Strength (Intimidation) checks

[Tanarii]

Let's have a multipage discussion(read: argument) about Strength (Athletics) checks!

What the book says:
1) By the default rules, it's a Charisma (Intimidation) check.
2) Intimidation. When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry in- formation 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 recon- sider a decision.
3) Variant rule allows checks with different abilities. This Variant specifically uses Constitution (Athletics) and Strength (Intimidation) as examples.

Your thoughts:
A) As a DM, do you use Variant ability checks / skills?
B) As a player, do you expect them?
c) What are your thoughts on Strength (Intimidation), either as a DM, a Player, in theory, or some combination. Be sure to call out where your perspective is coming from.
D) something else I didn't think of

My thoughts:
As a DM, I generally use variant ability checks, but two of the most common are Constitution (Athletics) and Strength (Athletics). The former I explicitly allow in place of Constitution saves to avoid Dash exhaustion in Chase scenes, as a house rule.

For Strength (Intimidate), I feel that in theory, threats of physical violence / bullying / looming is already covered by Charisma (Intimidate) checks. I also see the potential for causing cognitive dissonance with using Strength ability checks for something that is often represented as threatening violence, size, or ability to interact/presence.
For threatening violence, there are many ways to do that via physical actions that don't involve muscles at all. For size, it allows a muscular gnome to be more intimidating than a large dragonborn with moderate strength. And Charisma is the ability score for interpersonal interaction and presence.
On the other hand, the Intimidation skill is a class skill for a Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Warlocks. It's also a background skill for Soldiers, and racial for Half-orcs. It's easy to see the where the designers took into consideration it's often associated with strength, not just being a scary mofo with natural presence.

In practice I regularly allow Strength (Intimidation) checks for one particular reason: a large number of players expect it. It's not worth the table argument. Especially when I'm already indicating I'm open to Variant ability/skill checks, and the PHB calls it out under that Variant rule. That said, I do subscribe to approach to a task affecting both the check required and the possible outcomes and consequences. Threats delivered by Strength (Intimidation) can have different short term and long term results.

As with any topic with the potential to get heated, please keep in mind forum rules.

[Catullus64]

A). Absolutely! Charisma (Investigation) for information gathering and Intelligence (Medicine) for theoretical knowledge of the body. Charisma (Stealth) for shadowing someone in a crowd has also been known to happen at my table. I once allowed Constitution (Nature) when the Barbarian started tasting random herbs and berries to discern their effects.

B). Nope. Entirely the DM's call, though I have mad respect for a DM who uses them liberally.

C). Strength (Intimidation). In general, alternate ability checks, since they often provide an advantage to a character who lacks a traditional high-ability score/proficiency combo, should require some specificity and creative legwork from the player: their description of the action needs to paint a compelling picture of the skill-ability combo. "I cross my arms and stare menacingly at the merchant?" Charisma (Intimidation), no matter how muscular you are. "I pick up a piece of fruit, roughly the size of the human skull, and crush it in one hand before the merchant's eyes?" Strength (Intimidation). My regular players and I have a good understanding that if you do the roleplaying work of providing a vivid and specific description, I'll try to reward you with an unusual, perhaps extra beneficial ability check.

D). Performance is a skill I still haven't figured out how to effectively assign to different ability scores, especially when musical instruments are involved. Subsequent commenters, any input on that?

[JNAProductions]

I'd generally not allow this specific usage, but I'd be happy to let a feat of raw physical Strength grant advantage on your Intimidation check.

Variant skills in general, though, are excellent.

Edit: Remove Performance, replace with tool proficiencies.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Let's have a multipage discussion(read: argument) about Strength (Athletics) checks!

https://i.imgur.com/LQB56JA.jpg

[da newt]

In a party I'd allow / reward team tactics - The face tells the person being questioned what the Barbarian will do to him if ... CHA intimidation check with ADV if the Barb does something impressive. If the Barb does all the talking and squashing stuff - ST intimidation check straight up - sure.

If a player can make a good case for an alternate ability check (CON athletics because this is a pain tolerance / test of will vice a test of raw power ...) then I'd be fine to allow it. If a player says can I use Dex instead of strength 'cause my strength is low and my dex is high - Nope.

For me its all about make your case and make it good, and then sure we'll bend the rule.

[JackPhoenix]

A) Yes, every time it makes sense
B) Sort of. I think they should be a thing, but I don't really expect the other people I play with to use them for various reasons.
C) No. Being good at threatening people doesn't make you better at accomplishing feats of strength, and interacting with others is covered under Cha. Technically, it should be 2 checks.... Str check to accomplish the feat of strength, and Cha (Intimidate) check to see if the target cares. Too many rolls, though, so it's up to the GM to decide what's more important. Some people would be cowed by the FoS without need for Intimidate check, but you'll have to roll if the character can actually bend the sword/crush the rock/whatever, some people would require Cha (Intimidate) check, but the success on the Str check is automatic, some people require no rolls at all, either because they crumple at the very idea of violence, or because they can't be influenced that way at all.


D). Performance is a skill I still haven't figured out how to effectively assign to different ability scores, especially when musical instruments are involved. Subsequent commenters, any input on that?

Depends on what are you trying to accomplish. Dancing would be Dex-based, if you focus more on the technique than impressing others, composing songs would fit under Int.

[OldTrees1]

A) Yes, although it is not really a variant. 5E's core mechanic is the DM calling for a check, the DM chooses the ability and any relevant proficiencies. Notice the order is ability, then proficiency. That matters in 5E.

B) When it makes sense to call for a kind of check, I do anticipate that kind of check. "Expect" might be too strong of a term.

C) Strength (Intimidation) is an interesting combination. Have you ever read/watched/heard of Mice and Men? In it is Lennie. Lennie is a very kind very strong very dim individual. The kind of person that does not know their own strength or how to control it. Frequently they are found crying over bunnies that died in their hands.

Imagine if Lennie wanted to give you a hug. I would be terrified even if YOU were the one receiving the hug. I would not be scared of Lennie's minimal "force of personality". I would be terrified of the lethal uncontrolled strength.

So Wisdom save vs Str(Intimidation) would make some sense.

Another way to look at it is to examine the phrase "Don't worry, they wouldn't hurt a fly." (which obviously does not apply to Lennie). That phrase is usually used to try to mitigate the after effects of an unintentional passive intimidation. It is saying "I understand you are intimidated, but they did not mean to intimidate you and here is some counter evidence against the root of your fear." If I said that about a big burly individual, I would trying to convince you that you did not need to fear their literal strength (unlike Lennie).

D) There are several cases where Ability(Proficiency) makes more sense than Proficiency(Ability) but some cases where the reverse makes more sense. This is an interesting reversal that 5E implemented.

[stoutstien]

I just ask for ability checks and let the players decide if any skill are relevant.

I also have almost gotten rid of static completely.

[JackPhoenix]

Imagine if Lennie wanted to give you a hug. I would be terrified even if YOU were the one receiving the hug. I would not be scared of Lennie's minimal "force of personality". I would be terrified of the lethal uncontrolled strength.

That's the common argument for Str (Intimidate) checks, and it's great example of people missing the point. Intimidate isn't proficiency in "being scary". Its easy to be scary to a commoner as an adventurer or any random monster. It's proficiency in getting other people to do what you want through threats.

Bear is scary, and it's also stronger than a person. But bear can't force you to do what it wants you to do.

[stoutstien]

That's the common argument for Str (Intimidate) checks, and it's great example of people missing the point. Intimidate isn't proficiency in "being scary". Its easy to be scary to a commoner as an adventurer or any random monster. It's proficiency in getting other people to do what you want through threats.

Bear is scary, and it's also stronger than a person. But bear can't force you to do what it wants you to do.

I think it points out the flaw In ablity checks In the regard that even if a NPC had a way to have a massive bonus to intimation it has no effect on players' characters. Same issue with persuasion.

[Xihirli]

D). Performance is a skill I still haven't figured out how to effectively assign to different ability scores, especially when musical instruments are involved. Subsequent commenters, any input on that?

Intelligence (instrument) to do the memorized keys, or dexterity (performance) for tightrope or a complicated instrument. Even constitution for the lung work to do the really impressive stuff with the breathing instruments.

