PDA

View Full Version : Associated Ability for Intimidate



Snooder
2007-11-04, 08:31 AM
I personally find that having charisma be the ability associated with the Intimidate skill to be rather unsatisfying. First, there's the mechanical problem of tying one of the few useful fighter skills to an ability he'll likely have a penalty to. Then there's the problem where a brawny bruiser is statistically less intimidating than a prancing pretty-boy (the alliteration was entirely intentional). And finally we have the conflict with Diplomacy, which does pretty much the same thing that Intimidate does, but fits better with the charisma ability.

To fix this, I decided long ago to change Intimidate to a more reasonable associated ability. The choice seems to come down to either strength or constitution. I lean toward constitution since there are few associated skills for constitution, but when you imagine an intimidating fellow you imagine some muscle bound monster. His ability to resist poisons and survive wounds tend to play much less of a factor than his ability to crush cans single handedly or lift heavy objects in an unsubtle manner.

So, what do you guys/girls think? Should it be strength or constitution. Also, feel free to provide good reasons to keep intimidate with charisma.

Swooper
2007-11-04, 08:35 AM
I think my group houseruled when 3.0 came out that you could use Str or Cha for Intimidate, depending on how you voiced the threat. Using Str would be threatening physical harm, while using Cha would be more veiled threats.

Wraithy
2007-11-04, 08:40 AM
I have the same problem with intimidate.
however it makes more sense when you remember that charisma isn't necesarilly physical attractiveness, it is presence, if you don't make the right face or the right body language you're going to be far less intimidating.
But you could houserule that you can use half your cha and half your str as your ability score, but that would be a bit fiddley.
I prefer to steer clear of intimidate in general, there are too many possible factors.

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-04, 08:40 AM
The charismatic character, knows when to do certain actions, what tone of voice and what to do.

The strong character can get sit mods by showing how strong he is.

After all, you won't be that afraid of the strong character if he's mumbling, looking at the floor and looks embaressed.

Plus why would you be easier intimidated by a strong level 20 commoner than a level 20 sorcerer.


If you needed to change, go with strength.

Yuki Akuma
2007-11-04, 08:46 AM
Who's more intimidating.. the small man who storms into the room, hurls the table over, and yells in your face... or the strong bouncer type he mumbles, looks away from you and generally looks like he doesn't know what he's doing?

Charisma is about force of personality. If you don't have any of that, you can make people afraid of you, but that ends as soon as you leave. If you Intimidate someone, they stay cowed and do stuff for you even if you're not there.

KillianHawkeye
2007-11-04, 08:48 AM
The reason it's not based on Strength or Constitution is because you don't actually use your muscles or vitality to intimidate someone. Having the appearance of a dangerous person is probably helpful for intimidation, but remember that appearance, and most importantly how you make use of it, are covered by your Charisma.

Also remeber that the Intimidate skill requires interaction with the target. Basically this means that the Intimidation attempt happens enough time after the first impression that your physical properties are not as important as how well you are at choosing or implying the right threats.

Zincorium
2007-11-04, 08:58 AM
Strength isn't always obvious, and it can even conceivably work against you when it's overemphasized.

Size matters, because forcing someone to crane their neck up to even look you in the eyes makes them feel like they're a kid again (not a comfortable feeling) but raw muscle is meaningless without the imposing personality to go with it.


When I think of intimidate, I don't think of some steroid-pumped neanderthal, I think of the head of the mafia. Some old, overweight, pasty guy. But you listen to him. And you know, deep down in your gut, that horrible, unthinkable things are going to happen if you don't follow what this man says. He makes you an offer you can't refuse. Intimidation is the art of making a non-obvious threat perfectly believable.

Snooder
2007-11-04, 09:00 AM
Who's more intimidating.. the small man who storms into the room, hurls the table over, and yells in your face... or the strong bouncer type he mumbles, looks away from you and generally looks like he doesn't know what he's doing?


I see that indicating more ranks in the skill, not an innate ability for it. If a small man was equally as skilled with intimidation as a larger one, the larger one would end up being more intimidating simply because he has more to work with. Whereas the smaller guy has to posture and use props, the larger man simply has to flex to get his point across.


