Intimidation vs. Persuasion

[Ser Loras]

So a discussion came up during character creation for a game I'm getting ready to play. One player, playing a Minotaur Fighter, asked if he could use Strength as his stat for the Intimidation skill, instead of Charisma. The DM told him no, and everyone was fine with that, but it nonetheless prompted a discussion as to the general usefulness of intimidation over persuasion.

The extreme example I used was that because Intimidate is governed by Charisma, a Gnome Bard would be more intimidating, in mechanical terms, than said Minotaur Fighter (Or a Half-Orc Barbarian, or whatever), provided the player is matching stats to class. But with Intimidation and Persuasion both governed by Cha, my question is why would anybody bother with Intimidation at all, since Persuasion is likely more versatile than Intimidation (the example I used was that you can't intimidate a Lord in his hall surrounded by his 50 knights retainer, but you could persuade him).

Would it not make more sense to revise Intimidation as a Strength-based skill, to give fighters and barbarians a social role as well as simply smashing stuff? As it stands, there's no reason for a Charisma-based class to take the skill, since Persuasion is run on the same stat and is more versatile, and there's no reason for a fighter to take it either since they'd be better off putting that proficiency into a skill they have a higher stat for.

It seems like a curious oversight, and I think if i'm to DM in future I might consider allowing players to roll Intimidation off Strength.

[nickl_2000]

There is an option for this in the PhB actually. It's on page 175. At my table we usually do use this



Variant: Skills with Different Abilities
Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind o f ability check. Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind o f check. In such cases, the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check. For example, if you have to swim from an offshore island to the mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check. S o if you’re proficient in Athletics, you apply your proficiency bonus to the Constitution check just as you would normally do for a Strength (Athletics) check. 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.

[mephnick]

It seems like a curious oversight, and I think if i'm to DM in future I might consider allowing players to roll Intimidation off Strength.

There's a reason it's the most oft-cited example of using other stats with certain skills. I believe the DMG even suggest Intimidation (STR) as the example of this. Your DM was too hasty in saying no unless he has a good reason.

As to the main topic, Intimidation is CHA-based because you are making a threat. Threats are only effective if they are believable and you give the air of someone who can see it through. A gnome Bard can easily be threatening, I know I wouldn't **** with someone that can control my mind or paralyze me with uttering a word. On the other hand, working construction for a long time before my current job, I've met some very strong people who are still very awkward and probably couldn't be threatening if they tried.

EDIT: I will say part of the problem is people roll Persuasion too much when they should be rolling one of the other skills or a regular CHA check, which makes it seem more powerful than it really is.

[mephnick]

Persuasion is likely more versatile than Intimidation (the example I used was that you can't intimidate a Lord in his hall surrounded by his 50 knights retainer, but you could persuade him)..

You also couldn't persuade many people to do many things without the fear of death and pain. No one is going to give up the location of their wanted best friend because you asked nicely, but they might if you threaten to cut their hands off. I think Persuasion is a really bad name for the skill that makes it seem like it applies to more situations that it should. It should be called "Bargain" or something.

[EvilAnagram]

Would it not make more sense to revise Intimidation as a Strength-based skill, to give fighters and barbarians a social role as well as simply smashing stuff? As it stands, there's no reason for a Charisma-based class to take the skill, since Persuasion is run on the same stat and is more versatile, and there's no reason for a fighter to take it either since they'd be better off putting that proficiency into a skill they have a higher stat for.

It seems like a curious oversight, and I think if i'm to DM in future I might consider allowing players to roll Intimidation off Strength.

Let's take a look at two iconic characters from the extremely popular fantasy series Game of Thrones: Tywin Lannister, and Hodor.

Between the two of them, Hodor is much more physically strong, with characters both in the television series and in the books suggesting he might be half-giant. In fact, of all the characers in the series, the only one who might rival him in terms of sheer strength is literally called The Mountain. He only ever say one word, Hodor, and he gets picked on by every bully in the Seven Kingdoms. Children with rocks would startle him into a panic.

Tywin Lannister, on the other hand, is a thin man of average height in his twilight years. The only time anyone ever stood up to him without am army at their back, he was pants down on a toilet, and they had a crossbow.