[Tanarii]

D). Performance is a skill I still haven't figured out how to effectively assign to different ability scores, especially when musical instruments are involved. Subsequent commenters, any input on that?I have trouble making proficiency useful. Charisma checks are generally about getting something you want from the person. The closest I've come is using it for getting what you want from a large group of people. Effectively, I have it used in situations where if there was an Oratory skill it would apply.

I don't usually need checks to entertain by performance, but obviously it applies when that's necessary. (I like that Gladiators get the skill, makes me think of Russel Crow yelling "are you not entertained!" after he just failed a showmanship check. :smallwink: )

But for straight "are they entertained" variantions using other ability scores, assuming you accept the argument behind Strength (Intimidation) checks:
Strength (Performance) - mock brawling or strong man demos
Dexterity (Performance) - tumbling, juggling, throwing knives, or mock Errol Flynn flashy dueling
Constitution (Performance) - feats of pain
Intelligence (Peformance) - composing songs, music, stories, or poetry. (ie pre-performance)
Wisdom (Performance) - reading the crowd, lion taming, snake charming


That's the common argument for Str (Intimidate) checks, and it's great example of people missing the point. Intimidate isn't proficiency in "being scary". Its easy to be scary to a commoner as an adventurer or any random monster. It's proficiency in getting other people to do what you want through threats.

Bear is scary, and it's also stronger than a person. But bear can't force you to do what it wants you to do.
Agreed, and there's a fairly detailed chart for getting people to do what you want with Social checks in the DMG.

There are some variantions along the lines of "elicit a specific emotional reaction" or "accomplish a goal" though. Charisma vs Wisdom to deceive, Charisma vs DC to elicit trust or postive, Charisma vs Perception(?) to distract. They're still forms of getting other people to do what you want

[Composer99]

Let's have a multipage discussion(read: argument) ...

Pretty sure you should be opening up the floor to druids and metal armour if that's what you want. :-p

To stay on topic, I've no problem with my players using alternate ability scores with a proficiency when I'm DMing, as long as it's not too much of a stretch. (Strength (Arcana), for instance, is a hard sell.)

[MrStabby]

I use a lot of cross ability checks in my games. I think that they work well. However the ones I use are not to replace other checks usually.

If I were to allow strength with intimidation I word also allow a casting stat through prestidigitation or similar. Most of my social interaction in games is through RP rather than dice rolling so it is less of an issue.

Generally before strength I would see other attributes one into play in social situations: forming an argument to convince someone through logic would be an intelligence (persuasion) check for example.

[Tanarii]

A) Yes, although it is not really a variant.
Citation please.

[DeTess]

Your thoughts:
A) As a DM, do you use Variant ability checks / skills?
B) As a player, do you expect them?
c) What are your thoughts on Strength (Intimidation), either as a DM, a Player, in theory, or some combination. Be sure to call out where your perspective is coming from.


A) Yes, because it often makes more sense to me. Both in a game I play in and in the game I DM we use Wisdom(arcana) as a kind of general sixth sense/magic perception, and I recently called for a Charisma(investigation) check when the PC's wanted to do some asking around in a city to find a certain piece of info.
B) Yes, whenever they make sense.
C) Strength(intimidation) is an odd one. it's obviously meant to allow someone that's physically strong, but who only has an average charisma to leverage that, so if we look at it in that way, it makes sense. As a DM, I'd allow it if the PC was obviously using their physical fitness to be intimidating*, even if it doesn't 100% make sense.

* For example: "I loom over the thug, making sure to flex my muscles as I say 'are you certain this is what you want to do?'"

[djreynolds]

Your thoughts:
A) As a DM, do you use Variant ability checks / skills?
B) As a player, do you expect them?
c) What are your thoughts on Strength (Intimidation), either as a DM, a Player, in theory, or some combination. Be sure to call out where your perspective is coming from.
D) something else I didn't think of



A) Yes all the time, but they must have proficiency in the skill, that's the key. Your experience is represented by your proficiency in a skill and your use of that skill may allow you to use a different ability.

But I prefer to make players use both stats, you may use intelligence and wisdom on a medicine check. Why? You may know the anatomy through intelligence, but it doesn't stop the screaming or smells from affecting you, hence, the wisdom. So you need both.

B) No, I expect RAW

C) There are many ways to intimidate, Take for instance Tombstone the movie, where Ringo is spinning his pistols... to some it is intimidating, but to Doc Holliday its a joke and he turns it on him

I feel with strength, your physical presence has to affect others and strength is one representation of at least your physical presence (why drow don't get something for no-drow is beyond me)

There are many ways to intimidate, for a thug with muscles it might just be the muscles are enough... but the argument against it is does the thug know how to "flex" those muscles.

D) I think its fair when in question, to simply average to ability scores. So a fighter with a 20 in strength and 8 in charisma has +2 to intimidate... it seems fair. You got the look but lack the moves

[nickl_2000]

I never expect variant checks, but our table uses variants on checks fairly often.

The gnomish wizard in my party used my 6’6 tall muscular Paladin as the intimidation method last session, for example.

[ad_hoc]

Your thoughts:
A) As a DM, do you use Variant ability checks / skills?


I tried a couple times but it just bogged the game down as players tried to figure out what I meant.



B) As a player, do you expect them?

No.


c) What are your thoughts on Strength (Intimidation), either as a DM, a Player, in theory, or some combination. Be sure to call out where your perspective is coming from.


I'm not 100% against it but I'm not really for it either.

In many cases when a player says they are going to physically intimidate an NPC I just say it works or it doesn't based on the image of their character.

I think a case where the outcome is in doubt I would be looking at how much presence they have and how well they're selling the threat rather than how strong they are.

[1Pirate]

Wow some very tame PCs here. Usually when I see people trying to get Strength(Intimidation) checks it's stuff like "I grab them by [fragile body part] and start squeezing until they [do desired task]" or "I start bending their finger backwards until they tell me [desired information]."

[Tanarii]

I tried a couple times but it just bogged the game down as players tried to figure out what I meant.
Generally agreed. This isn't helped by the way most character sheets are designed 3e/4e style, listing Skill (Ability), possibly with a space to write the total modifier. Even calling for a Wisdom (Perception) or Strength (Athletics) check confuses many players because of the order stated. They're expecting a call for a Perception or Athletics skill check.

(Anyone confused what I'm talking about see the second to last page of your PHB, first page of the character sheet.)

I have a very large player base and groups rotate players regularly. So I find it helps to use Variant checks sparingly and for exceptional circumstances, usually ones in which pacing isn't important so they can take the time to figure it out. Other peoples mileage may vary of course, especially if they have a single group of very experienced players.

The exception to this seems to be Strength (Intimidation) checks. Most players who want to do that already understand the concept anyway.

[OldTrees1]

Citation please.

PHB sections on Ability Checks. pg 174

Base Rule:
The DM chooses the ability and if any bonuses (including proficiency bonuses) apply
Additional Rule:
Some skill proficiencies can be seen as subdivisions of an ability
Variant Rule:
Remember that base rule? Repeat it again here as a variant

Although I suspect my jovial half-joking tone did not transmit as intended. So your citation request is understood.


That's the common argument for Str (Intimidate) checks, and it's great example of people missing the point. Intimidate isn't proficiency in "being scary". Its easy to be scary to a commoner as an adventurer or any random monster. It's proficiency in getting other people to do what you want through threats.

Bear is scary, and it's also stronger than a person. But bear can't force you to do what it wants you to do.

Fair point.

D&D has used Intimidate before as a stand in for non spell based fear checks. Some Skills get overloaded when you have a short list. Most variant usages are when the PC is trying to do something in an unusual way or when the DM calls for an unusual check but wants proficiency to be possible.

[Tanarii]

PHB sections on Ability Checks. pg 174

Base Rule:
The DM chooses the ability and if any bonuses (including proficiency bonuses) apply
Additional Rule:
Some skill proficiencies can be seen as subdivisions of an ability
Variant Rule:
Remember that base rule? Repeat it again here as a variantNot seeing that on page 174. You're going to have to be specific.

What I see is:
Base rule (in skills section): The DM might tell your skill applies proficiency bonus to the ability check.
Variant rule (immediately following): ability checks with skills from a different ability score.

It's pretty clear from the context of the examples given that the skills section is referring directly to the related ability score. Especially given that it's immediately followed by the variant rule.