Charisma is about force of personality. If you don't have any of that, you can make people afraid of you, but that ends as soon as you leave. If you Intimidate someone, they stay cowed and do stuff for you even if you're not there.

Intimidate DOES end after you leave. That's the main difference between Intimidate and Diplomacy.


The reason it's not based on Strength or Constitution is because you don't actually use your muscles or vitality to intimidate someone. Having the appearance of a dangerous person is probably helpful for intimidation, but remember that appearance, and most importantly how you make use of it, are covered by your Charisma.

That's not how charisma usually works out in D&D, I think. If half-orcs are gonna get penalized for charisma, you can't really say that they are automatically less Intimidating.

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-04, 09:03 AM
Also, you barely notice the character with a charismatic penalty is trying to intimidate you whereas you know the high charisma one is.
In a world of magic, being strong isn't scarier than being able to cast magic.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23206

Snooder
2007-11-04, 09:15 AM
Ok. Strength it is. Nobody seems to have championed constitution at all.

The stated reasons for keeping Charisma as the ability for Intimidate have apparently been argued before so I won't go over them again. But I will mention that I personally don't find them particularly compelling arguments. If there are any other, mechanical, reasons for keeping charisma tied to intimidate I would like to hear them however.

nobodylovesyou4
2007-11-04, 09:25 AM
i would think that you could use either stat, str or cha, depending on which is higher. because while a big-ass barbarian may be downright frightening, a slim assassin with a poisoned knife to your throat can be just as scary.

Ralfarius
2007-11-04, 09:30 AM
The thing with intimidation is that it requires a rather deft hand to work for most things. You have to push someone without putting them over the edge, make them believe that cooperation is in their best interests. Push too hard, and someone either goes incomprehensible, blubbering and crouching into the fetal position. That, or they snap and fight like a cornered raccoon.

Using strength to show someone how big and strong you are is all well and fine, but actually working that to make them do what you want is a lot more nuanced. A mouth-frothing orc with -4 charisma is less talented for intimidating, because it's a completely unfocused sort of aggression. People fear the orc, but they do not necessarily feel intimidated in such a manner that they will cooperate. Rather, they will react in a much less coherent way and either flee or fight. However, that gnome with the corn cob can actually tell you where he might stick it if you don't tell him for whom you're working, and sound convincing.

However, intimidation should be taken with a bit more consideration for circumstance. If that gnome with the corn cob has already has you at his mercy, then you're more likely to believe he'll put it somewhere if you don't cooperate, especially since you can't just turn around and run or punch him in the nose.

So, there it is. Being big and strong can make a person fear you, but it doesn't necessarily make them want to cooperate out of fear.

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-04, 09:31 AM
Ok. Strength it is. Nobody seems to have championed constitution at all.

The stated reasons for keeping Charisma as the ability for Intimidate have apparently been argued before so I won't go over them again. But I will mention that I personally don't find them particularly compelling arguments. If there are any other, mechanical, reasons for keeping charisma tied to intimidate I would like to hear them however.

Charisma is only good for two things, some spellcasting and social skills.
Strength is good for melee damage and accuracy, some range and some physical skills.

What your planning will strengthen strength and weaken charisma, which is already a dump stat for some classes.

AmberVael
2007-11-04, 09:37 AM
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20060306

Intimidate is totally based off of charisma.
I might, as a DM, give bonuses for being freakin' huge and scary and threatening you with bodily harm, but charisma is the main thing here.

Snooder
2007-11-04, 09:57 AM
Charisma is only good for two things, some spellcasting and social skills.
Strength is good for melee damage and accuracy, some range and some physical skills.

What your planning will strengthen strength and weaken charisma, which is already a dump stat for some classes.

True, and one of the reservations I had. However, Intimidate is only the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue class skill lists. Barbs and Fighters need all the help they can get with skills, and it makes more sense to have their skills tie in with their primary stats. It's bad enough that armor check penalties negate half the skills on the Fighter skill list, and that they have few skill points, but tying Intimidate to the stat that should be lowest on a Fighter leaves only ride as a viable skill.

