make the check. I support this ruling and house rule it in every other system I run.

If you are using STR to intimidate, you are limited to threats of you personally inflicting physical harm on someone. If you are using CHA to intimidate, you can not only threaten to personally inflict physical harm, but you can harm them in other ways. With CHA, you can also have other people do bad things to someone, physical or otherwise.

Using Game of Thrones characters as an example, compare Gregor Clegane(the mountain) to Cerci Lannister. Both characters make threats and have a reputation to do bad things to people. The mountain probably has the highest strength score of any human in Westeros, but his charisma is garbage. Certainly his stature helps, but the main reason he can intimidate people is because people know he is a brutal angry monster and is a giant. If he threatened to bash your skull in or else, you would believe it because he could(obviously) and because he has a reputation for doing so. There is no way he could threaten anything besides immediate force. Saying he would hurt you in other ways(jailed, betrayed, robbed) is far less believable, unless he could somehow threaten enough other people to have those things done. Even if he could, I doubt he would be able to convince you that he would.

If Cerci Lannister threatened to bash your head in herself, you would laugh. Her strength is low, but her charisma is not. However, if she threatened to have your head bashed in, that is a real possibility. She has soldiers, kingsguard, assassins, the Mountain, and possibly more at her deploy. She can also do far more than physically hurt you. She could hold your daughters hostage, have you tried and convicted for a crime you did not commit, have your friend betray you, your job fire you, strip you of your lands and title, break a critical trade deal for your people, and worse. If she threatened to do any of things, you can't be sure it is just a threat, and you are going to listen.

ad_hoc

2016-12-06, 11:14 AM

I think anyone saying either can be used is correct, and anyone saying that strength doesn't matter, or shouldn't matter, is dead wrong lol.

I think many of you are confusing technique or proficiency with charisma or force of personality.

As easily as you dismiss strength, I can say that a halfling's stare or veiled threat means nothing to most people. You have to convince someone of the threat, not simply put it out there. It comes across in this thread like a glaring Halfling is instant-death, when in fact many people might just laugh at a soon-to-be disappointed Halfling if he acts all badass like that expecting to get his way.

So stop comparing a non-proficient muscly barbarian to a proficient charismatic Halfling lol. If the Halfling knows how to stare at you to scare you, a half-orc knows how to display his size and strength to do the same.

In other words, strength and charisma can both work, it just depends.

You are wrong.

Strength doesn't actually matter.

I won't get into details but growing up I spent some time in rough areas. The size of people wasn't important. The thing is, anyone could have a knife or even a gun. I've had both pulled on me, though thankfully not used. They could also have friends to call on.

The most intimidating people were usually the smaller ones. They had something to prove, they had more desperation. I've had big guys try to scare me but I knew that it was just posturing. All of the times when I was actually scared was because of the little guys.

I'd rather be punched than stabbed. I knew a really big guy who said he had no problem beating up other tough guys, but he would never mess with the small guys. He said the worst the tough guys would do would be to try to fight him again. A small guy, since he has no other recourse, might just burn your house down.

Later on when I had moved away from that place and was living in a big city I remember running into a couple huge guys who were visiting from Detroit. We chatted about how they were having a great time. They were able to be out at 3am without being scared. These guys were easily 250+ lbs and looked like they knew how to carry themselves. But that didn't matter in Detroit.

RickAllison

2016-12-06, 11:20 AM

Yes, but charismatic does not equal D&D Charisma either.

Charismatic means "exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others"

D&D 5e Charisma: measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

So it's charismatic PLUS lots of other stuff.

Indeed. In the case of the comic with Belkar, he knows how to manipulate the crowd to best scare off the others. It wasn't about illustrating exactly what he can do with the pebble, but about appearing confident in his skills, unworried about his foes and letting their memories and imagination do the heavy lifitng. It was a threat based on lore and prior expectations, though it does work on the one person who doesn't have that knowledge. In that case, it was his method of Intimidation simply not having a chance to succeed because the threat played on a nonexistent cue. It was ALL about the Charisma (in D&D terms) of the user.

For another example of this, consider Dirty Harry's famous quote. It wasn't about him being a good shot (considering the question was about how many times he had missed...), but about establishing through his demeanor that it really was a game to Harry. And that is why Charisma is the go-to ability for Intimidation, as it is about playing off the target's pre-existing fears effectively (which should always work unless the person simply has no fear) while using other abilities would be more about creating fear which is more context-specific.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-06, 11:45 AM

You are wrong.

Strength doesn't actually matter.
No I'm not. Your experiences may prove a point, in this case that size or strength does not always matter.

But they do not prove another point --> that strength doesn't actually matter.

Do you see the difference there?

You are all bringing up examples that prove your point (charisma can be used to intimidate people) and then concluding that size and strength is not intimidating. It doesn't make any sense.

Stop overstating your cases and I'll leave lol :smalltongue:.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-06, 11:48 AM

JackPhoenix

2016-12-06, 11:56 AM

No I'm not. Your experiences may prove a point, in this case that size or strength does not always matter.

But they do not prove another point --> that strength doesn't actually matter.

Do you see the difference there?

You are all bringing up examples that prove your point (charisma can be used to intimidate people) and then concluding that size and strength is not intimidating. It doesn't make any sense.

Stop overstating your cases and I'll leave lol :smalltongue:.

Strength helps, but it's charisma that actually sells the idea that you're a threat. Actually, it's proficiency in Intimidation, but Str is the stat of being strong, Cha is the stat of influencing others, in whatever way is appropriate. Some people may be afraid of the barbarian because he's big and muscular... but there's no check involved for that, you may get the same reaction by using Disguise Self to look big and muscular without actually having the Strength to back up that impression. Other people may be afraid of characters able to use magic, getting their god to smite you, having enough wealth and influence to make your life unpleasant, or just of those of a different race with a bad rep. But that's not Intimidation skill, that's unrelated first impression, and further interaction with the person in question may or may not change the way the other character sees him.

Most people posting in this thread would scoff at the Mountain because he's just really really big and strong lol. Sure, he might be strong, but can he hurt you with a little dagger lol??? I'm sure they'd all spit in his face in response to his ineffectual threats of violence.

Mountain is clearly proficient in Intimidation, not just big and strong. He may even have expertise in it, and just because he's not really diplomatic doesn't mean he doesn't have great charisma, charisma isn't just about being likeable... see hags, mind flayers, balors and other monsters with good charisma, but poor diplomatic abilities.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-06, 12:01 PM

Yes, but charismatic does not equal D&D Charisma either.

Charismatic means "exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others"

D&D 5e Charisma: measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

So it's charismatic PLUS lots of other stuff.

My point is this: does the person know how to intimidate someone or doesn't he?

If the character is proficient in Intimidate, then he knows how to intimidate people. Then it's just a matter of how does he do it.

What some people here are saying is that a commanding personality or eloquence is *the only* way to intimidate someone (to borrow from your definition of D&D charisma) and that size and strength cannot be intimidating.

See, I'm coming at this assuming the person knows how to intimidate people because he is proficient in the skill (presumably). The question in my mind then becomes "what is his method". The rest of you, or rather, some of you, are assuming the big strong guy *doesn't know* how to intimidate someone, and the small charismatic rogue does.

My point is that by virtue of being proficient in Intimidate, they already know. So the assumptions in many examples here simply don't apply. The big dumb brute, the lovable giant, blah blah blah. No one is talking about that. We're talking about a D&D strong guy trained in Intimidate.

In that sense, being charismatic does not mean that you know how to intimidate someone. I'm just asking that people remain consistent in their examples and argumentation.

BiPolar

2016-12-06, 12:08 PM

D&D 5e Charisma: measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

This is entirely the argument for Charisma. Because the PHB state that this is what it's for. I think we all understand that Strength can be used to intimidate, etc., but Wizards have made it crystal clear what attribute is for interacting with others (interactions being things like persuade and intimidate.)

It doesn't mean that you as DM can't do something differently, but arguing against a very explicit description is silly.

This isn't like Iron Kingdoms RPG which uses a generic Social stat for these social interactions that allows you to present a case to the GM as to what stat you are using.

ad_hoc

2016-12-06, 12:15 PM

Tanarii

2016-12-06, 12:18 PM

My point is this: does the person know how to intimidate someone or doesn't he?

If the character is proficient in Intimidate, then he knows how to intimidate people. Then it's just a matter of how does he do it.This is not correct. All characters know how to intimidate someone. If they are proficient, they are better at it than they would be if they were not. However, a Cha 10 character with a +3 prof bonus knows how to intimidate someone exactly at well as a Cha 16 character does.

What some people here are saying is that a commanding personality or eloquence is *the only* way to intimidate someone (to borrow from your definition of D&D charisma) and that size and strength cannot be intimidating.Most people here are saying that size and strength is *not the only* way to do it. Some are saying that its actually less important than how good you are at interacting with other people. Which is the very definition of D&D 5e Charisma.

See, I'm coming at this assuming the person knows how to intimidate people because he is proficient in the skill (presumably)Since you start off with a bad assumption, what follows becomes somewhat irrelevant.

Edit: I should rephrase this. You're actually correct, to a degree. Someone who is proficient in Intimidating gets their proficiency bonus regardless of ability score used as the basis to do it. If the DM rules they use Str, or Int, or Cha, then they get their bonus to it. However, they are just as good as it as anyone who has natural talent in that ability score equal to their total bonus. In other words, they are fairly good at Intimidation regardless of approach, whereas others are good at it based on the raw natural talent that approach requires.)

EvilAnagram

2016-12-06, 12:21 PM

Ah! Someone making sense :smallbiggrin:.

Most people posting in this thread would scoff at the Mountain because he's just really really big and strong lol. Sure, he might be strong, but can he hurt you with a little dagger lol??? I'm sure they'd all spit in his face in response to his ineffectual threats of violence.

Hagrid is bigger and stronger than the Mountain. The Mountain is more intimidating by far because he knows how to project an intimidating image. The fact that he can back it up just makes him more intimidating. Daenerys and Arya (princesses, like the one ridiculed in the OP) are also pretty damned intimidating. D takes over the entire Dothraki nation while her dragons are miles away with little more than chutzpa, and Arya manages to corner and cow the nastiest, longest-reigning lord of Westeros at the age of 13.

The fact that some strong people are very intimidating does not mean that strength itself is what is intimidating. Rather, it is the projection of strength.

I like to use natural examples: in nature, animals often have to face off against competitors. Rather than utilizing actual violence, the way this usually plays out is that the two competitors face each other off and try to seem tough. Ruffling feathers and fur, arching backs, roars, growls, displaying talons... it all means the same thing: don't mess with me. Nine times out of ten, two animals will face off, and then one will say, "I better not mess with them," and run away. It rarely escalates to actual violence, and it often has little to do with which animal is actually capable of inflicting the most harm (https://youtu.be/PerOmnky0kA?t=29s). The important thing is to give the impression that the risk of starting a fight isn't worth the reward.

Humans, like most animals, don't like putting themselves at risk, and so when they feel uncertain about the risk-to-reward ratio, they don't take the risk. Intimidation, as a skill, is about communicating that the risk of messing with you is too high to try. The Mountain is great at that, while Hagrid - who has half-giant strength - is not.

Socratov

2016-12-06, 12:26 PM

No I'm not. Your experiences may prove a point, in this case that size or strength does not always matter.

But they do not prove another point --> that strength doesn't actually matter.

Do you see the difference there?

You are all bringing up examples that prove your point (charisma can be used to intimidate people) and then concluding that size and strength is not intimidating. It doesn't make any sense.

Stop overstating your cases and I'll leave lol :smalltongue:.

In DnD terms, it is just that: being strong means nothing. You might be a STR 20 barbarian, but if you have less then 100 HP any wizard, no matter their str score will wreck you in 1 turn when he can cast Finger of Death. Far more important when intimidating (be it in DnD or wherever) is having either of 2 things:

The appearance of having power.
The appearance of your willingness to use/leverage said power.

Nothing else matters. Now, any attribute has a way of securing point #1, for STr is hitting, for Dex it;s shooting, for Con it;s taking a beating and asking for more, for Wis it's reading people to get to their weak points, Int has a way of knwoing things. If you happen to know the names of his children that gives you power over someone and Cha can secure power from friends. Besies, Cha has also the ability to deceive.

Then the is #2, which asks for a performance to either make it verye rasonable for you to excercise your power, or for you to put on a demonstration. Sure, a dmeonstration might help: crushing a rock, throwing a dagger etc. etc. But to bring home hte point you need to really sell it. Charisma excels at that again (by virtue of being the social interaction skill). That is why Initmidation is primarily CHA. If you want to include other stats into that is fine, and could work, but remember that using the other scores becomes very specific and you'd need to decide as a DM if that particular option would actually impress the intimited party.

Telonius

2016-12-06, 12:27 PM

Probably the clearest example I can find of why it's Charisma, is from Game of Thrones.

Joffrey Baratheon: You can't talk to me like that. The king can do as he likes!
Tyrion Lannister: The Mad King did as he like. Has your uncle Jaime ever told you what happened to him?
Meryn Trant: No one threatens his grace in the presence of the Kingsguard!
Tyrion Lannister: I'm not threatening the king, Ser, I'm educating my nephew.
[Tyrion speaks to Bronn]
Tyrion Lannister: Bronn, the next time the Ser Meryn speaks, kill him.
[Tyrion turns to Ser Meryn]
Tyrion Lannister: THAT was a threat. See the difference?

Strength isn't the only component of a threat. Yes, the threat has to be credible; the target has to believe you're going to carry it out. (There's another great scene at the siege of Riverrun to illustrate that point). But the precise nature of the threat doesn't have to involve strength.

Credibility of a threat is exactly the sort of thing that you might want to give a situational bonus (or penalty) to as DM. But it's not really something you can have a hard and fast rule for.

Geddy2112

2016-12-06, 12:55 PM

I will agree that the predominant factor in intimidation is charisma. Having brawn or wit or brains to make a threat credible helps, but even without all of that, charisma is the driving force behind intimidating or threatening somebody.

JellyPooga

2016-12-06, 01:08 PM

My point is this: does the person know how to intimidate someone or doesn't he?

The only point that matters is whether or not Strength is relevant to this knowledge. Being strong has nothing to do with knowing how to intimidate someone; it's a vector for your threat, yes, but without having the know-how and the Charisma to convey that threat, all the strength in the world will not help.

Consider three examples;

1) A Bear rearing and growling 10' away.
2) A guy with a knife at your throat.
3) A mob boss.

You'll run away from the bear, yes, but will you go catch fish for it? You'll give the knife-guy your keys and your wallet, sure, but are you going to rob a bank for him or are you going to call the cops as soon as he's no longer a direct threat? What about the mob boss? His reputation gives him the leverage, but it's his Charisma that persuades you that his promise is worth something. So much so that you'll do almost anything he wants you to.

The nature of the threat is immaterial; it can be being large and strong, having a dangerous weapon, a bad reputation, a scary mask, a threat on a loved one; all sorts of threats are possible, but the ability to get someone to do what you want them to do, to actually Intimidate them, depends on your ability to convey that threat and your willingness to follow through with it...and in D&D terms, that's Charisma.

Being strong may give you a threatening presence; something you can always call on to allow you to make an Intimidation check, but without Charisma to back it up, you're just an inarticulate brute.

As a kid, I was literally mugged (well...it was an attempted mugging) by such a person; the exchange went (and I quote verbatim);

Him: "Give me your [mobile] phone" (brandishing a knife)
Me: "No"

and I walked off while he scratched his head, confused by the fact that my being two feet shorter than him and unarmed didn't make me do what he wanted. Schoolkid vs. Mugger. Sure, I was being cocky, but he had all the cards; height, weight, age, a weapon...and no Charisma. I didn't believe he had the conviction to follow through with his implied threat.

That's the difference; if that guy had turned around and stabbed me, or hoisted me off my feet...yeah, I'd be scared and do what he said because he's followed through on the threat; at that point, he's stopped trying to Intimidate and is actually being scary. That's when Strength might come into play, but that would not be an Intimidate check, that'd be an attack roll, grapple check or what-have-you. His ability to scare me through implied threat though, despite his advantages, was so poor he couldn't even get a schoolkid walking down an ally after dark to hand over his phone.

tl;dr - Strength is useful for following through on a threat, but Charisma is what you use to make someone believe you'll follow through on that threat. Thus Strength (Intimidate) should rarely be a valid check to make, outside of visual displays (such as breaking furniture).

eastmabl

2016-12-06, 01:10 PM

Shouldn't it be tied to Strength instead of Charisma?

Sometimes? Intimidation is generally how you present your threat, which is more Charisma than Strength.

If you're using your muscles to make your threat, you might be using strength at your DM's discretion. However, your muscles might give you advantage on your Charisma (Intimidation) check.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-06, 01:55 PM

Since you start off with a bad assumption, what follows becomes somewhat irrelevant.
This is funny because it is the point I am trying to make lol.

Take the most recent example of Hagrid. Everyone keeps assuming a lovable giant that doesn't know how to intimidate and I just don't see why that is.

Proficiency, according to the SRD represents a *focus* on some aspect of an ability check. So if my 20 strength fighter is proficient in Intimidation, he is focused on it. He therefore *knows* how to "influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence" (quoted directly from SRD under Intimidation). He has a focus in doing these things to other people. And he also happens to tower over them and can likely lift them off the ground one-handed because he's that strong.

But instead of assuming the guy knows how to intimidate people, we get arguments that "oh you see, it isn't about the muscles, it's about knowing how to threaten people, it's about convincing them you're dangerous". Yeah, we know. The fighter knows how to do that. He's proficient in it in fact.

I made this point earlier. If the fighter and the rogue are both proficient in Intimidation, they both know how to threaten people convincingly. But maybe the fighter does it by standing in a menacing way that is physically imposing and highlights his stature and build and power, taking advantage of his giant strength score, while the Halfling gives his best cold-dead stare that promises instant harm if things don't go his way.

None of the examples in this thread posit this though. In an attempt to act like size and strength isn't intimidating, we get a giant stupid or likeable brute that doesn't know how to intimidate people. But by virtue of being proficient in the skill, he not only knows how to intimidate people, he has a focus on it. So... why assume he can't leverage his size and physical power when doing it? Why is he suddenly stupid when using a skill he is good at?

People speak as if Hagrid becoming proficient in Intimidation wouldn't use his size and strength to intimidate people. No, intimidation is all about the quiet subtle types. Hagrid skilled in Intimidation wouldn't physically impose on anyone, he'd talk about his friends at the wizard school that know powerful magic, and the beasts he keeps watch over. But demonstrate his immense size and strength? Nope. No one has ever in the history of the world been intimidated by something so obvious and direct. It's all subtle and cool and badass lol. Give them a sidelong glance, flick a dart that just misses their neck and impales the mosquito that was about to land on them, act like it took no effort, make some non-committal reference to their family and friends, and walk away without looking back as they totally wet themselves.

That's the only way to intimidate people!!!

killem2

2016-12-06, 02:14 PM

So maybe instead of making it str only or cha only, maybe it should be str or cha based and the higher one at any time takes the lead.

ad_hoc

2016-12-06, 02:18 PM

That's the only way to intimidate people!!!

This isn't the argument people are making.

Strength matters. But so does Intelligence. So does Wisdom. So does Dexterity. These all matter when trying to intimidate someone. They just don't matter as much as Charisma.

Yes, in a very complex game system you could include strength, dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom in your Intimidation check.

BiPolar

2016-12-06, 02:29 PM

So maybe instead of making it str only or cha only, maybe it should be str or cha based and the higher one at any time takes the lead.

This isn't the argument people are making.

Strength matters. But so does Intelligence. So does Wisdom. So does Dexterity. These all matter when trying to intimidate someone. They just don't matter as much as Charisma.

Yes, in a very complex game system you could include strength, dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom in your Intimidation check.

Or we just got back to the PHB that says Charisma is what's used when interacting with others. Yes, you may have a higher Strength, but strength isn't the "social" attribute. RAW is just Charisma. If you present a case to your DM and they give Advantage because you're using another attribute as well as part of your attempt, then that's their call. But the description of Charisma makes it THE option for intimidation/persuasion.

EvilAnagram

2016-12-06, 02:41 PM

Things

No one is saying that. Many people have suggested using your strength to get bonuses or advantage. You just keep ignoring them.

King539

2016-12-06, 02:45 PM

I agree with following the PHB rules on variant ability checks. Here's an example of what I think could work with intimidation and different abilities.

Strength: Breaking something easily.
Dexterity: Shooting a pipe out of someone's mouth.
Constitution: Self-harm without a visible demonstration of pain.
Intelligence: What Sherlock Holmes does to everyone he meets.
Wisdom: Uhhhh, uhhhh... I'm drawing a blank.
Charisma: Everything else.

ad_hoc

2016-12-06, 02:51 PM

BiPolar

2016-12-06, 03:05 PM

I am not sure why you quoted me as my post agrees with yours but not the post above mine that you quoted.

That was on purpose :) An example of what someone is trying to do that I don't agree with as compared to one that I do and then I added the why.

90sMusic

2016-12-06, 03:16 PM

So for every very large very strong person you know that can't stand up to people, I also know charismatic people that simply aren't intimidating. They're charming, but not threatening. Done. Point made.

I think you're the one who missed the point here. Charisma as an attribute is probably not named as well as it could be because folks like you, as a great example, think it's just about being "charismatic". That isn't necessarily true. As a stat and attribute, charisma is a measure of the force and strength of your personality.

It's for this reason actually that sorcerers use Charisma as a casting attribute for example because they are basically willing the spell effects to happen. They aren't "charming" the world into having magic happen.

Charisma is absolutely the best ability score to be used for intimidation because it also represents your confidence, sincerity, and so many other things. You can have two completely different people walk up to you and threaten you, but you don't actually feel threatened by someone unless you believe they will actually follow through with what they said. Intimidation is just another form of persuasion, it's convincing someone that you will harm them in some way if they don't comply with your wishes.

You can have a big muscle-bound guy pound his chest like a gorilla and yell all day long, but unless you believe he would actually harm you, he is not threatening. His physical ability to harm you isn't in question. It's like being in restaurant, every single person there is armed with a knife that could easily kill you, even without any kind of training or without them being especially strong or dexterous or anything else. But do you believe they will attack and kill you? Does it ever even cross your mind? No. That is a deadly instrument. Planes have been hijacked by Boxcutters which are even more difficult to injure someone and certainly a lot harder to kill someone with. The difference is not whether something can or can't hurt you, it's whether or not you believe that they WILL. You have to be convinced of that.

Seeing a strong guy swing his axe around isn't all that threatening in a world where virtually everyone is armed, and nearly everyone is very strong because they do back breaking manual labor all their lives. Mister Strongman has to convince those villagers that he is willing to hurt them, not that he is able to. I mean the whole village could decide to attack him all at once, he can't fight them all by himself if they decided to rise up against him like that, they would overwhelm and kill him, but he isn't afraid of that happening because he doesn't think it will. He doesn't think it's something that would actually happen.

You have to be convinced you're going to be harmed in order to be intimidated by something. I'm wondering if a lot of people thinking these high strength score guys should be super intimidating were bullied as kids or something, because I have never in my life looked at a "strong person" and been intimidated by them.

Intimidation is really just a variation of either Persuasion or Deception, depending on whether you intend to actually follow through or not. But in either case it doesn't matter at all if you're going to actually do it, they just have to BELIEVE that you will. It is 100% mental. Having weapons at all is more intimidating than just having muscles, and when your average shmoe in the world has muscles and weapons, it's not an uncommon thing to see and not intrinsically intimidating.

Syll

2016-12-06, 03:50 PM

Or we just got back to the PHB that says Charisma is what's used when interacting with others. Yes, you may have a higher Strength, but strength isn't the "social" attribute. RAW is just Charisma. If you present a case to your DM and they give Advantage because you're using another attribute as well as part of your attempt, then that's their call. But the description of Charisma makes it THE option for intimidation/persuasion.

Well, that's rather the point of this thread isn't it? That the OP says the PHB has it wrong.

Previous editions/systems handled this by including feats or traits to change what this skill keyed off of... Much like weapon finesse did with str/dex, but they did away with that feat tax in 5e. I think it would be just as appropriate to create the same for cha/str with intimidate.

BiPolar

2016-12-06, 04:04 PM

Well, that's rather the point of this thread isn't it? That the OP says the PHB has it wrong.

Previous editions/systems handled this by including feats or traits to change what this skill keyed off of... Much like weapon finesse did with str/dex, but they did away with that feat tax in 5e. I think it would be just as appropriate to create the same for cha/str with intimidate.

Cats living dogs! Dogs living with cats! I can't live in a world like that! aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

Ok, got that out. I think it's been fairly well expressed why Charisma (as defined by the PHB) is the right skill here, and that if you've got a good reason storytelling-wise as to why you're utilizing another attribute to help bolster your roll you could get advantage by doing that.

All of that is utilizing the existing mechanics of 5e. It seems like we've come up with the reasoning on why not to change, as well as created a structure on how it could change. The problem is those against seem to JUST want a reason to get additional bonuses for using attributes they are better in...which also deemphasizes and minimizes Charisma.

There are clearly times, and even instances prescribed in the PHB, where Acrobatics seems a better fit than Strength. If you always let someone use their good stats, why have stats at all?

Syll

2016-12-06, 04:17 PM

All of that is utilizing the existing mechanics of 5e. It seems like we've come up with the reasoning on why not to change, as well as created a structure on how it could change. The problem is those against seem to JUST want a reason to get additional bonuses for using attributes they are better in...which also deemphasizes and minimizes Charisma.

I certainly see where you're coming from, but i would counter that the changes to dex have already done a lot to deemphasize str.

I suppose my contention is that there isn't a way to build a str based intimidation character that doesn't rely on the DMs good graces, and I think there ought to be.

It's beyond the scope of current rules, but I would welcome additional rules that opened up new player options for characters that had skill proficiency... a sort of carrot for being proficient, vice the stick of 3.5s 'trained only' rolls

Edit: I have never felt a compelling reason to take intimidate as a skill, because I've always felt anything I would want to accomplish with intimidate, I could just as easily effect with deception or persuasion

BiPolar

2016-12-06, 04:22 PM

I certainly see where you're coming from, but i would counter that the changes to dex have already done a lot to deemphasize str.

I suppose my contention is that there isn't a way to build a str based intimidation character that doesn't rely on the DMs good graces, and I think there ought to be.

It's beyond the scope of current rules, but I would welcome additional rules that opened up new player options for characters that had skill proficiency... a sort of carrot for being proficient, vice the stick of 3.5s 'trained only' rolls

You can still be proficient in one or all of those charisma-based skill checks and not have a great CHA. Even if you're doing a point-buy, you're probably looking at a difference of a max of 5. But you've chosen to load up on Strength instead of Charisma.

If you want to make Intimidation/Persuasion/Deception about other attributes, then there needs to be a downside. High Charisma characters are foregoing usually STR or DEX in return for the attributes like CHA/WIS etc that are more applicable to their build. Just letting those high STR use that attribute for a skill that normally goes to something else seems unbalanced to me. If you're going to give something, you've got to take something, too.

Syll

2016-12-06, 04:36 PM

You can still be proficient in one or all of those charisma-based skill checks and not have a great CHA. Even if you're doing a point-buy, you're probably looking at a difference of a max of 5. But you've chosen to load up on Strength instead of Charisma.

If you want to make Intimidation/Persuasion/Deception about other attributes, then there needs to be a downside. High Charisma characters are foregoing usually STR or DEX in return for the attributes like CHA/WIS etc that are more applicable to their build. Just letting those high STR use that attribute for a skill that normally goes to something else seems unbalanced to me. If you're going to give something, you've got to take something, too.

I agree on principle, but the dex thing sets a precedent... also I view intimidate as the weakest of the social skills anyway. Edit: and thus opening it up to STR might actually incentivize me to take a skill I otherwise wouldnt

As a disclaimer though, I chafe in general to the vastly fewer customization options of this edition.

BiPolar

2016-12-06, 04:43 PM

I agree on principle, but the dex thing sets a precedent... also I view intimidate as the weakest of the social skills anyway.
The Finesse thing sets a precedent, but it's a precedent that only applies in very specific situations. Those weapons cross over and one may not be proficient in the one you want to use. The social skill interactions are always on and available. And DEX vs STR are more interchangeable (both can affect AC, depending on build choice) rather than DEX vs CHA or STR vs CHA.

I absolutely understand what you are wanting to do and how the simplicity aspects of 5e also make it more limiting. But if you're going to grant additional functionality to something, there needs to be a tradeoff of something else, too. And then things get complicated very quickly :)

Syll

2016-12-06, 05:35 PM

But if you're going to grant additional functionality to something, there needs to be a tradeoff of something else, too. And then things get complicated very quickly :)

That's sorta what I was getting at, with suggesting additional options if you have proficiency... it would present opportunity cost. Unfortunately such a thing is beyond the scope of the current rules.

killem2

2016-12-06, 05:55 PM

Or we just got back to the PHB that says Charisma is what's used when interacting with others. Yes, you may have a higher Strength, but strength isn't the "social" attribute. RAW is just Charisma. If you present a case to your DM and they give Advantage because you're using another attribute as well as part of your attempt, then that's their call. But the description of Charisma makes it THE option for intimidation/persuasion.

Right but I didn't think the topic was, what is raw for intimidate.

But, even an answer that would satisfy both parties involved still pisses people off, so I'm going back to pathfinder now. lol

Tanarii

2016-12-06, 06:13 PM

Allowing Strength (Intimidate) checks is specifically called out in the Variant Ability Checks rule. IMO that makes it one of the most harmless and easily go to variants.

I'm personally somewhat strict about variant checks. That's to keep down on the 'use my best attribute for all checks' tendency for players if you let them think they just have to say 'I think my way over the ice' (but in ... yknow ... not a stupid way like that) to persuade the DM to allow an Intelligence (Acrobatics) check to maintain their balance. Otherwise you end up with stupid things that are the ability check equivilent of Sherlock Holmes thinking his way into being a boxing master.

But when it comes to Strength (Intimidate), I'm not nearly so reticent to allow it. It's a clearly established variant rule, so if I'm using the variant it's one I can allow freely. It'll have different outcomes and consequences of course. Because it's using a different approach.

JellyPooga

2016-12-06, 06:33 PM

But instead of assuming the guy knows how to intimidate people, we get arguments that "oh you see, it isn't about the muscles, it's about knowing how to threaten people, it's about convincing them you're dangerous". Yeah, we know. The fighter knows how to do that. He's proficient in it in fact.

Yes, this Fighter knows how to Intimidate, but his Strength isn't actually helping him do so until he uses it and standing there flexing and looking tough isn't good enough for that. Not directly. If he hasn't got the presence and force of personality (i.e. Charisma) to convince someone he means business, he's going to have to actually use his Strength in order to scare someone. He's gone beyond the Intimidation skill (which, while he's proficient at, he's not very good at due to his low Charisma) to (to use GoT's The Mountain as an example) cutting off his horses head to demonstrate just how scary he actually is. That's not an Intimidation check, that's an Attack Roll. You don't have to make an Intimidation check to scare someone.

On the flipside, the Halfling that is also proficient in Intimidation and has high Charisma, does have the force of personality, presence and nuance of social interaction to put the willies up his victim without really demonstrating anything. His words do his work, regardless of the evidence. If forced to back up his threats, the Halfling might even find himself backed into a corner, unable to follow through on the lies and exaggerations he might have used to get his way. Then he might be the one getting scared when his intended victim pulls out a cudgel and beats him three ways from Sunday. That's not, typically, a problem Strength-guy has.

That doesn't, however, mean the Strength guy is better or even as good at Intimidating than the Charisma guy; it just means he rarely has trouble following through on his threats if called out on it, just as a Charisma guy with a crossbow doesn't need to bluff when he says he's going to shoot you.

You don't roll Dex (Intimidate) just because you're pointing a crossbow at someone. You don't roll Str (Intimidate) because you're holding an axe while making your demands. You don't roll Int (Intimidate) because you're a Wizard and pointing a "loaded" finger at someone...it's all Charisma, because the Strength, Dexterity or Intelligence isn't actively helping you do the Intimidating; that's solely your personality at work. The crossbow/axe/finger is merely the verification, not the threat itself.

Tawmis

2016-12-06, 06:35 PM

One thing that really bothers me in D&D is the intimidation skill check. Right now, a typically charismatic princess is more intimidating than Mr Muscle Barbarian who has hulk speech. A bear is also somehow not intimidating because it has low charisma.
Intimidation is really less about harsh words and more about a show of power. Shouldn't it be tied to Strength instead of Charisma?

Hah! OMG. I was literally coming here to post this VERY same thing - and see it on Page 1.

I completely agree. While, I think something like "Persuade" should be CHARISMA based (because that's more about your personality), Intimidation should definitely be STRENGTH based, because no Barbarian or Fighter is going to dump points in CHARISMA. So this makes the intimidation skill pointless to them.

Tawmis

2016-12-06, 06:37 PM

Intimidation is more about reputation than anything else. It doesn't rely on whether or not you believe someone or something can hurt you, it is whether or not you believe someone or something will hurt you.

Either way, when strength is a relevant factor, you can usestrength to intimidate. It is listed right there as one of the examples of Skills with Different Abilities (PHB page 172): "Similarly, when your half-orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."

It is in the PHB, but when you say that Intimidation is about reputation - that's not entirely true. Someone with massive muscles, who threatens you, that you don't know, and you have no strength or fighting skill yourself, is probably still going to intimidate you, even though you know nothing about them. So I've always found it odd that Intimidate is based on CHR rather than STR.

RickAllison

2016-12-06, 07:14 PM

It is in the PHB, but when you say that Intimidation is about reputation - that's not entirely true. Someone with massive muscles, who threatens you, that you don't know, and you have no strength or fighting skill yourself, is probably still going to intimidate you, even though you know nothing about them. So I've always found it odd that Intimidate is based on CHR rather than STR.

That seems like an entirely valid point, but I would like to point out a qualifier you used: "and you have no strength or fighting skill yourself". The Strength (Intimidate) example you used is limited to a subset of people who don't have a way to retaliate. That won't work on the mob boss's nephew because he knows he is protected, that you won't dare kill him because of the kingpin's retribution. That won't work on someone who can defend themselves. That won't work on thug who knows his buddies are in the next room.

Instead consider an example for Intelligence (Intimidation). A scrawny wizard is staring down a tavern-dweller who dared touch his familiar. He starts to calmly recite some important facts chosen specifically to intimidate. He talks about an ancient agreement between this land and a nearby college that provided protection to wizards' familiars, specifically that wizards could respond with deadly force just as if the Mage himself was in danger. And he has just the right spell prepared, one which would not only snuff his life force out quite easily but also render his body an eternal servant of the wizard. Or he could simply disable the miscreant and rummage through his mind to remove some of his happiest memories. This should work just fine for a superstitious thug, or an apprentice who recognizes just how dangerous that wizard is. It is not going to fly against the magistrate's son who knows that agreement hasn't been enforced (though technically still valid) in a hundred years, or the Bard who knows he can Counterspell whatever the wizard throws at him.

Or how about Wisdom (Intimidation)? The masterful investigator who applies the Wisdom capability of reading people to pick out their weaknesses and bring them up? Like Sherlock Holmes, but for more personal issues, he intimidates by seeming to know everything about a mark and just how to pull them. The average thug is liable to crack under pressure when the guy seems to know everything about him and knows just what strings to pull, but a hardened gangster who is familiar with the investigator knows this trick is coming.

But a Charisma (Intimidation) check? That person has the presence to make their threats seem very real. Because of how the Charisma ability works, someone using this check knows how to look tough and appear threatening even when physically they seem benign. They can BS threats because they don't need to posses the danger, they know how to appear like they do. That is why Intimidation is a Charisma skill, because Charisma is about actively projecting while other abilities need the target to respond and actively fall for the con.

CantigThimble

2016-12-06, 07:29 PM

Intimidation isn't about getting someone to believe the obvious. If you encounter a bear or a huge muscle-bound swordsman you are well aware that they are able cause you harm and will probably react appropriately, either by running, placating them so they won't hurt you or defending yourself. However, the response will really not be under the control of the intimidator. Intimidation is about getting someone to believe something that isn't obvious, or might not even be true.