Edit:

Although I suspect my jovial half-joking tone did not transmit as intended. So your citation request is understood.Oh. Not only that in your first post, I glossed over this and cut it out of when I quoted the second. /facepalm :smallamused:

I agree the skills section is not explicit in saying the DM calls for the standard related ability score / skill combo, if that's what you meant.

[Terebin]

In 5e, there aren't actually skill checks - there are ability checks, and if you are proficient in the application you add an additional bonus.

As a DM, I will call for an ability check and if you can convince me you are proficient in it I'll probably let you add your proficiency bonus.

[JackPhoenix]

I had another thought about Intimidate in general: if the check is failed, most[citation needed] GMs would declare the target isn't just intimidated. That, IMO, is a mistake. The target may be scared even on a failed Intimidate check... the difference is that the target doesn't do what the intimidator wants them to do. Instead of giving the information the group needs, the target may call for help, lie, attempt to run, desperately fight back or even just turn into sobbing mess pleading for their life. The intimidator is still scary, but he's not good enough at influencing others.

[Daphne]

Generally agreed. This isn't helped by the way most character sheets are designed 3e/4e style, listing Skill (Ability), possibly with a space to write the total modifier. Even calling for a Wisdom (Perception) or Strength (Athletics) check confuses many players because of the order stated. They're expecting a call for a Perception or Athletics skill check.

Exactly why I don't use the variant rule. And as bizarre as it may sound to you, no one at my table ever asked for it, including Strength (Intimidation).

I'd probably allow it if someone asked though.

[Slipperychicken]

I'd allow strength(intimidate) for intimidation attempts which involve one of these:

A show of strength. like lifting a heavy piece of furniture, breaking something, slamming a door. Anything that shows off the intimidator's physical power. Having just beaten someone up would work too
Physically violating the target: invading personal space, tormenting, torturing, or overpowering them. Pushing the target away, cornering the target into a wall, grabbing the target to dominate them, lifting the target easily, placing the target in a submission hold, pressing the target's face into something, etc


It's good etiquette to discuss and negotiate these conditions with a player if there's a disagreement. Say if a player really wants to use strength, I'd paraphrase the conditions above and suggest one or two ways that would qualify in my eyes ("if you broke some of stuff in his store or twisted his arm it'd work"). And if they suggest something, I'll tell them if it would let them substitute the ability score.

[firelistener]

Personally, I only use the regular ones. For Intimidation specifically, it makes more sense to me as charisma because it's still trying to convince someone. I might give advantage if a player looks rather scary because they're big and burly or they have some other menacing features, but not allow strength checks for it. It's very possible for someone to not be intimidated by the beefy bouncer who could absolutely crush them while they start shaking in their boots from one word that the smooth-talking mobster says.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I allow str intimidation.

I even suggested it is a game I am playing the face(bard with expertise in cha checks without intimidation) so our LE barbarian will be better then me at being scary.


Also, I ask my players which ability and check they think is the right choice for what they are trying to do. I don't allow everything but most of the time they have great ideas.

[BurgerBeast]

A) Yes, I use them.

B) No, I don’t expect them.

c) For me, the first question is: what is the player actually doing? Does that thing qualify as a strength check? Could success cause the intended target to be intimidated? If so, I’d use a Strength (Intimidation) check.

I personally think that a lot of people misunderstand intimidation.

Example 1: if you are in the same room as a mass murderer, and you know it, and you’re scared, that’s not necessarily because you’re intimidated. It’s because you’re aware of a real threat.

Example 2: Flexing your muscles does not depend on strength. If a character tries to look strong, that’s a Charisma check for me.

Example 3: If a character bends an iron bar in half or throws a table across the room, this could qualify as a Strength check, but all it would really accomplish is demonstrating your strength. It would not cause the other to think you will harm them.

Example 4: (It’s hard to think of a relevant example, so excuse the goriness) if a person was next in line to be interrogated and the interrogator literally ripped a limb off of his current subject, that would seem to qualify as a strength (intimidation) check on the person.

D) I think you’ve got it. Your method makes sense to me.

[Slipperychicken]

Example 1: if you are in the same room as a mass murderer, and you know it, and you’re scared, that’s not necessarily because you’re intimidated. It’s because you’re aware of a real threat.

Example 3: If a character bends an iron bar in half or throws a table across the room, this could qualify as a Strength check, but all it would really accomplish is demonstrating your strength. It would not cause the other to think you will harm them.

#1: Psychologically speaking, the only real difference is the perceived credibility of the threat. Fear is fear. If you're on-edge, an intimidator can use it to his advantage.

#3: If we're completely ignoring all social cues and context, sure. But have you been present in a situation where someone stronger than you is actually damaging objects while trying frighten you? It's a lot scarier than you think, especially if they're hucking heavy objects right near you to make you jump. That kind of action screams unpredictability and violence. In that kind of situation you don't know what's going to happen next, and a fight-or-flight response is inevitable.

[djreynolds]

I allow str intimidation.

I even suggested it is a game I am playing the face(bard with expertise in cha checks without intimidation) so our LE barbarian will be better then me at being scary.


Also, I ask my players which ability and check they think is the right choice for what they are trying to do. I don't allow everything but most of the time they have great ideas.

Yes, I think the key is proficiency.

If you are proficient in a skill, I'll let you try another ability out.

We already have seen an instance for this with samurai and using wisdom "in-addition" to charisma for persuasion checks.

And I think the key is understanding the relationships.

Example, a might brown bear walks over to a wolf's kill and the wolf leaves... not even an argument. And then a wolverine comes over, growls ferociously, and the giant bear scampers away. ( I have no clue what this means)

A DM has to judge, in some cases strength can be intimidating and in some cases it is not.

I think the tough aspect is weighing the abilities in question and the situation. Why can strength be used here and not here?

So at my table if you want to use an alternate ability score with a skill check, I make you use the average of both. You can use the average of your charisma and strength modifiers for an intimidation check. It is a reasonable solution

[Tanarii]

Yes, I think the key is proficiency.

If you are proficient in a skill, I'll let you try another ability out.

Which raises another point. Proficiency isn't supposed to gate if you get to make checks, or mean you're more trained that someone without it. In theory, a Cha 14 is just as naturally talented and trained in Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion as a T1 charcater with those proficiencies and Cha 10. Both have +2 to Intimidation checks, or the same skill level at the task of Intimidation.

So why don't they both get to add +2 to their Strength (Intimidation) checks?

(Edit: obviously I understand why mechanically. What I'm saying is allowing variant ability checks messes up the base assumptions of what an ability score, proficiency, and total bonus mean.)

[stoutstien]

Which raises another point. Proficiency isn't supposed to gate if you get to make checks, or mean you're more trained that someone without it. In theory, a Cha 14 is just as naturally talented and trained in Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion as a T1 charcater with those proficiencies and Cha 10. Both have +2 to Intimidation checks, or the same skill level at the task of Intimidation.

So why don't they both get to add +2 to their Strength (Intimidation) checks?

(Edit: obviously I understand why mechanically. What I'm saying is allowing variant ability checks messes up the base assumptions of what an ability score, proficiency, and total bonus mean.)

I think they got the scale backwards with the weight of ability and proficiency. Proficiency end up worth more than the base ablity and that isn't even considering expertise or all the races that add bonus dice too skill checks.

On the question of strength based intimation checks. The difference i believe in the nature of the action. If I wanted to bend a sword in half with my finger in an attempt to intimate a guard, my proficiency in the skill itself won't help me bend the metal which is a feat of strength. So a player is potentially trading their proficiency bonus from athletics to intimation so the DC of the actual bending may be harder to reach but the DC of the social portion gets a boost.

[Tanarii]

Now I'm tempted to call for a Charisma (Athletics) check next time someone wants to do strength-based intimidation. :smallamused:

[stoutstien]

Now I'm tempted to call for a Charisma (Athletics) check next time someone wants to do strength-based intimidation. :smallamused:

I use that for someone trying to appear threatening through posturing but not any actual action of force. Like a professional wrestler walking in.

If they removed all the (ability) from the skills and just had them listed with examples of use I think players would enjoy being able to 'be' their characters more and worry about aligning stats/skills to do what they want.

[djreynolds]

It's tough to weigh. Proficiency vs ability.

Obviously ability comes first and can be increased.

Ability represents our natural inclination to a skill.

Proficiency represents our experience using those skills.

I know it's called an ability check, which we can add proficiency to.