Way I see it, the change won't affect the other classes, since they'll pretty much use Diplomacy or Bluff anyway (and to greater effect), and it'll benefit the classes that need it.

That said, is it too much of a buff? Are there ways to make this unbalancing or uses for Intimidate that make it integral as a charisma based skill?

BardicDuelist
2007-11-04, 10:56 AM
Well, the main reason for Intimidate being Cha based is to give Fighters/Barbarians/etc a reason to not dump Cha. It doesn't necessairly work, but I'm pretty sure that that's the reasoning behind it.

And, well, there are several things that just don't make sense in D&D because of the abilities they are tied to (your hearing gets better with age, as does your vision).

Starsinger
2007-11-04, 11:02 AM
Charisma isn't used for intimidate? What about the suave drow priestess, who explains exactly what will happen to you as they unleash the swarm of spiders to devour your flesh, who describes the stinging bites and the screams of pain? There's a reason Perform (Oratory) and Intimidate are the same stat.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-04, 11:57 AM
Personally, I use charisma first and might allow a special ability to use strength. The problem is, a charisma less than 10 means you are a withdrawn, shy person and using intimidate is out of character. There are numerous examples explaining why charisma is so much more effective as the stat to determine intimidate than strength is. I'll give a circumstance bonus for being all big and string, but not much else.

BardicDuelist
2007-11-04, 12:05 PM
As for the orc/half-orc thing, they are probably less likely to intimidate you as they are just to kill/maim you. The circumstance bonus once they rip off your arm more than makes up for anything else.

Wraithy
2007-11-04, 12:06 PM
yes. you could homebrew a feat that allows you to use str instead of cha for intimidate checks, like the feat which allows you to use dex for disable divice.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-04, 01:14 PM
What's the usual archetype for intimidation? It's not a big, musclebound man making demands: It's the cool, confident leader making veiled threats. As I've posted before, there's a difference between fearing someone and simply being afraid. If a ravenous panther leaps into the room, people are afraid. They'll do whatever it takes to avoid getting eaten. However, they do not fear the panther: They simply want to avoid dying. By the same token, if a 6-Cha barbarian breaks down the door with his axe, people will be afraid of him. However, they won't obey him if they think they can survive another way. If the barbarian demands to know where he can find the local gang lord, the person he's talking to will just give him a plausible lie, then run away before he comes back. Their only priority is to avoid dying. If someone is successfully intimidated, then they will obey the intimidator.

CasESenSITItiVE
2007-11-04, 01:14 PM
i always reasoned that charisma (the non-spellcasting side) was defined as one's ability to manipulate people. talking your way through situations(diplomacy) is manipulation, lying to get your way is maniputation, and scaring people to get them to do what you want them to do is manipulation

Zeful
2007-11-04, 02:11 PM
Well in the movies, who are the villians?
A muscle-bound monster that 6'11" who bent an I-beam in half? Not oftem.
Some mad scientist? A little more often.
A suave well dressed man (or woman but less likely) who somehow controls a nuclear missile, spacial energy cannon etc.? Very often.

Now if we want to pull the fear/intimidation route who seems more dangerous?
James Bond from the 007 movies?
Or
Blaster from Mad Max beyond Thunderdome?
If you don't know who Blaster is:http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/3377/mbt09.jpgHe's the big guy.

So you see phyisique plays a very little role in intimidation. Blaster was never scary even when he was doing something violent. James Bond on the other hand never had to do anything to be intimidating. This is why Intimidate is (Cha) in stead of (Str): Even if you had the mass to kill someone with a slap, you have no idea to use it when it's effective and scare people into doing what you want and could have it [your strength] work against you when you try to get people to do what you want.

Raolin_Fenix
2007-11-04, 02:22 PM
Not quite on topic as such, but I've always maintained that Intimidate should be a class skill for everyone. Everyone can use their particular talents to their best advantage to make themselves scary, if they put a little time into it.