For example, you grab an acolyte and pull him into an alley and say:
"Go into that temple and get the priest to come out here in ten minutes or there is nowhere in this city you or your family will be safe from me."

Now, you might not have any way to track him. You might need to run if a squad of city guards comes at you. You probably don't have any way of knowing his last name, let alone who his family is. When someone who is big and very strong but not charismatic does that the acolyte might be filled with terror because he's being threatened by someone in an alley who could easily kill him, but if he leaves that alley and starts walking toward the temple he might start to realize those things and just call the city guard or tell the priest what happened.

When someone charismatic makes that threat he believes it, or at least he feels so much fear that he won't be able to think clearly about the situation until he's done what you told him to.

Basically what I'm saying is that big, strong dangeous looking people don't need to roll intimidation to convince you that they are a threat. That's just obvious. In fact there are probably lots of situations where you could get your way because you have overwhelming force on your side and the opposition isn't going to argue. You don't need to roll intimidation to convince the last bandit of 15, surrounded by the corpses of his allies and his living enemies to surrender. He's not going to have a fit of bravery and think he can take you all because you're not charismatic enough. You DO need to roll intimidation when you want someone to fear you more than is reasonable based on the situation.

Mellack

2016-12-06, 09:19 PM

Llama513

2016-12-06, 09:21 PM

What you could do is have a feat or something along those lines that lets you add your strength, or what ever your main attacking stat is, to your charisma for intimidation purposes, but it feels strange as there is no precedent for this in 5e

Jerrykhor

2016-12-06, 09:46 PM

Wymmerdann

2016-12-06, 09:46 PM

Hitting someone with a long sword is probably equally as reliant on dexterity as it is on strength.

Damage with a sizable longbow is probably equally as reliant on strength as dexterity for its damage.

Wearing heavy armor over the medium to long term is probably equally as reliant on constitution as it is on strength.

Also, I think we've got a half dozen threads dedicated to the fact that the guy in the armour with the big muscles is probably less intimidating in terms of what they can do to you than the guy in the robes or wearing the holy symbol.

I think what's being discussed here [in the original post] is the passive intimidation that's really covered by insight [e.g. "how big a threat is this guy, really"] rather than an active intimidation, which is as much bluff as anything else: it's the skill to create or extend an intimidating effect, which in a fantasy setting should really, really, not depend all that much on the size of one's muscles, given transmuters are going round turning people into things with less or more muscle, fur or teeth, and necromancers are likely to have a bunch of minions with no muscles at all, but who will still carve your heart of your chest with their bony, bony fingers.

Llama513

2016-12-06, 09:53 PM

JellyPooga

2016-12-06, 11:04 PM

You see, if i want to create the typical muscle-bound bully who is strong but has the social skills of a plank of wood and looks like turd, I'd do the obvious - dump Int and Char. Even with proficiency, at Lv1 its just a +1 to Intimidation. You are still less intimidating than a Bard with 16 Charisma. So if i want to be good at Intimidation, I'd have to put some points in Charisma. But if you don't look at the character's back story, anyone would look at Mr Muscle's high Charisma and imagine him to look something like The Rock. Not really how I want to portray my character.

No-one imagines a Slaad, Bone Devil or Hag winning any beauty contests.

Charisma isn't Appearance. It isn't a Silver Tongue. It's your presence. Your force of personality. If you want a Barbarian that stands out in a crowd, you put points in Charisma. Having poor social graces and being fugly is a roleplaying choice, not choosing low Charisma. You can have perfect manners and be Mr.Good-Looking with Charisma 8.

Str 16, Cha 8 guy is kinda scary. He's rough, he's tough, but he doesn't really stand out. Maybe he stammers, maybe he slouches, maybe he's just not confident...whatever it is, his presence is small compared to the loud-mouthed Bard standing next to him, oozing charm and dominating the conversation, despite the 300lbs slab of muscle looming in the corner. When the Bard pulls a knife and waves it at someone, they're watching that knife and not the Barbarian.

Str 16, Cha 16 Barbarian doesn't have to ooze charm, he doesn't have to dominate the conversation, he doesn't have to be loud-mouthed or have perfectly bronzed skin and luxurious hair...but everyone knows he's there. Even if the Bard is running off at the mouth, everyone has an eye on the 300lbs slab of meat that isn't just looming in the corner, he's instigating a primal terror in every "civilised" person in the room just by being there. When he speaks, he might be monosyllabic and heavily accented, but people pay attention. If the Bard pulls a knife, people are still more worried about the feral look in the Barbarians eye than the pig-sticker that tiny guy is holding.

Yes, people will be terrified of Cha 8 Barbarian when he's smashing stuff good, but Cha 16 Barbarian terrifies people by existing in their presence. Cha 8 Barbarian says "give me your gold" and people hand it over once he's knocked a few heads together. Cha 16 Barbarian says "give me your gold" and people do it straight away.

Christian

2016-12-07, 12:42 AM

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElZfE1AVDPQ) is my favorite illustrative clip of the concept behind the decision to tie the Intimidation skill to Charisma (which goes back at least to D&D 3.0, by the way). I just like how it draws the direct contrast in 60 seconds, with the failed intimidation attempt by the high-Strength character, followed by the successful attempt by the (no-doubt proficient) high-Charisma character.

Also note that the base threat behind the intimidation doesn't change; ultimately, it's the physical threat presented by the bruiser. The target just starts taking it more seriously after it's explained more articulately. (Not, I hasten to add, 'understandably'; I'm not sure exactly what was being said during the initial rant, as the clip lacks subtitles and I am unfamiliar with the language. But the characters in question no doubt comprehend everything being said.)

Giant2005

2016-12-07, 01:43 AM

Mike Tyson is a strong, talented fighter that could beat the crap out of most of us. Yet, if you didn't know who he was and spoke to him on the street, it would be hard to find him at all intimidating due to that stupid lisp of his.
On the other hand, Anthony Hopkins is a scrawny old man. Yet even with the protection of sturdy, steel bars separating them, Clarise Starling still found Hannibal Lector to be plenty intimidating.
Muscles aren't intimidating, what is intimidating is how well one expresses themselves as a threat.

90sMusic

2016-12-07, 08:38 AM

Imagine all the intimidating and/or scary women you've known in your life or from books, series, movies, whatever. I'm sure you've known a lot of females that are intimidating and I doubt many, if any, actually looked physically strong.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-07, 09:44 AM

No one is saying that. Many people have suggested using your strength to get bonuses or advantage. You just keep ignoring them.
No, I'm not ignoring them. In fact, I have agreed that strength is a suitable alternative, and I have said (go actually read my posts) that anyone saying the same is correct and anyone saying strength doesn't matter is incorrect. To which I was quoted by Ad Hoc who in turn said *I* was wrong and strength actually does not matter. He repeated that again in another post, and then made the claim that no one is making that argument just like you are now.

Look, if my argument doesn't apply to you, perfect, don't worry about it. The thread started out pretty well with most everyone agreeing that strength can make sense in some situations. The PHB even calls this out as others have already mentioned, and every description of Intimidation in the explanation of the skill comes down to *physicality* even, where size and strength obviously lend themselves well. So this really isn't even an argument to be honest.

Despite all that however some people are insisting that size and strength are meaningless when intimidating someone and it all comes down to charisma. My comments are for them. So feel free to ignore me if what I'm saying doesn't apply to you.

What I'm seeing is people packing a lot into "charisma" that doesn't belong there. Knowing how to intimidate someone is not based on charisma. That's proficiency in the skill. Having a badass reputation is not based on charisma, that's about actions you've already taken in-game and whether that news has spread. Having institutional power is not based on charisma either. Most examples given come down to these three things. That probably has a lot to do with the difficulty in describing "force of personality" but the point still stands.

A strong fighter can have any of these, and probably has the first two. The third one likely doesn't even come up very often in many situations (probably the second one either). When the crew of the Serenity need information from the Alliance agent, they send in Jayne to interrogate him. Not because he's especially charismatic, but because he's big and strong and comfortable with doing violence. This is enough to be intimidating. Jayne won't be good at it because he's got a high charisma, it's because he is trained or proficient in the skill and a warrior.

Strength can make sense. It's why the melee warrior classes all have the skill as a class skill, the PHB makes mention of the variant rule, and the description of the skill includes "overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence".

None of that is to say charisma doesn't make sense, which I feel is the disconnect here. Some people seem to think that because charisma makes sense, strength can't or doesn't. It isn't one or the other. It can be both. All of the examples given of a small person intimidating others only proves it doesn't have to be strength, not that it can't be.

BiPolar

2016-12-07, 10:00 AM

None of that is to say charisma doesn't make sense, which I feel is the disconnect here. Some people seem to think that because charisma makes sense, strength can't or doesn't. It isn't one or the other. It can be both. All of the examples given of a small person intimidating others only proves it doesn't have to be strength, not that it can't be.

I agree, it did seem like you were arguing against Charisma rather than for strength.

However, I still see an issue with the 5e system utilizing Charisma for interactions and wanting to substitute Strength for it. First, you do need to read back on the descriptions of Charisma by many posters here. Having strength does not necessarily mean you have the ability to convince someone that your ability to lift heavy things is something that can intimidate/persuade. That's what most of us are saying. In addition, if you minimize the importance of CHA that 5e has given it, you are making it easier for a Strength character to do things without having to make an investment in that. They've chosen to be able to do Athletic and Strength related things over interacting with people (Charisma). If you allow them to do those things as well, there needs to be some downside. Otherwise, you've given a boon without creating a penalty.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-07, 10:04 AM

BiPolar

2016-12-07, 10:24 AM

Yeah I think part of the issue I'm having is that when someone says "a strong guy doesn't necessarily know how to convince someone he is scary" I'm wondering what proficiency in the Intimidation skill means at that point. Because to me it means exactly that, that the strong guy does in fact know how to convince someone he is scary. He's proficient in doing exactly that. So it doesn't make sense to me that charisma is what determines whether you know how to convince someone or not. Rather, it determines *how* you convince someone to take your threat seriously. In the case of charisma by the force of your personality. In the case of strength, by clearly being physically dominant.

I do not equate charisma with "knows how to convince people he's scary", which is why I don't assume the fighter proficient in Intimidation doesn't know how to leverage his size and strength to do just that.

Your issue is that you can't see how Charisma is involved. Going back to the PHB, Charisma is "measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence..." Being strong and strong alone doesn't mean you can effectively turn that show of strength into a form of intimidation. Yes, you are proficient in Intimidation, but intimidation still falls under "interacting effectively with others."

Bypassing the role that Charisma is supposed to play minimizes the need for Charisma and if a character has chosen to make it a dump stat, there is a sacrifice to be made by doing so. That sacrifice is not interacting as well with others. If they can still do so, then they have removed the penalty for not putting anything into Charisma and altered the system for their benefit.

As for not equating the importance of Charisma when trying to use Strength to intimidate, please read the numerous examples already stated in the thread.

JackPhoenix

2016-12-07, 10:26 AM

I do not equate charisma with "knows how to convince people he's scary", which is why I don't assume the fighter proficient in Intimidation doesn't know how to leverage his size and strength to do just that.

His size and strength is just a tool. He can just as easily use loaded crossbow or scary reputation. He can loom all he want, it doesn't matter if the victim doesn't believe he's got the spheres to actually go through with the threat. If he uses Intimidation, he doesn't actually intend to beat the victim to a pulp, he's trying to convince him he'll do it if the victim doesn't cooperate. Otherwise, it would be attack roll and Intimidation wouldn't have reason to exist.

Yes, he can punch the victim if he's not scared of him, but that's after the intimidation failed.

INDYSTAR188

2016-12-07, 10:32 AM

Just to throw out another non-strength example. In Lethal Weapon, Mr Joshua intimidates by having himself burned without flinching. It shows he is ruthless and willing to do whatever is needed.

Is that an example of Charisma? Sounds like Intimidate (Con) too me.

90sMusic

2016-12-07, 10:39 AM

Dr Samurai i'll try to break this down into the most simple, most basic way possible.

Charisma, by the PHB is a measure of Confidence, eloquence, leadership.

Confidence.

What do you need to convince people you're dangerous? Confidence.

Biggest, strongest guy in the world walks into a tavern and says he's going to start cleaving people in two. If he has a negative charisma modifier, I hate to tell you buddy, but your stat dump barbarian doesn't believe in himself and isn't confident enough in his own abilities to convey that. And people pickup on confidence, it is one of our most basic instincts as well as the basic instincts of most creatures in the world.

It's the same reason tiny little dogs can bully and intimidate dogs much larger than themselves, because they are different mindsets completely independent of their physical capabilities.

You CAN be strong and intimidating at the same time, sure, but that is a product of having confidence in yourself and projecting your presence.

You can have two different people say the exact same words to people and get entirely different reactions based on how they were said. People can sense confidence and pickup on it subconsciously.

Intimidating isn't showing that you are a threat to someone. Anyone and anything can be a threat to anyone and anything else as a general rule. Even that farmer guy could kill you in your sleep if he had the determination to do so. Intimidation is PERSUADING AND CONVINCING the person that you not only are capable, but are willing to harm them.

People who build low charisma fighters and barbarians and act like it doesn't negatively impact them are just as bad as people who build negative int modifier characters and act like they're just as smart as everyone else. Intimidation is and always has been charisma based for very, very good reasons. Next time you think of someone scary or intimidating, imagine them without any conviction or confidence in what they are saying and watch that illusion fall apart on you.

You can learn to be better at is, because it's a skill, sure. And what is why you can add your proficiency bonus to it when you're proficient. But you'll never be as good as it as some con man who is very experienced at deceiving people. Lying and persuading also requires confidence. Thats what the CON in CON MAN stands for.

So no, unless that fighter or barbarian is jacking up their charisma modifier, there is no reason to give them any bonuses or swap out the ability scores used. In D&D, I think fighters and barbarians are actually on the less-intimidating end of the pool considering the magical abilities some folks have.

You can houserule it if you want to, that's your right when you DM, but it doesn't mean it makes sense. :P Charisma and confidence is where it's at.

CantigThimble

2016-12-07, 10:47 AM

Yeah I think part of the issue I'm having is that when someone says "a strong guy doesn't necessarily know how to convince someone he is scary" I'm wondering what proficiency in the Intimidation skill means at that point.

Both the proficiency and the stat matter because having the stat makes you better at applying the skill. The barbarian knows how to shoot a longbow but the ranger is better. Why? The barbarian has proficiency so obviously he has the requisite skill and knows how to point it, pull the string and when to release. However, the ranger has all that plus a natural aptitude that's almost as valuable as the skill itself. It's the same thing with charisma and intimidation. Someone who is proficient knows what actions he can take that might make him seem scary in a given situation. Someone who is charismatic has an intuitive sense for people and is able to get people to think the way he wants them to using body language and intonation. The guy who is just proficient in intimidation might go through the list of prepared routines he has to frighten people and pick the one he thinks will work best, the charismatic guy already knows which approach will work best AND how to improvise based on his victim's personality.

90sMusic

2016-12-07, 10:47 AM

Is that an example of Charisma? Sounds like Intimidate (Con) too me.

It's another case similar to the han solo "let the wookie win" example (which is actually a good one).

The guy didn't just walk up and start burning himself, the high charisma guy was doing all the talking and convincing and burning mr joshua's arm was just one part of it.

And think about being in that situation yourself, who are you really more afraid of... Mr Joshua, or the guy who was talking to you that seemed to be in charge of the others? The one threatening to have mr joshua talk to you.

In this case, Mr Joshua is just a tool. Could've easily have been a gun or a knife. It makes you not want to cross the charismatic speaker, not the blunt instrument under his command.

Tanarii

2016-12-07, 10:57 AM

What I'm seeing is people packing a lot into "charisma" that doesn't belong there. Knowing how to intimidate someone is not based on charisma. That's proficiency in the skill. And this is where your wall of text breaks down. Knowing how to intimidate someone is based on charisma. Anyone can do it using charisma without skill proficiency. In fact, an "intimidate" check is literally a Chrisma check. Intimidation is, by the very definition of what a 5e skill means, an aspect of using Charisma.

However, if you have a focused in Intimidation (aka proficiency), whatever reason you care to explain your skill proficiency (be it training, experience, a knack, or even a divine blessing), you can also use that extra focus regardless of ability score used if your DM allows alternate checks. The focus in Intimidation is transferable to non-standard intimidation ability checks. Strength (Intimidation) being the standard non-standard variant ability check, so to speak.

Note that this means if you use the variant rules, due to what skills mean on 5e, this also means you think that Intimidation is an aspect of using Strength. That works just fine. There's no reason something can't be an aspect of using two different things, if the DM wants it to be.

BiPolar

2016-12-07, 11:08 AM

Note that this means if you use the variant rules, due to what skills mean on 5e, this also means you think that Intimidation is an aspect of using Strength. That works just fine. There's no reason something can't be an aspect of using two different things, if the DM wants it to be.

I agree with this in theory to be used in special circumstances. But if a DM allows Social skills (intimidate/persuade) to be done with alternate abilities all the time, then Charisma quickly becomes a no-risk, no-penalty dump stat. If that's the case, then Charisma-focused players are at a disadvantage as the thing that the system gave them to do well in (social interactions) can now be done by anyone.

RickAllison

2016-12-07, 11:44 AM

I agree with this in theory to be used in special circumstances. But if a DM allows Social skills (intimidate/persuade) to be done with alternate abilities all the time, then Charisma quickly becomes a no-risk, no-penalty dump stat. If that's the case, then Charisma-focused players are at a disadvantage as the thing that the system gave them to do well in (social interactions) can now be done by anyone.

As I've expressed in my previous points, Charisma-users have the unique ability to use that score for everything. Strength (Intimidation) will not do anything to help against someone who is stronger (or who thinks they are stronger), who does not believe the user is a threat due to being "untouchable", or who has some way to extricate themselves. Using Strength relies on the target believing they are actually in danger, which restricts it to weak shmucks for the most part. It relies on the target being susceptible to that variety of intimidation. The Charisma user? She can do anything. Because the Charisma in this case is about the image of power, it will work regardless of circumstance provided the target even can be intimidated. The Barbarian can occasionally flex his muscle and get a punk to back down, but the Batman-like investigator is a master of pushing the fears of everyone he opposes. Afraid of physical harm? Strength or Charisma. Afraid of family being harmed? Just Charisma (maybe Wisdom or Intelligence, depending on how it is done). Afraid of being disgraced? Charisma. Afraid of clowns? Charisma!

BiPolar

2016-12-07, 11:47 AM

As I've expressed in my previous points, Charisma-users have the unique ability to use that score for everything. Strength (Intimidation) will not do anything to help against someone who is stronger (or who thinks they are stronger), who does not believe the user is a threat due to being "untouchable", or who has some way to extricate themselves. Using Strength relies on the target believing they are actually in danger, which restricts it to weak shmucks for the most part. It relies on the target being susceptible to that variety of intimidation. The Charisma user? She can do anything. Because the Charisma in this case is about the image of power, it will work regardless of circumstance provided the target even can be intimidated. The Barbarian can occasionally flex his muscle and get a punk to back down, but the Batman-like investigator is a master of pushing the fears of everyone he opposes. Afraid of physical harm? Strength or Charisma. Afraid of family being harmed? Just Charisma (maybe Wisdom or Intelligence, depending on how it is done). Afraid of being disgraced? Charisma. Afraid of clowns? Charisma!

Full agree and hope Mr. Samurai does as well. My concession of "agree in theory to be used in special circumstances" was to allow for a circumstance where a pure show of strength COULD be used. But in general, I think 5e Charisma makes sense and does work and is balanced across builds as you have to make your hard decisions about what your character can and can't do well.

Alejandro

2016-12-07, 11:52 AM

Emperor Palpatine is a great example of physical brawn not being necessary to be good at intimidation.

GraakosGraakos

2016-12-07, 12:38 PM

Tanarii

2016-12-07, 12:40 PM

I agree with this in theory to be used in special circumstances. But if a DM allows Social skills (intimidate/persuade) to be done with alternate abilities all the time, then Charisma quickly becomes a no-risk, no-penalty dump stat. If that's the case, then Charisma-focused players are at a disadvantage as the thing that the system gave them to do well in (social interactions) can now be done by anyone.
Yes and no. I mean, assuredly I would assumed if you use Str instead of Cha, you're using a different approach to accomplish the outcome. It might be that different approaches can only be used to result in different outcomes, or it might be that different approaches can result in the same outcome. But that doesn't mean that the longer term consequences should be the same. If you physically bully someone, they might hire a body guard. If you threaten their family, they might take moves to protect them. etc etc

This applies to any action taken really. Approach, outcome(s), consequence(s). Approach dictates what ability score is used as the basis for the check, and what skill or tool can provide a bonus. But it also determines what immediate outcomes are possible, and what long term consequences there are.

BiPolar

2016-12-07, 12:44 PM

Yes and no. I mean, assuredly I would assumed if you use Str instead of Cha, you're using a different approach to accomplish the outcome. It might be that different approaches can only be used to result in different outcomes, or it might be that different approaches can result in the same outcome. But that doesn't mean that the longer term consequences should be the same. If you physically bully someone, they might hire a body guard. If you threaten their family, they might take moves to protect them. etc etc

This applies to any action taken really. Approach, outcome(s), consequence(s). Approach dictates what ability score is used as the basis for the check, and what skill or tool can provide a bonus. But it also determines what immediate outcomes are possible, and what long term consequences there are.

Clearly I should not have made a concession to the possibility of other ability scores :)

My concern isn't how Strength or other ability would work, it's that it minimizes the importance of Charisma.

Flickerdart

2016-12-07, 12:48 PM

I see intimidation as three parts - convincing someone that you have the means to harm them, the will to harm them, and that they have no other way out.

A big dude with muscles, or an axe, clearly has the means to harm someone. But it is a matter of Charisma to convince the victim that they are willing to commit assault to get what they want, and that the victim is better off complying. If you can't convince the target that you are willing to harm them, it doesn't matter how many guns you have. If you can't convince them that there's no escape, they might very well try to run away, or call the guards, or something.

Tanarii

2016-12-07, 01:01 PM

Clearly I should not have made a concession to the possibility of other ability scores :)

My concern isn't how Strength or other ability would work, it's that it minimizes the importance of Charisma.Understood. But my counter-point was that Charisma is still important, even if other ability checks can be used, because:
1) It may be the only way to achieve certain outcomes, among possible outcomes you can get a skill or tool proficiency bonus to.
2) Even if the same outcome can be achieved via an alternate ability score, the long term consequences will be different.

Tools make great examples of the former. Int (Woodcarving) would be what you use for building a secret door, and Dex (woodcarving) for making a simple flute.

Of course, it's not what ability check you use that determines possible outcomes and consequences. It's really what approach is used, what the player says their character is doing that determines everything: If a check is needed, what ability score to use, what skills & tool proficiency bonuses apply if any, what possible outcomes can result, and what the long term consequences will be.

EvilAnagram

2016-12-07, 01:17 PM

No, I'm not ignoring them. In fact, I have agreed that strength is a suitable alternative, and I have said (go actually read my posts) that anyone saying the same is correct and anyone saying strength doesn't matter is incorrect.

There seems to be a disconnect. You seem to think people who say that displaying strength should be able to provide advantage or a slight boost are agreeing that it's a good alternative. They are not. The statement, "Strength should be able to provide situational bonuses," and the statement, "Strength should be an alternative to charisma," are not interchangeable.

You are telling people that strength is a good alternative to charisma, and everyone who says differently is wrong. Almost everyone else is saying that you can use strength, but replacing charisma with strength is a bad idea, not to mention kind of a blunt force approach.

RumoCrytuf

2016-12-07, 01:47 PM

One thing that really bothers me in D&D is the intimidation skill check. Right now, a typically charismatic princess is more intimidating than Mr Muscle Barbarian who has hulk speech. A bear is also somehow not intimidating because it has low charisma.

Intimidation is really less about harsh words and more about a show of power. Shouldn't it be tied to Strength instead of Charisma?

I may be wrong about this, but in one of the core books I am fairly certain it says something along the lines of "The DM can rule that a certain skill check could use a certain stat instead. Like using CON for an athletics check because a player is swimming a long distance" If your big, hulking barbarian is showing off his muscles to intimidate someone, as a DM, I would let you do an intimidation check based off STR.

On the flip side, a Princess using her CHA to intimidate could be something along the lines of a not-so-innocent guise hiding a psychopathic killer. It all depends on the situation really.

Giant2005

2016-12-07, 01:47 PM

The leader of the pack isn't the biggest lion of the bunch, it is the one with the loudest roar.

Syll

2016-12-07, 02:37 PM

Charisma, by the PHB is a measure of Confidence, eloquence, leadership.

Confidence.

What do you need to convince people you're dangerous? Confidence.
This is painting confidence in very broad strokes. Reality is quite a bit more nuanced than that, even if D&D is not. You can be confident in an area of life without being confident in every area, nor in fact should you be.

I can think of any number of people I've met who were very effective at Persuasion, -or- Deception, -or- Intimidation, singly. Or even 2 of those 3, but I don't know that I've ever been acquainted with someone who possessed all 3.

As such it feels wrong to me to ascribe all the social skills to the same "force of personality". Being persuasive isn't the same as being intimidating, even though you can accomplish the same or similar ends with either.

I have real trouble imagining anyone able to simultaneously fill all these rolls, where diversifying the source of their Presence makes a lot more sense.... but in a way that 5e is not equipped to handle

Tanarii

2016-12-07, 02:54 PM

5e defines Str and Cha as:

Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others.

Under those definitions, it actually makes no very little sense at all to allow Strength (Intimidate) checks. But it's explicitly listed as an example variant skill check. Most likely because the Devs knew that lots of people would think it's appropriate and use it as the go-to variant skill, despite the very definition of what the two ability scores are in 5e making it not particularly appropriate.

That's why as a DM I use it, and I use it any time the player makes an overtly physical attempt to intimidate. Albeit with different possible outcomes and consequences. It's an explicitly listed variant skill check, and many players expect it to be possible, so it's just not worth the damn arguments. Arguing about D&D is for online, not for actual game time. :smallamused:

RickAllison

2016-12-07, 03:44 PM

The leader of the pack isn't the biggest lion of the bunch, it is the one with the loudest roar.

That doesn't work for lions... Lions contesting for leader of the pride is a physical battle, so the leader has to be the bigger/more cunning lion at the moment of battle. A more appropriate analogy for the lions would be the big lion being challenged by every up-and-coming whelp who wants his own pride while the one with the loudest roar is rarely challenged. This doesn't devalue the philosophy, only that it doesn't work for that set of big cats :smallbiggrin:

Asmotherion

2016-12-07, 11:29 PM

I think the mechanics work exactly as they should.

-A guy might be buff, yet have a non-intimidating personality.

-A charismatic guy will be able to be intimidating with even just a gaze, as he knows how to captivate his audiance.

-The Princess you mentioned, as beutyfull as she might be, does not necesseraly have a high charisma; this is a common misconception. She probably will have a high Charisma due to years of training in political matters, just as her One-Eyed, Scar-Faced father, the King (who, if I didn't mention it, is also very uggly).

-Intimidation is not about your looks, rather than how you use them. A tough guy trying to intimidate someone by merelly showing off his body will most probably be laughed at than taken seriously. On the other hand, a slim guy with a mean look that gives off the feeling of "I am about to snap and throw my dagger at you" will most likely have different results... (Also, he was holding a dagger... XD just kidding)

-Overall, intimidation is a social skill. It is the ability to use pressure through fear of a consequence, whitchever it might be, in order to get to a result. You could see it as the D&D version of bullying of some sorts, however not limited to it, and not necesserally because the character was being abused by his/her parents.

-Finally, granted, when you thing of it with real world analogies, a buff guy should get some kind of bonus, right? Think again: In a world were magic is more than something legendary debated weather it is real or imagination, in a world were you know demons and angels walk among you, in a world were your fammily member might have been replaced by a dopleganger, a world of element-breathing dragons, I am quite sure your ability to lift 300 more pounds is far less, or, at-most just as intimidating as the guy who can generate arcane energies into the palm of his hand. Even in the real world, the buff guy would pale in comparison to someone armed with a knife or firearm, not to talk about someone who just demonstrated magic ability in a world were magic supposally does not exist.

-That said, this takes me to my conclusion: As H.P. Lovecraft said "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown". What is more unknown than magic, and thus, who to better wield proficiency of the tool that is feat, if not mages? The Sorcerer who is someone with his own magic source, through unknown means; The Warlock who bargained with otherworldly unknown beings for eldritch and arcane might; The bard who finds well hidden, profane and unknown lore that is so fearfull that it would make the breavest warrior have second thoughts; Even the Paladin who claims Divine Judgment. Those are the Charisma-Based Spellcasters, and for a good reason: The typical wizard would dedicate more of his lifetime behind books (int) than developing social skills. The Druid and Cleric are more concerned to communicate with Nature/The forcess Above(or bellow) than with society.

This is by no means a complete guide to the intimidation skill, just how I personally interprete it. I hope it will be usefull.

Malifice

2016-12-07, 11:35 PM

It boils down to rolling a die, adding a number, and hoping that the GM is in a good enough mood to give you what you want.

So... just like all roleplaying games then?

Knaight

2016-12-08, 03:07 AM

So... just like all roleplaying games then?

No. There were three points forwarded here, so lets break them down one by one.
1) Rolling a die. There are diceless games, games that use cards instead of dice, and even more where multiple dice are used.
2) Adding a number. Even among dice using games plenty don't involve adding a number to a roll.
3) Hoping the GM will give you what you want. This is by far the biggest one that throws this off. There are GMless roleplaying games.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 10:53 AM

I haven't had much time to keep up with this conversation, so I'm just going to try and lump comments together and respond with my thoughts.

Your issue is that you can't see how Charisma is involved.

Charisma, by the PHB is a measure of Confidence, eloquence, leadership.

Confidence.

What do you need to convince people you're dangerous? Confidence.
I think I do see how charisma is involved. I think the difference is I understand charisma is not necessary, and others seem to disagree. I think in real life you don't have to be particularly charismatic to intimidate someone and in D&D you don't have to be charismatic to intimidate someone either. I think in an effort to explain to the OP why charisma is used, people are overthinking this and also overestimating how street savvy and courageous people in general are. A show of force is often times enough to cow someone. Not every time. Not always. I'll even say not most of the time just because I'm a generous guy. But to act like you can't intimidate someone without charisma or confidence is incorrect I think. There is nothing particularly charismatic or compelling about a swat team busting down your door and ordering you to the ground. I get the impression some of you would argue that knowing how to shout and present that force is charisma, but I'd argue again that you're packing a lot into that ability score that doesn't belong. A swat team breaking your door down and busting in armed to the teeth is simply demonstrating to you a show of force. There is no glint in the eye, no clever veiled threat that is making you drop to the floor with your hands up. It's show of force, pure and simple. And these are ordinary people who know "Crap! There is nothing I can do against that force, I must comply."

And this is where your wall of text breaks down.
Perhaps. I'm not convinced just yet though.

Knowing how to intimidate someone is based on charisma. Anyone can do it using charisma without skill proficiency. In fact, an "intimidate" check is literally a Chrisma check. Intimidation is, by the very definition of what a 5e skill means, an aspect of using Charisma.
Yes, the argument is does it have to be based on charisma. I'm arguing that strength is a suitable alternative. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be based on charisma. I'm arguing that strength can make sense too in the context of D&D. If you look at the description of Intimidation, it can easily be explained as a Strength check.

And although everyone keeps saying that no one is arguing strength can't be used, the mere fact that people are arguing against me makes me suspect otherwise.

There seems to be a disconnect. You seem to think people who say that displaying strength should be able to provide advantage or a slight boost are agreeing that it's a good alternative. They are not. The statement, "Strength should be able to provide situational bonuses," and the statement, "Strength should be an alternative to charisma," are not interchangeable.
People began explaining why charisma is used and why strength doesn't always work, and people were pointing out that the variant rule already exists and they can see it making sense to use strength instead.

It wasn't until post 40 that someone suggested using strength as a means to gain a bonus or something on the charisma check.

Maybe I am missing something. If I am it's because I can't see it. I'm not intentionally being obtuse :smalltongue:.

You are telling people that strength is a good alternative to charisma, and everyone who says differently is wrong. Almost everyone else is saying that you can use strength, but replacing charisma with strength is a bad idea, not to mention kind of a blunt force approach.
Right. I haven't been convinced that Intimidation can't be just as much based on Strength in D&D as Charisma.

5e defines Str and Cha as:

Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others.

Under those definitions, it actually makes no very little sense at all to allow Strength (Intimidate) checks.
See I disagree with this conclusion. Look at what Intimidation says: When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the GM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.

So if a player says "I'd like to use my bodily power and raw physical force to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence" I can totally see that. This isn't Deception or Persuasion. You're not bluffing someone into thinking you'll hurt them when you might not be able to, and you're not asking nicely or engaging in subtle diplomacy to get your way. In fact, the word "overt" is right there. This is hostile. This is violent and physical. It's right there. The strong guy has a *clear* advantage here. Again, this is why the melee classes get the skill as a class skill. They are expected to be intimidating because they are big and strong.

The display of force is there to convince someone not to call a bluff. With the charismatic guy, he makes you believe he will hurt you. With the strong guy that slams his fist on the table and knocks the legs out from under it, all you know is that *if* he follows through with his threat, you're toast. Is he serious or not? I don't know, but suddenly it is too dangerous to find out. Don't think he'll follow through because he has charisma 8? Ok, you be the first to try and walk around him. That's the point. His strength gives you pause where you might otherwise ignore him. This is why I say some of you are overestimating the bravery of everyday people. It doesn't take much for many people. A big strong guy displaying his power and giving a command is enough. It's like with the swat team. The barbarian that just bent your sword blade in half is too strong for you to consider not complying.

Consider also that you can succeed on Intimidation with a negative charisma modifier. A guy with a charisma 8 can still win on Intimidation. Fifth is swingy, and he may roll well. Or he may have Inspiration to use. Or Expertise in the skill. What is the DM going to say when he succeeds on his check? Your charisma 8 guy scared the thug with his charisma? No, of course not. The guy is not charismatic. In fact, he lacks charisma more than the average person. But if not for his charisma, how could he have possibly intimidated someone?

In D&D, you can lack charisma and still be intimidating. Your arguments that you must have confidence and force of personality in order to successfully intimidate someone don't hold up. And I'm not convinced yet that a simple demonstration of physical power is not enough to intimidate people. In fact, if I'm being frank I think asserting that many people aren't easily intimidated by large strong people is ridiculous. It's not to say that they'd all simply do what a big strong guy told them to do. That's where a focus in Intimidation (proficiency) and an ability check come in.

I remember reading about a study indicating that there was one thing all creatures (or most, including humans) on Earth shared a fear toward, and it was simply another creature approaching it. This act triggered a similar fear response across many different species. There is nothing charismatic about that. It's just biological. If you're the kind of person that needs a big guy to slap you to the ground because you didn't think his threat was convincing, okay. But not everyone is like that. For some people the fear of physical violence at the hands of someone much bigger and stronger is enough. And that's why I think strength can make sense for a fighter or barbarian type character as the key ability score for Intimidation.

Tanarii

2016-12-09, 11:04 AM

See I disagree with this conclusion. <snip wall of text>I told you what 5e defines Charisma as. You then tried to redefine "raw physical force" to mean "interact effectively with others". Nice try, but I see what you did there. :smallyuk:

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 11:09 AM

I told you what 5e defines Charisma as. You then tried to redefine "raw physical force" to mean "interact effectively with others". Nice try, but I see what you did there. :smallyuk:

The disconnect here seems to be more with the definition of Charisma. 5e's definition makes it very clear, but a dictionary or personal definition is what Mr. Samurai seems to be using and muddles the question.

The suggestions of situationally requesting/allowing advantage based on other attributes and their use I think solves your problem, Mr. Samurai. It keeps it within the 5e definitions, but allows for the situational use of another attribute to "assist".

