Unpopular Opinion: Intimidation is fine as a Cha skill

[Phhase]

It's a popular houserule to allow one to roll Intimidation with Strength rather than Charisma. After all, brawn is spooky, right? However, I contest that allowing one to roll Intimidation with Strength should logically translate to being able to roll Intimidation with any skill. For a rough example:

Strength: *Menacing flex* "You hard enough to face me?"
Dexterity: *Impossibly quick weapon draw and flourish* "Don't blink."
Constitution: (Chugging something poisonous or otherwise dangerous) :durkon: "Tastes like me mums' apple cobbler."
Intelligence: "All it takes is a single incision in your spine, and you'll never move again." (Aside: I know Medicine is a Wisdom skill, but it really ought to be an Int one, or at least split into Int and Wis branches)
Wisdom: (Sherlock Scanning) "That ring on your finger's pretty shiny. It's new isn't it? Bags under your eyes. You just had a kid with your newlywed, didn't you? Be a shame if they were orphaned."

But the thing is, it's about how you sell it. You can be as strong or as wise or a quick as you want but if you don't know how to apply that to intimidation, there's every chance you might not stick the landing, as such:

Strength: *Menacing flex* "You're nowhere near as hard as me." (:smallbiggrin:PHRASING!)
Dexterity: *Impossibly quick five-finger fillet* "Impressed?" (Good job, you failed to stab yourself. Incredible.)
Constitution: "Wanna know how I got this scar? Rat bite. Wound went septic and they had to operate." (The scar may be impressive, but the story, it's not exactly the picture of valor)
Intelligence: :vaarsuvius: Beholdyourfatecreaturesofdarkness!Yourdemiseisatha ndforIweildarcanepowerbeyond
yourfeeblegoblinreasoning! (Zzzz...)
Wisdom: (Sherlock Scan) "Crumbs in your mustache. Sauce at the corner of your mouth. Lettuce in your teeth. You just ate at Taco Bell, didn't you? Be a shame if you shat your pants in combat." (An uncanny deduction, and logically an actual risk, but like. Come on.)

...and so, "selling it," that's...Charisma, isn't it? Kronk is definitely buffer than Darth Vader in the traditional muscley sense, but Vader is clearly more menacing.

Now, of course, I can hardly deny that you could use another skill to SUPPLEMENT Charisma for the purposes of an Intimidation check (I just gave some examples, after all), so I'd be interested in hearing propositions on how to create a kind of Synergy Bonus mechanic.

[MadBear]

What's funny is you've perfectly given examples of how other skills might be appropriate, and what would happen when they fail that check. On the other hand, isn't this not the exact same situation you get with charisma? Here's a simple example using persuasion:

Charisma: Look, you know me, I've never lied to you once. You should definitely lend me that magical weapon to help in defeating the dragon that's on its way.... what's that, it's only magical when fighting undead.... well..... shucks."

I'm not disputing that these checks can and often should be made using charisma, but I can also see times when other stats make more sense.

[DarknessEternal]

I didn't know it was unpopular. Cha is the only attribute that makes sense.

The problem with Intimidation as a skill is that it shouldn't exist. Neither should Deception. Intimidation and Deception are just synonyms for Persuasion.

Persuasion is the only one that should exist.

[Doug Lampert]

I didn't know it was unpopular. Cha is the only attribute that makes sense.

The problem with Intimidation as a skill is that it shouldn't exist. Neither should Deception. Intimidation and Deception are just synonyms for Persuasion.

Persuasion is the only one that should exist.

They're different methods of achieving that end. You can argue as to whether they should be different skills or not.

But I'll state that I am completely convinced that in D&D land the weedy guy with a book who's muttering incomprehensible gibberish is far scarier than the big guy flexing his muscles.

If all intimidation is, is "scare people" then it should more or less never be off strength, cause my character's fight giants who are far stronger than you are, and most of my foes are at least approximately at my level of ability.

If intimidation is "scare people in a way that gets them to do what I want them to do or tell me what I want to know," then Charisma is plainly the correct ability. Because simply thinking someone can beat me up doesn't really get me to do anything much.

[strangebloke]

As someone who used to hold the opposite opinion from you, I don't think the "STR:intimidation" crowd was ever in the majority.

Personally I just wish that barbarians etc. actually had class features that allowed them to be better at this.