Essentially, I can see no reason why a Cleric can't learn to use his divine influence to put the Fear of God into someone any better than a skinny little three-foot-nothin' halfling Rogue. Ever seen a Monk who couldn't scare the pants off someone by doing a really good kung-fu routine? Only if you play D&D! Or how about a Paladin who can't frighten an infidel into fidelity, or a Ranger or Druid who can't get his animal companion to growl? And just try to tell me that a Wizard or Sorcerer couldn't use a couple of cantrip illusions and/or the threat of his/her arcane fury to cow people into absolute submission.

Anyone who's good at anything combat-related can use that to scare people.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-04, 02:33 PM
Not quite on topic as such, but I've always maintained that Intimidate should be a class skill for everyone. Everyone can use their particular talents to their best advantage to make themselves scary, if they put a little time into it.

Essentially, I can see no reason why a Cleric can't learn to use his divine influence to put the Fear of God into someone any better than a skinny little three-foot-nothin' halfling Rogue. Ever seen a Monk who couldn't scare the pants off someone by doing a really good kung-fu routine? Only if you play D&D! Or how about a Paladin who can't frighten an infidel into fidelity, or a Ranger or Druid who can't get his animal companion to growl? And just try to tell me that a Wizard or Sorcerer couldn't use a couple of cantrip illusions and/or the threat of his/her arcane fury to cow people into absolute submission.

Anyone who's good at anything combat-related can use that to scare people.

But not everyone appreciates the power of the cleric's god or the paladin's for that matter. I have never felt afraid, much less intimidated by a "really good kung-fu routine" justed awed maybe. And a growling animal is not that frightening, though a bit more than the other examples. As for the wizard/sorcerer? Cantrip illusions are obvious that they are not real a higher level spell however, might be circumstantial intimidates, but nothing to roll for.

Snooder
2007-11-04, 03:04 PM
Seems to be a lot of replies about keeping Intimidate with Charisma. Sorry but that's not going to happen for the following reasons.

1. Diplomacy already exists. Most of the "lets talk to this guy and get him to do what we want" gets done by Diplomacy. Intimidate is really just there so that Fighters/Barbarians have a social skill as well.

2. Bluff also exists. Someone who isn't threatening issuing a threat is a bluff and is easily handled using the bluff skill. This leaves out the fact that the ONLY people who get the Intimidate skill are Fgtr/Barb/Rog. Rogue already has Diplomacy, so the "small guy" shouldn't be using Intimidate anyway.

3. Fighters/Barbarians need more social skills. Not enough to outshine the dedicated talkers, but a slight nod toward some ability to talk to others would be nice. Fighters and Barbarians also typically have low charisma. Why? Because the 3 core classes most associated with the Fighter/Barbarian are dwarves, half-orcs and humans. Of those, 2 actually start with a charisma penalty. Also, Fighter/Barbarian has enough abilities that need to be pumped, and charisma just isn't one of them, nor should it be. Charisma is a "dump stat" for those classes because it needs to be, not because players enjoy playing social outcasts.

4. Charisma does not work that way in my game. Several of you have stated that you interpret low charisma as making the character inconspicous. That's not generally how charisma is used in my games. Charisma in my games generally implied a degree of friendliness when first encountered. So a high charisma means a more favorable reaction, ergo "people like you". And a low charisma means a less favorable reaction, "people fear/hate you". Low charisma people with high strength in my games tend to be the silent types, or people who grunt inarticulately. With this understanding of charisma, a low charisma person tends to be the guy who makes people pee their pants with fright. Having him also be the guy who is least intimidating is rather unworkable.

5. I see the ability mods as conferring an innate bonus to a skill. So where 2 people have equal skill climbing, the one with more strength can climb slightly better because he can use less stable handholds. With this and #3 in mind, it makes little sense that a mob enforcer for example, who would have low charisma due to not being well spoken, would be less threatening than the friendly neighbor down the street. Why? Because the mob enforcer has to spend a skill point for every 2 charisma he has less than the neighbor. Lets say the neighbor has a 14 charisma and the mob enforcer has 8. This means that without ever learning how to be intimidating, your neighbor is as scary as a mob enforcer who spent 3 skill points in it.