But also realize that if you're using STR to intimidate in a public area, you are likely bringing negative attention to yourself as well. You're no longer just "intimidating", you're "bullying". It's the difference between being authoritative and authoritarian.

JellyPooga

2016-12-09, 11:43 AM

There is nothing particularly charismatic...about a swat team busting down your door and ordering you to the ground.

I think the mistake you're making is that you think this is an Intimidation check. It's not. It's just simple facts. Not every threat is an Intimidation check and this example is a clear display of force that only an idiot would oppose without an equal, opposing force.

If the SWAT team burst in on a well-armed Mob hideout, then they're making an Intimidate check, but it's not based on their guns or strength; that's something that's in balance, it might even be something in the Mobs favour. It's based on surprise, timing, aggression, tone of voice...even the way they dress (black clothes, hidden faces, etc.)...i.e. how they convey themselves to their opponent. That's why Intimidation is Charisma.

Now let's look at the Barbarian bending a sword. So he grabs a sword, bends it in front of you and says bluntly "do X"...to which anyone might reply "or what?" without so much as blinking. The display of strength itself is not that scary; impressive, yes, but without the Charisma to make that display something noteworthy, it's not going to get anyone to do anything.

The Barbarian could thump someone (an attack roll using Strength) and then say "do X" and the recipient will probably do X for fear of getting thumped again...not because the Barbarian made an Intimidation check, but because he doesn't want to get thumped again.

Likewise, the Barbarian could scream and roar in someones face, bite his shield and generally put on a display of raw physical power to try and cow someone into submission...but it would be his performance that sells it, not his stature.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 11:58 AM

I told you what 5e defines Charisma as. You then tried to redefine "raw physical force" to mean "interact effectively with others". Nice try, but I see what you did there. :smallyuk:
No. I simply added Intimidation into the equation, since it is relevant and you left it out. The question is if strength can be used in place of charisma. So I slotted strength in place of charisma in the context of Intimidation. It seems to work just fine for me.

As per Intimidation, you are making overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence to influence a person. Charisma can make you better at interacting effectively with others, but a lack of it does not prevent you from interacting effectively with others. With that out of the way... can Strength make sense to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence? I think the answer is absolutely yes.

@Bipolar: There is a lot muddied in this thread truthfully. As another example, people keep comparing the fighter or barbarian to the awesome power of the mage, but this is completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion. When confronted with a threat or intimidation, people don't think to themselves "Hmm... under any other circumstance I might find your threat compelling. But as it were I'm aware that there are things far more threatening than you in this world, and so the very real and very direct threat you are leveling against me now is meaningless. Nice try though."

That's not how that works. But for some reason people are saying "Well mages are scarier, they can alter reality, therefore charisma not strength." Not only is it not relevant, it doesn't make sense. It just ignores the mechanics of the die roll. I think I'm staying truest to the game mechanics in fact. I understand that charisma governs how well you interact with people in general, and I understand that not every interaction with people requires charisma. I also understand that the game relies on die rolls.

@JellyPooga:

The swat team is an example of how recognizing overpowering force gets people to comply. The barbarian doesn't have to burst through a window shouting with weapon drawn to take people by surprise and get them to comply. But he can easily display overwhelming force and get the same results. As you say:
this example is a clear display of force that only an idiot would oppose without an equal, opposing force.
Right. Why couldn't a D&D warrior PC make a clear display of force that only an idiot would oppose? Why couldn't we describe a successful Intimidation check based on Strength in that way?

Now let's look at the Barbarian bending a sword. So he grabs a sword, bends it in front of you and says bluntly "do X"...to which anyone might reply "or what?" without so much as blinking.
Yes, that's called a failed die roll. The barbarian rolled his Intimidation check and failed it. So the guy responds "Or what?". Alternatively, the barbarian grabs a captives sword, bends it in half, says "Do X" and succeeds on his check and the NPC complies. You don't have to cleave this to charisma so strongly.

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 12:09 PM

@Bipolar: There is a lot muddied in this thread truthfully. As another example, people keep comparing the fighter or barbarian to the awesome power of the mage, but this is completely and totally irrelevant to the discussion. When confronted with a threat or intimidation, people don't think to themselves "Hmm... under any other circumstance I might find your threat compelling. But as it were I'm aware that there are things far more threatening than you in this world, and so the very real and very direct threat you are leveling against me now is meaningless. Nice try though."

That's not how that works. But for some reason people are saying "Well mages are scarier, they can alter reality, therefore charisma not strength." Not only is it not relevant, it doesn't make sense. It just ignores the mechanics of the die roll. I think I'm staying truest to the game mechanics in fact. I understand that charisma governs how well you interact with people in general, and I understand that not every interaction with people requires charisma. I also understand that the game relies on die rolls.

Doc (sorry about calling you Mr. :) ), I think you're again conflating Charisma as defined by 5e and your own definition of Charisma (especially in the real world.) In 5e, they specifically state that the Charisma Attribute is how you effectively you interact with others. It doesn't say you are using your force of personality to do so, just that in order for your character to effectively interact, your Charisma attribute score is what's important mechanically. Roleplaying, you may use other attributes, but it is ultimately your Charisma score that 5e uses to dictate the effectiveness of that interaction.

That is why I was recommending not to replace the score, but to offer advantage if you're using something else and have a good case to do so that the DM agrees with. If you're trying to intimidate a spellcaster with force, that force may in fact be meaningless. If you're trying to intimidate another brute with force, it again may be meaningless. And if I was a DM was offering advantage in certain situations, it could also mean that disadvantage may be appropriate. One of those careful what you wish for things :)

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 12:21 PM

Doc (sorry about calling you Mr. :) ), I think you're again conflating Charisma as defined by 5e and your own definition of Charisma (especially in the real world.) In 5e, they specifically state that the Charisma Attribute is how you effectively you interact with others. It doesn't say you are using your force of personality to do so, just that in order for your character to effectively interact, your Charisma attribute score is what's important mechanically. Roleplaying, you may use other attributes, but it is ultimately your Charisma score that 5e uses to dictate the effectiveness of that interaction.

That is why I was recommending not to replace the score, but to offer advantage if you're using something else and have a good case to do so that the DM agrees with. If you're trying to intimidate a spellcaster with force, that force may in fact be meaningless. If you're trying to intimidate another brute with force, it again may be meaningless. And if I was a DM was offering advantage in certain situations, it could also mean that disadvantage may be appropriate. One of those careful what you wish for things :)
No worries on the name :).

I get what you're saying, but this actually just applies to all rolls. You never know what might be meaningless to what NPC. You can't really assume, as JellyPooga seems to, failure before the die roll. That is what the roll is for. You can be all charismatic and menacing and roll your check, telling your target "I'll find your family and make them feel pain" only to find out the guy doesn't have a family, or hates them, or was exiled, or whatever. We don't even have to get that contrived. Maybe you're just talking to someone that is working for someone even more dangerous than you, and no matter how charismatic you are, they will fail to be impressed.

That's outside the scope of the conversation I think. Even a big strong guy, when faced with another big strong guy intimidating him, has to consider it. Even the mage with all of his arcane power. If he can easily subvert any human that threatens him in an instant, then no intimidation is going to work. He can alter reality remember?

You can't assume for the purposes of this discussion that strength-based intimidation would just fail automatically. I think that's one of the issues we're having. It's as if you guys are taking examples of failed rolls and presenting them as reasons this wouldn't work.

Saying "The strong guy could intimidate him by smashing something and the other guy might be completely unimpressed" doesn't mean anything. A charisma-based intimidation check is not an auto-success either. They can fail too. Any check can fail. But can we describe it as strength-based and have it make sense? I think that's the question. Not "can we describe how a strength-based check would fail?" but "can we describe it using strength as a show of force?".

Tanarii

2016-12-09, 12:33 PM

No. I simply added Intimidation into the equation, since it is relevant and you left it out.No, you didn't. Because Intimidation is, as has already been noted, part of "interact effectively with others". Not part of "raw physical force". You tried to redefine what "raw physical force" is to mean "interact effectively with others". You don't intimidate someone by bashing their skull in. That's attacking someone.

D&D 5e variant ability check rules explicitly allow Str (Intimidate) checks, but they don't actually make any sense by definitions of what D&D 5e Strength (use of raw physical force) and Charisma (interact effectively with others) are.

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 12:39 PM

Saying "The strong guy could intimidate him by smashing something and the other guy might be completely unimpressed" doesn't mean anything. A charisma-based intimidation check is not an auto-success either. They can fail too. Any check can fail. But can we describe it as strength-based and have it make sense? I think that's the question. Not "can we describe how a strength-based check would fail?" but "can we describe it using strength as a show of force?".

This may be an agree to disagree, but your argument seems to center on 5e has it wrong (which is a completely valid point.) So let's say 5e's use of the Charisma attribute as the means to which interacting with others is judged. If we do move away from that and allow other attributes to regularly be used in place of that, then I return to my original issue that it minimizes 5e's dependence on Charisma for certain skill checks and therefore that attribute as well and makes it really only important if Charisma is a casting attribute.

Basically, each attribute seems to have a primary property (attacks, AC, HP, Spellcasting) and then secondary properties shown in the skills list. If you remove the secondary properties of Charisma and move them to other Attributes, then Charisma easily becomes a dump stat for any build that doesn't require Charisma for spellcasting. WIth the secondary use gone, why have it at all? It's too easy of a gimme.

Rather than allowing it to be replaced, I think the solution of allowing situational use of bonuses/advantage is a nice compromise. The DM can then also rule that his role can be altered based on what you've done as well and his knowledge of the NPC.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 12:53 PM

No, you didn't. Because Intimidation is, as has already been noted, part of "interact effectively with others". Not part of "raw physical force".
Yes Tanarii. The OP is asking if it shouldn't be the other way around. Insisting that it simply isn't and reiterating what it currently is doesn't seem helpful.

You tried to redefine what "raw physical force" is to mean "interact effectively with others". You don't intimidate someone by bashing their skull in. That's attacking someone.
I'm doing what the OP is suggesting and seeing if it makes sense. You don't have to bash someone's skull in, but Intimidation clearly refers to hostile actions and physical violence. Not implying actions and violence, but trying to "influence someone through... hostile actions, and physical violence...". Intimidation already has you trying to influence someone right there in the definition. We can remove it from Charisma, which is about interacting effectively with others, port it over to Strength and we get (using your "formula"):

Str (Intimidation)

OR

raw physical force (influencing someone through hostile actions and physical violence)

I don't see the problem. In fact it seems to make perfect sense with everything we would normally take for granted but for an argument over an internet forum.

I know it isn't how the game describes it. I think the whole point of the OP is to argue against the way the game describes it.

D&D 5e variant ability check rules explicitly allow Str (Intimidate) checks, but they don't actually make any sense by definitions of what D&D 5e Strength (use of raw physical force) and Charisma (interact effectively with others) are.
I think in technical terms you're correct, in the sense that if you remove charisma then you're not "interacting with others" according to the wording. But... so what? It actually does make sense in every other way. The game recognizes that some things might not make perfect sense when you are forced to create hard lines for mechanics, hence the variant rules. The game is literally telling you "sometimes Strength makes sense, so you can use that in place of charisma if the DM allows" and you guys are like "no, it can grant Advantage, or a bonus, but not replace it entirely because that makes no sense". Well, not you specifically Tanarii.

@Bipolar: I don't think 5E has it wrong. I think Charisma makes sense. I just think that Strength can also make sense. Not as a bonus or to grant Advantage. I think strength can be slotted in for charisma entirely. I don't get so caught up in the definition of Charisma in 5E that all of my large strong warrior types are ineffectual at intimidating other people for lack of a positive charisma modifier. Things are more nuanced than that. For me at least.

And I don't think this devalues Charisma in any way. It is already one of the stronger stats. Strength is not that strong (ironically enough). If you can choose between strength and dexterity for your melee attacks, one is clearly more beneficial to you than the other. Allowing one charisma skill to use strength or charisma won't kill charisma.

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 01:03 PM

@Bipolar: I don't think 5E has it wrong. I think Charisma makes sense. I just think that Strength can also make sense. Not as a bonus or to grant Advantage. I think strength can be slotted in for charisma entirely. I don't get so caught up in the definition of Charisma in 5E that all of my large strong warrior types are ineffectual at intimidating other people for lack of a positive charisma modifier. Things are more nuanced than that. For me at least.
It's not that a large strong warrior type is ineffectual because of low charisma, but that your PC has chosen to pursue other avenues (strength, constitution, etc.) instead of investing time and resources in learning how to interact with people better.

And I don't think this devalues Charisma in any way. It is already one of the stronger stats. Strength is not that strong (ironically enough). If you can choose between strength and dexterity for your melee attacks, one is clearly more beneficial to you than the other. Allowing one charisma skill to use strength or charisma won't kill charisma.
How is Charisma one of the stronger stats? Very few saving throws are Charisma based, it's focus is on charisma spellcasting and interaction skills. If you can make the case for Strength>Charisma for Intimidation, you can make the case for Intelligence, Wisdom, etc.>Charisma for Persuasion or Deception. And again, it's not that your strength isn't intimidating, it's that you know how to effectively use your strength in convincing others.

It's a slippery slope once you allow other attributes to take the place of Charisma for interaction checks in 5e. And once you've gone down it, I think you have devalued Charisma. Point-buy or even rolled stats force you to make hard decisions about what your character can and cannot do. If you allow for your stronger stats to replace your weaker ones, then those decisions are much easier to make.

JellyPooga

2016-12-09, 01:30 PM

Right. Why couldn't a D&D warrior PC make a clear display of force that only an idiot would oppose? Why couldn't we describe a successful Intimidation check based on Strength in that way?

We could describe Strength (Intimidation) this way, but I don't think we should. A hulking great warrior in full-plate, lugging a massive greatsword who says "give me your dosh" to a rag-clad peasant doesn't have a chance of failing to display his strength; it's a plain as day fact that he's stronger. So unless the peasant makes the choice to be contrary, he's going to comply. He's not really intimidated, per se, so much as given a choice to weigh his options. If the warrior wants to actively force the peasant to give him all his cash; bypass the decision process so to speak, he needs to do more than just loom and look dangerous and all Strength does is allow you loom and look dangerous.

Yes, that's called a failed die roll. The barbarian rolled his Intimidation check and failed it. So the guy responds "Or what?". Alternatively, the barbarian grabs a captives sword, bends it in half, says "Do X" and succeeds on his check and the NPC complies. You don't have to cleave this to charisma so strongly.

I apologise; my example was wrong. In order for Strength (Intimidation) to be valid, the act alone must be sufficient to convey the intention of the check. Just bend a sword in front of someone, without speaking or even looking at them and see how far it gets you. Yes the act might be impressive and if sufficiently impressive, it might get someone to cower, stop in their tracks or otherwise be awed, but it won't get them to hand over their money (for example) because Strength is the ability score for purely physical acts and does not allow for any kind of social interaction.

As soon as you ask a question, "put on a show", look menacing or otherwise try to interact with someone, regardless of what activity you're performing...that's Charisma. Strength may give you more options, like bending swords or lifting tables, but the social interaction itself is Charisma.

So yeah, you can use Strength to intimidate under certain circumstances, but most of the times you try to intimidate someone, you're looking for a specific end goal; "stop attacking", "give me your gold", "tell me what you know", etc. and Strength based intimidation is really only appropriate for instigating awe. Once awed, a creature might be more susceptible to a Charisma (Intimidation), but if your Charisma is poor, then there's still every chance that despite everything your victim will not comply.

If, however, you want to change the definition of Strength to include social interaction, sure, make Intimidation a Strength based skill, but I'd argue that you have a rather peculiar definition of what Strength is.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 01:47 PM

Right.

So how does one succeed on an Intimidation check with an 8 or 10 charisma? Because it isn't the way you're all saying it *must* be.

For my part, the "more* that he needs to do other than loom and look dangerous is handled by the proficiency bonus to Intimidation.

Charisma isn't knowledge. The proficiency bonus to Intimidation can represent knowledge. So the strength modifier helps in looming and looking dangerous, and the proficiency bonus explains how he knows to apply that to Intimidate people. I really can't wrap my head why this is so controversial.

And I disagree that merely uttering a sentence requires a charisma check. You can easily say what you want but influence someone to do it through a show of physical force.

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 01:56 PM

Right.

So how does one succeed on an Intimidation check with an 8 or 10 charisma? Because it isn't the way you're all saying it *must* be.
One general doesn't unless they roll well. But they chose to build a PC that isn't good at interacting with people. That's the trade-off that was made at character creation. You don't get to circumvent that just because you want to be ale to do that skill without investing in it.

For my part, the "more* that he needs to do other than loom and look dangerous is handled by the proficiency bonus to Intimidation.
I think what we're saying is the "more" is the interacting with folks bit. The display of strength (or intelligence, or dexterity, or whatever) is just that, a display. You need to have means to do more than just smash something. Think of the mobster type threat again. Typically, there's the strong-man who is the physical threat, but there is usually someone who actually makes the threat of force (that will be done by the gunman/strongman). That's the Intimidation. [/quote]

Charisma isn't knowledge. The proficiency bonus to Intimidation can represent knowledge. So the strength modifier helps in looming and looking dangerous, and the proficiency bonus explains how he knows to apply that to Intimidate people. I really can't wrap my head why this is so controversial.

I'd say the Strength modifier is what you use when attempting to break/bend the thing you're doing to show off your strength. The Charisma modifier/proficiency is what you use to translate that show into the threat.

And I disagree that merely uttering a sentence requires a charisma check. You can easily say what you want but influence someone to do it through a show of physical force.
If you could easily say what you want have someone do it, then there wouldn't be a need for deception/persuasion/intimidation rolls. The fact that you can ADD to that interaction with a display of force doesn't change that the majority of what you're doing is interacting, not doing a feat of strength.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 02:07 PM

One general doesn't unless they roll well. But they chose to build a PC that isn't good at interacting with people. That's the trade-off that was made at character creation. You don't get to circumvent that just because you want to be ale to do that skill without investing in it.
That's not really the point.

You are all insisting that the only way to Intimidate people is to "interact effectively" with them through Charisma. But if I build a half-orc rogue thug with 18 Strength and 10 charisma, but I have Expertise in Intimidation, how am I winning on these checks? What about with an 8 charisma? Where is my confidence and intuition and overall force of personality and social genius? How am I intimidating people without the very traits you are all saying are *vital* to do it by?

I think what we're saying is the "more" is the interacting with folks bit. The display of strength (or intelligence, or dexterity, or whatever) is just that, a display. You need to have means to do more than just smash something. Think of the mobster type threat again. Typically, there's the strong-man who is the physical threat, but there is usually someone who actually makes the threat of force (that will be done by the gunman/strongman). That's the Intimidation.
Here is what I'm saying:

raw physical force --> CAN --> intimidate people

You are saying "no, charisma determines if someone knows how to properly intimidate people"

I'm asking then how does someone with a 0 or negative charisma modifier succeed on his Intimidate check.

I'd say the Strength modifier is what you use when attempting to break/bend the thing you're doing to show off your strength. The Charisma modifier/proficiency is what you use to translate that show into the threat.
I almost agree, except that you lumped charisma modifier with proficiency. They are different.

If you could easily say what you want have someone do it, then there wouldn't be a need for deception/persuasion/intimidation rolls. The fact that you can ADD to that interaction with a display of force doesn't change that the majority of what you're doing is interacting, not doing a feat of strength.
I'm saying you can easily say something without trying to influence someone with your words. It doesn't have to require a charisma check. You could say "Hand over the key." and then crush a helmet between your hands. The words are not the influence. The display of raw physical power is. EDIT: He says "Hand over the keys." and you're about to say "No" because it wasn't particularly compelling. Then he crushes a helmet in his hands and you instead say "Sure, no problem. Here you go" and you hand over the keys.

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 02:14 PM

That's not really the point.

You are all insisting that the only way to Intimidate people is to "interact effectively" with them through Charisma. But if I build a half-orc rogue thug with 18 Strength and 10 charisma, but I have Expertise in Charisma, how am I winning on these checks? What about with an 8 charisma? Where is my confidence and intuition and overall force of personality and social genius? How am I intimidating people without the very traits you are all saying are *vital* to do it by?

And what I am saying is that without investing in being able to interact effectively with people (CHA), you are not as effective in interacting with people. Having expertise in Intimidation helps, but without the investment in CHA, you will always be limited in what you can do. Think of it like woodworking. I can take courses in woodworking (expertise), but if I don't have natural talent, I'm going to be limited in what I can do. Interacting with people is the same, with Charisma being the natural talent.

I'm saying you can easily say something without trying to influence someone with your words. It doesn't have to require a charisma check. You could say "Hand over the key." and then crush a helmet between your hands. The words are not the influence. The display of raw physical power is.

And again, if you want to allow the use of Charismatic skills by other Attributes, that's your call. But I still contend that doing so minimizing Charisma and makes it an obvious dump stat. If there is no penalty for leaving CHA at +0 or less, then it's a no-brainer to do that. Not everyone is good at interacting with people, whether you're trying to intimidate, persuade, or deceive. The CHA stat is what determines how good you are at doing those things. Letting other stats take that over means that pretty much everyone is good at interacting with people because they can find a way to use their best stat to do so.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 02:25 PM

And what I am saying is that without investing in being able to interact effectively with people (CHA), you are not as effective in interacting with people. Having expertise in Intimidation helps, but without the investment in CHA, you will always be limited in what you can do. Think of it like woodworking. I can take courses in woodworking (expertise), but if I don't have natural talent, I'm going to be limited in what I can do. Interacting with people is the same, with Charisma being the natural talent.
If there is a guy with a +3 charisma modifier and Expertise and Proficiency in Intimidation, will he be better than you with the same traits but a 0 charisma modifier?

Yes. Of course.

Again, not the point. The point is that in 5th edition D&D you can still win those Intimidation checks without a positive charisma modifier. So your arguments do not hold up.

You have accused me of conflating the real world with the game world. I am telling you now, in the game of D&D you don't need to be a social genius or have the charisma of a Fey Lord to successfully Intimidate people. But that is what you guys are arguing. It can't just be a show of force, there has to be some social know-how to see you through. That doesn't track in the actual game (most relevant) and doesn't really track in all cases in the real world either.

And again, if you want to allow the use of Charismatic skills by other Attributes, that's your call. But I still contend that doing so minimizing Charisma and makes it an obvious dump stat. If there is no penalty for leaving CHA at +0 or less, then it's a no-brainer to do that. Not everyone is good at interacting with people, whether you're trying to intimidate, persuade, or deceive. The CHA stat is what determines how good you are at doing those things. Letting other stats take that over means that pretty much everyone is good at interacting with people because they can find a way to use their best stat to do so.
Charisma is already a go-to dump stat for many melee characters.

And I really don't know what you guys are arguing for or against truthfully.

If you are willing to let Strength determine a bonus to your check in certain cases, then you are effectively replacing charisma with strength anyways. If I have a 0 charisma modifier, and you're like "Well, you're displaying a show of force, so I'll let you get a bonus from your strength, but I won't let you replace charisma with strength" then I'm effectively replacing charisma with strength anyways. Even if you let me get Advantage due to a show of force... Advantage works out to around a +5 bonus to a die roll. So... what exactly is the position you guys are taking?

RickAllison

2016-12-09, 02:39 PM

That's not really the point.

You are all insisting that the only way to Intimidate people is to "interact effectively" with them through Charisma. But if I build a half-orc rogue thug with 18 Strength and 10 charisma, but I have Expertise in Intimidation, how am I winning on these checks? What about with an 8 charisma? Where is my confidence and intuition and overall force of personality and social genius? How am I intimidating people without the very traits you are all saying are *vital* to do it by?

I resent this. I don't think you have really been paying attention to this thread. Multiple people have expressed that they agree with being able to Intimidate using other ability scores, just often with conditions. My personal interpretation is that other ability scores can be used, but the situation may mean that the attempt simply cannot succeed (no matter how well you bend that sword, the dragon really doesn't care) while Charisma's nature of being the ability to interact with others means it is always applicable if the target has any concept of fear. Others have suggested it works, but it may have different outcomes than if applied through Charisma. Just judging from this thread, it appears that the majority may actually be in favor of Strength having some possible effect on Intimidate. The disagreement with you stems more from making blanket statements that make no sense within the definitions of Charisma in 5e than the concept. Few are saying that Strength should have no effect on Intimidation, but it is a huge jump in logic to claim that having an impact in specific circumstances justifies making it apply to everything.

TL;DR: Many of the posters are not "insisting that the only way to Intimidate people is to "interact effectively" with them through Charisma." They are insisting that Strength being useful for a small subset of possible Intimidation attempts should NOT mean that Strength should replace Charisma. Charisma (in 5e terms) would affect all attempts to Intimidate, while Strength only affects those where the target would even care about physical strength.

JellyPooga

2016-12-09, 02:47 PM

Charisma is already a go-to dump stat for many melee characters.

...and those melee characters have chosen to be (relatively) bad at intimidating people, even if they have Intimidation proficiency.

Strong =/= Intimidating. Intimidating = Intimidating

Yes, you can be Strong and Intimidating but being Strong doesn't mean you are Intimidating. If you want to be good at Intimidating...then invest in it.

Let's flip the tables; you don't get to be good at hitting people because you have a high Charisma...sure, you can argue that melee combat is as much about deception, guile and manipulating your opponent as it is Strength, but that's not what the game tells us. The game tells us that Strength and Dexterity make you good at hitting people, not Charisma. If you don't invest in Str/Dex, then you will be bad at hitting people with sticks.

Should hitting people have more to do with Charisma? Well, yeah, maybe and there are some Class Features that give us an incentive to have high Charisma on a melee build (e.g. Swashbuckler), but in no-ones book is anyone going to argue that melee attack modifiers should always be based on Charisma instead of Strength...

...and that's directly analogous to what the OP is suggesting; replacing Charisma with Strength for Intimidation, when Strength is and should be the fringe case, not the default.

edit - Also; what RickAllison said...dude speaks sense.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 03:29 PM

I resent this.
You are free to make that choice.

I don't think you have really been paying attention to this thread. Multiple people have expressed that they agree with being able to Intimidate using other ability scores, just often with conditions. My personal interpretation is that other ability scores can be used, but the situation may mean that the attempt simply cannot succeed (no matter how well you bend that sword, the dragon really doesn't care) while Charisma's nature of being the ability to interact with others means it is always applicable if the target has any concept of fear. Others have suggested it works, but it may have different outcomes than if applied through Charisma. Just judging from this thread, it appears that the majority may actually be in favor of Strength having some possible effect on Intimidate.
I have been quoting people. There has been an involved back and forth. We could easily go through and reread how this conversation has evolved. If you think people aren't arguing that it is all about charisma, I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, there have been people saying Strength can be used in certain situations. I have agreed with them. I still agree with them. I have referenced them before more than once.

But in all examples of the strong guy showing force, we are getting the same responses "he doesn't know how to intimidate" "he isn't threatening" "he can't translate that over to intimidation". People are repeatedly saying that your size and strength won't do it. You need charisma. Intimidation must be based off of charisma. I mean... we can easily go through this thread and just quote example after example of this. Everyone cedes that strength and size can be intimidating, but without the charisma to properly utilize that strength and size, you won't be convincing anyone. That is the overall theme here.

Guy crushes a helmet? No, he needs charisma for that to intimidate someone. Guy smashes a table and obliterates it? Nope, he needs charisma for that to scare anyone. Guy towers over you and bends your sword in half? Means nothing without charisma to sell it.

What is my take away supposed to be here exactly?

This is why I keep asking people to interpret the guy with a 0 charisma modifier that is still focused on Intimidate and winning his checks. How is he doing it without the charisma? No one has answered this. They just keep saying "he's not that good at it" and ignoring the fact that this character can Intimidate people in the game without the very charisma they are harping on about. I'm trying to understand the other side here.

The disagreement with you stems more from making blanket statements that make no sense within the definitions of Charisma in 5e than the concept. Few are saying that Strength should have no effect on Intimidation, but it is a huge jump in logic to claim that having an impact in specific circumstances justifies making it apply to everything.
This is just you and others (if applicable) making an arbitrary decision. You decide that a dragon doesn't care about a strong man's show of force. Ok, fine. That makes sense. But the idea that a halfling's glare carries with it so much "unknown" that it might still impact the dragon is equally, to me, nonsensical. You're putting a lot of stock in "maybe" and "look of death". A dragon is a dragon is a dragon.

As I said earlier, not everyone will be swayed by charisma either. It isn't mind control and it isn't an auto-success. In the same way a strong man might have trouble intimidating someone that isn't swayed (for whatever reason) by physical might, the threats levied against a particular NPC by a charismatic person may also not apply. I don't know how else to respond to this other than shrugging my shoulders.

TL;DR: Many of the posters are not "insisting that the only way to Intimidate people is to "interact effectively" with them through Charisma." They are insisting that Strength being useful for a small subset of possible Intimidation attempts should NOT mean that Strength should replace Charisma. Charisma (in 5e terms) would affect all attempts to Intimidate, while Strength only affects those where the target would even care about physical strength.
Intimidation is about overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. This boils down to physicality. I don't know how you're imagining Intimidation to be in your minds, but it seems pretty clear to me that Strength can apply. They don't have to care about physical strength. They have to care about being harmed or physically coerced.

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 03:35 PM

This is why I keep asking people to interpret the guy with a 0 charisma modifier that is still focused on Intimidate and winning his checks. How is he doing it without the charisma? No one has answered this. They just keep saying "he's not that good at it" and ignoring the fact that this character can Intimidate people in the game without the very charisma they are harping on about. I'm trying to understand the other side here.
And my Bard with 8 Strength can still wield a greatclub and hit and do damage with it. Just because you have a zero or negative modifier to an attribute doesn't mean you can't TRY and do something with it and still succeed. Bounded accuracy allows for that.

Intimidation is about overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. This boils down to physicality. I don't know how you're imagining Intimidation to be in your minds, but it seems pretty clear to me that Strength can apply. They don't have to care about physical strength. They have to care about being harmed or physically coerced.
NO, it doesn't boil down to physicality. It boils down to the ability to interact effectively with others. How you choose to interact, whether it is display of force or convincing argument, doesn't change the fact that it is about interaction and not about displays of power.

And yes, I have offered the compromises up, because I believe in compromises. I could play the traditional internet forum user and look at this in terms of 1s and 0s. And through that lens, then it is through Charisma only - because in 5e, the system is built around attributes that can do specific things. And what you are wanting to do is not part of that system.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 03:37 PM

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 03:45 PM

And my Bard with 8 Strength can still wield a greatclub and hit and do damage with it. Just because you have a zero or negative modifier to an attribute doesn't mean you can't TRY and do something with it and still succeed. Bounded accuracy allows for that.
I don't know how I can explain this any better.

When I give an example of a strong guy using a show of force to intimidate someone (say bending the sword in half), I get multiple responses of "without charisma, he can't translate that show of power into a threat" "he can show that he is strong, but without charisma that strength isn't intimidating" "strong by itself isn't threatening, he would need charisma to actually convince someone he is scary".

But the game allows for characters to succeed at Intimidation without a positive charisma modifier. The game itself is saying that your point is not necessarily true. Again, with Expertise I can be just as good or better (eventually) than a guy focused in Charisma without Expertise. So I'm good at Intimidation without having the charisma.

So when I say the strong guy could do this and you respond with "no he needs charisma to make it mean anything" I am explaining to you how that is simply not true in the very game that we are talking about.

You aren't required to be charismatic to be Intimidating. It helps of course, but it isn't necessary. So saying "it can't be strength based because you need charisma" doesn't work.

NO, it doesn't boil down to physicality. It boils down to the ability to interact effectively with others.
Yes, the ability to interact effectively with others through physical violence and hostile actions. Go ahead and be physically violent without being... physical about it.

Socratov

2016-12-09, 03:51 PM

...and those melee characters have chosen to be (relatively) bad at intimidating people, even if they have Intimidation proficiency.

Strong =/= Intimidating. Intimidating = Intimidating

Yes, you can be Strong and Intimidating but being Strong doesn't mean you are Intimidating. If you want to be good at Intimidating...then invest in it.

Let's flip the tables; you don't get to be good at hitting people because you have a high Charisma...sure, you can argue that melee combat is as much about deception, guile and manipulating your opponent as it is Strength, but that's not what the game tells us. The game tells us that Strength and Dexterity make you good at hitting people, not Charisma. If you don't invest in Str/Dex, then you will be bad at hitting people with sticks.

Should hitting people have more to do with Charisma? Well, yeah, maybe and there are some Class Features that give us an incentive to have high Charisma on a melee build (e.g. Swashbuckler), but in no-ones book is anyone going to argue that melee attack modifiers should always be based on Charisma instead of Strength...

...and that's directly analogous to what the OP is suggesting; replacing Charisma with Strength for Intimidation, when Strength is and should be the fringe case, not the default.

edit - Also; what RickAllison said...dude speaks sense.
Fully Agree.

Dr. Samurai,

if you want it as a popculture reference: How about the scene between Cercei Lannister and Petyr Baelish (https://youtu.be/sKTc8Chvw5k)

Sure the act of using the guards agianst Petyr is quite frightening, but Petyr knows many secrets, he knows he has dirt one each and every one. He has his brothels (which guards are usually very fond of). His one problem is that Cercei correctly convices him that when pressed, Cercei will carry out her threat.

A demonstration can certainly help the case, but unless you cinvincingly translate that into a threat is quite another matter. Making sure that someone is not fainting or pissing his pants is another (as in leaving someone capable enough to act on yoru instructions, but not capable anough to resist your wishes). It requires careful calibration of fear, showmanship and inter-personal craftsmanship.

As I have said before: a threat is about 2 parts: the first is convinding the other of poosession of power: enough so that the other thinks that your power is greater then his own. The second is to convince the other person of your willingness of use said power.

It's why historically speaking during the Cold War nukes weren't a real threat anymore: both parties (Soviet Russia and USA) weren't really willing to follow through and they knew that about each other. A lot of posturing was done and it almost came to blows a couple of times, but ultimately the losses outweighed the potential gains. Despite having some of the most powerful and effective weapons ever devised by mankind. If one of the parties had enough chrisma and proficiency in intimidation to cow the other, modern history and today's world would have looked quite different.

TL;DR - You can have all the power you want, unless you can actually leverage that into a credible and enforcable threat they won't help your case at all.

disclaimer: this is not a political point, merely a historical bit of evidence that is oddly relevant to the discussion at hand.

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 03:52 PM

I don't know how I can explain this any better.

When I give an example of a strong guy using a show of force to intimidate someone (say bending the sword in half), I get multiple responses of "without charisma, he can't translate that show of power into a threat" "he can show that he is strong, but without charisma that strength isn't intimidating" "strong by itself isn't threatening, he would need charisma to actually convince someone he is scary".

But the game allows for characters to succeed at Intimidation without a positive charisma modifier. The game itself is saying that your point is not necessarily true.
No, the game itself is built around being able to do things that you aren't necessarily great at. As shown by my Strength 8 bard hitting with a greatclub. He's not good at it, he has a negative modifier AND no proficiency. But guess what? I can still hit someone. That argument has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. WHat does have bearing is how attributes are defined in 5e - something you are either ignoring or disagreeing with in theory. If it's the latter, I think there have been more than enough reasons to show you why we think you're wrong. But go ahead and roll with it. You be you, Doc, you be you.

Again, with Expertise I can be just as good or better (eventually) than a guy focused in Charisma without Expertise. So I'm good at Intimidation without having the charisma.
No, you're not GOOD at intimidation, you are BETTER at intimidation than you were before taking expertise. But you still have an insufficient base to do it.

So when I say the strong guy could do this and you respond with "no he needs charisma to make it mean anything" I am explaining to you how that is simply not true in the very game that we are talking about.

You aren't required to be charismatic to be Intimidating. It helps of course, but it isn't necessary. So saying "it can't be strength based because you need charisma" doesn't work.

Yes, the ability to interact effectively with others through physical violence and hostile actions. Go ahead and be physically violent without being... physical about it.
Intimidation isn't about violence, it's about intimidation. You don't have to be violent to be intimidating. You CAN be, but it's not a requirement.