[LudicSavant]

My preferred method:

The inherent scariness of the situation sets the DC (e.g. if they know you can cast Meteor Swarm, the DC is lower than if they think you're a random peasant). You may then use a Charisma check to upsell the threat you pose / increase the natural fear response / etc.

This means that any number of abilities can be used to make you more intimidating. It also means that players can work as a team if desired. The Bard talks up how scary the Barbarian is as the Barbarian casually demonstrates his ability to turn iron bars into a novelty pretzel. And so forth.

This is somewhat similar to how the game recommends to handle persuasion checks in the DMG -- the creature's attitude, and whether or not your appeal is appropriate to their personality (bonds/traits/flaws) affects the DC of the Persuasion check. It even gives the example of using Insight to determine a creature's bonds/traits/ideals/flaws in order to get a significantly lower DC. Or to make Persuasion possible at all. It was never supposed to boil down to "just have the highest Cha PC roll Persuasion."

[SharkForce]

I wouldn't say it should *never* be anything other than charisma based.

but I do agree that it shouldn't be *simple* to base it off of anything else. otherwise, well... what if I threaten you with a knife, do I add a bonus for how knife-y the knife is? what if I threaten you with a visit from the thieve's guild enforcers, do I add a bonus based on how many there are, or perhaps for how many people they've shaken down in the past week, etc?

intimidation is not the skill to make people scared. if you have a knife to their throat, they're probably scared and I won't require any roll just to make them scared under normal circumstances. same if you have the strength to rip their arm off.

it even goes further than being the skill of getting them to do what you want; if you are crushing that official's skull with your bare hands, the official will probably do whatever you want... as long as you're there and continuing to be threatening that is.

intimidation is the skill of getting people to do what you want, and to get into their head so that they will keep doing what you want even when you're gone. you use intimidate so that after you extorted that document you need and leave, they don't call the guards and put out orders to find you and throw you in prison so that you can be publicly executed as an example to others who might get the same idea.

and that? that's charisma. at least, the vast majority of the time.

I am perfectly fine with the idea that sometimes a skill will involve non-standard attributes, but there needs to be a reason for it. for example, I would be perfectly fine if you were to use intelligence(deception) to mislead an enemy general with military maneuvers, because charisma is genuinely not applicable and it's all about feeding them the right misinformation so that they get the wrong idea of what you're doing.

but I'm not going to give it to you just because you're using ten dollar words while you're talking to a person.

so I could absolutely buy the idea that there is a case where you might use something other than charisma for intimidation... but it isn't going to be as simple as flexing your muscles and implying physical violence as a consequence for not doing what you say.

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't know it was unpopular. Cha is the only attribute that makes sense. I would rephrase that as Cha is not the only attribute that makes sense. I like the "intent" + "approach" (player explains intent and approach to the DM) method to figure out what ability score to use for some checks. Others require no such process.

I don't think the "STR:intimidation" crowd was ever in the majority.

Personally I just wish that barbarians etc. actually had class features that allowed them to be better at this. Such as: expertise/double proficiency in Intimidation. :smallwink: Name the ability "Banner Effect"
from Dr Bruce Banner
when he says "You don't want to see me when I'm angry"

[Doug Lampert]

As someone who used to hold the opposite opinion from you, I don't think the "STR:intimidation" crowd was ever in the majority.

Personally I just wish that barbarians etc. actually had class features that allowed them to be better at this.

I'll agree with both of the above. The STR:Intimidate people are the one's who make noise, because "It's not broke, don't fix is" really doesn't need to say all that much. I think the majority is fine with it being charisma.

But I strongly agree that EVERY class should have something it can do in a social situation and something it can do in an exploration situations just as much as every class has something in combat. Seriously, if these are the three pillars of play, then either every class needs to be good at all of them, or no class can be good at all of them. Some classes are only good at combat and others are good at combat + another pillar ONLY works if you take it as given that the other pillars are not pillars but are just ribbons.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think I've fallen into the camp of "circumstantial appropriate DC or auto success" rather than "let them use Strength to compensate".

In my own play experience, all of our characters have tools to intimidate, even the least charismatic members of our party. Our fighter has a maul made from pure elemental energy and crackles with the energy of a storm cloud. She's reckless and prone to violence and will make good on threats if she makes them. The Monk has a kukri, black as night, so sharp that it can sever the head off an adult dragon in a single swing. She's enigmatic and unpredictable and not knowing how seriously she might mean "I could take your head off right now if you don't talk" is enough for most, she'd even let them run because there's no realistic chance they'd escape from her.