Is a halfling with 20 strength more intimidating than a vampire with a 16 strength?

Is strength supposed to be more than a representation of .... strength? Does it include size and fangs and tusks and anything else scary?

Perhaps it is best to leave it alone. Or as in the case of the samurai archetype, make it that barbarians can add their strength for intimidation checks.

This leaves it still a charisma check but takes into account the flavor of that barbarian world. Where when dealing less civilized people chest thumping works on orcs.

I believe samurai wisdom to persuasion checks is only in courtly situations. Elegant courtier originally was for noble and high ranking situations.

So a barbarians chest thumping perhaps doesn't intimidate the captain of the guard as it does the lowly gate guard.

It's might be best to leave strength (intimidation) checks for certain criteria

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Let's have a multipage discussion(read: argument) about Strength (Athletics) checks!

What the book says:
1) By the default rules, it's a Charisma (Intimidation) check.
2) Intimidation. When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry in- formation 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 recon- sider a decision.
3) Variant rule allows checks with different abilities. This Variant specifically uses Constitution (Athletics) and Strength (Intimidation) as examples.

Your thoughts:
A) As a DM, do you use Variant ability checks / skills?
B) As a player, do you expect them?
c) What are your thoughts on Strength (Intimidation), either as a DM, a Player, in theory, or some combination. Be sure to call out where your perspective is coming from.
D) something else I didn't think of

My thoughts:
As a DM, I generally use variant ability checks, but two of the most common are Constitution (Athletics) and Strength (Athletics). The former I explicitly allow in place of Constitution saves to avoid Dash exhaustion in Chase scenes, as a house rule.

For Strength (Intimidate), I feel that in theory, threats of physical violence / bullying / looming is already covered by Charisma (Intimidate) checks. I also see the potential for causing cognitive dissonance with using Strength ability checks for something that is often represented as threatening violence, size, or ability to interact/presence.
For threatening violence, there are many ways to do that via physical actions that don't involve muscles at all. For size, it allows a muscular gnome to be more intimidating than a large dragonborn with moderate strength. And Charisma is the ability score for interpersonal interaction and presence.
On the other hand, the Intimidation skill is a class skill for a Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Warlocks. It's also a background skill for Soldiers, and racial for Half-orcs. It's easy to see the where the designers took into consideration it's often associated with strength, not just being a scary mofo with natural presence.

In practice I regularly allow Strength (Intimidation) checks for one particular reason: a large number of players expect it. It's not worth the table argument. Especially when I'm already indicating I'm open to Variant ability/skill checks, and the PHB calls it out under that Variant rule. That said, I do subscribe to approach to a task affecting both the check required and the possible outcomes and consequences. Threats delivered by Strength (Intimidation) can have different short term and long term results.

As with any topic with the potential to get heated, please keep in mind forum rules.

If it seems right do it.

Keep in mind it was the little fast fellows who bothered hockey.

Sometimes it could be the little guy with the firearm that scares me.

If I were an experienced hardcore Bard I might not care that much about the 20 Strength, 8 Int and 8 Wisdom Barbarian I was going to enjoy using my favorite Phantasmal Force/Forcecage combo on.

[JackPhoenix]

It's tough to weigh. Proficiency vs ability.

Ability check is what you do. Proficiency is the measure of how good you are at some specific thing.

[djreynolds]

Ability check is what you do. Proficiency is the measure of how good you are at some specific thing.

True and sometimes you can add your proficiency to your ability check.

I've just been thinking about strength version of (intimidation) checks and where you see it, as compare to straight up charisma (intimidation) checks

In hindsight, it probably would've been better if they never said anything in the PHB about variant skill checks. But the seed has been planted.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think I will allow a player to get an intelligent intimidation check if he is trying to apply the concept of dread and anticipation of pain.

[djreynolds]

I think I will allow a player to get an intelligent intimidation check if he is trying to apply the concept of dread and anticipation of pain.

See this is another good point. Excellent

What exactly is strength? What exactly is charisma? Etc.

A black bear has a 15 strength and looks quite different than human dock worker with a 15 strength... but the bear is scarier, right?

Shouldn't animals be able to intimidate? Don't lions roar? Am I using 7 charisma (-2) of the bear, when its standing on all 2 legs bellowing?

I think variants are necessary, swimming or running is athletics could be considered a constitution (athletics) check depending on the distance?

And when your using dread and pain to scare me, can my intelligence (insight) check be used, because you could be bluffing?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

See this is another good point. Excellent

What exactly is strength? What exactly is charisma? Etc.

A black bear has a 15 strength and looks quite different than human dock worker with a 15 strength... but the bear is scarier, right?

Shouldn't animals be able to intimidate? Don't lions roar? Am I using 7 charisma (-2) of the bear, when its standing on all 2 legs bellowing?

I think variants are necessary, swimming or running is athletics could be considered a constitution (athletics) check depending on the distance?

And when your using dread and pain to scare me, can my intelligence (insight) check be used, because you could be bluffing?

The thing is that even if you know he is bluffing you will still be effected.

I will say that charisma insight/persuasion/deception is better as you need to convince yourself that there will be no pain.

And there is a different between intimidation and danger.

A bear will be more dangerous then a peasant even if both have 15 str. A smart man will probably run away from the bear before he will be intimidated.

[JackPhoenix]

In hindsight, it probably would've been better if they never said anything in the PHB about variant skill checks. But the seed has been planted.

I disagree. It is a good thing that sort of thing is explicitly part of the rules. They just picked really bad example with Intimidate. Con (Athletics) for long-distance running would've been much better.


A black bear has a 15 strength and looks quite different than human dock worker with a 15 strength... but the bear is scarier, right?

Shouldn't animals be able to intimidate? Don't lions roar? Am I using 7 charisma (-2) of the bear, when its standing on all 2 legs bellowing?

Yes, yes, and yes. The bear, regardless of its Str, lacks the ability to get you to do whatever it wants you to do, mainly because it's not sapient and unable to communicate its intents. Intimidate isn't about who or what's scary or dangerous, but about getting someone do what you want through threats.

Ultimately, the burly dockworker with 15 str present the same level of threat as a 10 str beggar holding a dagger. Lesser, actually, as the dagger can kill another commoner with one strike, while the dockworker can't kill someone with one punch. Yet there's no ability score for "I'm holding a weapon and you do not". It's easy to be scary, it's harder to use that to get what you want instead of random fear response.

[BurgerBeast]

#1: Psychologically speaking, the only real difference is the perceived credibility of the threat. Fear is fear. If you're on-edge, an intimidator can use it to his advantage.

Right. If you’re on edge. The point is that if the target perceived the threat to be credible, (1) he does not need to be afraid to comply with a threat. He could just comply because of awareness of consequences. In this case he’s not intimidated, he’s just making a logical decision. No check necessary; (2) some people simply won’t be intimidated. They can be terrified and think they will be killed, but choose to face death anyway. No check necessary.

I’m saying that many people get what they want without intimidating people simply because the threat is real.


#3: If we're completely ignoring all social cues and context, sure. But have you been present in a situation where someone stronger than you is actually damaging objects while trying frighten you? It's a lot scarier than you think, especially if they're hucking heavy objects right near you to make you jump. That kind of action screams unpredictability and violence. In that kind of situation you don't know what's going to happen next, and a fight-or-flight response is inevitable.

I’m saying that damaging objects is not the same as damaging objects while trying to frighten you. It’s that last bit that involves using your charisma to make the act appear frightening and influence the target’s behaviour.

Think of it this way: the question we’re trying to answer is not “did you manage to throw the table?” It’s “did you intimidate X?”

So, no, I’m not ignoring the social cues or context. I’m saying that any social cues or context which equate to “try to frighten” are necessarily Charisma-based. That’s my opinion on the matter.

Yes, I have been in situations like that, many times in my life. They are not scarier than I think. They’re precisely as scary as I think they are. Not that this has anything to do with my point. I never said they’re not scary. I said they’re functions of the intimidator’s Charisma, not Strength.

My wife is a victim of domestic violence and she more-or-less cannot be intimidated by physical violence. It just doesn’t work. She gets scared and she knows it will hurt, but she won’t do what the intimidator wants. It may be the case that higher levels of threat would get to her, and certainly threatening our kids would get to her, but particular threats of violence that might realistically intimidate others simply won’t intimidate her.