If you don't agree that in 5e Charisma is what makes your ability to interact with others work, then we're not going to agree. Mostly because that IS THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF CHARISMA AS DEFINED IN 5E.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 04:22 PM

Fully Agree.

Dr. Samurai,

if you want it as a popculture reference: How about the scene between Cercei Lannister and Petyr Baelish (https://youtu.be/sKTc8Chvw5k)

Sure the act of using the guards agianst Petyr is quite frightening, but Petyr knows many secrets, he knows he has dirt one each and every one. He has his brothels (which guards are usually very fond of). His one problem is that Cercei correctly convices him that when pressed, Cercei will carry out her threat.

A demonstration can certainly help the case, but unless you cinvincingly translate that into a threat is quite another matter. Making sure that someone is not fainting or pissing his pants is another (as in leaving someone capable enough to act on yoru instructions, but not capable anough to resist your wishes). It requires careful calibration of fear, showmanship and inter-personal craftsmanship.

As I have said before: a threat is about 2 parts: the first is convinding the other of poosession of power: enough so that the other thinks that your power is greater then his own. The second is to convince the other person of your willingness of use said power.

It's why historically speaking during the Cold War nukes weren't a real threat anymore: both parties (Soviet Russia and USA) weren't really willing to follow through and they knew that about each other. A lot of posturing was done and it almost came to blows a couple of times, but ultimately the losses outweighed the potential gains. Despite having some of the most powerful and effective weapons ever devised by mankind. If one of the parties had enough chrisma and proficiency in intimidation to cow the other, modern history and today's world would have looked quite different.

TL;DR - You can have all the power you want, unless you can actually leverage that into a credible and enforcable threat they won't help your case at all.

disclaimer: this is not a political point, merely a historical bit of evidence that is oddly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Thank you Socratov. I understand all of what you said. The only part where we would disagree (I imagine) is that while I agree with this --> "It requires careful calibration of fear, showmanship and inter-personal craftsmanship.

As I have said before: a threat is about 2 parts: the first is convinding the other of poosession of power: enough so that the other thinks that your power is greater then his own. The second is to convince the other person of your willingness of use said power."

I would not agree that it has to be this every time. It takes two to make an intimidation check work, and not everyone is Petyr Baelish. For some people, a simple show of power is enough. I can't stress this enough. It seems like every example I'm given has an ineffectual brute vs an irresistible menace and both are vs. a cunning and brave mark that won't back down unless convinced through sheer force of will and confidence.

I get that it can work that way. I've watched all the same movies and shows that you all have. I'm familiar with all the same tropes as you are.

But it's not always that way. I don't think it is a huge leap to rule that a D&D warrior can intimidate people with his size and strength alone.

I also want to point out again that a post like this, which I appreciate (I appreciate everyone responding and joining in on the convo) does not seem to indicate that strength is a suitable alternative in some situations, or can grant a bonus. This is a lot of what I've been reading. I'm not complaining, but I don't want to see people saying that I'm not paying attention or misinterpreting people. I think I'm following people's points rather well, limited of course by the text medium.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-09, 04:35 PM

No, the game itself is built around being able to do things that you aren't necessarily great at. As shown by my Strength 8 bard hitting with a greatclub. He's not good at it, he has a negative modifier AND no proficiency. But guess what? I can still hit someone. That argument has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. WHat does have bearing is how attributes are defined in 5e - something you are either ignoring or disagreeing with in theory. If it's the latter, I think there have been more than enough reasons to show you why we think you're wrong. But go ahead and roll with it. You be you, Doc, you be you.
Bipolar, I'm not talking about winning a check on a nat 20. I'm not talking about a 5% chance of winning.

Would you consider a 6th level sorcerer with 18 charisma and proficiency in Intimidation "good" at Intimidation? I would hope so, because he's about as good as it gets at that level (assuming starting score of 15, +1 race, and +2 at level 4).

How about a level 6 rogue with a 10 charisma but Expertise and proficiency in Intimidation? Is he also not "good" at Intimidation? They are off by 1 point. Is the sorcerer better? Sure. But is the rogue bad at intimidation? No. But he also isn't charismatic. That's the point I'm making that you're not addressing.

No, you're not GOOD at intimidation, you are BETTER at intimidation than you were before taking expertise. But you still have an insufficient base to do it.
If you're as good as a charismatic sorcerer with proficiency, how are you not good? You're making the same DCs he is every time except once out of every 20 checks. How is this not good? He has a better than even chance of making a medium DC. What do you want to say that he's good at Intimidation? Should he be able to blow past Hard DCs whenever he wants? What metric are you using?

Intimidation isn't about violence, it's about intimidation.
It's right there in the description.

You don't have to be violent to be intimidating.
No. But the description paints it as overt, hostile, and physically violent. This goes counter to many of the examples everyone has given.

You CAN be, but it's not a requirement.
Agreed. I am not suggesting that if you give them a mean look, you can use your Strength modifier. I'm specifically referencing the fact that the description of the skill points to physicality, the strength score measures physicality, the book itself has a variant rule to handle this precise scenario, and all suggestions that it doesn't make sense are wrong.

BiPolar

2016-12-09, 04:36 PM

I also want to point out again that a post like this, which I appreciate (I appreciate everyone responding and joining in on the convo) does not seem to indicate that strength is a suitable alternative in some situations, or can grant a bonus. This is a lot of what I've been reading. I'm not complaining, but I don't want to see people saying that I'm not paying attention or misinterpreting people. I think I'm following people's points rather well, limited of course by the text medium.

And honestly, I agree with that. As I said above, my thoughts on making it a potential alternative or allow a bonus was to create a compromise. But in reality, I do not agree that Strength can be used or provide a modifier of any sort.

Mellack

2016-12-09, 04:58 PM

Intimidation is about overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. This boils down to physicality. I don't know how you're imagining Intimidation to be in your minds, but it seems pretty clear to me that Strength can apply. They don't have to care about physical strength. They have to care about being harmed or physically coerced.

Why does that mean strength though? Overt threats: "I will kill you". If said while holding a loaded gun requires no strength to be a threat. Hostile actions: throw a dagger into the floor between their legs. Physical violence: shoot his buddy in the gut. What is the strength required to do any of the above? Why would they be better from someone who is musclebound than someone who is skinny?

Socratov

2016-12-09, 05:02 PM

Bipolar, I'm not talking about winning a check on a nat 20. I'm not talking about a 5% chance of winning.

Would you consider a 6th level sorcerer with 18 charisma and proficiency in Intimidation "good" at Intimidation? I would hope so, because he's about as good as it gets at that level (assuming starting score of 15, +1 race, and +2 at level 4).

How about a level 6 rogue with a 10 charisma but Expertise and proficiency in Intimidation? Is he also not "good" at Intimidation? They are off by 1 point. Is the sorcerer better? Sure. But is the rogue bad at intimidation? No. But he also isn't charismatic. That's the point I'm making that you're not addressing.

If you're as good as a charismatic sorcerer with proficiency, how are you not good? You're making the same DCs he is every time except once out of every 20 checks. How is this not good? He has a better than even chance of making a medium DC. What do you want to say that he's good at Intimidation? Should he be able to blow past Hard DCs whenever he wants? What metric are you using?

It's right there in the description.

No. But the description paints it as overt, hostile, and physically violent. This goes counter to many of the examples everyone has given.

Agreed. I am not suggesting that if you give them a mean look, you can use your Strength modifier. I'm specifically referencing the fact that the description of the skill points to physicality, the strength score measures physicality, the book itself has a variant rule to handle this precise scenario, and all suggestions that it doesn't make sense are wrong.

An ability score represents an enitity's natural aptitude to a certain aspect. How much of an aptitude this is, is represented by the ability modifier. Proficiency represents a certain amount of training or practice. A recreational baseball player is proficient in baseball (as a skill). Now someone who has had more training and rises to a professional level might have expertise in the baseball skill.

Now back to your rogue example: this rogue is not very good at inter-personal skills (as his charisma is 10). He is not better then any person out there (as 10 is seen as average). However, he has, through practice and training, learend exactly how to deliver a threat to make it credible. He knows how to measure power against power and how to leverage his power vs. another person's power. The sorcerer with cha 10 (+5 mod) is slightly better at the intimidate skill beucase his natural aptitide in getting people to do his bidding is just that much greater. The difference between these people is the rogue knows how to appear scary and the sorcerer is scary through natural aptitude.

As for your thoughts on my point: if you have an easily impressed mark th atmight consititute a DC5 of DC10 check which your DM might find in the 'don't bother rolling' territory, especially if you roleplay your STR show as giving advantage which for a +0 mod means a +5 effective bonus the roll meaning passive scores will be enough. When you intimidate in-game it means your makr is eithe rnot readily impressed or requires more work then just rolling in decked out in magical gear. It's when a check requires a bit more skill and/or natural aptitude to convey your threat.

Once again (waaaay back) I too think that using other attributes will help you along, especially if you do someting that points to competence or power (bending.breaking stuff for STR, accuracy/incessant dodgin for dex, taking the punch and brhsing it off lightly for CON, interpreting motives and 'reading' people for wis, knwoing stuff for INT), but in the end it all depends on the delivery in the form of a cha(intimidate) check. Either with or without advantage/bonus at the discretion of your DM.

JellyPooga

2016-12-09, 05:29 PM

So your argument is essentially... "I'd let a fighter use Strength for Intimidation in some occasions, but I wouldn't let the player simply write in his Strength modifier instead of his Charisma modifier."

Is that about right?

Yup. Spot on...and that's the RAW.

Sigreid

2016-12-09, 05:51 PM

A lot late, but I'll toss in my two coppers. Intimidation isn't really about the capacity to cause someone harm. It's about the belief in the person's willingness or even excitement at the prospect of causing harm. I'm sure we all know a person that could wreck us pretty good, but it's not in their nature and they don't intimidate us because we know the won't wreck us. Likewise, I think we've all met that person that we think we could defeat, but we also know the scary little #$%%er wants an excuse to cause harm.

That being said, using a feat of strength to demonstrate your capacity for causing harm could easily get you advantage on an intimidation check in the right circumstances.

Knaight

2016-12-09, 06:45 PM

But we all know that in real life, your actual strength doesn't mean you are better at striking your target in combat. We recognize that the mechanic is the way D&D handles strength and attacks in the game. So we can have a conversation together about whether or not it would make sense for another ability score to apply in certain situations without clinging tightly to the rules as written.

It makes the weapon effectively feel lighter and more maneuverable for you, and that's significant. Using single attributes is a gameplay conceit that makes for a less accurate but much more usable simulation, but Strength is a reasonable one there. The same thing applies to Charisma and Intimidate.

Tawmis

2016-12-09, 07:13 PM

Lots of good arguments here. But I guess I didn't illustrate my point clearly enough. I understand that there are many ways to intimidate, but games should be simple, right? Well in D&D, not quite.

You see, if i want to create the typical muscle-bound bully who is strong but has the social skills of a plank of wood and looks like turd, I'd do the obvious - dump Int and Char. Even with proficiency, at Lv1 its just a +1 to Intimidation. You are still less intimidating than a Bard with 16 Charisma. So if i want to be good at Intimidation, I'd have to put some points in Charisma. But if you don't look at the character's back story, anyone would look at Mr Muscle's high Charisma and imagine him to look something like The Rock. Not really how I want to portray my character.

I still believe Strength is the winner here. You can't make comparisons on different targets. You have to ask, would an unarmed average joe be afraid of that? The answer is yes. People usually fear immediate threats. Are you not afraid of a gun pointed at you, just because the shooter will probably get a death sentence? Are you going to threaten Mr Goliath (who is grabbing you by the throat) with prison sentence, so that he break your bones now instead of later?

^ This was exactly the problem I was running into. I have a player who has a Half-Orc Barbarian. He (naturally) dumped most of his points into Strength and Constitution because he wanted to be a beast. Just recently he was trying to intimidate someone - and because he put so much in strength and constitution - and despite the "bonus in Intimidation" (for being a Half Orc) - the bonus does little good, when he used his lowest roll (a 9) for his Charisma. So now, this hulking warrior, with scars and slashes, and wearing bones of his enemies, can't even intimidate a Halfling Innkeeper based on how "Intimidation" is run, without a considerable amount of effort.

Now, there's a skill called Persuasion - which also operates off Charisma. And THAT makes sense to me. You want to persuade someone to join you on a potentially dangerous adventure - you use your Charismatic character (like a Bard), who speaks of great adventures, fame, and gold in order to convince the person to join you.

Because, if both Intimidation and Persuasion are Charisma based - then what is truly the difference? To me, it's more logical to make Intimidation Strength based, and Persuasion Charisma based. That way, you could have the Barbarian with a High Intimidation (Strength) check, try to intimidate the intended target; if that fails, then the Bard (for example, with high Charisma) steps up, and convinces the target, by persuading them, that it would be best if they got out of the way, because here's a list of deeds this violent barbarian has committed in the past.

RickAllison

2016-12-09, 07:34 PM

^ This was exactly the problem I was running into. I have a player who has a Half-Orc Barbarian. He (naturally) dumped most of his points into Strength and Constitution because he wanted to be a beast. Just recently he was trying to intimidate someone - and because he put so much in strength and constitution - and despite the "bonus in Intimidation" (for being a Half Orc) - the bonus does little good, when he used his lowest roll (a 9) for his Charisma. So now, this hulking warrior, with scars and slashes, and wearing bones of his enemies, can't even intimidate a Halfling Innkeeper based on how "Intimidation" is run, without a considerable amount of effort.

Now, there's a skill called Persuasion - which also operates off Charisma. And THAT makes sense to me. You want to persuade someone to join you on a potentially dangerous adventure - you use your Charismatic character (like a Bard), who speaks of great adventures, fame, and gold in order to convince the person to join you.

Because, if both Intimidation and Persuasion are Charisma based - then what is truly the difference? To me, it's more logical to make Intimidation Strength based, and Persuasion Charisma based. That way, you could have the Barbarian with a High Intimidation (Strength) check, try to intimidate the intended target; if that fails, then the Bard (for example, with high Charisma) steps up, and convinces the target, by persuading them, that it would be best if they got out of the way, because here's a list of deeds this violent barbarian has committed in the past.

Here is the problem: the exact same reason you state for Strength being used is equally applicable for a Dexterity-using archer who shows off his trick shots, or a wizard using Intelligence to warp reality. If it is based off the stat generating the danger, then the only stat that shouldn't work is Con. By your argument, Intimidate should be usable with everything because everything (but Con) can wreck someone's day just as much as Strength.

Syll

2016-12-09, 08:06 PM

And again, if you want to allow the use of Charismatic skills by other Attributes, that's your call. But I still contend that doing so minimizing Charisma and makes it an obvious dump stat. If there is no penalty for leaving CHA at +0 or less, then it's a no-brainer to do that.

It seems a bit unfair to keep lumping Deception and Persuasion into your counter arguments, when the only thing being argued for is Intimidation. Yes, you can accomplish similar goals with any of the 3, but the means (and subsequently the consequences)varies greatly between them.

This is why I contend that intimidation is the weakest of the social skills, and thus, not worth keeping sacred to CHA. If my goal is for you to hand over all of your gold, and I have the means to accomplish this in a way that either makes it seem like your idea (persuasion), or that I am doing you a favor (deception) Why would I ever use the method that leaves you angry, resentful and/or seeking retribution? (intimidate).

Using intimidate only makes sense in that context if you are -unable- to persuade or deceive, due to say, your 8 CHA score.

Tawmis

2016-12-09, 08:11 PM

Here is the problem: the exact same reason you state for Strength being used is equally applicable for a Dexterity-using archer who shows off his trick shots, or a wizard using Intelligence to warp reality. If it is based off the stat generating the danger, then the only stat that shouldn't work is Con. By your argument, Intimidate should be usable with everything because everything (but Con) can wreck someone's day just as much as Strength.

See, I think that's where I'd differ (as a DM). So for example, if some Dexterity using archer wanted to fire off some fancy shots, I would actually make them use a Athletics check and use that as a form of "impression." It's the same with a Wizard casting a spell, I'd have them do an Arcana skill. Because in both of those cases, that's what the character is essentially doing to create an impression. Where as to me, Intimidating is someone, in your face, yelling at you (similar to like a drill Sargent would in the military). This is why I think Persuasion is correct for CHR, because you're sweet talking someone into believing you, following you, etc. But Intimidation (again, to me) is more of an aggressive, in your face, kind of act.

So for example - the archer. Player tells me, "I want to fire three cross bow bolts, one on each side of his head, one just above his head, then aim my crossbow at his chest and say, 'The next one goes in you.'" Rather than roll an Intimidation check, I'd say roll an Athletics check, and assuming it succeeds, say, "The character shivers in fear of your great skill, and agrees to provide you the information about the secret entrance to Faren's Keep."

Similar with the mage - if the mage said, "I want to make my hands glow with fiery spheres and say, 'I can touch your heart and melt it so quickly, you would watch as I pulled it out of your chest!" I'd have them roll an Arcana check, and based on whether it succeeds say, "The goblin agrees to give you the key to the doors just past him, and then quickly flees."

This is why I feel Intimidation is more a Strength thing - because, as I said, to me, this is the fighter, warrior, barbarian's way, of getting in the NPCs face (for example), and saying, "I will take my sword and cut you from your groin to your neck, then rip out your eyes so you can see your innards!" And then have them roll an Intimidation check, based on Strength.

RickAllison

2016-12-09, 08:33 PM

See, I think that's where I'd differ (as a DM). So for example, if some Dexterity using archer wanted to fire off some fancy shots, I would actually make them use a Athletics check and use that as a form of "impression." It's the same with a Wizard casting a spell, I'd have them do an Arcana skill. Because in both of those cases, that's what the character is essentially doing to create an impression. Where as to me, Intimidating is someone, in your face, yelling at you (similar to like a drill Sargent would in the military). This is why I think Persuasion is correct for CHR, because you're sweet talking someone into believing you, following you, etc. But Intimidation (again, to me) is more of an aggressive, in your face, kind of act.

So for example - the archer. Player tells me, "I want to fire three cross bow bolts, one on each side of his head, one just above his head, then aim my crossbow at his chest and say, 'The next one goes in you.'" Rather than roll an Intimidation check, I'd say roll an Athletics check, and assuming it succeeds, say, "The character shivers in fear of your great skill, and agrees to provide you the information about the secret entrance to Faren's Keep."

Similar with the mage - if the mage said, "I want to make my hands glow with fiery spheres and say, 'I can touch your heart and melt it so quickly, you would watch as I pulled it out of your chest!" I'd have them roll an Arcana check, and based on whether it succeeds say, "The goblin agrees to give you the key to the doors just past him, and then quickly flees."

This is why I feel Intimidation is more a Strength thing - because, as I said, to me, this is the fighter, warrior, barbarian's way, of getting in the NPCs face (for example), and saying, "I will take my sword and cut you from your groin to your neck, then rip out your eyes so you can see your innards!" And then have them roll an Intimidation check, based on Strength.

First, Athletics has literally nothing to do with archery. Athletics in 5e is restricted to jumping, climbing, swimming, and grappling. Making a shot is an attack roll.

Second, the archer aims an arrow right at a person. How is presenting an imminent threat of getting an arrow through your body any different than a big idiot cracking his knuckles? If anything, the arrow should be more intimidating!

Third, Arcana? That's understanding magic. It has nothing to do with making it. A Thief who can't cast a lick of magic can have a much greater Arcana knowledge than a wizard because one is entirely theoretical and the other is practical. Unless you are saying that Arcana makes someone actually able to manipulate magic on its own?

Those were terrible examples. But running with the terrible examples, why wouldn't the big guy flexing his muscles (a much more direct application of Athletics than anything with archery) be using that instead of Intimidation? Your system wouldn't even be internally consistent!

Now I will point out why it works in ALL cases for Charisma for Intimidation. A PC is trying to look tough; Strength can make someone actually tough, but Charisma (in 5e terms) makes someone know how to appear tougher than they necessarily are, like countless animals. A PC threatens someone by baring the insignia of a notorious gang and in hushed tones describes some of the wonderful things that happened to the last person who crossed the gang; definitely Intimidation, but that is all the Charisma of the person making the threat while their Strength is useless. This is why Charisma is the ability for it while Strength gets to be considered for an variant. Everything Strength can do can be accomplished by Charisma, but the inverse is not true. This is because Intimidation is not about actual power, but the appearance of it.

Tawmis

2016-12-09, 08:54 PM

First, Athletics has literally nothing to do with archery. Athletics in 5e is restricted to jumping, climbing, swimming, and grappling. Making a shot is an attack roll.

Right. But if you're not intending to attack the target, and wanting to do fancy shots instead - to me, that goes up there with trying something along the lines of Athletics (because it's primary focus is Dexterity, and you're doing something fancy). Based on my example, rolling an Attack Roll wouldn't make sense; because you're not attacking looking to attack the person (yet). You're just firing some close shots to them, to give the impression of intimidation.

Second, the archer aims an arrow right at a person. How is presenting an imminent threat of getting an arrow through your body any different than a big idiot cracking his knuckles? If anything, the arrow should be more intimidating!

Rarely is the barbarian just cracking his knuckles; they typically have an over sized axe, sword or pole arm in their hand. So I am not sure the arrow that does 1-6 damage is more intimidating than the axe that does 2-12 damage.

Third, Arcana? That's understanding magic. It has nothing to do with making it. A Thief who can't cast a lick of magic can have a much greater Arcana knowledge than a wizard because one is entirely theoretical and the other is practical. Unless you are saying that Arcana makes someone actually able to manipulate magic on its own?

Again, this is because Arcana runs along the Intelligence; so while the Wizard (or whomever) isn't casting Fireball or Magic Missile, they're just casting a (not a real spell) to make their hands glow (from my example) - I enjoy letting my players do stuff like that. If they're looking to do something like that, I don't say, "Well, which spell are you going to cast to try and intimidate this goblin?" They tell me they just want to make their hands glow, I think, "Well, there's probably some spell that they might know, that does something like that, that isn't a legitimate spell, so why not! Arcana check to see if you can make your hand glow threateningly!"

Those were terrible examples. But running with the terrible examples, why wouldn't the big guy flexing his muscles (a much more direct application of Athletics than anything with archery) be using that instead of Intimidation? Your system wouldn't even be internally consistent!

Because... I believe that everyone has an equal chance to intimidate? Based on their class?

This allows a wizard, who might not have a lot of points in Charisma to try to make an impression on someone, based on their display of magic. This would give a Rogue (let's say, rather than a dexterity archer), to do an "Athletics" check by tossing some daggers all around the intended target, rather than using a Charisma score, if their Charisma is too low. I believe every character has a chance to "Intimidate" based on their class, rather than their Charisma. Because Intimidation (to me) is a display on some kind of power (whether it be with magic, strength, daggers thrown at your head), that permits the character to try to "convince" the target that they had best listen/do what was asked of them.

So for example, a Halfling Rogue, with a high Dex, but low Chr comes across a group of goblins. He tries to threaten them and intimidate them - rolls against his low Chr. Probably going to fail. Now, if we take that same Rogue, he sneaks in, from the shadows throws six daggers at each of the goblin's feet, and says from the shadows, "Be gone and never return." That could be pretty intimidating - but would you still make the Rogue do a Chr check (after his stealth) check, with a good chance, it's going to fail?

Now I will point out why it works in ALL cases for Charisma for Intimidation. A PC is trying to look tough; Strength can make someone actually tough, but Charisma (in 5e terms) makes someone know how to appear tougher than they necessarily are, like countless animals. A PC threatens someone by baring the insignia of a notorious gang and in hushed tones describes some of the wonderful things that happened to the last person who crossed the gang; definitely Intimidation, but that is all the Charisma of the person making the threat while their Strength is useless. This is why Charisma is the ability for it while Strength gets to be considered for an variant. Everything Strength can do can be accomplished by Charisma, but the inverse is not true. This is because Intimidation is not about actual power, but the appearance of it.

I can see that. But I can also see how that's almost persuasion too. See - if they didn't have Intimidate and Persuasion as skills that both use CHR, then I think this would be easier to swallow.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-12-09, 09:12 PM

If it is based off the stat generating the danger, then the only stat that shouldn't work is Con.

"You tell me what I want to know right now... or we'll wait here until a plague sweeps through, and I'll survive that, but you won't!"

Tawmis

2016-12-09, 09:16 PM

Clistenes

2016-12-09, 10:21 PM

Charisma means too many different things. I guess you could use a bunch of bonus and penalties to represent "charismatic as in likeable" vs "charismatic as in can bluff and intimidate", something like character traits and flaw-feats, but that would make the 5th ed chasis less simple and streamlined, and that would go around the spirit of the edition.

I think you could choose what ability to use, depending on the situation. Or you could use the average of STR and Cha, if both seem appropiate...

JellyPooga

2016-12-09, 10:56 PM

^ This was exactly the problem I was running into. I have a player who has a Half-Orc Barbarian. He (naturally) dumped most of his points into Strength and Constitution because he wanted to be a beast. Just recently he was trying to intimidate someone - and because he put so much in strength and constitution - and despite the "bonus in Intimidation" (for being a Half Orc) - the bonus does little good, when he used his lowest roll (a 9) for his Charisma. So now, this hulking warrior, with scars and slashes, and wearing bones of his enemies, can't even intimidate a Halfling Innkeeper based on how "Intimidation" is run, without a considerable amount of effort.

The Halfling Innkeeper who sees a dozen so-called "intimidating" half-orc Barbarians a week? The jaded, street-savvy innkeeper who (if fantasy tropes are anything to go by) is probably an ex-adventurer himself? The Halfling Innkeeper who likely has a 300lb. bouncer on his payroll? Yeah, your yokel level 1 Half-Orc should totally be able to flex in front of him and get results :smallamused:

Your "hulking warrior with scars and slashes, wearing the bones of his enemies" might present a fearsome appearance, but if he hasn't got the social savvy to do anything but gawp at the astonishing architecture of civilisation and who gets anxious, jumpy and amusingly angry around people in fancy clothes because the bright lights of the city are unfamiliar to him (i.e. negative Cha mod)...yeah, that guy is a joke to the city-slickers who know that if he steps out of line, the city guard will deal with him in short order. He's the backwoods redneck that anyone "in the know" is laughing at behind his back. When he gets out of sorts and blows up at the innkeeper, then gets thrown out on his backside like the ill-educated lout that he is, who drank too much "firewater" (snicker snicker), he's not exactly in a position to make any demands.

On the other hand, the "hulking warrior with scars and slashes, wearing the bones of his enemies" who also carries himself with towering self-confidence, whose steely glare instills primal terror in the soft-bellied city-slickers, who can ward off a 300lb. bouncer with barely a twitch of his hand toward the crude, but brutal axe slung across his back and who scoffs at the petty comforts of the city...yeah, that guy is going to be getting cheap deals and free stuff from the pathetic, cowering merchants, while their daughters mysteriously find themselves devoid of anything but the skimpiest of garments in his presence as they lose all sense of propriety at the sight of his rampant and intoxicating masculinity.

That's the difference between low Charisma and high Charisma. It's nothing to do with the actual capability of the person doing the intimidatin' and everything to do with how he projects himself and how he's perceived.

Squeeq

2016-12-09, 11:25 PM

I don't understand why this thread is still going. Intimidate is a primarily Charisma-based skill since it involves interaction and not movement or physical power, but the DMG explicitly says that you can use other ability scores as part of skill checks, so you could make a case to use strength if you're willing to do or describe some strength-based theatrics there's no reason to prevent your character from making a roll based on strength as an ability score. This seems like a very simple situation covered by RAW.

Tanarii

2016-12-10, 12:17 AM

but the DMG explicitly says that you can use other ability scores as part of skill checks,
PHB technically. And it's a variant rule, which means it's at the DMs/tables discretion.

That said, I think it's a very good variant rule, well worth using. And as a DM I regularly allow Str (Intimidate) checks. Largely to stop my games from becoming a re-enactment of this thread. :smallamused:

Sigreid

2016-12-10, 12:25 AM

PHB technically. And it's a variant rule, which means it's at the DMs/tables discretion.

That said, I think it's a very good variant rule, well worth using. And as a DM I regularly allow Str (Intimidate) checks. Largely to stop my games from becoming a re-enactment of this thread. :smallamused:

Ha! Personally I think intimidating the Halfling Inkeeper mentioned earlier, or any other non-combat type, is an easy DC5 check for the half orc barbarian anyway, so to me it doesn't matter much.

Regitnui

2016-12-10, 01:22 AM

Ha! Personally I think intimidating the Halfling Inkeeper mentioned earlier, or any other non-combat type, is an easy DC5 check for the half orc barbarian anyway, so to me it doesn't matter much.

I respectfully disagree. That should be a difficult Intimidation check, no matter what stat you're using or how many skulls you use as drinking glasses.

The halfling innkeeper (House Ghallanda) is in his home, his livelihood, his 'place of power', and this barbarian is intruding on that. Would intimidating an elf or orc barkeeper also be DC 5? Because the halfling lives in a world were everyone is twice their height and can throw them around like a basketball. If a halfling were the sort to be cowed by physical might, they'd never leave the house, let alone run a business where they meet hundreds of the 'bigfolk' everyday.

Your "hulking warrior with scars and slashes, wearing the bones of his enemies" might present a fearsome appearance, but if he hasn't got the social savvy to do anything but gawp at the astonishing architecture of civilisation and who gets anxious, jumpy and amusingly angry around people in fancy clothes because the bright lights of the city are unfamiliar to him (i.e. negative Cha mod)...yeah, that guy is a joke to the city-slickers who know that if he steps out of line, the city guard will deal with him in short order. He's the backwoods redneck that anyone "in the know" is laughing at behind his back. When he gets out of sorts and blows up at the innkeeper, then gets thrown out on his backside like the ill-educated lout that he is, who drank too much "firewater" (snicker snicker), he's not exactly in a position to make any demands.

On the other hand, the "hulking warrior with scars and slashes, wearing the bones of his enemies" who also carries himself with towering self-confidence, whose steely glare instills primal terror in the soft-bellied city-slickers, who can ward off a 300lb. bouncer with barely a twitch of his hand toward the crude, but brutal axe slung across his back and who scoffs at the petty comforts of the city...yeah, that guy is going to be getting cheap deals and free stuff from the pathetic, cowering merchants, while their daughters mysteriously find themselves devoid of anything but the skimpiest of garments in his presence as they lose all sense of propriety at the sight of his rampant and intoxicating masculinity.

That's the difference between low Charisma and high Charisma. It's nothing to do with the actual capability of the person doing the intimidatin' and everything to do with how he projects himself and how he's perceived.

The halfling innkeeper here can tell the difference between those two types of barbarian.

Think of it like shouting at the clerk in a government office when you want something done, or screaming obscenities at a cashier because they don't have the book you want. Both of those have nothing to do with how strong you are relative to them. The clerk or cashier are more likely to shut down or call a manager, not agree to do what you want, especially if you use the tactics that Strength (Intimidation) implies. Even Charisma (Intimidation) is unlikely to work for the reasons mentioned above.

However, meet said innkeeper in a dark alley at midnight far from their inn, then the big, bulky barbarian looks a lot more threatening, and the DC on that Strength (Intimidation) check drops. Still not down to 5, after all, the halfling is a grown adult, not a toddler, but from around 15-20 to 10.

And consider the fact that the halfling or his family/employees are the ones feeding you. The barbarian has no way of knowing whether they've slipped a laxative or worse into his food. Try being intimidating when the innkeeper knows exactly what drug he gave you, when it'll kick in and how much he can dose you with to turn you into a laughing stock. The halfling also knows which authorities to call (city guard or local gang), who you're likely to be working for, and, since you're yelling at him, what you want. It's easy for him to mess your quest up royally for smashing his bar and breaking his prize whisky. All without physically touching you.

Syll

2016-12-10, 03:37 AM

So... in your campaigns, are all your innkeepers demigods gracing the realm with their magnificence, or just this one?

Regitnui

2016-12-10, 04:49 AM

So... in your campaigns, are all your innkeepers demigods gracing the realm with their magnificence, or just this one?

My innkeepers aren't toddlers to be sent into bawling, compliant, hysterics by the first adventurer to stare in their direction .

Adventurers, including the PCs, are not uncommon in my world. So there are measures in place to deal with them. The average adventurer of level 5 is good, but unremarkable. Level 10, they're famous, but just minor celebrities. Level 15 is when their names start to mean something to the forces that actually run the world, and by level 20 they are the heroes of the age.

The average innkeeper has seen hundreds of adventurers starting their careers, whether they're human, tiefling or orc. They know that the city guard can take out the average adventurer, and they known that their family (House Ghallanda) can exert the sort of political pressure that'll make these adventurers unwelcome anywhere in the civilized world. You have to be especially charismatic to impress an innkeeper.

The average child is a DC 5 check. The average adult DC 10. Experienced folks and nobility DC 15. Sentient monsters,.dragons and outsiders range from DC 20-30. I'd place the halfling innkeeper at 15, not because he's a "demigod gracing the world with his magnificence", but because he knows that he is in his home, everyone in the room is on his side, he can call the City Guard, and this being Eberron, he has the family denonychus napping near or behind the counter.

An actual demigod would be DC20+, if you want to know.

Steampunkette

2016-12-10, 08:22 AM

Asmotherion

2016-12-10, 10:40 AM

The warlock sips from her frilly drink with cold grapes in the glass and sliced fruit around the rim as the barbarian roars. With quiet and careful motions she turns her eyes, then her face toward the half orc's handler, a leg-breaking thug on a short leash beneath the real power.

"Your friend -does- look quite strong." She states, flatly, as she rises up to her full height of five foot two inches. "However, your friend is now dead." Even as she says the words, the barbarian crumples to the floor, his mass dissipating to a near skeletal husk. "And you... you will soon follow him. But you can tell me where your boss is, and die that quickly, or you can withhold that information from me for as long as you can last..."

Her left hand crackles with raw necrotic power drawn from her patron.

"Your choice."

Elsewhere, a Princess in a pink gown titters among courtiers at a party. One, a large and rude man from a neighboring kingdom, makes a lewd comment. Silence reigns for a brief moment before, with a bubbly giggle to her voice, she asks him: "Do you have any idea what a terrible choice you've just made? I could have your tongue carved from your head and returned to your family with my initials seared into it, so my name never leaves your tongue! Do you want to apologize or shall I call King Daddums?"

Intimidation is about power... Real or perceived. But it's also about -how- that power is wielded. About how that power is conveyed. Convincing the other person that you have the means and willingness to bring that power to bear against them.

All the strength in the world is useless for intimidation if they think you won't use it.

And that is where Charisma comes in.

Convincing people not only that you have the power, but that you're ready and able to use it against them at a moment's notice. Whether it's through a casual show of that power on some gormless schmuck, or the crowd going silent because they know what is coming. Falter, and all that show is seen for what it is. Succeed, and you can conserve the power you have.

^that. And amazing examples btw.

Also, to add to my previous comment, in Japan they have a concept known as "Killing Intent" or "Sakki". Basically, the ability to convey both the ability to kill, and intention to do so.

An other example would be how, when both unarmed, a person's willingness to overeact to something, or take an offencive stance, usually makes the other to take a defencive reaction. This is the case even in a debate. It's usually irrelevant if you are right or wrong, in a debate, if you become apologetic or try to defend yourself, you convey that you feel guilt. Neither accepting nor denying the other party's claim and proceeding to a higher degree of assult (in this case, accusation) is usually the most efficient strategy, because that way you convey both that you are confident, that you reject the other party's claims as insignificant, and put the pressure on them to defend themselves. That is also an aspect of intimidation.

What makes a Barbarian intimidating is not his muscle, but his willingness to act with violance with the slightest or no triger. This is a trait of a strong personality, which is mesured by charisma.

What seems more intimidating, a muscled orc who simply follows commands or the skinny gnome that glares at you wile giving him the comand to hit you in the face and break a bone or two?

Sigreid

2016-12-10, 11:53 AM

I respectfully disagree. That should be a difficult Intimidation check, no matter what stat you're using or how many skulls you use as drinking glasses.