Honestly our actual Charisma based characters are least likely to "intimidate" even with the highest bonuses to the skill. In my Paladin's case, he deliberately avoids threatening people or striking those who haven't struck first. The Sorcerer is just too unassuming, goofy and friendly to make anyone aware that he can bend reality and rip your mind into pieces.

"Overt threats" are the only example of the three given that seem most logically based on your ability to speak and present yourself. I think "Hostile Action" and "Physical Violence" are behaviors that are much more likely to succeed in intimidating someone*, but the tradeoff to likely having a lower success DC is that there will likely be associated consequences for such extreme measures.
*or at the very least, someone with a low Charisma score shouldn't have a much worse chance than someone with a high score

[Phhase]

What's funny is you've perfectly given examples of how other skills might be appropriate, and what would happen when they fail that check. On the other hand, isn't this not the exact same situation you get with charisma? Here's a simple example using persuasion:

Charisma: Look, you know me, I've never lied to you once. You should definitely lend me that magical weapon to help in defeating the dragon that's on its way.... what's that, it's only magical when fighting undead.... well..... shucks."

I'm not disputing that these checks can and often should be made using charisma, but I can also see times when other stats make more sense.

Oh yes, absolutely. My logic was that ALTHOUGH others skills are all perfectly suitable at first glance, it's entirely possible to apply them successfully and also simultaneously fail at being intimidating - The difference between success and failure being, appropriately, charisma. Knowing how to do something is different than knowing how to do something for a specific purpose. But yes, this was meant mostly as a conversation starter.

That failure case seems a little more like a critical lack of information than a failure of your persuasiveness - they might lend you the sword anyway just to watch you get whacked because you didn't know it wouldn't work the way you wanted it to.

That's why I like the idea of a synergy bonus - you're using your charisma to leverage your knowledge in another skill to support the effort. You need the charisma to make the two work together.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don’t think this houserule is that popular and I don’t think it’s applied as a straight “Intimidate now runs off strength instead”. Rather in certain cases it makes sense.

I also don’t agree with the OP’s notion that logically anything goes if you allow strength. People do find muscles intimidating, without charisma being involved. And in nature, a go to tactic when animals engage is to appear larger to intimidate the other animal. People do the same thing when their shoulders come up and they flare their chests out and square up on one another.

I’m not saying it’s appropriate all the time but it is certainly grounded in reality to think your barbarian should be rather intimidating if they wanted to be. Especially given the PC track record of killing nearly everything they come across.

Because your strength score doesn’t determine your size, this doesn’t track perfectly to the game. But again, it’s not “noise” to think a big muscly barbarian should be an intimidating sight.

[Willowhelm]

It's a popular houserule to allow one to roll Intimidation with Strength rather than Charisma. After all, brawn is spooky, right? However, I contest that allowing one to roll Intimidation with Strength should logically translate to being able to roll Intimidation with any skill.

Im assuming you mean with any ability score rather than skill.

If I recall correctly this is not a house rule. It’s just the rules. You roll an ability check and if you’re proficient in a relevant skill you add your proficiency bonus. That’s why the ability checks are written as “charisma(intimidation)” vs “strength(intimidation)” etc. Not just “intimidation”.

From the dmg:


Under certain circumstances, you can decide a character’s proficiency in a skill can be applied to a different ability check. For example, you might decide that a character forced to swim from an island to the mainland must succeed on a Constitution check (as opposed to a Strength check) because of the distance involved. The character is proficient in the Athletics skill, which covers swimming, so you allow the character’s proficiency bonus to apply to this ability check. In effect, you’re asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check, instead of a Strength (Athletics) check.

Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character’s training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player’s creative thinking.

[False God]

Skills should absolutely be decoupled from stats. The DM should adjudicate which skill and which stat you need to use on the basis of your approach to the situation. It would do wonders for making D&D a more flexible system.

[SharkForce]

I don’t think this houserule is that popular and I don’t think it’s applied as a straight “Intimidate now runs off strength instead”. Rather in certain cases it makes sense.

I also don’t agree with the OP’s notion that logically anything goes if you allow strength. People do find muscles intimidating, without charisma being involved. And in nature, a go to tactic when animals engage is to appear larger to intimidate the other animal. People do the same thing when their shoulders come up and they flare their chests out and square up on one another.