The ability to compell others relies on convincing them that you are a threat, not on simply being strong. In real life, little bullies pick on large, quiet kids all the time because they know the quiet kid won't fight back. In fiction, everyone is more scared of Joker than the Wrecking Crew because the Joker has convinced everyone (with reason) that he's the biggest bad in the whole damn world.

Strength isn't a non-factor though, and I'm fine with using displays of strength to gain advantage on a check. If a guy has 18 Str and says, "I break their sword on me knee and shout at them," I'll totally give them advantage or lower the DC, but carrying yourself in a threatening manner is fundamentally a projection of your persona, and I require Charisma rolls for Intimidation.

Fortunately, a fighter or barbarian who wants to be reasonably intimidating can easily bump his Charisma up to 12 without any major opportunity cost.

[Coffee_Dragon]

14-page thread here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?508003-Intimidation-should-be-based-on-Strength

The argument against I find most compelling is that if you can swap Str for Cha by shifting the fulcrum of the intimidation attempt from force of personality to muscles, then it raises the question why anyone shouldn't get to do the same thing using any display of power, e.g. brandishing a weapon, demonstrating sorcerous capability, or pointing to one or more other guys with muscles. And if those other things are not actually Intimidation, then neither is the solitary muscle thing.

[smcmike]

You also couldn't persuade many people to do many things without the fear of death and pain. No one is going to give up the location of their wanted best friend because you asked nicely, but they might if you threaten to cut their hands off. I think Persuasion is a really bad name for the skill that makes it seem like it applies to more situations that it should. It should be called "Bargain" or something.

I dunno - it's surprising what people will agree to under the right circumstances, and the line between intimidation can be pretty blurry.

Is a police interrogator who asks a suspect to do the right thing and confess attempting persuasion or intimidation? What if he does it over and over, for 16 hours, while implying that he already knows everything, and that things will go easier with a confession?

[Rebonack]

As I typically look at it, Persuasion is good for NPCs that are friendly or ambivalent. Intimidate is good for NPCs that are hostile or ambivalent. Intimidate has a possibility of making a creature hostile if it wasn't already.

They're useful in different situations. My GOO Warlock, a few sessions ago, managed to avert a random encounter with three ogres the party didn't have time to deal with by telepathically shouting doom into their minds, nat 20 with an intimidate modifier of +8. Two of the ogres fled on the spot. The third hesitated, but ended up running as well. If she had tried to Persuade them, chances are they would have just clubbed her to death.

[Millstone85]

Is a police interrogator who asks a suspect to do the right thing and confess attempting persuasion or intimidation? What if he does it over and over, for 16 hours, while implying that he already knows everything, and that things will go easier with a confession?Such a good cop / bad cop or carrot / stick situation might call for two rolls. Depending on the personality of the suspect, and what other pressures they might be the target of, the cop might have to win on both accounts, or either, or one precisely but possibly with advantage from the other.


As I typically look at it, Persuasion is good for NPCs that are friendly or ambivalent. Intimidate is good for NPCs that are hostile or ambivalent. Intimidate has a possibility of making a creature hostile if it wasn't already.That too.

[Tetrasodium]

the stat with skills is just the default, there are going to be situations where it varies. If a finesse fighterish type is trying to convince a potential client of their skills, persuade might use dex for a showy performance. If a cave bear is trying to intimidate some goblins away from his or her den, it might use strength or con. If a researcher from the Library of Korranberg is trying to read some Dhakaani runes etched into the stone, the history check might involve dex to finely clean the dust/dirt/lichen/etc from the etching without damaging the stone. If a party is trying to convince Xor'chylic or The Daughters to give them a plot of territory in Droaam the persuade check might involve Intelligence or even Wisdom to know that a particular area borders someone not especially friendly to them, that having humans/demihumans building a township deeper in droaam will improve their image with the 5 nations & great houses, or that nobody wants to go near Mordin's Hall without a death wishto make it an idea ask with lots of land.

[Capt Spanner]

I'd normally let the players describe how they're going to intimidate someone, and decide then.

If they go for "I stare her down. I take an iron bar, and fold it into a knot", they can have STR(Intimidate). If they go for "I tell her about all the ways I'll rip her helpless body to pieces" that'll be CHA(Intimidate).