I’ve been in fist fights with people in which I was not scared. I’ve also declined to fight in many instances in which the other party thought they’d intimidated me but they actually did not. I just couldn’t see the point. I’ve also declined to fight in situations where I was very scared.

[Tanarii]

Ability check is what you do. Proficiency is the measure of how good you are at some specific thing.
Ability scores are a measure of your natural talent and training at a broad number of things. Skill proficiency is a focus on a narrow subset of those things.

When the total modifier is the same for any given Ability (Skill) for two different characters, they have the exact same measure of being good at (specific thing). Regardless of source.

The problem when you change it to Other Ability (Skill), one of them suddenly loses a bunch of their bonus from natural talent and training about (specific thing), and the other doesn't lose a bunch of bonus from focus about (specific thing) and instead gets better.

For Intimidate, it makes no sense to me that your focus on getting people to do what you want through specific kinds of interaction and presence enhance is suddenly enhanced by their natural talent and training at feats of strength, but another characters broad natural talent and training in social interactions and projecting presence gets worse doing that.

Even for Strength (Athletics) it is troublesome that one characters natural talent and training in all things muscular, including swimming, climbing and jumping, suddenly disappears and gets less competent when it changes to Constitution (Athletics). Whereas another's focus on only swimming, climbing and jumping does not, and in fact they get significantly better at it.

Now if Ability Scores and Skill Proficiency were defined differently, with Ability Scores not being defined as natural talent and training at the things sub-skills cover plus anything else inclusive to the stuff the score covers, and Skill Proficiency not defined as focus on some small subset of the overarching Ability Score, it would be a different matter. There's plenty of ways to define the two things that would allow Variant Ability Check to make sense.

[Slipperychicken]

Even for Strength (Athletics) it is troublesome that one characters natural talent and training in all things muscular, including swimming, climbing and jumping, suddenly disappears and gets less competent when it changes to Constitution (Athletics). Whereas another's focus on only swimming, climbing and jumping does not, and in fact they get significantly better at it.

It makes sense when you think about the scenarios under which the substitution is appropriate. Consider the difference between sprinting and long-distance running, or swim-racing and treading water. Constitution should be used when endurance is most important for success, and strength when short-term performance matters more.

Strength would win a short race, but constitution would win a marathon. Strength would help someone swim faster, but constitution allows him to swim and dive longer. And so on. In dnd, having high strength and low con just means that the character can achieve a burst of great performance but can't sustain it long-term. The reverse (high con low strength) means the character can sustain a low level of performance for much longer. There are a lot of athletes who are like that, for a variety of reasons.

IMO the real takeaway on ability substitution is that it must ultimately depend on details of the action being performed, and the extent to which it falls under a given ability. It's nonsense to have characters use different ability scores for the exact same action, but it enhances immersion to only substitute when the particular actions involved really are more governed by a different ability.

[Hail Tempus]

I think Strength (Intimidate) is perfectly fine, but it's going to be applicable in fewer situations than Charisma (Intimidate).

A big strong fighter can intimidate many people just through his size and willingness to use force. But, he's not going to be able to roll Strength (Intimidate) to scare the 110 pound noblewoman who is sitting surrounded by her bodyguards, and who could have the full weight of the authorities brought down on him if he were to displease her. Similarly, that noblewoman isn't going to have much luck trying to intimidate an Orc chieftain by threatening to get him blackballed from the Waterdeep social circuit.

Charisma checks are contextual, and bards and other socially adept characters need to consider the best approach when trying to get someone to do what they want.

[UnintensifiedFa]

I am very reluctant to use strength(intimidation) checks. It's not that I don't like alternate ability scores for checks, but for me, this is never the go-to, for a couple of reasons.

1) It doesn't always make sense, a lot of prisoners (especially ones with useful information) don't really care how strong their captor is, they are probably more concerned about whether or not their captor can hurt them, and most people with a sword can.
2) It doesn't represent what intimidation is. To me, intimidation is twisting the situation to where the opposition believes that it is always bad to not tell the truth. Sure, a show of brute strength may help weaken their resolve (advantage perhaps?), but it's not gonna convince them alone.
3)It (for me) takes away from what I usually believe to be intimidation: a delicate dance between the mental resolve of the opponent and the social cunning of the interrogator. The best movie interrogation scenes aren't where some guy rips a table out of the floor. It's where the prisoner rips that table out of the floor, and then the interogator meets his gaze, says a few choice words and gets him to confess instantly.

[GlenSmash!]

I allow them though they don't come up that often. Constitution (Athletics) might be the most common 'variant' check at my table.

I'm considering moving toward only calling for Ability checks, and leaving it entirely up to the player whether or not they think a certain proficiency applies.

[Dienekes]

I use them. I actually use several variant skill checks if it feels more appropriate to the situation.

An absolute dolt who can barely string a sentence together can crack a walnut with his fingers and say "That your head." And yeah, that's an Strength (Intimidation) right there.

Someone who took the time to prepare a rational point by point explanation for their debate might get to use Intelligence (Persuasion).

Trying to sneak, not by laying low and maneuvering about the room, but instead by blending into a crowd could get a Charisma (Stealth) check.

And of course a trained long distance runner would probably get a Constitution (Athletics) check thrown in for good measure.

You're performing a complicated surgery? Wisdom (Medicine) to figure out the issue (though it probably should be Intelligence) with a Dexterity (Medicine) check to actually do it.


But then I've always thought the skill system works better when it's decoupled from Abilities. I like having the players describe what they're trying to do, and I tell them what combination of Ability and skill fits. Now, I'd go so far to say that 95% of the time I use the normal Ability Skill pairings. But throwing in the curveballs for my players is more interesting.

[djreynolds]

Tanarii this has been a great discussion.

What is your consensus from opinions?

Is there a validity, in your opinion, when there is a question as to which ability is best in a players mind vs RAW to just average the 2 modifiers, for example, you can use your strength and charisma modifiers averaged for this intimidation checks.

Also, with elegant courtier as an example (where originally it specifically for nobles and such) to say hey a barbarian can do the strength (intimidation) thing but only certain situations.

[Tanarii]

My opinion remains mostly the same. I have some theoretical objections to strength (intimidate). Or more generally based on ability scores encompassing everything the sub-skills are plus any extra stuff the DM determines, and skills being subsets of ability scores you can focus on to get a higher bonus. Specialities within an Ability score, if you will.

But I definitely think there are times when variant ability score / skill combinations are either expected by players, or can enhance the game regardless. Although frequency of needed use may vary depending on table. Just so long as players aren't trying to game some bonuses out of the DM. (Even then if that's your kind of game.)

And even my theoretical objections mostly drop away as soon as ability scores aren't viewed as "everything skills encompass plus more general stuff" and skills as "subset of ability scores you can focus on for an extra bonus". And instead as "broad things in the initial ability score description" vs "separate things that may be layered on top of any of the broad things that fit".

[Capac Amaru]

I say make the check seperate from the skill altogether.

Replace the skills with:
Coercion.
Guile.
Exhortation.

Then Persuade (exhortation), deception (guile) intimidate (coercion).

Or (for example) persuade (nature), deception (arcana), or intimidate (dexterity).

Giving the players more ways that use their character sheet to interact with npcs is never bad, AND it encourages roleplaying and more interesting problem solving.

[djreynolds]

[QUOTE=Tanarii;24267100]My opinion remains mostly the same. I have some theoretical objections to strength (intimidate). Or more generally based on ability scores encompassing everything the sub-skills are plus any extra stuff the DM determines, and skills being subsets of ability scores you can focus on to get a higher bonus. Specialities within an Ability score, if you will.
QUOTE]

I'm leaning with you on this. Because it takes the game down a direction... not intended

The book says having a high strength could give you a "burly or athletic build", but it doesn't mean you are handsome and this affects your charisma

Also charisma doesn't specify beautiful or ugly, it did in previous editions

Your appearance is based on your description of your character and this does not affect your abilities.

"The barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy."

Now is this some joe in a bar bullying some little guy, or a barbarian smashing or throwing a table. It doesn't say.

Some readers may read that blurb and see a display of strength, or perhaps they see the picture on 179, a few pages down of a large man standing over a smaller one.

The book says Specific beats General, if a player can show how strength is more important than charisma for a particular check like intimidation, they have to prove to me that charisma couldn't be used.... as in... I pick up a dead foe and toss him at the feet of my enemy to scare them.