I’m not saying it’s appropriate all the time but it is certainly grounded in reality to think your barbarian should be rather intimidating if they wanted to be. Especially given the PC track record of killing nearly everything they come across.

Because your strength score doesn’t determine your size, this doesn’t track perfectly to the game. But again, it’s not “noise” to think a big muscly barbarian should be an intimidating sight.

people get scared of a lot of things, and muscles are only one of many, MANY possibilities. you don't need to make an intimidate check to be scary, you need an intimidate check to use their fear - whether that is a fear of you, the weapon you are holding, the powers you can call upon, your dangerous friend, or anything else - to get them to act the way you want. not to just respond by being afraid, which could lead to any number of outcomes, not just to trigger a general "fight or flight" condition where *they* decide which one they're going to do, but to have them make the decision that you want, in the way that you want.

you want to know if that peasant is afraid because you threatened to break them in half if they don't do what you say? sure they are. no test required. the peasant is not in the business of being a fearless machine. but if you want to be the one that decides whether they run away shouting for help or desperately grabbing a nearby bludgeon to fend you off or giving you false information or giving you accurate information about what you want to know, make a charisma check. all of those other things are equally possible responses to "I'm afraid", after all, and they're hardly the entirely set of options for that matter.

as to something like a high strength providing a bonus to the intimidate check, well, yeah... they provide the bonus of being able to make the intimidate check in the first place. "tell me what I want to know or my friend will rearrange your face" only works if your friend looks like someone who could rearrange their face, after all. but it should be noted, there are lots of ways to provide that other than just having a high strength bonus.

[Willowhelm]

people get scared of a lot of things, and muscles are only one of many, MANY possibilities. you don't need to make an intimidate check to be scary, you need an intimidate check to use their fear - whether that is a fear of you, the weapon you are holding, the powers you can call upon, your dangerous friend, or anything else - to get them to act the way you want.

<snip>

as to something like a high strength providing a bonus to the intimidate check, well, yeah... they provide the bonus of being able to make the intimidate check in the first place. "tell me what I want to know or my friend will rearrange your face" only works if your friend looks like someone who could rearrange their face, after all. but it should be noted, there are lots of ways to provide that other than just having a high strength bonus.

You have it backwards. You do not make an intimidate check. You make an ability check and you add your (intimidation) skill proficiency to it if it is relevant.

I completely agree with the point though. You can use other abilities to intimidate. But this shouldn’t be a house rule or a variant. It’s just the rules.

[Segev]

If you're using strength to intimidate, it probably is a very immediate thing. You're not scaring someone into doing more than they're sure you'll be watching them for, and they likely run off as soon as they feel you can't or won't catch them.

Charisma based intimidation is more flexible and potentially long-lasting. They aren't just afraid you'll hurt them in that moment; you are unnerving or frightening or otherwise a chilling presence in their mindscape for as long as it takes to get them to stay intimidated.

They're not just shaken for as long as it takes the adrenaline to fade; you made an impression.

[JackPhoenix]

"You don't want to see me when I'm angry"

Why not? The Hulk rampaging is the entire reason why I'm watching the movie!

[Composer99]

"Most ability checks involving Intimidation will be (or ought to be) Charisma checks, and that's fine" isn't a particularly hot take.

If you don't play with the variant rule on PHB 175, all ability checks involving Intimidation would be Charisma checks. And even if you do play with that variant, most such checks will end up being Charisma checks anyway.

That being stated, given the variant rule is in the PHB, it's absolutely not a houserule to make a Strength check, or an Intelligence check, or a what-have-you-check, and apply your Intimidation proficiency to the check. It's a variant rule, yes, but still part of the PHB RAW.

[Dienekes]

Skills should absolutely be decoupled from stats. The DM should adjudicate which skill and which stat you need to use on the basis of your approach to the situation. It would do wonders for making D&D a more flexible system.

This is it for me. You have someone in a headlock telling them to obey or die? Absolutely letting Str: Intimidation go.

You're trying to blend into a crowd? Not hiding behind anything or tucking your body away, just laughing with others to avoid detection? I'll allow a Cha: Stealth.

You're in an academic debate giving precise calculated talking points? Probably going to allow Int: Persuasion.

It just makes the game more flexible and interesting.

[Oramac]

I generally run Intimidation as a charisma skill. That said, if a player of mine says they want to try to use [insert x ability here] instead, I just ask them how, and make them roll the check that way (assuming their answer even remotely makes sense). I may or may not also increase/decrease the DC depending on their creativity. But at the end of the day, charisma is the default and other abilities are on a case-by-case basis.