[PartyChef]

I have used Chariama (Intimidation) in two situations:

1. You are bullying someone with your status, wealth, or influence. Think puny little jerk who's father happens to be a powerful noble. He is not really scary but sometimes it's worth it to put up with him to avoid the dislike of his father. "If my father were to hear of how you mistreated his eldest son you will be in the poorhouse in a week!" A failed save is also fun for these. "I know your father thinks your a spoiled brat and would likely reward me for teaching you a lesson so bugger off!"

2. Illusion spells. My sorcerer conjures a terrifying red dragon illusion. Let's see how convincingly scary it is.

[Cazero]

Once again, 3.5 mentality is misapplied to 5e.
Repeat after me : There is no such thing as a skill check in 5e. They're called Ability checks now. Skill proficiency is a circumstancial modifier.

[Tanarii]

since Persuasion is likely more versatile than IntimidationThis is only true if your DM is constantly putting you in situations where a creature is persuadable, but cannot be intimidated. IMX the opposite is far more often true in the typical D&D game.

Of course, when players get *too* used to just bullying everything and suddenly come up against a situation where they can't just threaten their way through it, hilarity usually ensues. For the DM. :smallamused:

[smcmike]

I'd normally let the players describe how they're going to intimidate someone, and decide then.

If they go for "I stare her down. I take an iron bar, and fold it into a knot", they can have STR(Intimidate). If they go for "I tell her about all the ways I'll rip her helpless body to pieces" that'll be CHA(Intimidate).

STR (Intimidate) sounds like it makes for good slapstick on failure. "The iron bar proves surprisingly resistant, and your threats give way to frustrated grunts...."

Other stats?

DEX(Intimidate): "I throw my dagger, impaling the doorframe inches from his head."
CON(Intimidate): "I quaff an entire stein of ale in one go, slam it down, and stare intently."
WIS(Intimidate): "My guy tells me you should cooperate..."
INT(Intimidate: "I recite a history of every person who has ever slighted me over the past 25 years, and their fates, in excruciating detail."

[Easy_Lee]

The simplest answer is that no skill should always be rolled with the same stat in every case. nickl_2000 posted relevant text from the book both explaining and supporting this. You could conceivably use any stat to intimidate someone.

I don't know why this thread is still going.

[Geeknamese]

For me, all ability scores are open to be used with any skills. I encourage my players to be creative with their skills and tool proficiencies. So basically, I let them narrate what they're trying to do and then I tell them which ability score and skill applies.

It's the most fun for me as a DM when I player comes up with a clever way to use their skills or tool proficiencies. It fosters creativity, improvisation and just overall makes them feel super awesome which is the point of the game.

[Unoriginal]

Once again, 3.5 mentality is misapplied to 5e.
Repeat after me : There is no such thing as a skill check in 5e. They're called Ability checks now. Skill proficiency is a circumstancial modifier.

This is a good point.


To persuade someone with your words, you are making a Charisma check. If you are trying to intimidate someone just by looking at them so they get the message "be somewhere else", it is a Charisma check.

If you are proficient in Persuasion, you get a bonus in the first situation. If you are proficient with Intimidate in the second situation, you get the bonus.

The same manner that if you want to scare someone away by spinning your sword around very fast, it could be a Dex check, with the Intimidate proficiency bonus if relevant.

[SharkForce]

this has been discussed plenty already. i'm not a fan of strength(intimidate) checks. but you might be.

my personal ruling: exceptional strength (along with many other ways to inflict harm) can allow you to make an intimidate check, but intimidate isn't just "being scary" it's "being scary in specifically the right amount, at the right time, and in the right way to get someone to do what you want".

can your high strength make you scary? absolutely. i don't even require a check for that. if you are a 20 strength barbarian, you are scary to most people. and people will act scared... but if you don't have the charisma to back it up, well, when you're trying to get the location of the person you're hunting, they might run away, or shout for the guards, or otherwise respond to your threats in ways you don't like.

as to the usefulness of intimidate, i'd say it's great. persuasion requires that you have something the other person wants, and be willing to give it (whether that be your skills, money, or whatever). intimidate merely requires that you can make something happen that they don't want to have happen. if you persuade an orc guard to let you pass, it will probably cost you gold or other valuables, and maybe a horse or something. if you intimidate the orc guard to let you pass, all it costs you is a few words.

[Tanarii]

On the topic of Strength (Intimidation) and if that's a good idea:

First of all, it's worth noting who gets it. Barbarians, Paladins, Fighters, Rogues. Soldier background. Half-orc race. Except for Rogues, all people that are good at using their muscle and/or size to be scary and threatening, and are Str-based, have Str-related skill focus, get a Str-bonus.