These are my favorite threads, its the little nuances that many players savor

[Tanarii]

It's not intimidating by strength that breaks the paradigm. It's getting a bonus from your focus on the Intimidation sub-set of Charisma tasks when you use Strength to do it that breaks it.

Charisma covers Intimidation, Deception, Persuasion and Performance, plus a myriad of other things. And you can become proficient (focus on) one of those things. So basically, I see the system as presented making it more accurate to say the proficiency is in Charisma (Intimidation). Not just any Intimidation. If you want to be good at Strength-based Intimidation, that should be a different proficiency.

[djreynolds]

It's not intimidating by strength that breaks the paradigm. It's getting a bonus from your focus on the Intimidation sub-set of Charisma tasks when you use Strength to do it that breaks it.

Charisma covers Intimidation, Deception, Persuasion and Performance, plus a myriad of other things. And you can become proficient (focus on) one of those things. So basically, I see the system as presented making it more accurate to say the proficiency is in Charisma (Intimidation). Not just any Intimidation. If you want to be good at Strength-based Intimidation, that should be a different proficiency.

You're right. That display of strength is athletics, it might cause fear the same way menacing shot does or a volcano does... through action.

Where as intimidation is causing fear by intent. Strength is causing fear by action

I'm going to break your leg.... isn't the same as I broke your leg

[BloodSnake'sCha]

You're right. That display of strength is athletics, it might cause fear the same way menacing shot does or a volcano does... through action.

Where as intimidation is causing fear by intent. Strength is causing fear by action

I'm going to break your leg.... isn't the same as I broke your leg

But it is closer to "I will break your other leg"

[djreynolds]

But it is closer to "I will break your other leg"

That is too funny, thanks that is going to get me through the day

[Glorthindel]

I don't allow it.

Why? To incentivise players to spread some love across their entire set of stats, not hunker down on their single core stat. I thoroughly agree that Fighters, Barbarians, and other strength-prime characters are the ones who will want and should invest in Intimidation. So if they want to do that, they had better consider their Charisma as something other than an easy dump stat.

It's the same reason I don't allow Acrobatics to perform tasks that are covered by Athletics, to encourage Rogues (and other Dex-prime characters) who want to be able to climb things to remember their Strength, rather than automatically dump it.

There are a selection of skills that would traditionally belong to a class that are located on a otherwise useless stat (Rogues will want Wis for Perception, Clerics Intelligence for Religeon, etc), and Intimidation is one of these, and I consider it the skill system working as intended, not a problem to be fixed. If anything, I would prefer more skills to do that, to give every class that character building decision (I would happily see Animal Handling in Charisma away from the Druids and Rangers spellcasting stats)

[Capac Amaru]

I don't allow it.

Why? To incentivise players to spread some love across their entire set of stats, not hunker down on their single core stat. I thoroughly agree that Fighters, Barbarians, and other strength-prime characters are the ones who will want and should invest in Intimidation. So if they want to do that, they had better consider their Charisma as something other than an easy dump stat.


Plenty of intimidating people are the least charismatic. Professional intimidators are often in their line of work BECAUSE they have the charisma of a brick. The problem with charisma based intimidation is it only reflects one kind of potential character archetype. An ancient monk might intimidate with his ineffable wisdom. A wizard might intimidate with his arcane knowledge of terrifying magical effects. A Kobold might have no charisma at all, but he sure is intimidating now that he's been turned into a dragon, even though his ability score is still the same.

[Tanarii]

Why? To incentivise players to spread some love across their entire set of stats, not hunker down on their single core stat. I thoroughly agree that Fighters, Barbarians, and other strength-prime characters are the ones who will want and should invest in Intimidation. So if they want to do that, they had better consider their Charisma as something other than an easy dump stat.That's a fair point about variant ability scores in general.

However, specifically for Intimidation it might be worth adding a Strength (Intimidate) skill that Barbarians, Fighters, Half-Orcs, and Soldiers can all choose as the one listed for their class/race/background.

Maybe with some limitations & caveats added in for it's use. Something like:
- the target must be of your size or smaller
- the target must have a lower strength than you
- maybe: you can only force the target to do something while you are in line of sight.
- maybe: you can only induce fear, you cannot get the target to take a specific action. This can grant advantage on subsequent Cha check to get them to do what you want.

I mean, those could work generally for a variant Strength (Intimidate) check, even if it's not treated as a separate proficiency.

[djreynolds]

That's a fair point about variant ability scores in general.

However, specifically for Intimidation it might be worth adding a Strength (Intimidate) skill that Barbarians, Fighters, Half-Orcs, and Soldiers can all choose as the one listed for their class/race/background.

Maybe with some limitations & caveats added in for it's use. Something like:
- the target must be of your size or smaller
- the target must have a lower strength than you
- maybe: you can only force the target to do something while you are in line of sight.
- maybe: you can only induce fear, you cannot get the target to take a specific action. This can grant advantage on subsequent Cha check to get them to do what you want.


This similar to elegant courtier caveat, it only works nobles and sophisticated types.

And if you roll badly and fail to intimidate, perhaps there is a negative. Similar to frightful presence 24 hours window, you could even extend this to other non-friendlies watching the act of intimidation, and failure to frighten one could mean failure to all or perhaps even embolden the others

But the flip side is if you allow this, what about the dex based fighter or monk

Does someone good at intimidating with strength have any negatives with persuasion

I think your initial thoughts are correct, leave this stuff to charisma. Charisma is an intangible ability that in the 5E universe has nothing to do with "looks"

Especially when look at something like intimidating presence, you have to invest in charisma to make awesome use of it (this also has a caveat)

[Corran]

c) What are your thoughts on Strength (Intimidation), either as a DM, a Player, in theory, or some combination. Be sure to call out where your perspective is coming from.
It makes sense.

To use an example:
Intimidation (charisma) is telling someone ''Talk or I'll shove your head down that toilet''. The target of your intimidation (charisma) check might talk in fear of you realizing your threat. You asserted yourself mentally, and that is why it's a charisma check imo.

Intimidation (strength) on the other hand, is shoving someone's head down the toiler while saying to them ''Talk!''. The target of your intimidation (strength) check might talk so that you stop hurting them. You asserted yourself physically, and that's why it is a strength check imo.

[djreynolds]

It makes sense.

To use an example:
Intimidation (charisma) is telling someone ''Talk or I'll shove your head down that toilet''. The target of your intimidation (charisma) check might talk in fear of you realizing your threat. You asserted yourself mentally, and that is why it's a charisma check imo.

Intimidation (strength) on the other hand, is shoving someone's head down the toiler while saying to them ''Talk!''. The target of your intimidation (strength) check might talk so that you stop hurting them. You asserted yourself physically, and that's why it is a strength check imo.

These are good examples, and I can defend either point of view, variants or not.

I mean a nasty critical hit will make a foe retreat.

But I believe what the opposition to variants are trying to say, its a cheesy way for someone who may have dumped charisma to have a skill, there is no real investment with this variant.

On the flip side, there are so many charisma classes that have easy access to the social pillar just because their class has a high charisma.

I really feel the easiest solution to using a variant without turning the skill system "upside down" is too use an average of the two abilities: charisma and strength in the case of intimidation. Wisdom and intelligence for a medicine check

Or to make a use of variants situational.

Because IRL, size does matter. We see it when large animals simply by their sheer size take kills away from smaller animals (with the exception of wolverines)

Its a good discussion and it may be up to individual tables to determine how they would rule on it.

[Corran]

But I believe what the opposition to variants are trying to say, its a cheesy way for someone who may have dumped charisma to have a skill, there is no real investment with this variant.
I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, just most of the op. I don't believe that there is no investment. You still need to spend one of your skill proficiencies, same as anyone. Same holds true for any skill really. Cheese potential of any other kind can be kept to a minimum as long as the players describe just their characters' actions and the DM is calling the checks, and always assuming that the DM can do a good job at calling appropriate ability checks.


On the flip side, there are so many charisma classes that have easy access to the social pillar just because their class has a high charisma.
It's not just that. For me the flip side is that intimidation (charisma) is still more effective and more widely applicable than intimidation (strength). Since you can do it by just talking.