[Dr.Samurai]

people get scared of a lot of things, and muscles are only one of many, MANY possibilities.
I didn't say muscles are scary, I said they are intimidating. People are not intimidated by many many possibilities, but they are intimidated by muscles, generally speaking.

It's not the theater major that's gut-checking you in the hallway for your lunch money, it's the jock.

We all know this on a very real, very instinctual level. There's no need to explain it away because D&D has decided Intimidation should be charisma-based.

If people think charisma should be the default, or should be the only skill used, that's perfectly okay, I'm not here to tell people they are wrong on that part.

My point is that strength absolutely makes sense in some contexts, and allowing it doesn't break the gate open for everything else. If your character is a big muscly warrior, the threat is going to be obvious. Strength determines accuracy and damage in melee combat. If people think knowing a wizard can cast a certain spell might be intimidating, then simply seeing a very strong person will be intimidating. But with strength it's already out there to see and recognize. With the examples of the threat of incisions (INT) or harming the newborn (WIS) in the OP, you are selling the threat and so CHA may be more appropriate still, whereas with big muscles, it's already plain to see.

Intimidation is charisma based to decouple it from that one type of intimidation (physicality), but let's not make the mistake of thinking only charismatic people are intimidating or something.

you don't need to make an intimidate check to be scary, you need an intimidate check to use their fear - whether that is a fear of you, the weapon you are holding, the powers you can call upon, your dangerous friend, or anything else - to get them to act the way you want. not to just respond by being afraid, which could lead to any number of outcomes, not just to trigger a general "fight or flight" condition where *they* decide which one they're going to do, but to have them make the decision that you want, in the way that you want.
Yes and in the real world you don't need to be Robert Downey Jr. to pull this off.

you want to know if that peasant is afraid because you threatened to break them in half if they don't do what you say? sure they are. no test required. the peasant is not in the business of being a fearless machine. but if you want to be the one that decides whether they run away shouting for help or desperately grabbing a nearby bludgeon to fend you off or giving you false information or giving you accurate information about what you want to know, make a charisma check. all of those other things are equally possible responses to "I'm afraid", after all, and they're hardly the entirely set of options for that matter.
To my mind these are examples of failed checks.

[MoiMagnus]

I didn't know it was unpopular. Cha is the only attribute that makes sense.

The problem with Intimidation as a skill is that it shouldn't exist. Neither should Deception. Intimidation and Deception are just synonyms for Persuasion.

Persuasion is the only one that should exist.

In an homebrew, we replaced the Cha skills (including performance) by:
+ Empathy (include most non-verbal communication, hence most performance checks, but is also used to communicate with peoples you don't share a language with)
+ Persuasion (including most deception checks, and the more subtle intimidation)
+ Authority (including most intimidation checks, but also all the deception based on bluffing that you have a specific role)
+ Negociation (include most non-antagonistic checks, where you present actual arguments, and might be preceeded by an Int based check to find those arguments)

And it works reasonably well.

[Cicciograna]

Skills should absolutely be decoupled from stats. The DM should adjudicate which skill and which stat you need to use on the basis of your approach to the situation. It would do wonders for making D&D a more flexible system.

They are. As Willowhelm mentioned, every skill check is really an ability check. If the DM determines it makes sense, you can add the bonus for a skill in which you are proficient.

Want to be indirect, using verbal cues and subtle body language to intimidate your interlocutor? Roll Charisma (Intimidate).
Want to put out a show of brawn, being menacing without too much subtlety? Roll Strength (Intimidate).

[Anymage]

I didn't say muscles are scary, I said they are intimidating. People are not intimidated by many many possibilities, but they are intimidated by muscles, generally speaking.

It's not the theater major that's gut-checking you in the hallway for your lunch money, it's the jock.

We all know this on a very real, very instinctual level. There's no need to explain it away because D&D has decided Intimidation should be charisma-based.

In our world, being large and holding a weapon are the best ways to make good on threats of violence. That poindexter covered in bat poop or pretty boy actor are harder pressed to hurt you than the guy who's twice your size and totally jacked. In a D&D world? That poindexter or pretty boy can literally transport you to hell. The big guy with the big axe can hurt you, but not more so than the spellcasters can.