The examples people are giving, of charismatic people who are also intimidating, tends IMO to indicate higher ranks/experience in the skill or circumstance modifiers rather than an innate bonus to it. Heck, most of the time it indicates overcoming a penalty, like the frail man who is still intimidating although most frail men aren't. Or the villain who normally wouldn't be intimidating, but he just does it so well that we forget his height, rotundity and generally non-threatening look.

Adding a circumstance bonus for higher strength is an ok fix, but it defeats the purpose IMO, since you'll be adding it every time and it will scale with strength mod, so why not just make the associated ability? It also doesn't address the problem of low charisma chars who should be more intimidating but aren't.



The reasons I'd prefer to just switch it over, rather than make it use both STR and CHA are:
a.) no other core skill does that
b.) I really want to push Intimidate as a fighter/"strong type" version of Diplomacy
I will however add a feat that allows one to use Charisma instead of Strength as the ability modifier for Intimidate.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-04, 03:08 PM
I have the same problem with intimidate.
however it makes more sense when you remember that charisma isn't necesarilly physical attractiveness, it is presence, if you don't make the right face or the right body language you're going to be far less intimidating.
But you could houserule that you can use half your cha and half your str as your ability score, but that would be a bit fiddley.
I prefer to steer clear of intimidate in general, there are too many possible factors.

Oh yeah, cause a 110 half elf making faces at me is scary :smallconfused:

Mephisto
2007-11-04, 03:34 PM
When I think of intimidate, I don't think of some steroid-pumped neanderthal, I think of the head of the mafia. Some old, overweight, pasty guy. But you listen to him. And you know, deep down in your gut, that horrible, unthinkable things are going to happen if you don't follow what this man says. He makes you an offer you can't refuse. Intimidation is the art of making a non-obvious threat perfectly believable.

Exactly. A half-orc yelling in your face and snapping a chair in half with his bare hands might be scary, but you'd lie or tell him whatever he wants to get him to go away, confident that he's not bright enough or persistent enough to get back at you. But a charismatic halfling with a strength penalty can make you believe that if you play him false, you'll be wishing for death.

Intimidation is primarily psychological.


4. Charisma does not work that way in my game. Several of you have stated that you interpret low charisma as making the character inconspicous. That's not generally how charisma is used in my games. Charisma in my games generally implied a degree of friendliness when first encountered. So a high charisma means a more favorable reaction, ergo "people like you". And a low charisma means a less favorable reaction, "people fear/hate you". Low charisma people with high strength in my games tend to be the silent types, or people who grunt inarticulately. With this understanding of charisma, a low charisma person tends to be the guy who makes people pee their pants with fright. Having him also be the guy who is least intimidating is rather unworkable.

I also really disagree with this. Charisma is not how likable you are, Charisma is how forceful your personality is. For an example of this, just look at Miko. She's very assertive and has very strong beliefs, but pretty much everybody dislikes her for it. Low Charisma makes people inarticulate not because people don't like them, but because they are unsure of what they want to say or if they should even say it.

Chronos
2007-11-04, 03:53 PM
If half-orcs are gonna get penalized for charisma, you can't really say that they are automatically less Intimidating.If this really bothers you, a much simpler solution is to give them a racial bonus to intimidate checks. Even a simple +2 (the size of most racial skill bonuses) would be more than enough to counteract the penalty from their decreased Cha. I still don't think it's necessary, though, since the usual reaction half-orcs get is "Kill it", not "Do what he says": When a half-orc makes a threat, people tend to assume that even if they cooperate, the half-orc will just carry through the threat anyway.

If you don't want to use Charisma for Intimidate, well, we can't force you to. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a textbook example of one of the things Charisma is supposed to stand for: It's one way to influence people, and Charisma is all about influencing people.

Alleine
2007-11-04, 04:21 PM
I really don't think a change is necessary. Sure, fighters and such won't get a bonus to intimidate, but the great thing here is circumstance modifiers!

For example, I'm playing the Hulking Hurler build in a high level game(Dm is ok with it, I'm not breaking the game, just having fun) and when I need to intimidate someone, I just go and do something like this. "I walk over to that massive tree, uproot it with one hand, and snap it in two with my other hand. Is he intimidated yet?"