Second of all, most players seem to think it should be possible, and get upset if you shoot it down.

Combine those with it being the go-to example for Variant Ability Checks, and that's why I'm cool with letting players make Strength (Intimidation) checks if it seems appropriate.

[jas61292]

Let's take a look at two iconic characters from the extremely popular fantasy series Game of Thrones: Tywin Lannister, and Hodor.

Between the two of them, Hodor is much more physically strong, with characters both in the television series and in the books suggesting he might be half-giant. In fact, of all the characers in the series, the only one who might rival him in terms of sheer strength is literally called The Mountain. He only ever say one word, Hodor, and he gets picked on by every bully in the Seven Kingdoms. Children with rocks would stale him into a panic.

Tywin Lannister, on the other hand, is a thin man of average height in his twilight years. The only time anyone ever stood up to him without am army at their back, he was pants down on a toilet, and they had a crossbow.

The ability to compell others relies on convincing them that you are a threat, not on simply being strong. In real life, little bullies pick on large, quiet kids all the time because they know the quiet kid won't fight back. In fiction, everyone is more scared of Joker than the Wrecking Crew because the Joker has convinced everyone (with reason) that he's the biggest bad in the whole damn world.

Strength isn't a non-factor though, and I'm fine with using displays of strength to gain advantage on a check. If a guy has 18 Str and says, "I break their sword on me knee and shout at them," I'll totally give them advantage or lower the DC, but carrying yourself in a threatening manner is fundamentally a projection of your persona, and I require Charisma rolls for Intimidation.

Forthnately, a fighter or barbarian who wants to be reasonably intimidating can easily bump his Charisma up to 12 without any major opportunity cost.

This is the perfect description of why I really hate the concept of Strength based intimidation. Not to mention the fact that physical strength in a D&D world is no more inherently intimidating than magic or anything else that can run off of any other ability score.

Yes, if you are to be threatening, the target of your intimidation must believe you are able and willing to back up your threat. Strength is one way to do this. But it is not the only way, and far from the most effective. And regardless of method, it is always Charisma that is needed to make them sure your are not simply able, but also willing to carry through. Because being able to break someone in half with your bare hands won't scare anyone who is convinced you would never actually hurt them.

[Beelzebubba]

I'm with Evil Anagram. I've known a few dudes that were ripped and amazing at martial arts, but didn't get much respect, because of some 'inner light' that wasn't on.

Context is important too, but if a big muscular fighter tries to do that to a King in their own castle, and help is a moment away, then it's worthless - the circumstances would never allow that strength to influence the King in any way, and STR doesn't factor in.

Now, if the King was alone, his guards dead, his carriage wrecked, surrounded by the attackers, and the fighter did a STR thing, with the promise that he'd be able to exert that STR whenever he wanted, and the King's power base was gone? Definitely.

Context, context, context.

[SharkForce]

On the topic of Strength (Intimidation) and if that's a good idea:

First of all, it's worth noting who gets it. Barbarians, Paladins, Fighters, Rogues. Soldier background. Half-orc race. Except for Rogues, all people that are good at using their muscle and/or size to be scary and threatening, and are Str-based, have Str-related skill focus, get a Str-bonus.

Second of all, most players seem to think it should be possible, and get upset if you shoot it down.

Combine those with it being the go-to example for Variant Ability Checks, and that's why I'm cool with letting players make Strength (Intimidation) checks if it seems appropriate.

it's the go-to example for checks because people who play warriors have been complaining about the undesirable side effects of dumping cha for decades, not because it makes more sense than anything else.

again, it isn't just about being scary. it's about being scary in the right way. it's about knowing how to influence people with your scariness. and that is purely within the domain of charisma.

if you want to be a scary warrior, then don't dump charisma and become proficient in intimidation. otherwise it's just as silly as me making an 8 strength wizard and then insisting that i should be able to use my superior intelligence to plan out exactly how to successfully grapple a gigantic muscle-bound olympic gold medalist wrestler with an intelligence (athletics) check.

[mephnick]

I'd normally let the players describe how they're going to intimidate someone, and decide then.