The halfling innkeeper (House Ghallanda) is in his home, his livelihood, his 'place of power', and this barbarian is intruding on that. Would intimidating an elf or orc barkeeper also be DC 5? Because the halfling lives in a world were everyone is twice their height and can throw them around like a basketball. If a halfling were the sort to be cowed by physical might, they'd never leave the house, let alone run a business where they meet hundreds of the 'bigfolk' everyday.

The halfling innkeeper here can tell the difference between those two types of barbarian.

Think of it like shouting at the clerk in a government office when you want something done, or screaming obscenities at a cashier because they don't have the book you want. Both of those have nothing to do with how strong you are relative to them. The clerk or cashier are more likely to shut down or call a manager, not agree to do what you want, especially if you use the tactics that Strength (Intimidation) implies. Even Charisma (Intimidation) is unlikely to work for the reasons mentioned above.

However, meet said innkeeper in a dark alley at midnight far from their inn, then the big, bulky barbarian looks a lot more threatening, and the DC on that Strength (Intimidation) check drops. Still not down to 5, after all, the halfling is a grown adult, not a toddler, but from around 15-20 to 10.

And consider the fact that the halfling or his family/employees are the ones feeding you. The barbarian has no way of knowing whether they've slipped a laxative or worse into his food. Try being intimidating when the innkeeper knows exactly what drug he gave you, when it'll kick in and how much he can dose you with to turn you into a laughing stock. The halfling also knows which authorities to call (city guard or local gang), who you're likely to be working for, and, since you're yelling at him, what you want. It's easy for him to mess your quest up royally for smashing his bar and breaking his prize whisky. All without physically touching you.

Yes, my ruling would apply to any race innkeeper, even a half orc, when confronted with a professional killer. Where it would change is if either the inkeeper had combat experience, or if it were the innkeeper equivalent of the bartender in a Hell's Angels hangout who was used to this and had rough customer patrons that would protect "their turf". Most innkeepers would deal almost exclusively with relatively peaceful locals.

Syll

2016-12-10, 12:18 PM

My innkeepers aren't toddlers to be sent into bawling, compliant, hysterics by the first adventurer to stare in their direction .

Adventurers, including the PCs, are not uncommon in my world. So there are measures in place to deal with them. The average adventurer of level 5 is good, but unremarkable. Level 10, they're famous, but just minor celebrities. Level 15 is when their names start to mean something to the forces that actually run the world, and by level 20 they are the heroes of the age.

The average innkeeper has seen hundreds of adventurers starting their careers, whether they're human, tiefling or orc. They know that the city guard can take out the average adventurer, and they known that their family (House Ghallanda) can exert the sort of political pressure that'll make these adventurers unwelcome anywhere in the civilized world. You have to be especially charismatic to impress an innkeeper.

Your halfling innkeeper reminds me more of Rothfuss' Kvothe, rather than what would be considered the norm (obviously, your world varies). What's to say that this half-orc was the nameless two-dimensional variety though? He could very well be Vereth the Destroyer, Mortal Sword of Gruumsh and Conqueror of a dozen realms.

Elsewhere, a Princess in a pink gown titters among courtiers at a party. One, a large and rude man from a neighboring kingdom, makes a lewd comment. Silence reigns for a brief moment before, with a bubbly giggle to her voice, she asks him: "Do you have any idea what a terrible choice you've just made? I could have your tongue carved from your head and returned to your family with my initials seared into it, so my name never leaves your tongue! Do you want to apologize or shall I call King Daddums?".

That's a fine example of Intimidation. However, I am unable to realistically believe that this same princess (who makes threats with impunity and without repercussions ) is adept at making a persuasion check.

The Charisma she levies to make that threat is not at all the same as the Charisma required to persuade. That's what bothers me about the whole thing, it doesn't feel internally consistent.

Regitnui

2016-12-10, 12:40 PM

Yes, my ruling would apply to any race innkeeper, even a half orc, when confronted with a professional killer. Where it would change is if either the inkeeper had combat experience, or if it were the innkeeper equivalent of the bartender in a Hell's Angels hangout who was used to this and had rough customer patrons that would protect "their turf". Most innkeepers would deal almost exclusively with relatively peaceful locals.

Now you're looking at adventurers, and the game, from a different angle. I usually run Eberron, so the inn isn't just an inn; it's a Ghallanda-backed establishment with ties to the community and the ability to report criminal behaviour to a (relatively) functional justice system.

You're also treating the world like a game, and not a world of consequences. An adventurer is not a professional killer. He's an amazingly competent crazy hobo. More the sort to be kept on an arm's length than feared.

RickAllison

2016-12-10, 01:17 PM

That's a fine example of Intimidation. However, I am unable to realistically believe that this same princess (who makes threats with impunity and without repercussions ) is adept at making a persuasion check.

The Charisma she levies to make that threat is not at all the same as the Charisma required to persuade. That's what bothers me about the whole thing, it doesn't feel internally consistent.

I am guessing you don't have a sister? Both of my sisters seem like they would have decent Charisma, but with very different skillsets. My older sister is extremely good at crafting persuasive arguments thanks to her experience with both debating and giving speeches, but she can be damn scary if she ever gets angry. My little sister, by contrast (she's almost grown up and heading to college next year... Proud but sad big brother) is the sweet little princess who is not exactly known for being scary. She can give a dirty look that might make the weak-willed give in, but in game terms she doesn't have the proficiency to have a great chance against more resilient targets. She also would have Persuasion, but based on being more endearing and amicable so you just want to agree with her; she also would have Deception because she has learned how to leverage her bubbly personality to throw suspicion off. Charisma takes all forms.

This was just to establish how Charisma skills can vary in appearance but represent the same skills. One woman is Persuasive because she is skilled at crafting arguments that are difficult to answer while the other is Persuasive because she makes people WANT to agree with her. The same concept applies to Intimidation. A Half-Orc Barbarian may be intimidating because he knows how to loom over his mark while projecting an aura of rage; his Intimidation is his capability of appearing like he will snap at any point and hack off the mark's head. A Half-Elf Rogue may instead be Intimidating because she is skilled at projecting her target onto various objects that are flawlessly hit, then projects setting her target on the mark while looking simply bored; her Intimidation is how calmly she considers this person to be a target for her dagger as an amusing diversion. The above princess? Her Intimidation is actually smiling and laughing. She is so in-control of the situation that the person insulting her is an amusement. She projects being a cat merely playing with a mouse before deciding whether to devour it. Her Intimidation is her aura of control, that she appears capable of killing with naught but a word. All are Intimidation methods going off Charisma, but all appear very different. The consistency comes from using Charisma to manipulate others into feeling a certain way.

And this applies to other abilities just as much as Charisma. Picture someone with high Strength: are they a weight-lifter with bulging biceps like Conan, or the hero who moves at rapid speed because his muscles are perfectly defined while remaining able to actually move? Both can have 20 Strength (Barbarian vs. Paladin, for example), but the appearance of that Strength can look entirely different.

How about Constitution? Someone with low Con could be a bloated sack who looks like he could have a heart attack at any moment, or could be a scrawny, sickly person who would be felled by a stiff breeze. Both would represent having low physical health, but have opposite appearances.

Syll

2016-12-10, 01:43 PM

I am guessing you don't have a sister? Both of my sisters seem like they would have decent Charisma, but with very different skillsets. My older sister is extremely good at crafting persuasive arguments thanks to her experience with both debating and giving speeches, but she can be damn scary if she ever gets angry. My little sister, by contrast (she's almost grown up and heading to college next year... Proud but sad big brother) is the sweet little princess who is not exactly known for being scary. She can give a dirty look that might make the weak-willed give in, but in game terms she doesn't have the proficiency to have a great chance against more resilient targets. She also would have Persuasion, but based on being more endearing and amicable so you just want to agree with her; she also would have Deception because she has learned how to leverage her bubbly personality to throw suspicion off. Charisma takes all forms.

This was just to establish how Charisma skills can vary in appearance but represent the same skills. One woman is Persuasive because she is skilled at crafting arguments that are difficult to answer while the other is Persuasive because she makes people WANT to agree with her. The same concept applies to Intimidation. A Half-Orc Barbarian may be intimidating because he knows how to loom over his mark while projecting an aura of rage; his Intimidation is his capability of appearing like he will snap at any point and hack off the mark's head. A Half-Elf Rogue may instead be Intimidating because she is skilled at projecting her target onto various objects that are flawlessly hit, then projects setting her target on the mark while looking simply bored; her Intimidation is how calmly she considers this person to be a target for her dagger as an amusing diversion. The above princess? Her Intimidation is actually smiling and laughing. She is so in-control of the situation that the person insulting her is an amusement. She projects being a cat merely playing with a mouse before deciding whether to devour it. Her Intimidation is her aura of control, that she appears capable of killing with naught but a word. All are Intimidation methods going off Charisma, but all appear very different. The consistency comes from using Charisma to manipulate others into feeling a certain way.

And this applies to other abilities just as much as Charisma. Picture someone with high Strength: are they a weight-lifter with bulging biceps like Conan, or the hero who moves at rapid speed because his muscles are perfectly defined while remaining able to actually move? Both can have 20 Strength (Barbarian vs. Paladin, for example), but the appearance of that Strength can look entirely different.

How about Constitution? Someone with low Con could be a bloated sack who looks like he could have a heart attack at any moment, or could be a scrawny, sickly person who would be felled by a stiff breeze. Both would represent having low physical health, but have opposite appearances.

Three sisters, actually (and a daughter). I wasn't suggesting that Charisma (by D&D terms) isn't capable of manifesting in any of the examples you gave, rather that it is incongruous to have a single person able to demonstrate Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception equally with the same personality... which is what the rules allow for by having every social skill keyed off of the same stat.

Using the examples of your sisters; can you imagine them (and the defining traits of their Charisma) as a single person? I'm not stuck on the notion that Intimidate shouldn't be keyed off Charisma... I'm stuck on the notion that Persuasion, Intimidation and Deception shouldn't be keyed off of the same stat simultaneously, because I cannot envision a personality that flits between the three with equal aptitude

Edit: It's interesting to see how text is interpreted; you apparently saw a smiling, laughing princess subtly exerting her will.... whereas reading the same text I envisioned a spoiled aristocrat throwing a tantrum.

Also, congratulations on your little sister heading off to college. Best of luck.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-10, 02:17 PM

Why does that mean strength though? Overt threats: "I will kill you". If said while holding a loaded gun requires no strength to be a threat. Hostile actions: throw a dagger into the floor between their legs. Physical violence: shoot his buddy in the gut. What is the strength required to do any of the above? Why would they be better from someone who is musclebound than someone who is skinny?
It doesn't have to be. I said it *can* apply. I'm arguing strength can make sense and people, despite claiming the contrary, are arguing that it cannot.

An ability score represents an enitity's natural aptitude to a certain aspect. How much of an aptitude this is, is represented by the ability modifier. Proficiency represents a certain amount of training or practice. A recreational baseball player is proficient in baseball (as a skill). Now someone who has had more training and rises to a professional level might have expertise in the baseball skill.

Now back to your rogue example: this rogue is not very good at inter-personal skills (as his charisma is 10). He is not better then any person out there (as 10 is seen as average). However, he has, through practice and training, learend exactly how to deliver a threat to make it credible. He knows how to measure power against power and how to leverage his power vs. another person's power. The sorcerer with cha 10 (+5 mod) is slightly better at the intimidate skill beucase his natural aptitide in getting people to do his bidding is just that much greater. The difference between these people is the rogue knows how to appear scary and the sorcerer is scary through natural aptitude.
I'm trying my best to get my point across but I must be failing miserably because I don't think that we're all speaking past each other. But Socratov, you're explaining to me the very point I'm trying to make. People can be intimidating in different ways. Proficiency and training and expertise also come into play. You can do it without being charismatic. This is relevant because when I use an example of strength intimidation, the overwhelming response is "does nothing without charisma". But you yourself are agreeing that practice and training can allow someone to be intimidating without being charismatic. So "strength is not scary without charisma" is not necessarily true, unless you are arguing that there is some intrinsic value in being larger and stronger than other people that training and practice in Intimidation cannot overcome without use of charisma. If you're making that argument, by all means go ahead. But that's not what I'm seeing so far.

We see that the game allows you to succeed in Intimidation checks without being charismatic, so the question is can strength help someone be intimidating. Saying charisma is necessary to be intimidating does not work.

As for your thoughts on my point: if you have an easily impressed mark th atmight consititute a DC5 of DC10 check which your DM might find in the 'don't bother rolling' territory, especially if you roleplay your STR show as giving advantage which for a +0 mod means a +5 effective bonus the roll meaning passive scores will be enough. When you intimidate in-game it means your makr is eithe rnot readily impressed or requires more work then just rolling in decked out in magical gear. It's when a check requires a bit more skill and/or natural aptitude to convey your threat.
I understand. That is why the checks exist. This is different than simply assuming for argument's sake that every mark is totally unimpressed by size and strength unless the person intimidating is particularly charismatic. This is what posters here are doing. They are assuming failure and then saying "see, strength alone wouldn't work".

Yup. Spot on...and that's the RAW.
I agree with you.

A lot late, but I'll toss in my two coppers. Intimidation isn't really about the capacity to cause someone harm. It's about the belief in the person's willingness or even excitement at the prospect of causing harm. I'm sure we all know a person that could wreck us pretty good, but it's not in their nature and they don't intimidate us because we know the won't wreck us. Likewise, I think we've all met that person that we think we could defeat, but we also know the scary little #$%%er wants an excuse to cause harm.
A couple of things here...

It is simple for me to see how a large strong, armored and armed man might cause someone to believe that he is willing to cause harm. I don't know why you would see a seasoned warrior and assume he isn't willing to cause harm.

Also, your example is conflating demeanor or proclivities with charisma. They simply aren't the same thing. If I know that someone is likely to fall back on violence to get his way, I don't know that because he is charismatic. I know that because of his prior actions.

Here is the problem: the exact same reason you state for Strength being used is equally applicable for a Dexterity-using archer who shows off his trick shots, or a wizard using Intelligence to warp reality. If it is based off the stat generating the danger, then the only stat that shouldn't work is Con. By your argument, Intimidate should be usable with everything because everything (but Con) can wreck someone's day just as much as Strength.
But the PHB already tells us that this can happen and has it as a variant rule. If someone tries to run away and the archer fires an arrow at the wall directly in their way and an inch from their nose, that is intimidating. That's probably a trope! The archer has just demonstrated that he can kill the guy with ease if he doesn't comply. So the guy complies. If the player says to the DM can I fire an arrow close enough that he understands I can kill him if he doesn't listen to me, the DM is going to insist that he does that with charisma??

There is no need to navigate a socially complex and daring conversation between the two. Force has always swayed people.

The Halfling Innkeeper who sees a dozen so-called "intimidating" half-orc Barbarians a week? The jaded, street-savvy innkeeper who (if fantasy tropes are anything to go by) is probably an ex-adventurer himself? The Halfling Innkeeper who likely has a 300lb. bouncer on his payroll? Yeah, your yokel level 1 Half-Orc should totally be able to flex in front of him and get results :smallamused:
This is my problem with this attitude. This applies to street-savvy characters too. This innkeeper has also been confronted with countless charisma-types. If he can't be intimidated, he can't be intimidated. If he can, he can. By ignoring the game mechanics of the die roll, you're just saying that strength and size is not intimidating. Armored warriors are not intimidating. If the player beats the DC, your seasoned street-savvy innkeeper is going to get intimidated. Unless you arbitrarily decide that he can't be intimidated by a show of force, which you are free to do. But I don't agree with the notion that people are not intimidated by size and strength, and no one here has made a compelling argument demonstrating exactly that.

All the strength in the world is useless for intimidation if they think you won't use it.
Lol... right, and everyone's default position is "this huge guy standing over me threatening me is full of bull manure".

And that is where Charisma comes in.
No, that is where the die roll comes in. And other bonuses, like proficiency or Advantage or Expertise or an item bonus, etc.

Sigreid

2016-12-10, 03:44 PM

Now you're looking at adventurers, and the game, from a different angle. I usually run Eberron, so the inn isn't just an inn; it's a Ghallanda-backed establishment with ties to the community and the ability to report criminal behaviour to a (relatively) functional justice system.

You're also treating the world like a game, and not a world of consequences. An adventurer is not a professional killer. He's an amazingly competent crazy hobo. More the sort to be kept on an arm's length than feared.

You play in different worlds than I do, apparently. The worlds I tend to play in only relatively major cities would have guards on hand. Smaller towns and villages would have to send for the local lord to get anything that could be considered cops. Most smaller towns and villages simply wouldn't have the resources to support a professional force. It's pretty much why banditry and raiding works.

It's fine that you run in different world setups. But there really is no way around that the PC's are extremely successful professional killers. If the party is known at all in town, it's likely known that they wiped out the goblin tribe, slaughtered or captured the bandits that raided the neighboring town, slew the mighty dragon Virgineater, etc. Even if they aren't known, it's visually apparent that he's seen battle, has exceptional gear and is a "hard" man or woman.

Naturally, none of this applies to the innkeeper that is a retired adventurer, veteran of the orc wars, or has ties to the assassin's guild and knows several members are there for dinner.

RickAllison

2016-12-10, 04:03 PM

Three sisters, actually (and a daughter). I wasn't suggesting that Charisma (by D&D terms) isn't capable of manifesting in any of the examples you gave, rather that it is incongruous to have a single person able to demonstrate Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception equally with the same personality... which is what the rules allow for by having every social skill keyed off of the same stat.

Using the examples of your sisters; can you imagine them (and the defining traits of their Charisma) as a single person? I'm not stuck on the notion that Intimidate shouldn't be keyed off Charisma... I'm stuck on the notion that Persuasion, Intimidation and Deception shouldn't be keyed off of the same stat simultaneously, because I cannot envision a personality that flits between the three with equal aptitude

Edit: It's interesting to see how text is interpreted; you apparently saw a smiling, laughing princess subtly exerting her will.... whereas reading the same text I envisioned a spoiled aristocrat throwing a tantrum.

Also, congratulations on your little sister heading off to college. Best of luck.

The answer: my mother. Barring Performance (to be tactful, she has not been musically trained), she is capable of turning on the southern charm (Persuasion), lying through her teeth with a smile (Deception), and cowing entire assemblies when angered (admittedly, much easier than getting a dragon to back off).

But let's use some fantasy archetypes, as those are more fun! How about the Barbarian of few words, but high Charisma? He Intimidates with naught but a glare and a baring of his fangs, he Deceives through one-word answers that simply leave no doubt (and may even be a master of lying through linguistic tricks), and he Persuades because on the few times when he actually talks at length, he is extremely good at commanding attention and making arguments as strong as his Constitution. The halfling who is normally sweet as can be, so he is like my little sister? His Intimidation is likely similar to the aforementioned princess, pure bemusement at the person who is suicidal enough to cross him. Or he might be like Cicero from Elder Scrolls: Skyrim.

Sure, someone can make a Charismatic person who has no ability to be Intimidating. That, however, is a personal choice, and can even be amended later. The monk who bares the symbol of a god associated with honesty might be conning others so his lies are given additional credence. The soft-spoken sorcerer who normally wins with a sweet glance who has never made a threat may simply have never had cause and then happily rattles off. The incongruity of a sweet person describing how they would rend the flesh from the mark's bones is incredibly Intimidating. Beware the Nice Ones, indeed...

If you have any doubts on a character personality that cannot accomplish all of them, please share. I would happily show how it would work!

EDIT:

This is my problem with this attitude. This applies to street-savvy characters too. This innkeeper has also been confronted with countless charisma-types. If he can't be intimidated, he can't be intimidated. If he can, he can. By ignoring the game mechanics of the die roll, you're just saying that strength and size is not intimidating. Armored warriors are not intimidating. If the player beats the DC, your seasoned street-savvy innkeeper is going to get intimidated. Unless you arbitrarily decide that he can't be intimidated by a show of force, which you are free to do. But I don't agree with the notion that people are not intimidated by size and strength, and no one here has made a compelling argument demonstrating exactly that.

My response assumes this is a tavernkeeper in a city or major crossroads, someone who it would actually be useful to Intimidate. The keeper in the tiny town who is only kept in business by the forest-people who stop there on the way to the city's market may be much more easily swayed. Unless the forest people are there and they are competent, like hunters, rangers, or druids, in which case this may still apply.

An armored and armed person who tries to cow the tavernkeeper with his Strength: "You can sit down and drink your ale, or I can call the guards. Or I just ask my friends in the corner (points to some frequent-flyers who are plenty big enough to be a threat) to rough you up and throw you out. You think you're the first tough-guy who has come through here? Silver piece a dozen." Note that if you do happen to trash his thugs, he is much more likely to stand down. Keepers of major taverns likely deal with this on a nightly basis, but he may not have had to deal with someone who actually has defeated his security measures...

The response of the guy using just Strength: "Call them over, I've been looking for a good brawl. We've come back from slaying a dragon in the mountains, but this will do."

The same guy who now has Charisma and tries to use that instead: "Call them over, I've been looking for a good brawl. Won't be a challenge compared to the Reavers of the North, but still- oh you recognize them? Oh you know, I have the head of their leader if you want to see that..."

The key difference is that one is relying on just being a big guy with some stories, while the same guy using Charisma is actually manipulating the keeper. Slaying a dragon would be impressive (and having evidence of it would be more than enough for the Strength-user), but the Charisma-user is reading the target to pick on his weaknesses. He doesn't tell of the great foes who any shmuck could know of and be telling a tall tale, but instead specific enemies that the person recognizes, fears, and would believe. Intimidation with anything else is about just projecting your own force, but Intimidation with Charisma is about manipulating the target to truly make them terrified.

Syll

2016-12-10, 05:30 PM

The answer: my mother. Barring Performance (to be tactful, she has not been musically trained), she is capable of turning on the southern charm (Persuasion), lying through her teeth with a smile (Deception), and cowing entire assemblies when angered (admittedly, much easier than getting a dragon to back off).

But let's use some fantasy archetypes, as those are more fun! How about the Barbarian of few words, but high Charisma? He Intimidates with naught but a glare and a baring of his fangs, he Deceives through one-word answers that simply leave no doubt (and may even be a master of lying through linguistic tricks), and he Persuades because on the few times when he actually talks at length, he is extremely good at commanding attention and making arguments as strong as his Constitution.

Because the 3 social skills bleed together, that Southern Charm could very well qualify as Deception. The 1 word lie is beyond reproach because it his questioning his character... which is undesirable due to his ferocity (Intimidation)

Tangentially, a case could be made for our self assured Barbarian, that his presence is so commanding because he is so confident in his battle prowess (Str/Con)

pwykersotz

2016-12-10, 06:53 PM

So according to Socratov, we have two parts, convincing someone you have power and convincing someone that you're willing to use it. I think that's pretty succinct. The hidden factor is the person being intimidated and their life experience, which would set the DC or make the check automatic or impossible.

I like to think of Strength as the leverage one uses (convincing someone you possess the power), and whether it gets rolled into the check is a matter of the style. In a game where the check represents both of Socratov's elements, I'd say subbing Strength is a great way to handle things. In such a game a successful Diplomacy check would mean that you retroactively knew that the guard had a soft spot for the rebel group when you told him you were with them to get him to let you in.

In a game where a check is about only the second element, I'd say it should be pure Charisma and that the DM should take the strength/appearance of the character into account when setting the DC. To continue the Diplomacy example, such a game would mean you'd have to have researched the guard before making your offer (or have gotten lucky with your wording/excuse), because the check only represents the application of leverage you are supposed to already have.

Edit: Some form of passive Intimidation might be a factor for naturally fearing/being cautious around someone who is larger than you by default. In such a case using an alternate stat such as Strength would be best because it isn't being purposefully leveraged, but the affected person is being made aware the advantage exists, which puts it purely into the purview of the first element.

Syll

2016-12-10, 08:16 PM

JackPhoenix

2016-12-10, 08:47 PM

It doesn't have to be. I said it *can* apply. I'm arguing strength can make sense and people, despite claiming the contrary, are arguing that it cannot.

So can waving a weapon around even without any actual skill behind it. Should Intimidation be based on having a weapon? Or being a race with bad reputation... tiefling, half-orc, etc. Should half-orcs get bonus to Intimidation (beside their racial proficiency) because people are afraid of them even if they dump Cha?

What you don't get (and people are tryng to explain) is that the Strength isn't more than just a tool, just like weapons, displays of magic, reputation or burly henchmen are. Game mechanics are abstraction (especially in 5e), to model complex, if imaginary, reality that would take too much rules to present accurately. Yes, the barbarian is using his strength to intimidate someone... but his goal isn't bending the sword (which falls under bodily power, i.E. Str), it's interaction with the victim, which falls under charisma. He would roll Str to actually bend the sword, but charisma would still be what determines if the person is actually intimidated by the display.

Same with shooting arrows to scare someone: You use ranged attack to see if you hit what you want, but it's charisma what determined if the victim is impressed by his skill, or if he decides that the archer actually aimed at him and missed. Or just don't have the stomach to kill an unarmed, fleeing enemy. Or you'll won't carry the threat, because you need him and can't afford to kill him. Or his friends will arrive soon and deal with the archer. Or... you get the point, I hope.

Yes, a lot of unrelated things are put under Charisma. But is that really a problem? To get to the earlier example, let's say that the Mountain is a player character who does have high Cha to be intimidating. People would argue that there's no reason he would be good at Persuasion or Deception because he's got high Cha bonus... and while he may be good mechanically, there's nothing forcing the player to actually ever use those two skills instead of Intimidate, or saying the character is just bad at it and deciding he fails when the GM asks him for a check anyway.

Dice should only be rolled if there's a chance of failure (or success). If the huge barbarian is trying to force a cowardly kobold to tell him the way to the treasure after he's killed 20 of his friends or he'll do something nasty to him, why are you even rolling dice or care what your ability scores are? The kobold would be intimidated regardless of the roll. If the dragon won't be scared of you no matter what you do, there's no point in even touching the dice, much less arguing if you can use Str instead of Cha.

Syll

2016-12-10, 10:45 PM

Edit: Some form of passive Intimidation might be a factor for naturally fearing/being cautious around someone who is larger than you by default. In such a case using an alternate stat such as Strength would be best because it isn't being purposefully leveraged, but the affected person is being made aware the advantage exists, which puts it purely into the purview of the first element.

I was thinking on this some more, and I still really like the idea, and had a thought for how it could be implemented.

If you calculated it per the Passive Checks rules in PHB (p.174) You'd have 10+ Proficiency + Str mod. You could compare that value to a passive CHA check of the observer (10 + proficiency + CHA mod), to determine whether physical size/ strength would be effective at intimidating them. If you're the aggressor, and your passive is higher than theirs, you get say, a +5 to your Intimidate roll (but you still use your CHA, not STR for the roll).

This would answer the question of 'Why is only STR being talked about, since you can create examples for other attributes too?' as this is demonstrating purely a visceral, physical reaction. Also, if you're a high CHA character, you are less likely to be affected, as social interaction is your thing, and you are better steeled against these things (and CHA generates your passive Intimidation resistance), whereas the reverse is true of a High STR/Low CHA creature.

pwykersotz

2016-12-10, 11:03 PM

I was thinking on this some more, and I still really like the idea, and had a thought for how it could be implemented.

If you calculated it per the Passive Checks rules in PHB (p.174) You'd have 10+ Proficiency + Str mod. You could compare that value to a passive CHA check of the observer (10 + proficiency + CHA mod), to determine whether physical size/ strength would be effective at intimidating them. If you're the aggressor, and your passive is higher than theirs, you get say, a +5 to your Intimidate roll (but you still use your CHA, not STR for the roll).

This would answer the question of 'Why is only STR being talked about, since you can create examples for other attributes too?' as this is demonstrating purely a visceral, physical reaction. Also, if you're a high CHA character, you are less likely to be affected, as social interaction is your thing, and you are better steeled against these things (and CHA generates your passive Intimidation resistance), whereas the reverse is true of a High STR/Low CHA creature.

I'm glad you like the idea. :smallsmile:

You could also consider size categories for passive checks in this regard. A creature like the tarrasque or a dragon might be intimidating based on size alone. You could add X to the intimidation for every size category larger a creature is and subtract X for every size category smaller, assuming no other factors. I mean, a halfling covered in blood and licking his dagger clean might not be making an active check (he might just be enjoying himself), but I wouldn't cut down the intimidation for size category in that case.

Syll

2016-12-10, 11:29 PM

I'm glad you like the idea. :smallsmile:

You could also consider size categories for passive checks in this regard. A creature like the tarrasque or a dragon might be intimidating based on size alone. You could add X to the intimidation for every size category larger a creature is and subtract X for every size category smaller, assuming no other factors.

You're absolutely right. I'd thought about it earlier, and then it completely slipped my mind when it came time to write it down

Regitnui

2016-12-11, 01:43 AM

Yes, a lot of unrelated things are put under Charisma. But is that really a problem? To get to the earlier example, let's say that the Mountain is a player character who does have high Cha to be intimidating. People would argue that there's no reason he would be good at Persuasion or Deception because he's got high Cha bonus... and while he may be good mechanically, there's nothing forcing the player to actually ever use those two skills instead of Intimidate, or saying the character is just bad at it and deciding he fails when the GM asks him for a check anyway.

A lot unrelated things are put under Wisdom too. Nobody seems to be complaining about how Perception should be based on Constitution, because good health means better eyesight.

But there really is no way around that the PC's are extremely successful professional killers. If the party is known at all in town, it's likely known that they wiped out the goblin tribe, slaughtered or captured the bandits that raided the neighboring town, slew the mighty dragon Virgineater, etc. Even if they aren't known, it's visually apparent that he's seen battle, has exceptional gear and is a "hard" man or woman.

Naturally, none of this applies to the innkeeper that is a retired adventurer, veteran of the orc wars, or has ties to the assassin's guild and knows several members are there for dinner.

The PCs are successful killers. Yes. But unless they're walking around covered in blood and trophies, how the Dolurrh is a random innkeeper in the back end of nowhere supposed to know that? High Charisma. The PCs have to have the confidence and attitude necessary to be influential.

Let's look at how easy a DC 5 Charisma check is, shall we? Rolling a D20, you've got a great chance of rolling above 5. If a player character has the lowest Charisma modifier possible (1, at -5 modifier), you can still expect them to succeed roughly half the time. I challenge you to go out to your local bar and find a bartender that a half-blind, drooling, cross-eyed, stinking, barely-coherent thug can influence beyond getting thrown out.

I don't disagree that the adventurers can be persuasive/intimidating/deceptive with more success with a country bartender than the king. But I disagree with your estimation that it's so trivial that the bartender would be frightened by the adventurer's loud farts. Why are you even rolling for it if a corpse could be reasonably expected to succeed?

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-11, 02:08 AM

My response assumes this is a tavernkeeper in a city or major crossroads, someone who it would actually be useful to Intimidate.
That's fine. Your response assumes that the tavernkeeper is "seasoned" against strong types but, for whatever reason, not against charisma types. I don't see why anyone would make that assumption. This tavernkeeper has "seen it all" except for con men?? He easily rebuffs hulking barbarians threatening to trash his place, but cowers before the scrawny guy with a nasty look.

Again, you're just assuming failure for one and victory for the other.

An armored and armed person who tries to cow the tavernkeeper with his Strength: "You can sit down and drink your ale, or I can call the guards. Or I just ask my friends in the corner (points to some frequent-flyers who are plenty big enough to be a threat) to rough you up and throw you out. You think you're the first tough-guy who has come through here? Silver piece a dozen." Note that if you do happen to trash his thugs, he is much more likely to stand down. Keepers of major taverns likely deal with this on a nightly basis, but he may not have had to deal with someone who actually has defeated his security measures...

The response of the guy using just Strength: "Call them over, I've been looking for a good brawl. We've come back from slaying a dragon in the mountains, but this will do."
Right. DM sets the DC to Hard. After all, this tavernkeeper has seen it all and is a retired adventurer. It isn't easy for *anyone* to cow him.

The halfling threatens to have his regulars throw the half orc out. The half orc grabs the innkeeper by the back of his neck and pulls him in close, his muscles bulging and straining the buckles on his armor, "Call them over, I've been looking for a good brawl." The brawny regulars (str 13 or 14?) look over at the innkeeper, unsure what's about and wondering if they need to intervene. (Barbarian player rolls his check, and rolls a 21, SUCCESS) The innkeeper puts a placating hand up to his regulars, "No bother boys, we're okay over here"

So can waving a weapon around even without any actual skill behind it. Should Intimidation be based on having a weapon?
Are you suggesting that a man with a gun or knife is not intimidating? Or that the weapon (a show of force) is meaningless in how intimidating he is?

Or being a race with bad reputation... tiefling, half-orc, etc. Should half-orcs get bonus to Intimidation (beside their racial proficiency) because people are afraid of them even if they dump Cha?
Yeah, why not? I don't think charisma is the deciding factor in whether or not you can intimidate someone. That is the argument virtually everyone else in the thread is making. I am not making that argument. Incidentally, D&D agrees with me by virtue of letting people succeed on Intimidation checks without requiring a positive charisma modifier. Oh, and by having a variant rule for this very issue.

More to your point though, tieflings in fact received a -2 penalty to charisma in 3rd edition while simultaneously enjoying a +2 bonus to Bluff, which is charisma based. This is not shocking or incongruous to me.

Half-orcs, by nature of their appearance, their size and strength, their natural ferocity, their culture and reputation, can easily warrant a bonus to Intimidation while still not being charismatic. This seems super intuitive to me.

The only argument people have provided in opposition to what I am saying is countless examples of little unassuming people being intimidating. I am not arguing against that. I agree that little people can be intimidating through charisma.

What you don't get (and people are tryng to explain) is that the Strength isn't more than just a tool, just like weapons, displays of magic, reputation or burly henchmen are. Game mechanics are abstraction (especially in 5e), to model complex, if imaginary, reality that would take too much rules to present accurately. Yes, the barbarian is using his strength to intimidate someone... but his goal isn't bending the sword (which falls under bodily power, i.E. Str), it's interaction with the victim, which falls under charisma. He would roll Str to actually bend the sword, but charisma would still be what determines if the person is actually intimidated by the display.

Right. So we have two responses that are the most common so far when I say "strength can make sense for Intimidation checks". We get "Intimidation doesn't work without charisma" and we also get "charisma governs social interactions".

The former is easily disproved by the fact that D&D characters can me Intimidation DCs without having a positive charisma modifier. The latter seems sort of pointless. The discussion is about making a change to the game rules. So yes, typically charisma governs the social skills because it governs interactions in general, but we're talking about whether strength can make sense when intimidating people through a show of force. "But that's not what the rules say!" seems redundant, because that's the point of the conversation, and it also gets the wind taken out of its sails by the variant rule which does exactly what's being proposed.

Same with shooting arrows to scare someone: You use ranged attack to see if you hit what you want, but it's charisma what determined if the victim is impressed by his skill, or if he decides that the archer actually aimed at him and missed. Or just don't have the stomach to kill an unarmed, fleeing enemy. Or you'll won't carry the threat, because you need him and can't afford to kill him. Or his friends will arrive soon and deal with the archer. Or... you get the point, I hope.

No, I don't. What I'm understanding is that you and many others in this thread think that people can only be convinced by words or glances, and not by overt physical actions or demonstrations of power. This is so fundamentally out of touch with reality that I'm astonished I seem to be one of a few people arguing the point.

Yes, a lot of unrelated things are put under Charisma. But is that really a problem?
You think it's a problem for strength to influence Intimidation in some cases, but you're cool with people in this thread packing everything under the sun into charisma?

To get to the earlier example, let's say that the Mountain is a player character who does have high Cha to be intimidating.
The Mountain is terrifying because of his size and strength and his reputation. He is not charismatic. He doesn't have a high charisma. In fact, he is made a knight and kept around in spite of the fact that he is (likely) a sociopath *because* of his enormous size and strength and willingness to murder anyone.

The Mountain is a perfect example to counter the arguments being made in this thread, and instead people will argue that he probably has a high charisma lol.