Cybren
2007-11-04, 04:27 PM
Exactly. A half-orc yelling in your face and snapping a chair in half with his bare hands might be scary, but you'd lie or tell him whatever he wants to get him to go away, confident that he's not bright enough or persistent enough to get back at you. But a charismatic halfling with a strength penalty can make you believe that if you play him false, you'll be wishing for death.

Intimidation is primarily psychological.



I also really disagree with this. Charisma is not how likable you are, Charisma is how forceful your personality is. For an example of this, just look at Miko. She's very assertive and has very strong beliefs, but pretty much everybody dislikes her for it. Low Charisma makes people inarticulate not because people don't like them, but because they are unsure of what they want to say or if they should even say it.
Seeing as Miko is a paladin who has used Lay on Hands I assume she has some charisma.

edit: (oops, we're agreeing)

daggaz
2007-11-04, 04:33 PM
I houseruled that you can use your str modifier as an additional bonus (along with charisma) if you wanted to make physical threats. You still need your charisma bonus tho.

The reason being, intimidate is supposed to be a skill that effects the person after you have left as well. So a big guy who comes off really ineffectual? Scary when he is in the room, but not so scary afterwards... He failed to put the point across properly, maybe gave the impression that he is a bit of a screw up, etc..

If you dont want to use your str modifier, fine. Your threats are verbal, not physical. If you have high charisma AND high str? Wow, you are one intimidating guy. Personally I think the flavor balances out pretty good like this...

And if you are a low cha, low str wizard? Well, you wont get much out of the intimidate skill, but that doesn't mean you cant lay down a single, well thought out threat...which will certaintly change the persons behavior in the future, if not their attitude towards you. (That bastard... if I do X, he will do Y, so im pretty much FORCED to do Z instead... I tell you what tho, I swear Im gonna kill that guy the first chance I get...)

EDIT: I also use a system more similiar to the giant's when it comes to social skills as well. Diplomacy and Intimidate are broken, by RAW.

MrNexx
2007-11-04, 04:34 PM
Vlad Taltos is able to intimidate Dragaerans. Vlad is probably around 5'10" or shorter; Dragaerans are 6'6" to almost eight feet tall. They are stronger than he is by a fair amount (when he was taught Dragaeran swordmanship, he could barely lift the sword).

How does he do it? Charisma. If you want Strength to help, I would suggest using the mechanics for "Aid Another", but let the characters do it themselves... if they succeed on a Strength check (I would suggest harder than a DC 10), you add +2 to their Intimidate roll. Alternatively, you have the strong guys in the back Aid Another against a DC of 10 (they stand around and look tough and mean) while the charismatic person sits on his chest and doodles with a stilletto.

Zeful
2007-11-04, 06:07 PM
3. Fighters/Barbarians need more social skills. Not enough to outshine the dedicated talkers, but a slight nod toward some ability to talk to others would be nice. Fighters and Barbarians also typically have low charisma. Why? Because the 3 core classes most associated with the Fighter/Barbarian are dwarves, half-orcs and humans. Of those, 2 actually start with a charisma penalty. Also, Fighter/Barbarian has enough abilities that need to be pumped, and charisma just isn't one of them, nor should it be. Charisma is a "dump stat" for those classes because it needs to be, not because players enjoy playing social outcasts.
I dissaggree with you here, just because a player 'dumps' charisma for what ever reason doesn't let them avoid the consciquences of that action. In this case it's poor social skills. You can't have a person who isn't sure about himself/what he wants/needs with out any training be scary just because he's big, that just doesn't make sense.