I really feel the easiest solution to using a variant without turning the skill system "upside down" is too use an average of the two abilities: charisma and strength in the case of intimidation. Wisdom and intelligence for a medicine check

Or to make a use of variants situational.
Skill check variants affect the flow of the game and the way you play your character a lot more than game balance. It's a small incentive for describing what your character is doing instead of saying ''I use skill X''. And it sometimes may allow viewing your character more through an rp angle than just mechanics. If it makes sense for my brute fighter to have intimidation, because in his spare time he is a thug and he is beating people for a certain thieves' guild, then I'll go ahead and pick up intimidation without worrying about my 8 in charisma. And you can bet that my thug will be great at intimidating people. Only not with just words. But with physical violence. I'll go ahead and read the rest of the thread though.

[JackPhoenix]

Plenty of intimidating people are the least charismatic. Professional intimidators are often in their line of work BECAUSE they have the charisma of a brick.

Even if that was true, it doesn't matter, as it has nothing to do with what Charisma means in the context of the game. It's not just appearance, it's not training in speechcraft, it's not natural charm, yet it's also all of that and more.


The problem with charisma based intimidation is it only reflects one kind of potential character archetype. An ancient monk might intimidate with his ineffable wisdom. A wizard might intimidate with his arcane knowledge of terrifying magical effects. A Kobold might have no charisma at all, but he sure is intimidating now that he's been turned into a dragon, even though his ability score is still the same.

The problem with charisma based anything is that people do not understand what charisma is or how ability checks work. Charisma is the ability to effectively interact with others, through any means. If you're trying to influence someone, no matter how, it's charisma check. Holding a weapon, being a dragon, being naturally talented at threatening people or knowing a bunch of multisyllabic words is an accessory to what are you trying to do.


It makes sense.

To use an example:
Intimidation (charisma) is telling someone ''Talk or I'll shove your head down that toilet''. The target of your intimidation (charisma) check might talk in fear of you realizing your threat. You asserted yourself mentally, and that is why it's a charisma check imo.

Intimidation (strength) on the other hand, is shoving someone's head down the toiler while saying to them ''Talk!''. The target of your intimidation (strength) check might talk so that you stop hurting them. You asserted yourself physically, and that's why it is a strength check imo.

It doesn't, because there's no such thing as Intimidation (strength *or* charisma). That's the whole point: if you're making Str check to push someone's head down the toilet, being good at threatening people does not make you more likely to succeed. And if you care about getting someone to talk, it's covered under Cha, as Cha is the ability score that measures your ability to effectively interact with others. That won't change no matter what tool you're using. It's the opposite of how skills worked in previous editions, when you had skill, and added ability bonus to that. Now you make an ability checks depending on what are you doing, and you may or may not add proficiency bonus.

Imagine that instead of trying to shove someone into a toilet, you pull out a knife and stab them with it. It's a physical threat, you're still hurting the target, and your goal is still the same. Now, what's the numeric bonus for the (let us assume for a moment it works this way, for the sake of an argument) Intimidation (I have a knife) check? Would the value be different if I want to use Intimidation (I have a sword) instead? How about Intimidation (I can cast spells, and as far as you know, I can use that power to turn you into a frog, set you on fire or to summon a demon to eat your soul instead of just cantrip-level damage)?

[DeTess]

The problem with charisma based anything is that people do not understand what charisma is or how ability checks work. Charisma is the ability to effectively interact with others, through any means. If you're trying to influence someone, no matter how, it's charisma check. Holding a weapon, being a dragon, being naturally talented at threatening people or knowing a bunch of multisyllabic words is an accessory to what are you trying to do.


Does that mean you think that the athletics check to shove someone should also be made using Charisma? Or a check to understand a language you don't know? Or any attack roll?

I mean, I get that that's not what you mean, but I'm just bringing this up to show that, to me at least, you seem to be taking charisma as far broader than it is intended. For me, charisma refers to charm (and a certain resilience to being teleported to a different plane of existence, for some reason), and nothing more. A charismatic person has an easier time convincing someone with words, but that's not the only way you can intimidate someone. A completely plain looking person that happens to be almost as broad as they're tall telling me to get out of their way is about as intimidating (if not more so) as someone of average build coming up with a rather elaborate threat.

[BurgerBeast]

It makes sense.

To use an example:
Intimidation (charisma) is telling someone ''Talk or I'll shove your head down that toilet''. The target of your intimidation (charisma) check might talk in fear of you realizing your threat. You asserted yourself mentally, and that is why it's a charisma check imo.

Intimidation (strength) on the other hand, is shoving someone's head down the toiler while saying to them ''Talk!''. The target of your intimidation (strength) check might talk so that you stop hurting them. You asserted yourself physically, and that's why it is a strength check imo.

I don’t see this in the same way. I see it like this:

In the first case, the question is whether the person believes you will shove his face in the toilet, not whether you’re strong enough to do it. This is clearly charisma.

In the second case, if the person’s face is actually being shoved in the toilet: the first question is whether a strength contest is required to achieve this, to which I would say no, generally; however a DM has the right to adjudicate it in this way.

But once your head is in the water, you’re either terrified or you’re not - this is not a question of whether you’re intimidated... you’re actually being drowned. So it’s not are you afraid that this guy will actually drown you? - because he is. It’s: does the drowning itself scare you?

Again, for me, the answer is generally yes. Drowning terrifies people and they talk; however again one can imagine the case where the person being drowned doesn’t believe their tormentor will take it all the way and finish the job, i.e. it’s just a simulation to convince the person that they will go all the way. Under these circumstances, a check makes sense. But again, for me, it’s not strength. The person is not evaluating whether his tormentor is strong enough to do the deed. He’s evaluating whether his tormentor has the cojones to actually do it. That’s charisma for me. Does he believe the act?


...

The problem with charisma based anything is that people do not understand what charisma is or how ability checks work. Charisma is the ability to effectively interact with others, through any means. If you're trying to influence someone, no matter how, it's charisma check. Holding a weapon, being a dragon, being naturally talented at threatening people or knowing a bunch of multisyllabic words is an accessory to what are you trying to do.

...

It’s a little more complicated than this, even though I agree with your sentiment.

The first point I would make is that there exists a difference among persuasive techniques that is akin to, if not he same as, the difference between dialectic and rhetoric.

Dialectical attempts to “persuade” are not actually attempts to persuade, per se. They are attempts to call attention to truth by appealing to reason. Their acceptance is not contingent upon being persuaded. It’s upon logically accepting the presented reasons and evidence. This, in my view, has nothing to do with charisma. In fact, the entire point of the dialectic is to remove charisma from the equation and consider cold, hard evidence.

Rhetorical attempts to persuade are true attempts to persuade you into accepting something regardless of whether it is true or not. They are appeals to trust, emotion, authority, etc, insofar as the act of convincing depends on something other than reasons and evidence. These are the realm of charisma.

The second point I would make is that, charisma, as you’ve described it here, is the way it is often described. However, that description can not be reconciled with a static number that is universal. (This is true for a variety of reasons, but I’ll outline one reason here.) The “charisma” that is described would require a different score depending on whom you are interacting with. For example, the charisma I have is a different number depending on who you ask: my wife, my boss, my mother, and my grocery store clerk would each see me as having a different charisma. Furthermore, the same behaviours that increase your charisma within some groups simultaneously decrease your charisma within other groups.

So it’s not just that people “don’t understand” charisma. It’s that charisma, as described, is not reconcilable with how it is modelled (i.e. it’s not a static ability score).

[Corran]

It doesn't, because there's no such thing as Intimidation (strength *or* charisma). That's the whole point: if you're making Str check to push someone's head down the toilet, being good at threatening people does not make you more likely to succeed.
It wasn't my intention to say that pushing someone's head down the toilet is an intimidation check. That's a strength check, and needs to be rolled separately if there is need for a roll (ie if the target is trying to resist and the consequences of them winning the contest are meaningful).


And if you care about getting someone to talk, it's covered under Cha, as Cha is the ability score that measures your ability to effectively interact with others.
If the only thing that is happening is talking, yes. Otherwise, I see excpetions to that. Such as when pushing someone's head into the toilet.... why did I pick this example? Let me pick a better one. Seen princess bride? Remember the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lISBP_fPg1s) where Westley first meets Fezzik? Westley is intimidated/persuaded into putting his weapon down and engaging in hand to hand combat. Yes, Fezzik tells him to do it and threatens that next time he wont miss with the rock, but the feat of throwing such a big rock so close to Westley is what convinces Westley. And that feat is a feat of strength. But its purpose is to intimidate. Using charisma for our intimidation effort here is not right imo, since Westley is not intimidated by Fezzik's words, but by what he witnessed Fezzik do. Fezzik's words carry the meaning. Fezzik throwing the big rock next to Westley is what carries the threat.