Dice should only be rolled if there's a chance of failure (or success). If the huge barbarian is trying to force a cowardly kobold to tell him the way to the treasure after he's killed 20 of his friends or he'll do something nasty to him, why are you even rolling dice or care what your ability scores are? The kobold would be intimidated regardless of the roll. If the dragon won't be scared of you no matter what you do, there's no point in even touching the dice, much less arguing if you can use Str instead of Cha.
I don't need a wimpy cowardly kobold for my examples. That's you guys. You guys leap from one extreme to the other. The strong guy can intimidate someone so pathetic and easy to manipulate a roll isn't even required, or he fails to intimidate the most seasoned, hardened veteran that's been doing this a long time and will never be convinced that this large buffoon before him would ever follow through on a threat.

I'm not making any of those arguments or interested in them. I don't believe you need to be a cowardly kobold in order to be intimidated by size and strength. I think it's normal and natural for that to happen and I think it warrants a check like anything else, and if the DC is beat, the guy is intimidated.

SharkForce

2016-12-11, 02:56 AM

djreynolds

2016-12-11, 03:28 AM

JellyPooga

2016-12-11, 05:48 AM

I think it pertinent to bring up the OP at this point;

Intimidation is really less about harsh words and more about a show of power. Shouldn't it be tied to Strength instead of Charisma?

For all the directions this argument has gone, I don't think anyone is trying to argue that strength cannot be used to intimidate, but also I don't think anyone is arguing that strength should be the default for intimidation.

Tawmis

2016-12-11, 06:02 AM

You know what, this is a good argument and you have persuaded me.

Now did they persuade your or Intimidate you?

(Kidding, of course... Just making light the entire debate here).

I think in the end, it really boils down to the DM and the players. I remember in the old DMG (maybe even in the 5e, I can't remember), it said something along the lines of the printed rules were a guideline and not a hard fast rule. But a structure for which to base the game.

So if you want CHR to be the score to use for Intimidate; do so. If you want it to be STR, do so. Or if you want it to vary, depending on what the character is doing, then do so.

For example, someone in this thread (pardon me, I don't remember the name and too lazy to go back and check), said none of their innkeepers would ever be intimidated by adventurers, because that's all they ever deal with. That works for their campaign (I believe they play in Eberron they said?) For me, I have had innkeepers in my custom world, where they were washed up, wanna be adventurers, who failed at it, so opened up an inn, to surround themselves by the very people that they had hoped to become in life... so not all of them are former warriors or anything, and can be intimidated. Different strokes for different folks.

djreynolds

2016-12-11, 07:19 AM

[QUOTE=Tawmis;21479253]Now did they persuade your or Intimidate you?

(Kidding, of course... Just making light the entire debate here).

QUOTE]

Thank the maker for sarcasm.

I have a take on all of this though... it is that dam standard array and the AL that stats get dumped. Something will be an 8 usually and for fighters and barbarians its normally charisma... maybe intelligence.

So I do feel for you.

But even with a 14(+2) in charisma, its a difference of 3 if you have a charisma in 8 (-1)... not that big of a difference at level 17, 8 in intimitdation vs 5.

So its tough to say. Also DMs can just lower DCs that are astronomical.... also what was the DC of this check?

JackPhoenix

2016-12-11, 10:38 AM

i would say the disconnect here is simply this:

intimidation as a skill in D&D is not just "making someone afraid". it is "making someone do what you want because they are afraid". can strength make someone afraid? sure. absolutely. and it might even make any sort of check completely unnecessary, even... for a while. but understand, if you make someone simply afraid, the moment the source of fear is gone they are highly likely to stop doing what you want. that doesn't necessarily mean they're going to try and stab you in the back as soon as it is turned to them (though it also doesn't mean that they won't, so choose your targets wisely)... but it does mean that you have very limited control over what they do as a result of being afraid. there's a chance they might do what you want anyways (especially if what you want is, say, to have your actions reported to the guards, or for the person to run away and lead you to their friends). but if you want to be sure, it isn't enough to make someone afraid (which strength - or indeed, any number of other things - can do).

in contrast, someone who uses the intimidation skill can expect the target to remain afraid beyond the moments of immediate threat. a strong person could certainly make the barkeep afraid... but not necessarily afraid and cooperative, especially in the long term. in contrast, a person who uses charisma is creating that *lasting* impression, even when they are not physically present to threaten to beat you into unconsciousness.

high strength (or other things) can be the reason you are allowed to make an intimidate check at all. but for me at least, it doesn't pass the sniff test of being the most relevant attribute in terms of making sure the person feels like you're still there, about to break their legs if they don't do what you want.

I can't believe nobody said this until now. That's right to the hearth of the matter.

That's fine. Your response assumes that the tavernkeeper is "seasoned" against strong types but, for whatever reason, not against charisma types. I don't see why anyone would make that assumption. This tavernkeeper has "seen it all" except for con men?? He easily rebuffs hulking barbarians threatening to trash his place, but cowers before the scrawny guy with a nasty look.

Again, you're just assuming failure for one and victory for the other.

No, they are assuming failing the Intimidation check because one of them tries to use the wrong ability score. Or both roll Cha check, and the later does have better chance to succeed, even if, all other things being eqal, it's only 30% higher at most (Cha 20 vs 8)

Right. DM sets the DC to Hard. After all, this tavernkeeper has seen it all and is a retired adventurer. It isn't easy for *anyone* to cow him.

The halfling threatens to have his regulars throw the half orc out. The half orc grabs the innkeeper by the back of his neck and pulls him in close, his muscles bulging and straining the buckles on his armor, "Call them over, I've been looking for a good brawl." The brawny regulars (str 13 or 14?) look over at the innkeeper, unsure what's about and wondering if they need to intervene. (Barbarian player rolls his check, and rolls a 21, SUCCESS) The innkeeper puts a placating hand up to his regulars, "No bother boys, we're okay over here"

Right. So you've described how the barbarian succeeded on an Intimidate check and fluffed it as him using his Str. What's your point? It doesn't matter whether the success was because of proficiency in Intimidation, good Cha modifier and average roll, or proficiency in Intimidation, negative Cha modifier and great roll.

Are you suggesting that a man with a gun or knife is not intimidating? Or that the weapon (a show of force) is meaningless in how intimidating he is?

No, I'm suggesting that in the context of D&D 5e game mechanics, waving a weapon around, or having a huge muscles is just fluff.

Yeah, why not? I don't think charisma is the deciding factor in whether or not you can intimidate someone. That is the argument virtually everyone else in the thread is making. I am not making that argument. Incidentally, D&D agrees with me by virtue of letting people succeed on Intimidation checks without requiring a positive charisma modifier. Oh, and by having a variant rule for this very issue.

Because you misunderstand what charisma means in the context of D&D. It's a measure of character's natural ability to interact with others, nothing less, nothing more. Having a negative Cha modifier isn't some tangible, obvious deficit. It means that you're somewhat worse at interacting with others, whatever form that interaction takes (Intimidation, Persuasion or Charisma). Just like Str is a measure of the character's ability to use his bodily power... which, like Cha, covers many things unrelated in the real life: swimming, jumping, climbing, weightlifting, swinging a weapon around. It doesn't limit what you CAN do, it describes how good are you at doing that thing.

You seem to think that using Cha and Str is mutualy exclusive and either of them forces you to use different means to intimidate someone. While different people and creatures are susceptible to different means of intimidation, and advantage or some small bonus for using the right means is a good way to represent that, Strength would be used to physically force someone to do something (like hitting himself), not to convince him to do something on his own.

The only argument people have provided in opposition to what I am saying is countless examples of little unassuming people being intimidating. I am not arguing against that. I agree that little people can be intimidating through charisma.

Everyone is intimidating through Charisma in D&D, because D&D Charisma score =/= real life charisma. It's a measure of how good the character is at interacting with others. Intimidating is interacting with others.

Right. So we have two responses that are the most common so far when I say "strength can make sense for Intimidation checks". We get "Intimidation doesn't work without charisma" and we also get "charisma governs social interactions".

The former is easily disproved by the fact that D&D characters can me Intimidation DCs without having a positive charisma modifier.

That's not disproving anything. Having negative Cha modifier means that the character is less effective at interacting with others. Positive modifier means that the character is better at interacting with others. That's it. The barbarian can still intimidate some people through his strength and size, but is less effective that someone who's got better natural talent for interacting with others (i.E. higher Cha). The one with high Cha doesn't have to be some scrawny halfling, he can be just as big and strong as the former barbarian, he's just better at looking confident and projecting the image of his physical prowess on the others.

No, I don't. What I'm understanding is that you and many others in this thread think that people can only be convinced by words or glances, and not by overt physical actions or demonstrations of power. This is so fundamentally out of touch with reality that I'm astonished I seem to be one of a few people arguing the point.

You know, you're right. How could the people who actually understand what ability scores means argue that the ability to effectively interact with others is measured by the ability describing their natural talent at interacting with others instead of the ability describing their bodily power. They must all be insane

You think it's a problem for strength to influence Intimidation in some cases, but you're cool with people in this thread packing everything under the sun into charisma?

No, I think it's a problem for a measure of bodily power to control interaction with others instead of the actual measure of how good the character is at interacting with others. I'm cool with people packing things described by the Charisma stat under the Charisma stat, just like I'm cool with things described by, say, Strength or Dexterity stat being packed under Strength or Dexterity. In fact, Str or Dex cover much more things than Cha already, I don't see a reason to take some things from the later to put it under the former.

The Mountain is terrifying because of his size and strength and his reputation. He is not charismatic. He doesn't have a high charisma. In fact, he is made a knight and kept around in spite of the fact that he is (likely) a sociopath *because* of his enormous size and strength and willingness to murder anyone.

The Mountain is a perfect example to counter the arguments being made in this thread, and instead people will argue that he probably has a high charisma lol.

He doesn't have high charisma by real world definition of charisma... but then, neither does hag, mind flayer or many fiends with high Cha scores... propably because D&D Cha score =/= real life charisma. Hodor is just as big and strong as the Mountain, but nobody is afraid of him after the first impression. You would argue that's because the Mountain is proficient in Intimidation... true, but he's also got natural talent for it, and the measure of that natural talent is described in D&D by Charisma score. Ser Illyn Payne would be even better example of high-Cha D&D character... he scares the **** out of everyone without even actively trying (or being able to talk), and not because he's huge or strong, or by his function as royal executioner. He's just got the presence around him.

Syll

2016-12-11, 12:22 PM

Hodor is just as big and strong as the Mountain, but nobody is afraid of him after the first impression. You would argue that's because the Mountain is proficient in Intimidation... true, but he's also got natural talent for it, and the measure of that natural talent is described in D&D by Charisma score. Ser Illyn Payne would be even better example of high-Cha D&D character... he scares the **** out of everyone without even actively trying (or being able to talk), and not because he's huge or strong, or by his function as royal executioner. He's just got the presence around him.
Conversely Frankenstein's Monster terrifies everyone who isn't blind, despite actively trying NOT to. His sheer size and the extent of his disfigurement denies him the opportunty to socially interact with others. They're plenty intimidated though.

Mellack

2016-12-11, 12:32 PM

Conversely Frankenstein's Monster terrifies everyone who isn't blind, despite actively trying NOT to. His sheer size and the extent of his disfigurement denies him the opportunty to socially interact with others. They're plenty intimidated though.

Frankenstein's Monster is not intimidating by the D&D definition. Intimidation is described as influencing people to do what you want. The monster cannot get people to do what he desires, indeed they activly try to harm him, counter to his desires. The moster is scary, but not intimidating in game terms.

SethoMarkus

2016-12-11, 01:44 PM

This is how I look at the three relevant skills.

Diplomacy is an attempt at improving relations.

Intimidate is an attempt at influencing/coercing behavior.

Bluff is an attempt at controlling reactions and disseminating misinformation.

In D&D, all of these skills fall under Charisma, not because that is realistic, but because the creators deemed Charisma to be the ability score for social interaction.

A physical show of force very well may frighten an adversary, and may then create a situation where it is easier to get then to do what you want, but you still need to convey what it is that you want them to do.

If one of my players wanted to Intimidate an opponent by using their raw strength to break a table, I would have them make two checks: a Strength check to break the table and a Charisma(Intimidate) check to Intimidate the opponent (with Advantage of the table was successfully broken, possibly Disadvantage if they fail to break the table bad enough).

This whole thread reminds me of a scene in a Sherlock Holmes story. A thug henchman (of Moriarty, I believe) walks into Holmes's parlor and attempts to intimidate Holmes into walking away from a case. The mountain of a man does this by lifting an iron poker for the fireplace and bending it nearly in half in a great show of force. Holmes is not impressed and neither speak to the other as the thug glares and turns around to leave. After the henchman has left, Holmes gets up from his chair, lifts the bent poker from the ground, and with little effort bends the poker back into a working shape.

Sigreid

2016-12-11, 02:39 PM

A lot unrelated things are put under Wisdom too. Nobody seems to be complaining about how Perception should be based on Constitution, because good health means better eyesight.

The PCs are successful killers. Yes. But unless they're walking around covered in blood and trophies, how the Dolurrh is a random innkeeper in the back end of nowhere supposed to know that? High Charisma. The PCs have to have the confidence and attitude necessary to be influential.

Let's look at how easy a DC 5 Charisma check is, shall we? Rolling a D20, you've got a great chance of rolling above 5. If a player character has the lowest Charisma modifier possible (1, at -5 modifier), you can still expect them to succeed roughly half the time. I challenge you to go out to your local bar and find a bartender that a half-blind, drooling, cross-eyed, stinking, barely-coherent thug can influence beyond getting thrown out.

I don't disagree that the adventurers can be persuasive/intimidating/deceptive with more success with a country bartender than the king. But I disagree with your estimation that it's so trivial that the bartender would be frightened by the adventurer's loud farts. Why are you even rolling for it if a corpse could be reasonably expected to succeed?

I don't think we're talking the same thing. I've already clarified that if the bartender or townsfolk has experience with hard types, has reliable backup, or personal experience then DC would be higher. I'm of the opinion that hardened combatants such as the PC's after their first adventure would appear as hardened combat types. They'd have that feeling about them. Of course I'm also not opposed to the innkeeper using insite to determine how likely the person is to actually do something horrifying.

Similarly, the DC would be higher for your average farm hand or blacksmith, even a big one to pull off the intimidation. Reason is, they don't carry themselves like a hardened killer.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-11, 06:18 PM

I can't believe nobody said this until now. That's right to the hearth of the matter.
People have been comparing strength to charisma (as far as Intimidation goes) and have found strength lacking through the entirety of this thread...

No, they are assuming failing the Intimidation check because one of them tries to use the wrong ability score.
No, they are explaining *why* it is already the wrong ability score by giving examples of failure. The argument is "Yes, it's charisma based, but could it be strength based?" and the answer has been that strength just fails. There are no instances where it may be appropriate and might actually sway someone.

Right. So you've described how the barbarian succeeded on an Intimidate check and fluffed it as him using his Str. What's your point?
Uh... that's my point. The variant rule says if you describe a case where the character is intimidating through a show of force, the DM can let you use strength instead of charisma.

The point others are making is that this doesn't make any sense, and then we get a bunch of little examples that just describe the attempt failing. I'm describing an attempt succeeding as the PHB explains it might go.

What, in that example, is so out of bounds that you wouldn't allow it?

It doesn't matter whether the success was because of proficiency in Intimidation, good Cha modifier and average roll, or proficiency in Intimidation, negative Cha modifier and great roll.
Yes it does. If you're telling me that I have to be charismatic to be intimidating, and I don't actually have to be, then you're just wrong and being obstructive for no good reason.

Here's a level 10 rogue, a brawny enforcer for the guild. He's got Expertise in Intimidation, but an 8 charisma. He has 20 dexterity and 17 strength let's say. Currently his bonus to Intimidation is +7, which is good. He makes a Medium DC 65% of the time, and can make a Hard DC 40% of the time. Here's the exchange:

Rogue: I'm going to force the councilor back down into his seat hard enough that it's jarring, giving him an impression of exactly how strong I am. I want to Intimidate him to get him to comply and not try to leave again and have us removed until the cleric is finished speaking. Can I use my strength score in place of charisma?

DM: No. No matter how strong you are, you can't intimidate someone without charisma.

Rogue: Well, I'm already not charismatic and have been intimidating people in the game.

DM: Yeah, but a charismatic person would be even more intimidating than you.

Rogue: Ok but that's not the point I'm making. I'm just wondering if, since I'm using a show of force, can I use strength?

DM: Charisma governs all social interactions. Without charisma, you can't intimidate.

Rogue: I literally have worse than a 0 charisma modifier. I have a -1 charisma modifier, and I have been making DCs just fine.

DM: You can grab him by the arms in an iron vice grip, sit him down hard enough that it rattles his teeth, and loom over him between him and the door with your impressive size, but he just won't consider you a credible threat unless you're charismatic about this Intimidation check.

Rogue: So should I even bother trying? My character isn't charismatic, mechanically or thematically.

DM: No no, of course you should try. Go ahead and roll.

Rogue: *rolls*

DM: Success! You grab him in a vice-like grip, set him back down on the bench hard enough that he's stunned, and impose yourself between him and the door. He seems cowed, barely able to make eye contact with you, and looks down at his lap as he rubs the fresh bruises on his arms.

Rogue: *confused*

No, I'm suggesting that in the context of D&D 5e game mechanics, waving a weapon around, or having a huge muscles is just fluff.

I'm not too sure what you mean here. That being strong and armed shouldn't impact the mechanics of a social interaction?

You know, you're right. How could the people who actually understand what ability scores means argue that the ability to effectively interact with others is measured by the ability describing their natural talent at interacting with others instead of the ability describing their bodily power. They must all be insane
So then you agree that size and strength can intimidate people into complying? You understand that I am aware that charisma governs social interactions right? I just don't care so much about that that the idea of letting people use strength, no matter how much it might make sense in a situation, gravely offends me.

But when I make my case people literally say that no amount of strength being displayed will cow someone without charisma.

There are different points being made throughout this thread.

No, I think it's a problem for a measure of bodily power to control interaction with others instead of the actual measure of how good the character is at interacting with others.
Strange because it happens in real life like that all the time.

Let "Intimidation" handle the "interaction" part and let that interaction be informed by size and strength (strength score). Big deal. "Oh no no, but he's interacting with people!" Yeah, that's why he's rolling an Intimidation check. But he's using a show of force, so he's doing it through Strength.

I'm cool with people packing things described by the Charisma stat under the Charisma stat
Reputation, institutional power, proclivities, the mysteries of the arcane, doubt, etc. are not the purview of charisma.

He doesn't have high charisma by real world definition of charisma... but then, neither does hag, mind flayer or many fiends with high Cha scores... propably because D&D Cha score =/= real life charisma.
He doesn't have it by D&D standards either. It makes more sense to say his Intimidation is based on his size, strength, and reputation than to suggest that he is better at diplomacy and bluffing than other people because he is also Intimidating and by virtue of being Intimidating he *must* have a high charisma.

Hodor is just as big and strong as the Mountain, but nobody is afraid of him after the first impression. You would argue that's because the Mountain is proficient in Intimidation... true, but he's also got natural talent for it, and the measure of that natural talent is described in D&D by Charisma score.
*You* are saying he has a natural talent for it. I don't agree. Hodor is an idiot and probably takes penalties to social interactions in general.

Ser Illyn Payne would be even better example of high-Cha D&D character... he scares the **** out of everyone without even actively trying (or being able to talk), and not because he's huge or strong, or by his function as royal executioner. He's just got the presence around him.
Once again, this does nothing to disprove my point. I grant you that people can be intimidating without being big and strong.

What I'm telling you is that if a village is being raided by an evil force and they are rounding people up to cart them away, and an ogre, let's say, smashes his club down and orders a woman to pick up her child and join the line to the slave wagon, you are being preposterous to say that his size and strength are not enough to Intimidate her and it would be some threatening glance or some compelling words that would get her to comply.

What you are saying is that when Fezzik yells "Everybody move!!" the people clear out because his shout was particularly compelling and he has a high charisma. You're saying that the people are not swayed by his size and strength. You're saying as well that the two rakish and charismatic swashbucklers beside him could have done a better job than he at intimidating everyone to clear out.

And I'm saying that's all nonsense.

georgie_leech

2016-12-11, 06:33 PM

The reason why Strength is consistently getting a negative reaction is that the argument is that it should be the default. That is, suddenly the mob bosses, wizened wizards, and steely eyed halfling criminals now need to add a regimen of lifting weights if they want to be able to threaten people into doing what they want. Charisma is an acceptable baseline because of it being the stat used for social interaction. If we take "Stronger=Scarier" at face value, we have to accept Hodor as being scarier than Anya when she's got a knife to your throat, solely because he can lift more weight over his head. That or let anyone use any stat they want with it at any time, because that princess certainly isn't strong-arming someone into doing anything.

Or, we can accept that a big part of how effective a threat is is in how you present it, and your skill at presenting things is usually Charisma.

Knaight

2016-12-11, 07:21 PM

Right. But if you're not intending to attack the target, and wanting to do fancy shots instead - to me, that goes up there with trying something along the lines of Athletics (because it's primary focus is Dexterity, and you're doing something fancy). Based on my example, rolling an Attack Roll wouldn't make sense; because you're not attacking looking to attack the person (yet). You're just firing some close shots to them, to give the impression of intimidation.
Putting aside how Athletics is a strength roll anyways, consider a more skill based system. In D&D, to actually attack with a bow you make an Attack Roll. It's effectively the same as a tool proficiency in the weapon. In a more skill based game, the equivalent would be an Archery skill, and D&D's quirk is in how everyone that has an Archery skill also has a comparable melee skill in a fair few weapons.

Now looking at that hypothetical - would the shots to demonstrate danger be Archery or Athletics. Clearly it's Archery, and that Archery is represented by being merged in with general weapon skills and put in a section other than skills in D&D doesn't matter.

You're also treating the world like a game, and not a world of consequences. An adventurer is not a professional killer. He's an amazingly competent crazy hobo. More the sort to be kept on an arm's length than feared.
This is extremely setting dependent - in setting, with game mechanics completely ignored, an adventurer is fairly routinely someone who gets in life or death fights on an extremely regular business and wins. These fights are not infrequently caused by the adventurers choosing to do something in exchange for payment, and even if they aren't they still tend to profit from them and use that as their primary profession. That sounds like a professional killer to me.

SharkForce

2016-12-11, 07:58 PM

again, samurai, you are misunderstanding what the intimidation skill is in D&D terms.

it is NOT the ability to be scary. it is the ability to get someone to do what you want by being scary. a big strong guy can be scary, no problem. there is no "be scary" check required. if you have the muscles, or the equipment, or the reputation, or literally anything that enables you to cause bad things to happen to someone else, or even just something that implies that you can, you can use that to justify your ability to make an intimidation check.

but the intimidation check isn't about being scary. it's about being scary in precisely the right amount and in the right way to get someone to respond in exactly the way you want. for very simple things, especially things that people will tend to want to do when they're scared anyways, you probably won't even need an intimidation check.

but in order for that to last beyond the time where you have them physically within your reach, you are going to need to get in their head. it isn't enough that you are threatening to smash their face into the wall right now, they need to feel like if they don't keep their end of the agreement that you are going to be able to track them down and smash their face into the wall (probably harder, because you'll be more angry) later. you can totally threaten a magistrate with violence if he doesn't give you what you want. if you roll well, he might even cave. but if you don't get inside his head, it is entirely possible that he's thinking that he can get away with, say, giving you inaccurate but believable information, or giving you some paperwork that is missing some important part. and once you're no longer physically present, if you didn't get inside his head, so that he is *still* worried about the possibility of you somehow tracking him down and making him pay, you can expect any appearance of cooperation to be gone.

and that's why intimidation is charisma-based. it isn't about making someone afraid of you right now. it is about making someone afraid of you in a lasting way. it isn't a "scariness check". it is a "get in their head" check. and getting in their head (unless we're talking in a literal sense) is what charisma is all about. most importantly, it is about getting the correct response, rather than just an instinctive "fight or flight" response, which is unlikely to result in a terribly useful reaction.

Squeeq

2016-12-11, 11:15 PM

I'm reading this thread and I'm not quite sure what the actual debate or argument is about, since everybody seems to be talking past each other.

Is it "intimidate should be based on Strength by default, not on Charisma"? That's blatantly false - all physical skill checks are based on your physical ability to coordinate or act on things. Having charisma default to strength means that you are forced to use or demonstrate physical power in order to intimidate someone, which is preposterous.

Is the argument "Strength should be allowed as a substitute for Charisma in certain circumstances"? If so, absolutely, there's a variant rule towards it; both the PHB and DMG reference it and other substitutions, such as constitution (athletics) for long-distance swimming, as possibilities. There's a chance a DM may play without that variant rule, and there's plenty of reasons why not (simplicity of game, avoiding players who try to game the system, etc).

Is there something more I'm missing? I'm just seeing repeated examples of diferent flavors of intimidation being described back and forth.

pwykersotz

2016-12-11, 11:36 PM

Tanarii

2016-12-11, 11:54 PM

You're not missing much as far as I can tell. The OP has been more or lest left alone at this point, no one here thinks strength should be the default. Now it's questioning the legitimacy of the variant.

I can never tell with the many-page-threads if the OPs are intentionally trolling, or those of us who are naturally argumentative and get overly-invested in our positions just spin them totally out of control.

Probably both. :smallamused:

RickAllison

2016-12-12, 12:58 AM

You're not missing much as far as I can tell. The OP has been more or lest left alone at this point, no one here thinks strength should be the default. Now it's questioning the legitimacy of the variant.

It's not even whether the variant is legitimate that is really under debate (some have said they feel it makes Charisma even more of a dump stat, but they have really just said their piece and moved on because there isn't much to debate since that is a DM-specific debate), but when it is legitimate. Some think it always applicable (Dr. Samurai appears representative of that idea), while others (myself and, pardon me if I'm misremembering, Tanarii included) think it applicable as an exception rather than the rule. It is whether a Charisma-dumping Barbarian can reliably Intimidate people into doing what he wants through his muscles or he is penalized for not understanding how others work because he decided his ability points were better spent elsewhere.

Regitnui

2016-12-12, 01:52 AM

This is extremely setting dependent - in setting, with game mechanics completely ignored, an adventurer is fairly routinely someone who gets in life or death fights on an extremely regular business and wins. These fights are not infrequently caused by the adventurers choosing to do something in exchange for payment, and even if they aren't they still tend to profit from them and use that as their primary profession. That sounds like a professional killer to me.

With game mechanics completely ignored, the adventurer is someone who shows up at your village, gets sent off to clear up a local problem (bandits, goblins, undead), gets paid for it and disappears. Hypercompetent hobo. Yes, they survive fights to the death on a regular basis, but that's part of being hypercompetent. A professional killer kills people for money. An adventurer is a grizzled thug (yes, even the wizards) with a talent for what they do and an insatiable bloodlust.

Honestly, place yourself as the questgiver NPC to your player character. If your character acted anything like players at the table, they're suffering from who knows how many personality disorders in game. I know I'd want to keep my players at arm's reach if they were suddenly transformed into their characters and behaved the same way.

djreynolds

2016-12-12, 01:55 AM

Is threatening in the moment the same as intimidation? Is it the same thing?

Also, there is the chance of failure with or without a higher modifier. 5E is notoriously swingy.

Experts fail all the time. Someone not proficient can still roll a 20 or 19 and beat the DC, of 18 even with a negative modifier.

The standard array will force a player to have a lower stat in something, so at creation, you have to ask yourself what abilities are more important to your character's success.

And it is difficult to ask a barbarian to buff up, in this instance, Charisma for the sake of a few social interactions and a paltry save modifier.

My suggestion to most skill problems, the easiest solution is to take a level of rogue, and a for barbarian, who may never get to 20th level anyhow, this isn't a bad option.

Now a Frenzied berserker's intimidating presence is like a spell where it is 8 + pro+ charisma... so there is a decent chance of success. I'm unsure if this would be effected by expertise anyhow.

Tanarii

2016-12-12, 08:26 AM

It's not even whether the variant is legitimate that is really under debate (some have said they feel it makes Charisma even more of a dump stat, but they have really just said their piece and moved on because there isn't much to debate since that is a DM-specific debate), but when it is legitimate. Some think it always applicable (Dr. Samurai appears representative of that idea), while others (myself and, pardon me if I'm misremembering, Tanarii included) think it applicable as an exception rather than the rule. It is whether a Charisma-dumping Barbarian can reliably Intimidate people into doing what he wants through his muscles or he is penalized for not understanding how others work because he decided his ability points were better spent elsewhere.
My opinion on how it should work as a D&D arm-chair theoretician, based on what the stats say they mean is one thing. And how I run Intimidate during a game is a totally different thing.

It's a variant I use frequently. Any character can use Strength (Intimidate) providing the person they are trying to intimidate is less physically imposing than the PC, and the PC is somehow using their bulk to be threatening. That includes something simple like looming. That also means you cannot intimidate someone quite a lot larger than you are, which makes it harder for Small races to do. OTOH depending on what you're trying to accomplish, it may not require language. For example Str (Intimidate) can be used to get a creature to back down without talking.

Then if a check for success is needed, I set a DC based on how likely that target is to be physically cowed. That might be a very different DC from how likely they are to be emotionally cowed via a Charisma (Intimidate) check. Which, or course, might be different from a Persuade check DC. And of course, some creatures you might only be able to intimidate, like a wolf or guard dog. Although generally speaking I use the DMG DCs based on starting attitude and what the PC wants to happen, so there isn't that much variance.

Usually the outcome is similar (target does what you want right now), but sometimes possible outcomes are restricted by what kind of check you want to make. But consequences are where there's usually the biggest difference. A creature you've physically cowed will treat you differently from someone you've emotionally cowed, and will also react differently in the long term.

JackPhoenix

2016-12-12, 03:18 PM

Here's a level 10 rogue, a brawny enforcer for the guild. He's got Expertise in Intimidation, but an 8 charisma. He has 20 dexterity and 17 strength let's say. Currently his bonus to Intimidation is +7, which is good. He makes a Medium DC 65% of the time, and can make a Hard DC 40% of the time. Here's the exchange:

Rogue: I'm going to force the councilor back down into his seat hard enough that it's jarring, giving him an impression of exactly how strong I am. I want to Intimidate him to get him to comply and not try to leave again and have us removed until the cleric is finished speaking. Can I use my strength score in place of charisma?

DM: No. No matter how strong you are, you can't intimidate someone without charisma.

Rogue: Well, I'm already not charismatic and have been intimidating people in the game.

DM: Yeah, but a charismatic person would be even more intimidating than you.

Rogue: Ok but that's not the point I'm making. I'm just wondering if, since I'm using a show of force, can I use strength?

DM: Charisma governs all social interactions. Without charisma, you can't intimidate.

Rogue: I literally have worse than a 0 charisma modifier. I have a -1 charisma modifier, and I have been making DCs just fine.

DM: You can grab him by the arms in an iron vice grip, sit him down hard enough that it rattles his teeth, and loom over him between him and the door with your impressive size, but he just won't consider you a credible threat unless you're charismatic about this Intimidation check.

Rogue: So should I even bother trying? My character isn't charismatic, mechanically or thematically.

DM: No no, of course you should try. Go ahead and roll.

Rogue: *rolls*

DM: Success! You grab him in a vice-like grip, set him back down on the bench hard enough that he's stunned, and impose yourself between him and the door. He seems cowed, barely able to make eye contact with you, and looks down at his lap as he rubs the fresh bruises on his arms.

Rogue: *confused*

The DM in the example doesn't know what charisma means in game terms, just like you. Neither does the player, I wonder why? If they did, the exchange wouldn't happened.

So the rogue doesn't have natural talent for interacting with people. Perhaps, while big, he's just plain looking. Perhaps he looks unsure, or just naturaly assumes slouched posture, doesn't sound convincing or have trouble getting his ideas across, or some other explaination for low Charisma score. But he worked hard to train himself to overcome his natural weakness to be more intimidating. Good for him! He's, however, worse than someone who trained just as hard, but does have natural talent for it (or better Cha, in game terms)... whether the talent manifests itself in more confident look, more impressive physique or just overall impression of being a dangerous sociopath.

Now, back to the councilor. He's presumably some weak paper-pusher to be intimidatedd by bullying. Would the Str score of the bully matter? Not really. He may be able to tell if one bully is stronger than the other, but there's not much of a difference between Str 16 and Str 20 one. 16 is in reach of normal human, 20 is exceptional characters... the later is stronger, hits harder and is a better at feats of strength...he's capable of doing things the former can't ever achieve (reaching DC 25, even if only with 5% chance). But even if the more "charismatic" bully's Str was only 14, because he invested the points into Charisma, he can easily beat the councilor up, it doesn't matter how exactly strong he is.

Charisma, however? Both bullies can beat the councilor up. But if one of them looks less comfortable with the situation or doesn't sound serious, it's easier for the councilor to assume that the intimidation is just posturing. He may or may not be right, and the difference in success rate between the bullies isn't big, only about 10-15%, assuming Cha 8 vs 12-14. They are both using their strength and size as a tool to to convince the councilor they are a threat, but the exact amount of strength doesn't matter... again, it's just a tool, and different tool like crossbow aimed at the councilor's face or dagger pressed to his (or his family member's) neck would serve just as well. What matters if they look convincing enough to make it clear they are serious, which is a domain of Charisma, not Strength.

But when I make my case people literally say that no amount of strength being displayed will cow someone without charisma.

They are right. Without Charisma score, you aren't a creature, but an object (not Animated Object, just an object), and so can't intimidate anyone. See? I, too, can misinterpret what people are saying.

Let "Intimidation" handle the "interaction" part and let that interaction be informed by size and strength (strength score). Big deal. "Oh no no, but he's interacting with people!" Yeah, that's why he's rolling an Intimidation check. But he's using a show of force, so he's doing it through Strength.

Force itself is Strength. But making show of it isn't. I'll explain this better at the end of the post. Also, size has nothing to do with Strength.

Reputation, institutional power, proclivities, the mysteries of the arcane, doubt, etc. are not the purview of charisma.

And I don't think anyone said they are. And neither is interacting with people in the purview of Strength.

He doesn't have it by D&D standards either. It makes more sense to say his Intimidation is based on his size, strength, and reputation than to suggest that he is better at diplomacy and bluffing than other people because he is also Intimidating and by virtue of being Intimidating he *must* have a high charisma.

No, by virtue of being Intimidating, he must have good Intimidate skill modifier. That can be achieved through some combination of natural ability (i.E. Charisma), training (i.E. proficiency and/or expertise) or some other means. Now, the Mountain seems naturally intimidating even without trying. Yes, it's partially thanks to his size, but size isn't in any way dependant on Strength (or vice versa), but also through giving everyone around him the (true) impression of being a dangerous, crazy psychopath, unlike other big and strong people like Hodor or Brienne of Tarth.

*You* are saying he has a natural talent for it. I don't agree. Hodor is an idiot and probably takes penalties to social interactions in general.

Which is represented by, guess what? Right, Cha penalty. It's as if I knew what I was talking about, isn't it? But if you don't like Hodor, what about Brienne of Tarth? She's bigger and stronger than many male characters despite being a woman, but nobody takes her seriously. Plus she's (supposed to be) ugly as sin and not interested in talking with others... textbook example of low-Cha character.

What I'm telling you is that if a village is being raided by an evil force and they are rounding people up to cart them away, and an ogre, let's say, smashes his club down and orders a woman to pick up her child and join the line to the slave wagon, you are being preposterous to say that his size and strength are not enough to Intimidate her and it would be some threatening glance or some compelling words that would get her to comply.

Problem with that example is that smaller, weaker ogre would be just as intimidating in this case. Or even a bunch of goblins with pointy sticks. It's not the strength or size what scares her, but a dangerous monster that can kill her.

What you are saying is that when Fezzik yells "Everybody move!!" the people clear out because his shout was particularly compelling and he has a high charisma. You're saying that the people are not swayed by his size and strength. You're saying as well that the two rakish and charismatic swashbucklers beside him could have done a better job than he at intimidating everyone to clear out.