4. Charisma does not work that way in my game. Several of you have stated that you interpret low charisma as making the character inconspicous. That's not generally how charisma is used in my games. Charisma in my games generally implied a degree of friendliness when first encountered. So a high charisma means a more favorable reaction, ergo "people like you". And a low charisma means a less favorable reaction, "people fear/hate you". Low charisma people with high strength in my games tend to be the silent types, or people who grunt inarticulately. With this understanding of charisma, a low charisma person tends to be the guy who makes people pee their pants with fright. Having him also be the guy who is least intimidating is rather unworkable.
This is were stuff breaks down your assumption that High Charisma characters are firendly and Low Charisma characters are scary is biased. There isn't any evidence of this in real life. People that you instictivally fear aren't the big scary people that rip chair in half, like the funny WWF wrestlers. It's the guy who, when he comes up to ask a question you wonder if you looked at him wrong or something becuase his body language is saying "don't **** with me or you will regret it." Or the guy you met at a party and talked with for four hours despite the fact that you don't talk with people you don't know and you realize this fact driving home from that party.

In short: A character with High charisma is not automatically friendly, nor do they try to be. They can be just as gruff and mean as everybody else, however it is noticed more than the gruff and mean (or firendly) low Charisma character.


5. I see the ability mods as conferring an innate bonus to a skill. So where 2 people have equal skill climbing, the one with more strength can climb slightly better because he can use less stable handholds. With this and #3 in mind, it makes little sense that a mob enforcer for example, who would have low charisma due to not being well spoken, would be less threatening than the friendly neighbor down the street. Why? Because the mob enforcer has to spend a skill point for every 2 charisma he has less than the neighbor. Lets say the neighbor has a 14 charisma and the mob enforcer has 8. This means that without ever learning how to be intimidating, your neighbor is as scary as a mob enforcer who spent 3 skill points in it.
This is what I was talking about. You're confusing things. Your friendly nieghbor(Bill) is a nice guy normally because that's his personality. But say he's up late at night and a home invader comes in, your enforcer (Jim) for example. Now Jim demands the combination to the safe in the wall or he'll kill Bill's family. Bill isn't scared and turns on Jim stating that, if Jim doesn't leave now, Bill won't be responsible for what happens. It doesn't matter if Jim has a gun, sword, or huge muscles, because Bill has decided that Jim is threatening something important, and if he persists, will be taken down, even if it kills Bill.
In this situation who's more threatening. The mob enforcer committing petty theft. Or the angered father and husband defending his family? It seems a little one sided because the Bill's stance, word choice, and tone of voice are a part of the intimidation and much less so the threat of violence.


The examples people are giving, of charismatic people who are also intimidating, tends IMO to indicate higher ranks/experience in the skill or circumstance modifiers rather than an innate bonus to it. Heck, most of the time it indicates overcoming a penalty, like the frail man who is still intimidating although most frail men aren't. Or the villain who normally wouldn't be intimidating, but he just does it so well that we forget his height, rotundity and generally non-threatening look.
That is especially true in the case of James Bond Vs. Master but my point is that James Bond has less charisma (12) than Master has strength (16), and as such should be less intimidating than Master but isn't. Even Bond's intimidate ranks wouldn't cover the gap because he spent all his skill points in Move Silently, Hide, Knowledge (Nafarious Plots)(for the +2 to Gather Information and Diplomacy), Gather Information, Diplomacy, Bluff, Climb, Swim, Use Evil Device, Disable Device and etc. So why is Bond more intimidating than Master? It's because Bond has the higher Charisma score (12 still) than Master (8-10) not because he's got thast much more training at scaring people.

Overall your points are well reasoned but a couple of your assumptions need to be rechecked(High Cha people=/= nice people). Also the best way for you to house rule it is to invert the Cha penalty for intimidate, as you've said Low Cha people make others wet themselves why not have mechanics that reflect that.

That's all for now.

Jannex
2007-11-04, 06:44 PM
Oh yeah, cause a 110 half elf making faces at me is scary :smallconfused:

Fortunately, intimidation isn't usually accomplished by making faces.