[Tanarii]

If the only thing that is happening is talking, yes. Otherwise, I see excpetions to that. Such as when pushing someone's head into the toilet.... why did I pick this example? Let me pick a better one. Seen princess bride? Remember the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lISBP_fPg1s) where Westley first meets Fezzik? Westley is intimidated/persuaded into putting his weapon down and engaging in hand to hand combat. Yes, Fezzik tells him to do it and threatens that next time he wont miss with the rock, but the feat of throwing such a big rock so close to Westley is what convinces Westley. And that feat is a feat of strength. But its purpose is to intimidate. Using charisma for our intimidation effort here is not right imo, since Westley is not intimidated by Fezzik's words, but by what he witnessed Fezzik do. Fezzik's words carry the meaning. Fezzik throwing the big rock next to Westley is what carries the threat.
By that logic:
- juggling knives is a Sleight of Hand (Intimidation) check
- cutting yourself is either a Constitution (Intimidation) check or a Hit Die (Intimidation) check
- talking about the way you'll use magic to turn someone inside out is a Arcana (Intimidation) check
- figuring out their inner fear and talking about that is a Wisdom (Intimidation)
- stabbing someone is an attack (Intimidation) check

[Anymage]

If the only thing that is happening is talking, yes. Otherwise, I see excpetions to that. Such as when pushing someone's head into the toilet.... why did I pick this example? Let me pick a better one. Seen princess bride? Remember the scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lISBP_fPg1s) where Westley first meets Fezzik? Westley is intimidated/persuaded into putting his weapon down and engaging in hand to hand combat. Yes, Fezzik tells him to do it and threatens that next time he wont miss with the rock, but the feat of throwing such a big rock so close to Westley is what convinces Westley. And that feat is a feat of strength. But its purpose is to intimidate. Using charisma for our intimidation effort here is not right imo, since Westley is not intimidated by Fezzik's words, but by what he witnessed Fezzik do. Fezzik's words carry the meaning. Fezzik throwing the big rock next to Westley is what carries the threat.

On the one hand, I could see a strength (intimidate) check to perform a feat of strength to get people to scatter. Imminent violence is scary, and most people would want to remove themselves from the scene. (Although difficulty would vary. Getting a crowd of commoners to disperse would be easy, scaring off some bandits would be hard, and spooking the king's guard could easily require a specialized build and then some very good luck.) Combining the feat of strength check and the intimidate check into one dice roll for convenience certainly makes sense.

On the other hand, scared people can be unpredictable and charisma is all about knowing just how far to push and where to hit the right psychological pressure points. For anything finer than just making them want to be somewhere else ASAP - and this includes interrogations and any long-term influence - knowing how people tick is at least as important as willingness and ability to inflict pain. The words and willingness to talk are why Westley is willing to engage on Fezzik's terms instead of figuring that his best odds are to rush in and stab.

Also, while I'm okay with feat of strength based intimidation within the limits mentioned above, I don't think that just having a high strength score equates to being big and mean looking. If nothing else, if strength based intimidation is a thing just because of how you look, I wonder what sort of bonus my reedy wizard could get from putting on a belt of giant strength vs. what bonus he could get from just casting a Change Self spell.

[Corran]

...
The person is not evaluating whether his tormentor is strong enough to do the deed. He’s evaluating whether his tormentor has the cojones to actually do it. That’s charisma for me. Does he believe the act?
Yeah, charisma all the way in this case. Though you are assuming that the person being drowned has the clear mind to think rationally. Which changes the situation (that I was imagining and failed to specify) completely. To intimidate someone like that, you should probably be ready or bluff him that that you are ready to go to the extreme. Either way, it's certainly some kind of act on your part, and this act (whatever it ends being) carries the weight of the real threat and not the physical but non lethal violence (which will most likely have no effect to the person in question). Could you give me your opinion on my second example (in my previous post)?



By that logic:
- juggling knives is a Sleight of Hand (Intimidation) check
- cutting yourself is either a Constitution (Intimidation) check or a Hit Die (Intimidation) check
- talking about the way you'll use magic to turn someone inside out is a Arcana (Intimidation) check
- figuring out their inner fear and talking about that is a Wisdom (Intimidation)
- stabbing someone is an attack (Intimidation) check
The (my) whole idea about the variant is to use it on a case by case basis, as you think it's fitting. Not to extrapolate a general rule from a specific example. I see merit in using a strength check for some cases of intimidation. I don't see any merit in the examples above. And I honestly don't see why I should accept that all of them should hold true for one of them to be true.


The words and willingness to talk are why Westley is willing to engage on Fezzik's terms instead of figuring that his best odds are to rush in and stab.
We disagree on that. For me the words and willingness to talk are just the means to communicate your intimidation attempt. I attribute the intimidation part entirely (or almost entirely) on the throwing of the rock.


Also, while I'm okay with feat of strength based intimidation within the limits mentioned above, I don't think that just having a high strength score equates to being big and mean looking.
Agreed.


If nothing else, if strength based intimidation is a thing just because of how you look, I wonder what sort of bonus my reedy wizard could get from putting on a belt of giant strength vs. what bonus he could get from just casting a Change Self spell.
While in real life this is probably true (ie that appearance alone can play a big part in being intimidating), in an rpg game is probably much better to go about it in the opposite way (ie attribute/justify intimidation proficiency points -partly- to character's appearance if you want). Otherwise it would become too messy to handle and prone to every manner of abuse.

[Tanarii]

The (my) whole idea about the variant is to use it on a case by case basis, as you think it's fitting. Not to extrapolate a general rule from a specific example. I see merit in using a strength check for some cases of intimidation. I don't see any merit in the examples above. And I honestly don't see why I should accept that all of them should hold true for one of them to be true.Okay. That's fair.

I think like Anymage, I run into problems with a high strength being correlated (or not) with big and scary. OTOH ruling a demonstration of Strength is rolled up into a Strength (Intimidate) check for simplicity and/or because of player expectations when you're already big and scary looking is practical enough.

---------

Another thought I've had before (not in response to Corran), what description of attempted actions would cause folks to call for a Strength (Acrobatics) check vs those that would result in calling for a Dexterity (Athletics) check?

[stoutstien]

Okay. That's fair.

I think like Anymage, I run into problems with a high strength being correlated (or not) with big and scary. OTOH ruling a demonstration of Strength is rolled up into a Strength (Intimidate) check for simplicity and/or because of player expectations when you're already big and scary looking is practical enough.

---------

Another thought I've had before (not in response to Corran), what description of attempted actions would cause folks to call for a Strength (Acrobatics) check vs those that would result in calling for a Dexterity (Athletics) check?
Acrobatics and athletics are hard because they really are one and the same or at least parts of the same discipline.

Jumping a significant distance and landing softly to be stealthy could be strength (acrobatics).


In the same regard falling a fair distance and attempting to grab a ledge while loading down(with a halfling on your back) could be dexterity (athletics).

[BurgerBeast]

Yeah, charisma all the way in this case. Though you are assuming that the person being drowned has the clear mind to think rationally. Which changes the situation (that I was imagining and failed to specify) completely. To intimidate someone like that, you should probably be ready or bluff him that that you are ready to go to the extreme. Either way, it's certainly some kind of act on your part, and this act (whatever it ends being) carries the weight of the real threat and not the physical but non lethal violence (which will most likely have no effect to the person in question). Could you give me your opinion on my second example (in my previous post)?

That was (the first part of) my opinion about your second example. I’ll try to be clearer:

In the second example, the question the victim is trying to resolve is: is this guy, who is forcing my head under water, willing to keep doing so until I’m dead?

The answer to that question is going to determine his response. In my view, the answer to that question does not depend on how strong the tormentor is. It depends on whether the victim believes the tormentor will kill him. If the victim has reason to find the threat credible, auto-success. If the victim has reason to think the threat is not credible, auto-failure. Absent any reasons or evidence, it depends on how persuasive the tormentor is, which is a charisma check.