You seem to think that being big and strong and having good Cha score is mutually exclusive. Strength doesn't describe how big your character is... that's just fluff. In game terms, big ogre and halfling can both have Str 20 (standard ogre has Str 19, so the halfling can be even stronger... without using magic). Or compare spindly, thin limbs of bone or ice devils to ogre... they are about the same size, bone devil is weaker than ogre, though they have the same modifier, while ice devil is stronger. Also, both have much better charisma without being what you would call charismatic in real life. Or troll compared to ogre, before you start arguing about the devils being supernatural.

Or for real life examples, compare bodybuilders and weigthlifters. The former generally look much more impressive, because they focus on how their muscles look, while the later are actually stronger, because they care more about the "function" than the form. Now, I wouldn't want to be punched by either of them, and while the weightlifter may in fact be stronger, I don't think I would be able to tell a difference if they both hit me, but the bodybuilder *looks* stronger because their muscles are more defined. In game terms, weightlifter cares only about pure Strength, anything else is a happy bonus, but not important. Bodybuilders invest some points from Str into Charisma, because while the strength is important, the look is what matters in their competitions.

Charisma isn't just looks, but it plays a role. Obviously, look is just fluff and up to the player, but if you want to take mechanical benefits from it, you should respect the stats. With high Str and low Cha, the character may be big... but also overweight, ugly or just plain or something that makes him overall less impressive and rememberable. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't just big and muscular, but he does have charisma and presence around him that makes him as popular as he is.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-12, 03:33 PM

again, samurai, you are misunderstanding what the intimidation skill is in D&D terms.
I appreciate that you think that, but I really don't believe that I am.

it is NOT the ability to be scary. it is the ability to get someone to do what you want by being scary.
Yes, and I am asserting that a big strong guy can get someone to do what he wants by being scary. That by virtue of being bigger and stronger (and likely armed and armored) he can be scary to people.

Like... there is more than one way to scare people and intimidate them. I'm positing that being bigger and stronger is one of those ways.

a big strong guy can be scary, no problem. there is no "be scary" check required. if you have the muscles, or the equipment, or the reputation, or literally anything that enables you to cause bad things to happen to someone else, or even just something that implies that you can, you can use that to justify your ability to make an intimidation check.

but the intimidation check isn't about being scary. it's about being scary in precisely the right amount and in the right way to get someone to respond in exactly the way you want. for very simple things, especially things that people will tend to want to do when they're scared anyways, you probably won't even need an intimidation check.
I don't agree. I don't know why you guys are vaulting this simple interaction into something so much more complex and involved. I really think you guys are overthinking this.

Nothing that you have said here can't be accomplished by a big strong brute trained to Intimidate people. Nothing here requires a social butterfly. Again, look to Fezzik in the Princess Bride when he shouts "Everybody move!" and gets a crowd to clear out of the way. You'll argue that 1: it was his special words said in just the right way that did it, and his overwhelming presence and confidence, not his size and strength OR 2: it wasn't even an Intimidate check because of course everyone is already afraid of him and will just do it without question OR 3: the crowd would have listened to the little skinny fencers beside him much more readily because they are charismatic.

I love the extreme. People just naturally fear the strong guy so no check is required, but if he tries to capitalize on that and actually makes a check it fails. That doesn't make sense.

but in order for that to last beyond the time where you have them physically within your reach, you are going to need to get in their head. it isn't enough that you are threatening to smash their face into the wall right now, they need to feel like if they don't keep their end of the agreement that you are going to be able to track them down and smash their face into the wall (probably harder, because you'll be more angry) later. you can totally threaten a magistrate with violence if he doesn't give you what you want. if you roll well, he might even cave. but if you don't get inside his head, it is entirely possible that he's thinking that he can get away with, say, giving you inaccurate but believable information, or giving you some paperwork that is missing some important part. and once you're no longer physically present, if you didn't get inside his head, so that he is *still* worried about the possibility of you somehow tracking him down and making him pay, you can expect any appearance of cooperation to be gone.
It CAN be this. It is not always this. Or even most of the time is it this. This is a scenario you have constructed to explain why sometimes strength will not be enough. I can easily grant you this. But if we look to the actual text in the PHB we get: "Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision."

I don't need to get "inside his head" to pry information out of a prisoner if I'm prying his fingers apart. I don't need to follow the vizier around with the broken bottle for the rest of his life to succeed on that one Intimidation check in that one moment. If you're trying to Intimidate someone into doing something super involved that takes hours or days? Then yeah, you'll need to be around I suppose. But then again, I don't see a death glare from the tired badass Halfling that's been abused in this thread holding someone in fear for the rest of his life either. Your charisma-based threat is also just momentary. It's communicating your threat in that moment, "do as I am telling you right now or risk my ire". The charisma guy doesn't turn people for life just because he's charismatic.

and that's why intimidation is charisma-based. it isn't about making someone afraid of you right now. it is about making someone afraid of you in a lasting way.
Not true. In fact, in 3rd edition the cha-based Intimidation wore off and then the guy was unfriendly or hostile.

it isn't a "scariness check". it is a "get in their head" check.
Again, not true. Read the skill. It's a "pry information out of a prisoner through hostile action and physical violence" check. It's right there. You want to convince someone with words? Use Persuasion. You want to trick them into doing your bidding? Use Deception. You want to bend *open* the bars of a jail cell and threaten to come in so that the prisoner inside loosens his tongue a bit? Use Intimidation.

If you grant that scaring someone with physical power can "get in their head" then I accept that it's a "get in their head" check.

and getting in their head (unless we're talking in a literal sense) is what charisma is all about. most importantly, it is about getting the correct response, rather than just an instinctive "fight or flight" response, which is unlikely to result in a terribly useful reaction.
The response is "I will do what he asks so he doesn't hurt me", which is useful in most cases. Again, in most cases the charisma guy is threatening violence and harm. This can be communicated to someone through show of force, and may even be better communicated in that way by someone much bigger and stronger. Referring back to 3rd edition again, you received a +4 bonus for every size category larger you were than your target, or -4 penalty for each size category smaller.

The whole point of Intimidation is to capitalize on the "fight or flight" response. You don't want to fight me on this, and there's only one way to get out of this situation. Do what I'm telling you to do.

Regarding the argument in this thread: I'm not sure how people are parsing the points being made here. I definitely think I'm misunderstanding what people are arguing, because it seems to me they are arguing that people in general are not intimidated by size and strength. Not only do I think this is bonkers, but the posters are insisting they're not arguing that. Yet it only takes another post to make me think otherwise.

Am I arguing that strength should apply all the time? I didn't start that way but... yes? Are you asking if my player playing a barbarian with 20 strength and 8 charisma asked me "Do you think I could use strength for Intimidation?" would I say yes? Yeah, probably. I don't see why, for no other reason than this is how the mechanics work out, strong melee characters that are expected to be intimidating anyways, should not be intimidating without investing in charisma.

It'd probably be an exception for others, depending on circumstance. But for the big bruiser warrior that has incredible strength and a penchant for violence and is trained to Intimidate people? I see no reason not to allow it.

I don't think, however, that I have been arguing it should be used all the time for these types. I was arguing against the notion that crept into this thread that big strong warriors can't be intimidating. That all examples of intimidation are examples of charisma being utilized. That it was lured me here, like a moth to a flame.

BiPolar

2016-12-12, 03:39 PM

The problem as I see it right now is more of why Intimidation is a Charisma based skill. The problem is that the alternative is that you could use any relevant skill to "intimidate" if you decide not to use the standard Charisma (interaction with others) ability. If you can use anything, then it doesn't really need to be on the skills list and it also opens up a slippery slope of asking to do other skill checks with a variety of abilities.

The key here is the when you are intimidating someone, you are interacting with them. And interactions are based on the Charisma. It's that simple.

As I said above, if you let any ability use it, then it's not really a skill if you can always use your best stat (and therefore everyone is good at Intimidation...which is clearly not true.)

And intimidation is a skill in interacting with others. Rather than opening up the check for potential abuse, it makes more sense to have it governed by the ability that is about interaction with others...Charisma.

Mellack

2016-12-12, 03:50 PM

Intimidation does require you to "get in the victims head" as you are not just trying to scare them, but to get a specific behavior out of scaring them. To little and they don't take you seriously. To much and they may run away or blubber. Trying to get out information? They might be too scared to talk becoming catatonic, or just start saying whatever they think will make you happy, regardless of it being true or accurate. That is why being scary is not the same as properly intimidating someone.

Dalebert

2016-12-12, 04:47 PM

Intimidation is a very specific kind of bluff. If you're good at it, you can convince someone you're able and willing to hurt them whether either (willing & able) is actually true. Being good at bluffing and being convincing is (generally) an aspect of charisma. A demonstration of strength as part of the check is a contextual modifier. I'd perhaps give advantage on the roll. They resist with insight to see if you're full of poo.

But if you're ACTUALLY able & willing to hurt them, that's going beyond just intimidating. They might roll high on insight and realize you're not actually bluffing and do what you want out of a basic desire for self-preservation. And if you just start by seriously hurting them, like cutting off a body part, I'd at a minimum give them advantage on the insight or just give it to them as a freeby--"This dude WILL kill me if I don't do what he wants."

There are cases when I think substituting a different skill makes sense. I just think str for cha for intimidation is a silly one. It makes about as much sense as substituting intelligence because you can burn someone up with a firebolt. That's objectively more deadly than what most people can do with their fists or weapons.

Cases where substitution makes sense:
Dex for performance when the performance is juggling.
Int for insight when you're interacting with a non-emotional modron and you're a sage who's studied their behavior.

Stuff like that.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-12, 05:49 PM

The DM in the example doesn't know what charisma means in game terms, just like you. Neither does the player, I wonder why? If they did, the exchange wouldn't happened.
The DM in the example represents you and everyone else in this thread arguing with me. I can literally cut and paste your responses in place of what I put for the DM and it would be virtually identical.

So yeah, I agree with you, you guys don't know what you're talking about.

So the rogue doesn't have natural talent for interacting with people. Perhaps, while big, he's just plain looking. Perhaps he looks unsure, or just naturaly assumes slouched posture, doesn't sound convincing or have trouble getting his ideas across, or some other explaination for low Charisma score. But he worked hard to train himself to overcome his natural weakness to be more intimidating. Good for him! He's, however, worse than someone who trained just as hard, but does have natural talent for it (or better Cha, in game terms)... whether the talent manifests itself in more confident look, more impressive physique or just overall impression of being a dangerous sociopath.
I love that you guys keep explaining back to me what I already know and have been pointing out the whole time.

Now, back to the councilor. He's presumably some weak paper-pusher to be intimidatedd by bullying. Would the Str score of the bully matter? Not really. He may be able to tell if one bully is stronger than the other, but there's not much of a difference between Str 16 and Str 20 one. 16 is in reach of normal human, 20 is exceptional characters... the later is stronger, hits harder and is a better at feats of strength...he's capable of doing things the former can't ever achieve (reaching DC 25, even if only with 5% chance). But even if the more "charismatic" bully's Str was only 14, because he invested the points into Charisma, he can easily beat the councilor up, it doesn't matter how exactly strong he is.
Yes, the strength score matters. Because the councilor likely has some clout. He's a man with a position. He's likely not used to being pushed around. An average person trying to strongarm him might not impress him.

Charisma, however? Both bullies can beat the councilor up. But if one of them looks less comfortable with the situation or doesn't sound serious, it's easier for the councilor to assume that the intimidation is just posturing. He may or may not be right, and the difference in success rate between the bullies isn't big, only about 10-15%, assuming Cha 8 vs 12-14. They are both using their strength and size as a tool to to convince the councilor they are a threat, but the exact amount of strength doesn't matter... again, it's just a tool, and different tool like crossbow aimed at the councilor's face or dagger pressed to his (or his family member's) neck would serve just as well. What matters if they look convincing enough to make it clear they are serious, which is a domain of Charisma, not Strength.
My point is that the guy that you're saying looks less comfortable or doesn't sound serious or convincing still won on his Intimidate check. So how did he do it if he wasn't convincing?? How did he do it if he wasn't comfortable doing it? Or if the councilor isn't taking him seriously?

The point is that the guy can be taken seriously, he can be convincing even without being charismatic.

So when I say "let them use strength" and you respond with "but then he won't be convincing!" you are just wrong.

They are right. Without Charisma score, you aren't a creature, but an object (not Animated Object, just an object), and so can't intimidate anyone. See? I, too, can misinterpret what people are saying.
What have I misinterpreted? I've mentioned that I must be confused or not getting my point across succinctly because it seems we're talking beyond each other. I guess you think snark will clear everything up lol.

Force itself is Strength. But making show of it isn't. I'll explain this better at the end of the post.
Making a show of it to get them to do something for you is Intimidation. Which can use Strength, like the variant rule explains.

You are saying "Charisma governs social interactions, and Intimidation is a social interaction. Therefore it must use charisma."

And I'm starting with Intimidation first, instead of Charisma. I'm saying "Intimidation is trying to cow someone into doing what you want. As a social interaction it typically makes use of your charisma modifier. But someone can also use their strength to intimidate someone as well."

You are stuck on the fact that charisma is THE stat for social interaction and come across like it's sacred to you, and I couldn't care less enough to let someone use a different stat that makes sense in real life, is a trope, and works for their character.

Also, size has nothing to do with Strength.
Yeah I know. I'm using big strong warriors in my example. My fighters and barbarians are typically big. I'm telling you that there is no reason to not let a tall muscular warrior use Strength for Intimidate because in real life and as a fantasy trope people are naturally intimidated by large strong men.

And I don't think anyone said they are.
I believe you that you think that. The irony is that I'm the one accused of not paying attention lol.

And neither is interacting with people in the purview of Strength.
Right. The size and strength of a bully has no direct bearing on whether he can walk around and make life a living hell for the small geeky types. It's all about confidence and charisma (nevermind that bullies typically lack confidence and are generally despised lol). We've never heard someone lamenting about the fact that the bully is just too big or strong for the protagonist to stand up to lol. "Hey, why don't you just stand up to the big dumb jock?" "Oh I'm not sure. But I definitely know it has nothing to do with the fact that he would grind me into powder if I did and I'm **intimidated by him**."

Differences in size and strength have never influenced social interactions ever in the history of mankind. I can't roll my eyes hard enough.

I know what you're going to say. I'm conflating real life strength with D&D strength. To which I can only respond that you are clinging to the text much more strongly than I ever would. Where does that leave us for the purposes of this conversation? I don't know.

No, by virtue of being Intimidating, he must have good Intimidate skill modifier. That can be achieved through some combination of natural ability (i.E. Charisma), training (i.E. proficiency and/or expertise) or some other means.
You say that, but then you're going to argue that he has a good charisma modifier.

So which is it? Is he charismatic by virtue of having a high Intimidation modifier or no? I say no.

Now, the Mountain seems naturally intimidating even without trying. Yes, it's partially thanks to his size, but size isn't in any way dependant on Strength (or vice versa), but also through giving everyone around him the (true) impression of being a dangerous, crazy psychopath, unlike other big and strong people like Hodor or Brienne of Tarth.
The Mountain has a *reputation* for being a dangerous crazy psychopath. There are rumors about him killing his servants. He is protected by the state. This is not someone you want to cross paths with and it has nothing to do with his charisma.

Hodor has a reputation for being a dumb gentle giant and also not trained in Intimidation. I would argue that Brienne is also not trained in Intimidation and probably takes a penalty for being a woman. The Mountain is not walking around giving people glances that say "I'm a crazy psychopath".

Which is represented by, guess what? Right, Cha penalty. It's as if I knew what I was talking about, isn't it?
No, actually. I don't know what damage the incident did to his mind. His charisma score could be in tact, and he might just take penalties to certain checks. That's certainly been the case in other editions. Like Brienne might not have a penalty to Charisma, but she may have a penalty to Intimidation because she's a woman.

But if you don't like Hodor, what about Brienne of Tarth? She's bigger and stronger than many male characters despite being a woman, but nobody takes her seriously. Plus she's (supposed to be) ugly as sin and not interested in talking with others... textbook example of low-Cha character.
I really don't know what point you are trying to make. So because you think Brienne is low charisma and not Intimidating, the Mountain is therefore high charisma and Intimidating?

Again, I think the Mountain is Intimidating without needing a high charisma, and I accused you of thinking he must have a high charisma because he is Intimidating. You denied that. But... I may be missing your point because it looks to me like you're explaining that the Mountain has a "presence" (read: charisma) and that Hodor and Brienne are not Intimidating because they lack charisma.

So you're still arguing that the Mountain has a high charisma right? That's the contrast you're making here?

Problem with that example is that smaller, weaker ogre would be just as intimidating in this case. Or even a bunch of goblins with pointy sticks. It's not the strength or size what scares her, but a dangerous monster that can kill her.
I love how it's a "bunch" of goblins with pointy sticks. Because she might be compelled to overpower a single goblin. But a bunch of goblins would physically overwhelm her, which is the entire fricking point. I don't care if it's a smaller ogre than the first one. If it is larger and stronger than her, she might find that Intimidating. How is a hulking barbarian not a dangerous person that can kill someone? Why do you all draw these super fine lines between everything? So a dangerous man that can kill you is not scary, but a dangerous monster that can kill you is?

You seem to think that being big and strong and having good Cha score is mutually exclusive.
No, I just think there are examples of big strong intimidating characters that are not charismatic, and I think they fly directly in the face of the points you and others are trying to make. And to avoid conceding the point, you are forced to argue that Fezzik and the Mountain are high charisma characters lol.

Strength doesn't describe how big your character is... that's just fluff. In game terms, big ogre and halfling can both have Str 20 (standard ogre has Str 19, so the halfling can be even stronger... without using magic). Or compare spindly, thin limbs of bone or ice devils to ogre... they are about the same size, bone devil is weaker than ogre, though they have the same modifier, while ice devil is stronger. Also, both have much better charisma without being what you would call charismatic in real life. Or troll compared to ogre, before you start arguing about the devils being supernatural.
But *my* barbarian is big. He's over 7ft tall. He's massive, with huge muscles. He's got 20 strength. Yeah, his size, what you call "fluff", exists in the game world. He towers over people. If he stands in front of you, you don't know what's happening behind him because his frame is that wide.

I'm talking about these types of characters. Big strong warriors in D&D that should be intimidating if people want to play them that way, but aren't if they don't put points in charisma.

I see it similar to Str/Dex and weapon attacks. If you say that strength determines your weapon attack, then all melee characters will have to be strong. Without strength, you won't be a good melee warrior. So they added the Finesse feature (in various ways across editions) to make room for the dexterous warrior trope. Now there is more than one way to be a melee warrior. You could be the strong type, or the agile type.

For me, it's the same with Intimidation. There's the charismatic way to do it, and there's the brute force way to do it.

SharkForce

2016-12-12, 06:08 PM

I appreciate that you think that, but I really don't believe that I am.

Yes, and I am asserting that a big strong guy can get someone to do what he wants by being scary. That by virtue of being bigger and stronger (and likely armed and armored) he can be scary to people.

Like... there is more than one way to scare people and intimidate them. I'm positing that being bigger and stronger is one of those ways.

I don't agree. I don't know why you guys are vaulting this simple interaction into something so much more complex and involved. I really think you guys are overthinking this.

Nothing that you have said here can't be accomplished by a big strong brute trained to Intimidate people. Nothing here requires a social butterfly. Again, look to Fezzik in the Princess Bride when he shouts "Everybody move!" and gets a crowd to clear out of the way. You'll argue that 1: it was his special words said in just the right way that did it, and his overwhelming presence and confidence, not his size and strength OR 2: it wasn't even an Intimidate check because of course everyone is already afraid of him and will just do it without question OR 3: the crowd would have listened to the little skinny fencers beside him much more readily because they are charismatic.

I love the extreme. People just naturally fear the strong guy so no check is required, but if he tries to capitalize on that and actually makes a check it fails. That doesn't make sense.

It CAN be this. It is not always this. Or even most of the time is it this. This is a scenario you have constructed to explain why sometimes strength will not be enough. I can easily grant you this. But if we look to the actual text in the PHB we get: "Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision."

I don't need to get "inside his head" to pry information out of a prisoner if I'm prying his fingers apart. I don't need to follow the vizier around with the broken bottle for the rest of his life to succeed on that one Intimidation check in that one moment. If you're trying to Intimidate someone into doing something super involved that takes hours or days? Then yeah, you'll need to be around I suppose. But then again, I don't see a death glare from the tired badass Halfling that's been abused in this thread holding someone in fear for the rest of his life either. Your charisma-based threat is also just momentary. It's communicating your threat in that moment, "do as I am telling you right now or risk my ire". The charisma guy doesn't turn people for life just because he's charismatic.

Not true. In fact, in 3rd edition the cha-based Intimidation wore off and then the guy was unfriendly or hostile.

Again, not true. Read the skill. It's a "pry information out of a prisoner through hostile action and physical violence" check. It's right there. You want to convince someone with words? Use Persuasion. You want to trick them into doing your bidding? Use Deception. You want to bend *open* the bars of a jail cell and threaten to come in so that the prisoner inside loosens his tongue a bit? Use Intimidation.

If you grant that scaring someone with physical power can "get in their head" then I accept that it's a "get in their head" check.

The response is "I will do what he asks so he doesn't hurt me", which is useful in most cases. Again, in most cases the charisma guy is threatening violence and harm. This can be communicated to someone through show of force, and may even be better communicated in that way by someone much bigger and stronger. Referring back to 3rd edition again, you received a +4 bonus for every size category larger you were than your target, or -4 penalty for each size category smaller.

The whole point of Intimidation is to capitalize on the "fight or flight" response. You don't want to fight me on this, and there's only one way to get out of this situation. Do what I'm telling you to do.

Regarding the argument in this thread: I'm not sure how people are parsing the points being made here. I definitely think I'm misunderstanding what people are arguing, because it seems to me they are arguing that people in general are not intimidated by size and strength. Not only do I think this is bonkers, but the posters are insisting they're not arguing that. Yet it only takes another post to make me think otherwise.

Am I arguing that strength should apply all the time? I didn't start that way but... yes? Are you asking if my player playing a barbarian with 20 strength and 8 charisma asked me "Do you think I could use strength for Intimidation?" would I say yes? Yeah, probably. I don't see why, for no other reason than this is how the mechanics work out, strong melee characters that are expected to be intimidating anyways, should not be intimidating without investing in charisma.

It'd probably be an exception for others, depending on circumstance. But for the big bruiser warrior that has incredible strength and a penchant for violence and is trained to Intimidate people? I see no reason not to allow it.

I don't think, however, that I have been arguing it should be used all the time for these types. I was arguing against the notion that crept into this thread that big strong warriors can't be intimidating. That all examples of intimidation are examples of charisma being utilized. That it was lured me here, like a moth to a flame.

being scary is not an intimidate check. a dragon doesn't need to make an intimidate check to be scary, and neither does a heavily armed lunatic who fights dragons for a living, generally speaking.

and you can absolutely get some things done purely by virtue of being scary. just, you're only going to get appropriate responses to the stimulus of being afraid (for example, getting out of your way, or doing whatever it takes to get the person to leave... including telling a lie that makes them leave sooner, or appearing to cooperate while actually giving you the wrong thing, etc).

you can certainly get information out of someone by being scary. but if you don't do a decent intimidate check, it will probably be whatever information (whether true or false) that they think will get you to leave. and your strength doesn't matter for that check; it doesn't matter whether you're threatening to break their legs with a 14 strength or a 10 strength or a 20 strength, all that matters is that you can do it in some way or another. you don't even have to use your own muscles to do it. what matters is your ability to persuade the person that not doing what you want is going to lead to bad results.

so when I read: "Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision."...

well, sure. and in none of those cases are your muscles more important than any other form of threat. now, if you can just be scary enough, you might get street thugs to back off, because running away is a pretty probable response to being scared. I would certainly take your strength into consideration as to whether people consider you scary, just as I would any number of other factors; your reputation, what they have personally seen you do (if they know that scrawny guy standing next to you can throw a fireball and they saw that 3 foot tall Halfling behind the rest of the team personally put an arrow into a deer's eye at 100 yards, they will be just as intimidated unless they have some specific reason to assume that those things are no longer possible), and a number of other factors, among them, physical size and strength. certainly, being a strong person is typically more visible than being a person who can throw a fireball, so you've got that on your side if "being visibly scary" is your goal.

again, it isn't about just making them scared. a scared prisoner might give you inaccurate information. a scared street thug might decide he needs to come back with more friends and attack from ambush. a scared vizier might run away and shout for the guards.

an intimidated prisoner will give you information as accurate as possible, because you're in their head; they believe you can tell when they're lying, and they're afraid of what will happen if they do lie. an intimidated street thug will back off and will avoid future conflict unless given no choice (or perhaps with truly overwhelming odds) because you're in their head, and he's convinced that if he starts something with you, it won't end well. an intimidated vizier will not run away and call for guards because you're in their head, and they are convinced that running and calling for guards won't do anything to protect them from you.

when you're scary, they just want to make you go away. when you're intimidating, they want to make you happy.

Tanarii

2016-12-12, 06:19 PM

But *my* barbarian is big. He's over 7ft tall. He's massive, with huge muscles. He's got 20 strength. Yeah, his size, what you call "fluff", exists in the game world. He towers over people. If he stands in front of you, you don't know what's happening behind him because his frame is that wide.

I'm talking about these types of characters. Big strong warriors in D&D that should be intimidating if people want to play them that way, but aren't if they don't put points in charisma.What's that got to do with the price of milk? His Str has nothing to do with his size, so it's not appropriate to call for a Str check. Why do you get to use Str when your level 1 big strong barbarian has a lower Str score than a Str 20 Halfling?

You're consistently conflating Str and threatening size/bulk.

It's players like you that force me, and the devs, to break the logic of the D&D Ability scores and what they mean and allow (with caveats) Strength (Intimidate) checks as a variant roll. I do it anyway because the damn game is supposed to be fun, but that doesn't make your view internally consistent in any way.

djreynolds

2016-12-13, 12:49 AM

Charisma is your basic innate ability, you as a person and it can improve

Proficiency is the experience you have received in game, and you can always take the skilled feat

Expertise, I call it extensive training in a particular skill

Now improving charisma improves 4 skills, spell DC and saves

Gaining levels improves your proficiency bonus in any skills you have proficiency in

So in this case the rogue is very good at intimidation but perhaps is bad at deception or performance. Maybe, I don't know if you can "apprentice" under a criminal enforcer who mentors you... but you have had extensive training in skills you already have proficiency in.

A rogue has a particular skill set, a criminal one, and intimidation is one of those skills. A barbarian from an early age has to be able to hold his own, hence he can select proficiency in this skill.

Same as the fighter guarding the gate, "Everyone get in line." yes he can intimidate the crowd, but can he persuade the cleric or deceive the paladin... maybe not. Is the fighter inherently charismatic, probably not, but he has experience in intimidating others. Full plate is intimidating.

But the reality is, the difference between a barbarian's intimidation modifier and the paladin's intimidation modifier is maybe 6, 6 that's it. And if the paladin didn't take this skill than they are equal, assuming the paladin has a 20 and the barb dumped his charisma.

So that is really the only difference, 6 little points... still have to roll a 20 and we all know it can go either way.

Knaight

2016-12-13, 01:39 AM

What's that got to do with the price of milk? His Str has nothing to do with his size, so it's not appropriate to call for a Str check. Why do you get to use Str when your level 1 big strong barbarian has a lower Str score than a Str 20 Halfling?

You're consistently conflating Str and threatening size/bulk.

It's players like you that force me, and the devs, to break the logic of the D&D Ability scores and what they mean and allow (with caveats) Strength (Intimidate) checks as a variant roll. I do it anyway because the damn game is supposed to be fun, but that doesn't make your view internally consistent in any way.

This is also an example of something like a trait or aspect system being helpful. There are lots of strong characters, not all of them are battle scarred 7' barbarians. A strength check is thus pretty iffy. On the other hand if there's something like an aspect or trait which lets you demonstrate that you're a hulking barbarian, invoking that for a bonus to intimidate is just fine.

djreynolds

2016-12-13, 02:13 AM

This is also an example of something like a trait or aspect system being helpful. There are lots of strong characters, not all of them are battle scarred 7' barbarians. A strength check is thus pretty iffy. On the other hand if there's something like an aspect or trait which lets you demonstrate that you're a hulking barbarian, invoking that for a bonus to intimidate is just fine.

But isn't he getting proficiency increase in the intimidation skill?

This shows that the barbarian progressively gets better in this skill.

I'm sure an assassin/paladin of vengeance is more intimidating than any barbarian out there... except for the one who might be a Skald, a dash of bard and 20 in charisma and expertise in intimidation.

I can see this argument from both sides, my compromise is the averaging of both strength and charisma modifiers... you may be strong but you do not know how to flaunt it. You may lack style

Knaight

2016-12-13, 02:27 AM

But isn't he getting proficiency increase in the intimidation skill?

This shows that the barbarian progressively gets better in this skill.

I'm sure an assassin/paladin of vengeance is more intimidating than any barbarian out there... except for the one who might be a Skald, a dash of bard and 20 in charisma and expertise in intimidation.

I can see this argument from both sides, my compromise is the averaging of both strength and charisma modifiers... you may be strong but you do not know how to flaunt it. You may lack style

Grabbing a proficiency in intimidate isn't a bad idea as just part of that character - in addition to being strong they're looming, and intimidate proficiency could cover that nicely. It's just that a trait system often lets that happen more easily.

djreynolds

2016-12-13, 02:36 AM

Grabbing a proficiency in intimidate isn't a bad idea as just part of that character - in addition to being strong they're looming, and intimidate proficiency could cover that nicely. It's just that a trait system often lets that happen more easily.

Its definitely a DM decision and it can be argued either way, especially if you are stuck with standard array.

Its ends up an average of 5-6 on the die roll.

I'll let you roll with advantage, seems fair.

RickAllison

2016-12-13, 02:47 AM

Grabbing a proficiency in intimidate isn't a bad idea as just part of that character - in addition to being strong they're looming, and intimidate proficiency could cover that nicely. It's just that a trait system often lets that happen more easily.

Oh yes. Something like World of Darkness's Merits would be nice. It just doesn't work that well for a rigid, class-based system like this one. I would suggest implementing such "traits" as rewards for quests and such. Maybe a cobra-like Yuan-Ti shows the barbarian how to flex his bulk like a cobra to incite a more primal fear in people, and so maybe gets to add his Strength to any Intimidate checks made to create that primal flight response. The barbarian gets to have a reliable bonus to use with his Intimidate skill, but it is limited to a certain goal.

ST By Night

2016-12-13, 05:14 AM

JellyPooga

2016-12-13, 05:53 AM

But *my* barbarian is big. He's over 7ft tall. He's massive, with huge muscles. He's got 20 strength. Yeah, his size, what you call "fluff", exists in the game world. He towers over people. If he stands in front of you, you don't know what's happening behind him because his frame is that wide.

Let's look at 3 characters;

1) A 7ft hulking Half-Orc Barbarian
2) An athletic 5' Half-Elf Rogue
3) An unassuming 4' Dwarf Cleric

Which one has the best Strength? Which of them would you let use Strength for Intimidation? If you allow one and not another, that's an unwritten (if not actively unfair) advantage that you are arbitrarily giving a character with the same Str score, proficiency, etc. based solely on a "fluff" description.

Now if I told you that the Rogue has Expertise in Intimidation but the lowest Charisma and that the Cleric has he highest Charisma but no proficiency in Intimidation, which should be the best at Intimidating?

djreynolds

2016-12-13, 06:06 AM

There's a strong argument to be made for this.

However, Intimidation is probably more than just flexing muscle; a charismatic, grinning bully can be just as intimidating as a big muscular guy (Stephen Ogg comes to mind, in literally anything he plays in, especially the Walking Dead).

I would expect a big strong guy to be very confident and charismatic, maybe persuading or intimidating.

But again a barbarian can be this.

At the end of the day, with proficiency, it amounts to a 6 point difference in modifiers on all rolls between having a 20 or an 8 in any stat.... it cannot be that game breaking in either camp.

This issue is when this stems into intimidating presence, which is a charisma check +8 with proficiency...

Maybe since berserker is somewhat on the weaker side, I might say while a raging berserker can add strength to any intimidation check, "while raging." Now there is a cost and a better bonus also.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-13, 10:22 AM

being scary is not an intimidate check. a dragon doesn't need to make an intimidate check to be scary, and neither does a heavily armed lunatic who fights dragons for a living, generally speaking.
I would argue that a dragon that makes an Intimidate check is succeeding *primarily* because he is humongous and overwhelmingly powerful. And you and others are arguing that it is *impossible* (yes at this point that's what you're arguing) for him to Intimidate people in that way and that he is intimidating people because he has a 30 charisma.

and you can absolutely get some things done purely by virtue of being scary. just, you're only going to get appropriate responses to the stimulus of being afraid (for example, getting out of your way, or doing whatever it takes to get the person to leave... including telling a lie that makes them leave sooner, or appearing to cooperate while actually giving you the wrong thing, etc).
Here is my issue with this, and the example Tanarii gave earlier about how he'd rule it in his game. And for the record, I don't have a problem with this notion or with Tanarii's style either. I get that strength might not always be persuasive.

My problem is that you appear to be inconsistent. You are ready to get rather quite gritty and realistic with a strength-based check, but throughout this thread charisma has been treated as a form of automatic mind-control in contrast.

So for a strength check, we might get something like "sure, you can use strength. Roll a touch attack to see if you can put hands on the guy. Ok, your attack roll wins, now roll a strength check to see if you overpower him. Hey nice roll! Now roll an Intimidate check to see if this actually scares him."

With charisma we get vagueness. Bah, the Halfling just knows how to carry himself. He's got that glint in his eye. He doesn't even need to say anything, it's just a force, a presence. People just know he'll wreck house if they don't comply. A dragon? LMAO, that dragon doesn't know what the Halfling can do, only that the Halfling is sooo confident he can kick the dragon's tail, so the dragon will back down of course.

It's like... do you require the charisma checks to describe what the threat or intimidation is? Do they even have to say words? Do you just assume that whatever the person says is a credible threat to the mark? Or if he rolls well we just say he has that look in his eye? Do you understand that someone can look at your badass Halfling and think "Wow, the little bugger really thinks he's scary lol. Cute. Scamper off." In the same way that a show of force might not intimidate everyone, so too might everyone not be intimidated by any other type of threat that your charisma-based player might utter. Maybe your NPC gets death glares all the time and doesn't respond to anything other than action? Maybe the guy is entrenched in his own institutional power and doesn't take murder hobos seriously unless they show him through force that they are serious.

So if you get nitty and gritty with the strength-based checks, great. That's awesome. If you don't with charisma checks, ok fine. You're free to play your game as you please. But your perspective seems skewed to me, and your handling of the ability scores inconsistent.

If you treat them both the same, then it's a non-issue.

you can certainly get information out of someone by being scary. but if you don't do a decent intimidate check, it will probably be whatever information (whether true or false) that they think will get you to leave.
I don't know why you think this is true for one and not the other. You're typically threatening physical harm when you roll a charisma-based Intimidation check. Same with a strength-based check.

and your strength doesn't matter for that check; it doesn't matter whether you're threatening to break their legs with a 14 strength or a 10 strength or a 20 strength, all that matters is that you can do it in some way or another. you don't even have to use your own muscles to do it. what matters is your ability to persuade the person that not doing what you want is going to lead to bad results.
I just disagree lol, I'm not sure what else to say. They just have to think that it's in their best interest in that moment to do as you say. If the charisma guy wins his check, you can say he's convincingly scary. If the strength guy wins, you can say the guy he's intimidating is sufficiently scared. I don't know how you would parse it because you guys are losing yourselves in "what charisma means" and losing sight, I think, of the simple process of Intimidation. But the fact is, the charisma guy might get in your face all stone-cold and tell you "Tell me what I want to hear or I'll break your leg" and you'll believe him and do as he says. The strength guy will say "Tell me what I want to hear or I'll break your leg" and then he'll snap the table leg in half like a toothpick and you'll think "I don't want this guy's hands anywhere on my body for even a second, so I'll do what he says".

again, it isn't about just making them scared. a scared prisoner might give you inaccurate information. a scared street thug might decide he needs to come back with more friends and attack from ambush. a scared vizier might run away and shout for the guards.

an intimidated prisoner will give you information as accurate as possible, because you're in their head; they believe you can tell when they're lying, and they're afraid of what will happen if they do lie. an intimidated street thug will back off and will avoid future conflict unless given no choice (or perhaps with truly overwhelming odds) because you're in their head, and he's convinced that if he starts something with you, it won't end well. an intimidated vizier will not run away and call for guards because you're in their head, and they are convinced that running and calling for guards won't do anything to protect them from you.
Yes, this is a distinction that I don't believe exists in this context. You're saying that a big strong guy can be scary for being big and strong, but not intimidating for being big and strong. You can keep asserting that, but you haven't demonstrated it to be true.