Here's how I imagine that a 110-pound half-elf would use Intimidate:

"I like to think of myself as a reasonable man. I abhor violence, as a general rule. Messy, dirty business. You strike me as a reasonable man as well; an honest businessman, who cares for his family. Like that little girl of yours, with her little blond pigtails, and that light dusting of freckles across her nose--takes after your wife in that regard, I think. She must be what, six, maybe seven years old? Such a lovely child; I couldn't bear the thought of anything unpleasant happening to her. As I was saying, I think that two entirely reasonable men like ourselves can reach an equitable arrangement, can we not?"

horseboy
2007-11-04, 07:56 PM
Alternatively, you have the strong guys in the back Aid Another against a DC of 10 (they stand around and look tough and mean) while the charismatic person sits on his chest and doodles with a stilletto.
That was going to be my point. Jimmie "Two fingers" Pedeski stands over there quietly while the guy talks to his "boss". Then during the dramatically appropriate moment, pops his knuckles and says: "You want I should break him now, boss?" You're not afraid of Jimmie, but the guy controlling Jimmie. That's the best use of intimidate for the low Cha fighter. He's just not glib enough to do his own mouth piece work.

AtomicKitKat
2007-11-04, 08:44 PM
How about this?

Charisma applies to all uses of Intimidate.
Strength modifier is added as an additional bonus when using the Demoralise function.

This way, the Charisma supporters get to keep it for social Intimidation, while the Strength supporters get the bonus in the one situation where they're most likely to use it(ie, rendering the opponent Shaken).

Edit: It doesn't matter how smooth a talker the pasty old man is. Especially with that complexion, his Charisma is way down the tubes. It's the circumstance bonuses of his (in)famous reputation, coupled with the armed goons nearby that actually lend his threats weight.

Fhaolan
2007-11-04, 08:55 PM
Intimidate shouldn't even exist at all as a skill. It should be rolled into Diplomacy. Otherwise we're going to keep getting these silly topic posts every three months like clockwork. All because someone wants to dump Cha, and not be penalized for it.

tainsouvra
2007-11-04, 08:59 PM
If there are any other, mechanical, reasons for keeping charisma tied to intimidate I would like to hear them however. Charisma is important for social interaction. Intimidate is a form of social interaction. Allowing Intimidate to be done with a stat other than Charisma only encourages dumping the stat. Very poor idea mechanically.

On the other hand...
4. Charisma does not work that way in my game. Several of you have stated that you interpret low charisma as making the character inconspicous. That's not generally how charisma is used in my games. Charisma in my games generally implied a degree of friendliness when first encountered. ...you've already nerfed the heck out of Charisma, so go ahead and make it a dump stat. Its your game. For those of us playing Charisma as force of personality and social presence, it makes perfect sense the way it is--but since you've changed Charisma in a big way, you pretty much have to change Charisma-based skills too.

Seriously though, you should have mentioned your house rules in the original post, it would have made everything a lot easier.


Intimidation is primarily psychological. Truth.


It doesn't matter how smooth a talker the pasty old man is. Especially with that complexion, his Charisma is way down the tubes. It's the circumstance bonuses of his (in)famous reputation, coupled with the armed goons nearby that actually lend his threats weight. Charisma is not merely physical attractiveness. Although most don't play it that way, you could be out-of-shape and still have high Charisma.

AtomicKitKat
2007-11-04, 09:12 PM
The old man may have Charisma through the roof, but it doesn't change my point. It's not so much the way that he conveys the threat, as the fact that he's got a reputation, along with his thugs.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-04, 10:44 PM
The old man may have Charisma through the roof, but it doesn't change my point. It's not so much the way that he conveys the threat, as the fact that he's got a reputation, along with his thugs.

I'd represent that more with the sorts of things that a successful Intimidate check will let you do. If the Vampire King with a thousand underlings under his command fails an Intimidate check, you're still apt to do what he says because you know he can follow through with his threats (remember, though, that this is just a simple cost-benefit analysis that people normally go through when not intimidated). If he succeeds, you'll go to the ends of the earth for him because you know what will happen if you fail and you don't believe you could possibly escape if you did.


Charisma is not merely physical attractiveness. Although most don't play it that way, you could be out-of-shape and still have high Charisma.

QFT. The perennial example is, of course, the guy with a prominent scar on his face. If he's got 18 Cha, people will think he's a tough guy who doesn't mess around, or a noble hero who bears the mark of a mighty battle, or whatever else the scarred guy wants them to think. If he's got 8 Cha, people will either pity the poor, disfigured man or laugh at the loser who can't pick his fights.