If they go for "I stare her down. I take an iron bar, and fold it into a knot", they can have STR(Intimidate). If they go for "I tell her about all the ways I'll rip her helpless body to pieces" that'll be CHA(Intimidate).

This is also something that I've seen gets forgotten a lot. Players not explaining what they're actually doing and just trying to trigger the skills they want to use. I blame this on bad DM's teaching people how to play the game wrong though. So many games I've watched or DM'd where it goes like this:

DM:"The bartender won't tell you anything more about the escaped murderer"
Player:" I roll intimidate to get him to tell me what I want to know"
DM: OK, I'm an idiot, roll whatever you want without clarifying what your character is actually after or physically doing because that's how this game works in my stupid head. Also, yes, you get to call the skill checks, which don't actually exist, whenever you want and I'll let you do it.

[Tanarii]

again, it isn't just about being scary. it's about being scary in the right way. it's about knowing how to influence people with your scariness. and that is purely within the domain of charisma.Generally speaking, I agree. Abstractly, it's an interaction, thus it is Charisma. I mean, you can intimidate someone with Strength by beating them up, but that's about it.

But given the designers made Intimidation proficiency (generally) the domain of big strong warrior guys, and specifically wrote in a variant rule for it, it's clear they're open to the idea that it's not JUST about knowing how to influence people. That it can also/sometimes require being big and strong to base the attempt on. So ... not purely within the domain of charisma at all.

Of course, they might have done that, as you said, because many people can't wrap their mind around the idea that charisma = interaction ability. And that big strong guys might also tend to focus on being scary (as an interaction thing) more than others.

Really my main point was it's not worth arguing with players about. IMX the vast majority of players and DMs think that Strength (Intimidation) is appropriate for a big strong barbarian, and don't think too much about the underlying purpose of the abstraction.

[Mjolnirbear]

Every ability check should be answering three questions: what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how you intend to accomplish it.

With this information you know what to roll, what success looks like, and what happens on a failure.

Your player says "I want to climb the wall." you know what he wants to do. You could make a StR (athletics) check and you're done. But it's boring.

Ask him why, so you know what success looks like.
"I'm climbing so I get a better view" means success might reduce cover against a target.
"I'm climbing so I can avoid the monster's club" means success will take you both out of each other's reach.
"I'm climbing so I can leap onto his back and try to stab him in the neck" means success could provide advantage on his next roll.

In addition, it helps provide information. If height won't actually give a better view, or escape the monster's reach, or the monster is so tall you need to climb for several rounds, this is information you can provide your players so they can do something else.

But wait, there's more: ask your player how. It will tell you what the consequences of failure look like. It also tells you what you're rolling.
"I dig my fingers in and climb" means if he fails, he falls. He's rolling a strength check, literally muscling himself up.
"I throw my rope around the crenellation and use it to climb" means he has advantage on his check and if he still fails, he won't fall far. It's also a strength check, but probably an easier one.
"I run up the corner, leap, and catch the top of the wall while yelling 'parkour!'" means falling if he fails, but also probably changes the roll. It could be dex Acrobatics.


So let's go back to intimidation. Your player says he wants to convince the guard to let him into the jail to speak to someone. Right off, you know what success looks like, and you're pretty sure it's a social roll. Now you need how.

"I intimidate him by threatening his life". Probably a charisma intimidate roll. You reason the guard gets threatened by petty thugs all the time, so the roll is probably harder; and failure might mean the guard becomes more unreasonable and more hostile.

"I try to convince him my noble connections could make life very difficult." well this is interesting. Does the player have noble connections? If so, intimidation. If not, déception. À lowly guard is likely to be intimidated by a noble.

"I appeal to his sense of reason that there's no real reason not to." this is also a persuasion check, but by using logic. Instead of charisma, it might be intelligence. If the guard has not received orders to the contrary this might work. You could simply decide success isn't possible, for instance because there *is* a reason.

"I offer a bribe, and swear if I get caught ill lie about how I got in." Now the guard has reason to be helpful (greed) and the reason not to be helpful (fear of getting in trouble) is addressed. This would probably grant advantage to the roll or even just outright succeed if the guard has no other objections. This might make future relationships more smooth. Unless you've decided beforehand that his guard is one of those rare creatures, an honest man, who gets offended at your offer and tries to drive you off, summoning Backup if needed.


I think most DMs would be far happier with their players' imaginations if they did skill checks as more than a boring single check.