Let me ask you a question...

If that rogue with expertise won his Intimidation check (and he's not adding his strength or anything, just a plain Intimidation check with 8 charisma), would you allow him to describe the success as a result of his strength? We're not talking about variant rules or anything, just a rogue with a negative charisma modifier winning on his Intimidation check, who happens to have a high strength score. Would you allow him to describe his Intimidation check in ways that I've described it throughout this thread? Bending or snapping weapons, or crushing helmets, or manhandling people.

when you're scary, they just want to make you go away. when you're intimidating, they want to make you happy.
Again, you're making distinctions here that I don't think exist.

Intimidate --> frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants
Frighten --> make (someone) afraid or anxious [synonym: scare, intimidate]
Scare --> cause great fear or nervousness in; frighten [synonym: intimidate, cow]
Cow --> cause (someone) to submit to one's wishes by intimidation [synonym: intimidate, bully, scare]
Bully --> use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants [synonym: intimidate, dominate]

The list goes on.

All you're doing is reiterating the idea that strength cannot be intimidating, and that simply isn't true.

What's that got to do with the price of milk? His Str has nothing to do with his size, so it's not appropriate to call for a Str check. Why do you get to use Str when your level 1 big strong barbarian has a lower Str score than a Str 20 Halfling?

You're consistently conflating Str and threatening size/bulk.
I'm not conflating anything. I am making an assumption for my argument. I'm assuming that not only does the character have a 20 strength (or high strength) but also he is very big. This is a trope. The big strong warrior.

I am saying that it is in line with everything we know for a character like this to be able to Intimidate people with a show of force.

Lol, if I can't convince you of this with someone like the Mountain, why would I even bother arguing about a 20 strength Halfling? I'm trying to explain that size and strength are visual cues that can facilitate Intimidation. So I'm assuming a big warrior. I'm not conflating it with Strength. I've never said that because someone has high strength they must necessarily be large. Again, *YOU* guys are the ones making assumptions like that, such as, by virtue of being Intimidating, someone must be charismatic. I'm not the one making illogical claims like that.

It's players like you that force me, and the devs, to break the logic of the D&D Ability scores and what they mean and allow (with caveats) Strength (Intimidate) checks as a variant roll. I do it anyway because the damn game is supposed to be fun, but that doesn't make your view internally consistent in any way.
That sounds really rough man. I hope you'll pull through. It must suck to be influenced so easily by a guy arguing a point on an internet forum. Hopefully you don't do too much browsing throughout the day, or you might find your entire life ruled by perfect strangers and their willingness to argue a non-issue online.

BiPolar

2016-12-13, 10:43 AM

My problem is that you appear to be inconsistent. You are ready to get rather quite gritty and realistic with a strength-based check, but throughout this thread charisma has been treated as a form of automatic mind-control in contrast.
No, we are treating Charisma as the ability that is used when interacting with others. As has been stated multiple times above, intimidation by strength is unlike intimidation by Charisma. Strength alone is like using torture. They'll tell you what you want to get them to leave you alone. BUt it doesn't mean it's true (torture rarely works the way the torturer wants it.) Intimidation with Charisma convinces the person to actually tell you what you want.

So for a strength check, we might get something like "sure, you can use strength. Roll a touch attack to see if you can put hands on the guy. Ok, your attack roll wins, now roll a strength check to see if you overpower him. Hey nice roll! Now roll an Intimidate check to see if this actually scares him."

In addition, how are you using your strength? Are you just being physically imposing? Also stated above, that's not really fair for the Halfling STR 20 as compared to the Goliath STR 16. Are you bending or breaking something? Then you should have to roll a die - maybe it doesn't bend/break. What then?

With charisma we get vagueness. Bah, the Halfling just knows how to carry himself. He's got that glint in his eye. He doesn't even need to say anything, it's just a force, a presence. People just know he'll wreck house if they don't comply. A dragon? LMAO, that dragon doesn't know what the Halfling can do, only that the Halfling is sooo confident he can kick the dragon's tail, so the dragon will back down of course.

It's like... do you require the charisma checks to describe what the threat or intimidation is? Do they even have to say words? Do you just assume that whatever the person says is a credible threat to the mark? Or if he rolls well we just say he has that look in his eye? Do you understand that someone can look at your badass Halfling and think "Wow, the little bugger really thinks he's scary lol. Cute. Scamper off." In the same way that a show of force might not intimidate everyone, so too might everyone not be intimidated by any other type of threat that your charisma-based player might utter. Maybe your NPC gets death glares all the time and doesn't respond to anything other than action? Maybe the guy is entrenched in his own institutional power and doesn't take murder hobos seriously unless they show him through force that they are serious.
Describing the intimidation is part of the roleplaying aspect. And the mileage will vary from table to table. But OOC and IC are different things. In character, the minimum is a die roll, but roleplaying should be encouraged to make it more interesting. The system takes care of the actual Intimidation check with dice, but how you choose to do it/what you choose to say may have an impact depending on the DM.

If that rogue with expertise won his Intimidation check (and he's not adding his strength or anything, just a plain Intimidation check with 8 charisma), would you allow him to describe the success as a result of his strength? We're not talking about variant rules or anything, just a rogue with a negative charisma modifier winning on his Intimidation check, who happens to have a high strength score. Would you allow him to describe his Intimidation check in ways that I've described it throughout this thread? Bending or snapping weapons, or crushing helmets, or manhandling people.

Very much up to the PC and DM as to how they want it to play out.

Overall, I think the case has been made very strongly for why the system works as it does. I tried to respond above with the crux of the argument being that Intimidation should use alternate Ability scores. If you can use strength to intimidate in this world, you can use Intelligence if you're a wizard, Dex if you're a dex-focused character, etc. etc. That basically means Intimidate isn't tied to a specific skill and every character becomes skilled in it because they can use their strongest stat. That option is NOT a good option as clearly not everyone is good at intimidating people. It does make sense to use the ability for interacting with others, because that is what you're doing. You're still conflating the methodology with the system. The system is interaction, the methodology can be with anything you want, but how good you are at it is dependent on how good you are at interacting with others in 5e. Otherwise, if you continue down this road it means everyone is good at Intimidation. If that's how you want to play your game, more power to you. Take out Intimidation as a skill and let every PC and NPC use whatever their strongest is for it.

Tanarii

2016-12-13, 11:05 AM

Here is my issue with this, and the example Tanarii gave earlier about how he'd rule it in his game. And for the record, I don't have a problem with this notion or with Tanarii's style either. I get that strength might not always be persuasive.Basically, I limit it to situations in which Strength and size/bulk align. Because while I recognize they are not the same thing, but I allow it when someone insists on thinking they are the same thing, and I don't want this kind of argument during a game.

I'm not conflating anything. I am making an assumption for my argument. I'm assuming that not only does the character have a 20 strength (or high strength) but also he is very big. This is a trope. The big strong warrior.What you just told me: You're not conflating anything, you're just assuming they're the same thing. :smallconfused:

And as a result, you want to use the (abstract) ability score that is about raw force regardless of size, that has nothing to do with size or bulk, let alone making you intimidating because of size/bulk, instead of the (abstract) ability one that applies to interpersonal interactions.

I am saying that it is in line with everything we know for a character like this to be able to Intimidate people with a show of force.Even if I concede that a show of force is the same thing as use of force (which I don't), you're conflating this characters Strength attribute with his Size non-attribute. You can deny that's what you're doing all you want, but when you immediately follow it by immediately doing it again.

SharkForce

2016-12-13, 11:11 AM

I would argue that a dragon that makes an Intimidate check is succeeding *primarily* because he is humongous and overwhelmingly powerful. And you and others are arguing that it is *impossible* (yes at this point that's what you're arguing) for him to Intimidate people in that way and that he is intimidating people because he has a 30 charisma.

Here is my issue with this, and the example Tanarii gave earlier about how he'd rule it in his game. And for the record, I don't have a problem with this notion or with Tanarii's style either. I get that strength might not always be persuasive.

My problem is that you appear to be inconsistent. You are ready to get rather quite gritty and realistic with a strength-based check, but throughout this thread charisma has been treated as a form of automatic mind-control in contrast.

So for a strength check, we might get something like "sure, you can use strength. Roll a touch attack to see if you can put hands on the guy. Ok, your attack roll wins, now roll a strength check to see if you overpower him. Hey nice roll! Now roll an Intimidate check to see if this actually scares him."

With charisma we get vagueness. Bah, the Halfling just knows how to carry himself. He's got that glint in his eye. He doesn't even need to say anything, it's just a force, a presence. People just know he'll wreck house if they don't comply. A dragon? LMAO, that dragon doesn't know what the Halfling can do, only that the Halfling is sooo confident he can kick the dragon's tail, so the dragon will back down of course.

It's like... do you require the charisma checks to describe what the threat or intimidation is? Do they even have to say words? Do you just assume that whatever the person says is a credible threat to the mark? Or if he rolls well we just say he has that look in his eye? Do you understand that someone can look at your badass Halfling and think "Wow, the little bugger really thinks he's scary lol. Cute. Scamper off." In the same way that a show of force might not intimidate everyone, so too might everyone not be intimidated by any other type of threat that your charisma-based player might utter. Maybe your NPC gets death glares all the time and doesn't respond to anything other than action? Maybe the guy is entrenched in his own institutional power and doesn't take murder hobos seriously unless they show him through force that they are serious.

So if you get nitty and gritty with the strength-based checks, great. That's awesome. If you don't with charisma checks, ok fine. You're free to play your game as you please. But your perspective seems skewed to me, and your handling of the ability scores inconsistent.

If you treat them both the same, then it's a non-issue.

I don't know why you think this is true for one and not the other. You're typically threatening physical harm when you roll a charisma-based Intimidation check. Same with a strength-based check.

I just disagree lol, I'm not sure what else to say. They just have to think that it's in their best interest in that moment to do as you say. If the charisma guy wins his check, you can say he's convincingly scary. If the strength guy wins, you can say the guy he's intimidating is sufficiently scared. I don't know how you would parse it because you guys are losing yourselves in "what charisma means" and losing sight, I think, of the simple process of Intimidation. But the fact is, the charisma guy might get in your face all stone-cold and tell you "Tell me what I want to hear or I'll break your leg" and you'll believe him and do as he says. The strength guy will say "Tell me what I want to hear or I'll break your leg" and then he'll snap the table leg in half like a toothpick and you'll think "I don't want this guy's hands anywhere on my body for even a second, so I'll do what he says".

Yes, this is a distinction that I don't believe exists in this context. You're saying that a big strong guy can be scary for being big and strong, but not intimidating for being big and strong. You can keep asserting that, but you haven't demonstrated it to be true.

Let me ask you a question...

If that rogue with expertise won his Intimidation check (and he's not adding his strength or anything, just a plain Intimidation check with 8 charisma), would you allow him to describe the success as a result of his strength? We're not talking about variant rules or anything, just a rogue with a negative charisma modifier winning on his Intimidation check, who happens to have a high strength score. Would you allow him to describe his Intimidation check in ways that I've described it throughout this thread? Bending or snapping weapons, or crushing helmets, or manhandling people.

Again, you're making distinctions here that I don't think exist.

Intimidate --> frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants
Frighten --> make (someone) afraid or anxious [synonym: scare, intimidate]
Scare --> cause great fear or nervousness in; frighten [synonym: intimidate, cow]
Cow --> cause (someone) to submit to one's wishes by intimidation [synonym: intimidate, bully, scare]
Bully --> use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants [synonym: intimidate, dominate]

The list goes on.

All you're doing is reiterating the idea that strength cannot be intimidating, and that simply isn't true.

I'm not conflating anything. I am making an assumption for my argument. I'm assuming that not only does the character have a 20 strength (or high strength) but also he is very big. This is a trope. The big strong warrior.

I am saying that it is in line with everything we know for a character like this to be able to Intimidate people with a show of force.

Lol, if I can't convince you of this with someone like the Mountain, why would I even bother arguing about a 20 strength Halfling? I'm trying to explain that size and strength are visual cues that can facilitate Intimidation. So I'm assuming a big warrior. I'm not conflating it with Strength. I've never said that because someone has high strength they must necessarily be large. Again, *YOU* guys are the ones making assumptions like that, such as, by virtue of being Intimidating, someone must be charismatic. I'm not the one making illogical claims like that.

That sounds really rough man. I hope you'll pull through. It must suck to be influenced so easily by a guy arguing a point on an internet forum. Hopefully you don't do too much browsing throughout the day, or you might find your entire life ruled by perfect strangers and their willingness to argue a non-issue online.

the dragon doesn't need to make a check to be scary. it's a dragon. it is scary to just about everything. while it is around, people will be scared, and will generally do whatever it takes to get him to leave or to get away, but won't generally do anything unless it is going to achieve one of those two goals. the moment the dragon is gone and some reasonable chance to defend themselves against the dragon is available, they'll take it... unless the dragon does, indeed, make an intimidate check (and yes, that check would be with charisma). if the dragon demands that they hand over 100 gold pieces or the dragon will kill them, they'll probably hand it over because they don't expect they have any real chance of fighting it, no realistic way of deceiving the dragon and getting away with it, and it is the only way they really have to get the dragon to leave (unless the town has, like, a dragon-proof shelter or something, in which case they'll probably say they're going to get the gold but will actually go hide, if they can... but dragon-proof shelters are pretty uncommon). if the dragon asks for information, the townspeople may give an honest answer if they feel it is the best way to get rid of the dragon... and they may not.

and i've never once advocated requiring half a dozen checks for a strong person to intimidate. i've advocated no checks at all, because i don't allow strength to be used for intimidate checks as a general rule. i *do* allow strong people to be scary (as i do for anyone with any sort of power over another person to be scary to that person), for which i require zero checks at all. if you can beat the crud out of them, and you make it plain that you will do so, they will be scared of you, with all the benefits and drawbacks associated with it. now that you're scary, you have the basis to make an intimidate check... using charisma.

and yes, making the person think it's in their best interest to do what you say is what the intimidation check accomplishes. and making sure they they think doing what you say instead of, say, running away, or lying to you to get you to leave, or shouting for help? that's the difference between "being scary" and "intimidating someone". a big strong person up against someone who has no way of defending themselves realistically can be scary, no check required. but if they don't make that intimidation check (with charisma), they're not remotely guaranteed to get a desirable result.

naturally, failed intimidate checks (which again, in almost all situations should be made with charisma) are not going to do the trick, either. absolutely, the charismatic halfling (or whoever) can fail their check. but they're more likely to succeed on their check than an equally proficient (same proficiency bonus) but less charismatic 7 foot tall barbarian.

though again, i don't allow intimidate checks unless you have something to threaten the target with. if that charismatic halfling is actually a level one rogue threatening a level 10 fighter, the halfling doesn't get to make an intimidate check in the first place unless he either makes a deception check first to invent a plausible threat, or has some substantial advantage (like being part of the mafia or equivalent, or you're standing in a greased pit trap and he's got control of a mechanism that seals the pit shut) or friends that he can use to make threats with.

physical strength can make you a scary person, which in turn can allow for you to make an intimidate check in the first place. but it doesn't replace charisma when it comes to making the person feel like the best course of action is to do what you want as opposed to simply doing whatever it takes to make you go away.

BiPolar

2016-12-13, 11:23 AM

Is the core issue here the difference between LOOKING INTIMIDATING and BEING INTIMIDATING?

Knaight

2016-12-13, 12:14 PM

It's more a matter of character definition in aspects not covered by the rules (appearance) that should have an impact and the matter of how to handle it. The 7' hulking barbarian covered in battle scars looks intimidating and thus should be able to intimidate better. One side of the argument is that this means strength should intimidate. Another is that it's not a matter of the strength but the appearance of one archetype of traditionally high strength character, and that using the strength score is sloppy. I'd stick to the second - a 7' hulking barbarian covered in battle scars with bulging muscles is still intimidating even if they have severe muscle damage that prevents them from actually using much strength; it's a matter of their appearance and presence and these are loosely attached to charisma.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-13, 02:18 PM

Basically, I limit it to situations in which Strength and size/bulk align. Because while I recognize they are not the same thing, but I allow it when someone insists on thinking they are the same thing, and I don't want this kind of argument during a game.
Well, obviously I agree with allowing people to use strength. I was more referring to the notion that the strength-based kind is intrinsically more complex and prone to failure and the charisma-based kind might not even need words, just a successful die roll and *poof* anyone is intimidated.

What you just told me: You're not conflating anything, you're just assuming they're the same thing. :smallconfused:
I am now convinced that someone is using a device from the future to change all of my text around into other words that I can't see, but that everyone else is reading.

I am assuming that the character has a high strength score. Also, I am assuming that the character is large, as in big and tall and muscular.

That is not the same thing as conflating size with strength.

And as a result, you want to use the (abstract) ability score that is about raw force regardless of size, that has nothing to do with size or bulk, let alone making you intimidating because of size/bulk, instead of the (abstract) ability one that applies to interpersonal interactions.
Size and strength, while not tied together mechanically in the game through an ability score, still exist and are still traits that any given character have. My point is that in the real world, large and strong people are considered intimidating, so if you have someone in the game that fits this description, it makes sense to let them use strength to intimidate someone. Their size is a visual cue that already suggests their power, and that notion of strength and power is already intimidating. Now I'm not suggesting that big strong characters just freely walk around scaring the lights out of everyone. I'm suggesting that if one of them thinks his large imposing chiseled physique and godly strength is intimidating, why make a fuss about charisma?

Even if I concede that a show of force is the same thing as use of force (which I don't), you're conflating this characters Strength attribute with his Size non-attribute. You can deny that's what you're doing all you want, but when you immediately follow it by immediately doing it again.
When someone says "No strength doesn't work because this other average size weak person might have a reputation, or be a princess, or be able to shoot a fireball, or has a crazy look in his eye that just oozes violence and that is why it's based on charisma..." that is conflating traits with an ability score.

When I say "Large strong warriors are intimidating naturally, and if one of them uses physical force to intimidate someone, he should be able to use his strength score to do it." that is not conflating strength with size.

But seriously, if it helps, we can just ignore the size part. It is not necessary. I was using it in the foolish belief that evoking the image of a large muscle-bound warrior would remind everyone here that these fantasy tropes are intimidating without being charismatic and this idea of using strength for intimidation is not radical. It was also a reaction to the notion in this thread that no matter how big and strong you are (big and strong, it's not like I invented the idea out of nowhere) you can't intimidate someone without charisma. But again, we don't need it. We can leave it.

georgie_leech

2016-12-13, 02:19 PM

I am assuming that the character has a high strength score. Also, I am assuming that the character is large, as in big and tall and muscular.

That is not the same thing as conflating size with strength.

How big is a STR 20 halfling? And what about their STR makes them more intimidating than a Grizzly Bear from raw Ability Scores?

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-13, 02:28 PM

No, we are treating Charisma as the ability that is used when interacting with others.
Yes, we've gone over this. That charisma typically governs social interactions is not that big of a deal to me. Or to the game even, since it has a variant rule addressing this very issue. If you're going to keep bringing it up, that's fine, but I'm not sure what more to say. I've already gone beyond it. I know charisma typically governs those situations. The conversation starts there and moves on almost immediately.

As has been stated multiple times above, intimidation by strength is unlike intimidation by Charisma. Strength alone is like using torture.
Um, no. Torture is like torture. Words have meanings, and you guys keep trying to redefine everything because we're talking about a roleplaying game. Check out the definitions I gave in a more recent post. A bully uses superior strength to intimidate someone, usually to force them to do what he wants.

That is the definition of a bully. He intimidates someone through superior strength.

That is not torture.

Describing the intimidation is part of the roleplaying aspect. And the mileage will vary from table to table. But OOC and IC are different things. In character, the minimum is a die roll, but roleplaying should be encouraged to make it more interesting. The system takes care of the actual Intimidation check with dice, but how you choose to do it/what you choose to say may have an impact depending on the DM.

Very much up to the PC and DM as to how they want it to play out.
These are cop-outs.

If the minimum is a die roll, then the minimum is a die roll. If not, then it isn't. If the minimum for a regular intimidate check is "roll the die and see if you beat the DC", and the DM doesn't ask for the actual threat or intimidation, but then if it is strength based he says "well, I need to know what you have in mind and whether it even applies in the first place or not" then yeah I can see why you're thinking about this the way you are. Apparently charisma always has a chance of working, no matter what, and we'll figure that out after the die is rolled.

Overall, I think the case has been made very strongly for why the system works as it does.
Which is precisely the problem, because I'm not arguing against why the system works as it does. I use the system as-is just fine, contrary to what Tanarii suggested in his previous post. I'm arguing that making a minor change to it makes sense and isn't a big deal. I'm not arguing that they made a mistake basing it off charisma. I'm arguing that people are also intimidated by force and power and strength.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-13, 02:34 PM

How big is a STR 20 halfling?
I'll guess within the range of a typical halfling's size. How am I supposed to know the answer to this question?

And what about their STR makes them more intimidating than a Grizzly Bear from raw Ability Scores?
I... don't know what you're asking here. Why would he have to be more intimidating than a grizzly bear of all things?

SaintRidley

2016-12-13, 02:50 PM

I'll guess within the range of a typical halfling's size. How am I supposed to know the answer to this question?

I... don't know what you're asking here. Why would he have to be more intimidating than a grizzly bear of all things?

If you base Intimidation off strength, the 20 str Halfling is more intimidating naturally than a Grizzly Bear.

Add in Remarkable Athlete if they're a Champion Fighter and suddenly their athletic ability adds half proficiency to Intimidate rolls (provided they weren't already proficient). Makes sense. Remarkable Athlete should make you more intimidating. What with all the extra jump distance.

Good ol' Fingol the Halfling Fighter was so good at flexing he frightened people more than bears.

Regitnui

2016-12-13, 02:57 PM

I'll guess within the range of a typical halfling's size. How am I supposed to know the answer to this question?

I... don't know what you're asking here. Why would he have to be more intimidating than a grizzly bear of all things?

A grizzly bear has a lower strength score than said hypothetical halfling. If Intimidation was based on Strength, surely the halfling would be better at intimidating others than the bear? I think that's where it's going.

Rephrased; what does size have to do with Strength score? You're assuming by default that high Strength equals big body, when it's known that there are different types of strength; a short, wiry gymnast may be considered stronger than the bodybuilder, despite being smaller. Or to take it into D&D terms; the elf fighter can have a higher Strength score than the orc wizard, despite being smaller and thinner.

Arguing that a higher Strength score makes you intimidating on the base of having a larger body is a flawed hypothesis, and therefore invalidates the argument. A Strength (Intimidation) check is the elf from the last paragraph lifting the orc off his feet and dangling him over a cliff. It isn't "I'm bigger than you, so listen." Parleying your physical appearance into an Intimidation check falls under Charisma, no matter what that physical appearance is. Make sense?

BiPolar

2016-12-13, 03:01 PM

Yes, we've gone over this. That charisma typically governs social interactions is not that big of a deal to me. Or to the game even, since it has a variant rule addressing this very issue. If you're going to keep bringing it up, that's fine, but I'm not sure what more to say. I've already gone beyond it. I know charisma typically governs those situations. The conversation starts there and moves on almost immediately.
Yes, we've gone over it. You are continuing to choose to ignore it. That's fine, I'll drop it as long as you drop the 'variant rule' rehashing.

Um, no. Torture is like torture. Words have meanings, and you guys keep trying to redefine everything because we're talking about a roleplaying game. Check out the definitions I gave in a more recent post. A bully uses superior strength to intimidate someone, usually to force them to do what he wants.

That is the definition of a bully. He intimidates someone through superior strength.

That is not torture.
Hmm, I always thought Torture was the use of force to extract information. But I guess implied strength is different than applied strength and will drop that tack. IN addition, as Knaight says below, a Bully does not intimidate through superior strength. I've been bullied, and it wasn't because he had superior strength.

These are cop-outs.
Those aren't cop-outs, but I'm not going to get into it.

Which is precisely the problem, because I'm not arguing against why the system works as it does. I use the system as-is just fine, contrary to what Tanarii suggested in his previous post. I'm arguing that making a minor change to it makes sense and isn't a big deal. I'm not arguing that they made a mistake basing it off charisma. I'm arguing that people are also intimidated by force and power and strength.
And I've shown that if you can do it with Strength, you could also use Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and maybe even Constitution. So basically there is a path for intimidation across all abilities, which makes a skill check that everyone can use their highest attribute score ridiculous (and please don't bring up the variant rule...see above.)

If everyone is good at it, then why have it at all. The point of skills and relating them to attributes is to have to make decisions as to what you want to be good at. You don't get to be good at everything. Make your decisions, live with them.

Tanarii

2016-12-13, 03:02 PM

I'll guess within the range of a typical halfling's size. How am I supposed to know the answer to this question?

I... don't know what you're asking here. Why would he have to be more intimidating than a grizzly bear of all things?Because his Str score makes him more intimidating.

Which is exactly what I mean by you are continuing to mix up Strength (the ability score) and size.

Knaight

2016-12-13, 03:11 PM

That is the definition of a bully. He intimidates someone through superior strength.

That's a terrible definition. Intimidation isn't even that key of a part - a pattern of behavior of deliberately causing low level harm* without facing routine retaliation is a better definition of a bully. Superior strength can do this, but there's plenty of times that's not what bullies are relying on. They just need more clout of some sort - having targets unwilling to retaliate because the authorities will side with you is a big one, having targets unwilling to retaliate because you have sycophantic lackeys is another, having targets unwilling to retaliate because you have financial power over them yet a third. Leveraging most of these is more related to charisma than strength in D&D terms, although social position dominates all.

*That can easily add up to higher level harm overall.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-13, 03:45 PM

A grizzly bear has a lower strength score than said hypothetical halfling. If Intimidation was based on Strength, surely the halfling would be better at intimidating others than the bear? I think that's where it's going.
If the Halfling demonstrated his awesome strength and threatens you, why couldn't he intimidate you as well or better than a bear? I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make here.

Rephrased; what does size have to do with Strength score?
I was arguing based off a fantasy warrior trope, in which the party warrior is typically also big and muscular. I mean... surely you must have some idea what I'm talking about right? Like, you have an average sized leader of some kind, like a cleric, and then a slim wiry rogue guy, and another slender or average wizardly guy, and then a big muscular warrior type. You know guys like Cameron, or Wulfgar.

I feel like Mugatu right now...

You're assuming by default that high Strength equals big body, when it's known that there are different types of strength;
No I'm not, for the umpteenth time. I'm assuming for the sake of this argument that my character is not only very strong, but he is also very big. I'm stacking things in his favor because people in this thread were going to the extreme case that no matter how big and strong you are, you're not intimidating without charisma. So I used the very common big bruiser stereotype to make a point.

a short, wiry gymnast may be considered stronger than the bodybuilder, despite being smaller.
No he can't lol. He is strong, sure. Stronger than the average person even.

Or to take it into D&D terms; the elf fighter can have a higher Strength score than the orc wizard, despite being smaller and thinner.
Yeah, I'm not arguing otherwise.

Arguing that a higher Strength score makes you intimidating on the base of having a larger body is a flawed hypothesis, and therefore invalidates the argument.
No it doesn't. Strength comes from muscles. It is "bodily" power. The stronger you are, the more muscular you are. It has an impact on your appearance. I wasn't arguing that point (it doesn't make you taller obviously, or have a large frame to begin with), but it certainly makes you "larger" in some respect.

See, this is an example of a new argument spawning that hasn't happened yet, and that will likely get tangled up in everything else.

A Strength (Intimidation) check is the elf from the last paragraph lifting the orc off his feet and dangling him over a cliff. It isn't "I'm bigger than you, so listen."
Yes, my examples have all included some type of physical demonstration, from grabbing someone to breaking weapons to bending bars, etc. The size was to drive the point home at how ridiculous the opposing side was being. They won't admit, and perhaps you won't admit, that size is intimidating. That strength is intimidating. That a show of force is intimidating. And when I combine all three, it is still isn't enough to intimidate someone unless charisma is used.

I'm sorry that there have been a lot of points interspersed throughout this thread and it has been difficult to follow, but my examples have always been physical demonstrations.

Parleying your physical appearance into an Intimidation check falls under Charisma, no matter what that physical appearance is. Make sense?
It does fall under that now, yes. I'm arguing it can fall under strength. That a display of your physical power (your strength) can be intimidating.

Because his Str score makes him more intimidating.

Which is exactly what I mean by you are continuing to mix up Strength (the ability score) and size.
The strength is for the display of force. That's the point behind the strength and the whole reason to use it in place of charisma. The size was to demonstrate how unreasonable you're all being.

That's a terrible definition. Intimidation isn't even that key of a part
You don't think intimidation is a key part of bullying?????

The reason this thread has gone on as long as it has is because we apparently do not have common ground *anywhere* lol.

More than one way to intimidate people right? Nope.
We're intimidated by size and strength right? Nope.
Intimidation isn't torture right? Nope.
Bullies intimidate people right? Nope.

Superior strength can do this
Ok, so if superior strength can do this, perfect. We're in agreement. I'm not arguing that nothing else can intimidate or force someone into doing something. Only that strength can also do this.

Tanarii

2016-12-13, 03:50 PM

The strength is for the display of force. That's the point behind the strength and the whole reason to use it in place of charisma. The size was to demonstrate how unreasonable you're all being. Yes. That's right. Clearly all of us are being unreasonable. The fact that you're the only one holding your opinion clearly indicates your reasonableness.

JackPhoenix

2016-12-13, 04:14 PM

I'll guess within the range of a typical halfling's size. How am I supposed to know the answer to this question?

I... don't know what you're asking here. Why would he have to be more intimidating than a grizzly bear of all things?

Because you say big and strong is all it takes to be intimidating. Str 20 halfling is at the absolute peak of mortal strength, but he's certainly not big. So... can he use Str for his Intimidate rolls? He's way smaller than pretty much anyone else. Grizzly bear is big, but its Str is only 19. So... what does that mean in your houserule? Is the halfling more intimidating because he's stronger? Is the bear more intimidating because he's larger? What about goliath with average Str? He's as big as medium creatures go, and he's got powerful build, which doubles his Str for carrying purposes, but not for anything else. Is he more intimidating than the halfling, less intimidating, or what?

Allowing to use Str for Intimidate with only argument being "big and strong is intimidating in real life" lead to huge inconsistencies

Problem with your reasoning is that while you're basing it on real fact that large and strong people are generally intimidating, you're ignoring related fact that the exact strength and size doesn't matter that much as long as they are larger and stronger than the victim that would be influenced by that. To have Strength as a valid replacement for Charisma as a modifier on Intimidation checks in the context of the game, not only it would need to be primary factor in the interaction, but also have effect scaling with the exact amount of strength the character has.

Take the councilor threatened by the enforcer from your earlier example: You've decided that the Intimidation attempt is made through gripping him and proving your strength to him, and wanting to use Str mod for that reason. Let's say the councilor is susceptible to physical threats at all, otherwise the attempt would fail automatically without need for any roll. One condition to allow use Str fulfilled. The enforcer is stronger, bigger and certainly more dangerous than the councilor, and has him in a situation when the later is unable to escape, defend himself or call for help. Even though the enforcer is choosing to use only his strength, the councilor is already in a bad position, any sort of threat would work... weapon, attack spell, whatever. Strength is not the primary factor in the interaction, only a tool the enforcer chose from all available options. Does the exact strength of the enforcer matter? Not really. As long as he's at the enforcer's mercy, it doesn't matter how much stronger the enforcer is, the councilor is weaker. If the enforcer decides to beat him to death with his bare hands, it doesn't matter if his Str is 14, 17 (your original example) or 20. Enforcer with less Str will take longer to beat the councilor to unconsciousness or death, but the result would be the same as if he had higher Str bonus. So the exact amount of Str shouldn't matter for the Intimidation roll, higher Str character wouldn't be any more intimidating than lower Str one. In this situation, replacing Cha with Str doesn't make sense, though the described method may give the enforcer Advantage on his roll if the councilor is especially susceptible to such threats.

Let's look at the other example, barbarian bending sword to intimidate someone. Would the victim be impressed with that? That depends. How hard is bending swords in the world? Hard? DC 20. Pretty much anyone can do that with luck, correctly applied force and sufficiently crappy sword. Even average types have 5% chance to do that, if the barbarian's got Str 20, he's got 30% chance to succeed. Very Hard? DC 25. Nobody without Str 20 can't do it at all, barbarian's got 5% chance. Much more impressive. However, the barbarian is screwed over by Bounded Accuracy in this case. He must be able to bend the sword for the attempt to even work in the first place, but the higher the DC, the smaller his chance to actually do that, and the lower the DC, the less impressive the feat of strength is, because amount of people capable of it rapidly increases. Bending swords is pure Str check, no proficiency applies, though the barbarian can get advantage from Rage. Still, not good odds. No bent sword, no Intimidation attempt. Once again, strength doesn't matter for the intimidation itself... or proficiency doesn't. It's all dependant on the barbarian being able to bend the sword, which is not helped in any way by being proficient in Intimidation. You can do it through two checks, first to bend the sword, second for the actual Intimidation... but then, there's no reason for the second roll to use Str score. As long as the sword is bent, the exact Str bonus doesn't play role in the intimidation attempt. Str's got binary use here... either he bends the sword, or he doesn't. So no replacing Cha with Str for intimidation is, again, not valid. However, in this case, there's a third option. In exchange for making harder roll (pure Str with no proficiency bonus against high DC), you could argue that the sword bending act was so impressive and you autosucceed on the Intimidation check.

So, when to replace Cha with Str for Intimidation?
target must be susceptible to intimidation purely through feats of strength
strength must be the primary factor in intimidation, so no showing off to helpless targets who could be just as easily threatened with a weapon or in some other way, their helplessness and danger being the main factor in that case
the exact amount of Str must matter to justify the mechanical implications of changing the used ability score

While first 2 requirements are purely RP, the 3rd decides if it's appropriate from the perspective of game rules.

You've accused us from using double standards by not requiring such analysis for Cha (Intimidate) checks. The reason is simple, Cha is the default ability score for those checks, its use doesn't require any prior justifications. It is assumed that the character who uses Intimidate knows what he's doing, you don't have to be master swordsman yourself and describe the action in details to be able to roll for an attack. You play a role, you don't have to use your real world knowledge and skills. However, if you're trying to change the default, you must provide explanation why the change should be appropriate. You can describe what your character is doing before rolling, of course, and it could have mechanical effect, just as the attempt to justify using different ability score does. You describe the action as something that the character wouldn't be susceptible? Autofail or disadvantage. You manage to hit his weak spot? Advantage or autosuccess. But how exactly the Cha character uses Intimidation is mostly irrelevant for the discusion of allowing to replace Cha with Str.

By the way, that's why I encourage my players to roll first to know if they succeeded or failed at their social skills (if the skills, and not just pure roleplay, even come to play), and let them roleplay and describe how or why succeeded or failed when they know the result. They can roleplay first, and that roleplaying may have implications on the roll, but the other way has been more fun for everyone involved, as far as I can tell, as they don't have to fear players saying the wrong thing could screw over their character's chances, though at the cost of not being able to improve those chances by saying the right thing. The decision is up to them.