More than that, I'd assume that making a commoner pants-wettingly scared is so easy that you don't even have to roll for it. Just like your average person in the real world most likely wants to get away from a bear. Someone with the training and equipment to handle a bear will not necessarily turn tail and run because said bear rears up, any more than level appropriate challenges will run away because the barbarian flexes. Similarly, if you want to make that commoner give you useful answers to your questions instead of just trying to flee in terror or just gibbering whatever he thinks you want to hear, you might want a broader toolkit than just threatening to inflict pain and actually inflicting pain.

[Silly Name]

This is it for me. You have someone in a headlock telling them to obey or die? Absolutely letting Str: Intimidation go.

You're trying to blend into a crowd? Not hiding behind anything or tucking your body away, just laughing with others to avoid detection? I'll allow a Cha: Stealth.

You're in an academic debate giving precise calculated talking points? Probably going to allow Int: Persuasion.

It just makes the game more flexible and interesting.

This is how I run my games as well. It's a fun way and lets people be creative in how they think about options, although I always prefer for players to narrate their actions and then for me to call for a check if necessary.

[Dr.Samurai]

In our world, being large and holding a weapon are the best ways to make good on threats of violence. That poindexter covered in bat poop or pretty boy actor are harder pressed to hurt you than the guy who's twice your size and totally jacked. In a D&D world? That poindexter or pretty boy can literally transport you to hell. The big guy with the big axe can hurt you, but not more so than the spellcasters can.
Firstly, this is game dependent because hardly any mages in the world will be able to hurl someone through hell. This is not a feature of all spellcasters, whereas "swing sword and kill me" is a feature of any muscly guy with a sword.

Secondly, I am going back to my point about strength being an obvious threat. Your comment means that people should just naturally fear any robed person that looks like they cast spells. But I don't think that's true. I don't think people in "D&D World" are naturally intimidated by every robed person they encounter. Again, you will have to sell that you are a threat because it isn't obvious that you can hurl someone to hell. Whereas muscles are obvious.

More than that, I'd assume that making a commoner pants-wettingly scared is so easy that you don't even have to roll for it. Just like your average person in the real world most likely wants to get away from a bear. Someone with the training and equipment to handle a bear will not necessarily turn tail and run because said bear rears up, any more than level appropriate challenges will run away because the barbarian flexes. Similarly, if you want to make that commoner give you useful answers to your questions instead of just trying to flee in terror or just gibbering whatever he thinks you want to hear, you might want a broader toolkit than just threatening to inflict pain and actually inflicting pain.
Yes but let's not forget that ability scores don't give you skills. The barbarian is *proficient* in Intimidation, so he does know how to use his physicality to get the answers he wants. Strength or Charisma are simply modifying his training/proficiency, but the person knows what they are doing.

There is no reason to think that a barbarian with proficiency in Intimidation doesn't know what he's doing if he's using his strength to intimidate people.

[Burley]

I also didn't realize that this was an "unpopular opinion," but 5e often has skill checks using non-default abilities. Every printed campaign that I've looked through for 5e has places where you may make an Stealth (Wisdom) or Performance (Dexterity) (Wild Beyond the Witchlight uses that for juggling acts).

If your fighter bends a piece of rebar with their bare hands as an example of what they often do to the spines of people who had to be asked twice, I'd let your fighter make an Intimidation (Strength) check. In my experience, that may give anywhere from a +1 to a +5 to a roll (depending on the stats), but it also got the fighter engaged in a non-combat encounter, which is worth +20.

Edit: I'll add that, as a role play game, the trick is creating the narrative that fits the numbers (rather than numbers to fit the narrative). If the 18-Cha Bard makes an Intimidation (Charisma) check, they may be using their own force of personality to bring attention to the scarier party members: the Wizard feeding his skeletal cat; the seething, red-eyed Barbarian; the Rogue who is turning over dead bodies looking for every last copper pieces.

[Chronos]

Perhaps the classic Intimidate scenario is the mob protection racket, "Nice little business you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.". But it's not the two big brawny guys who are saying that. It's the scrawny little fellow in the expensive suit in between them who's doing the talking. The brawny guys are just the masterwork tool.

Yes, there are occasional situations where it makes sense to use some other ability score instead, possibly including Str (or possibly including any of the others). But the vast majority of the time, it'll be Cha.

Now, if the goal here is just to make barbarians more intimidating, then the proper solution isn't to let them use Str for intimidation in general. The proper solution is to make them still use Cha, but give them expertise.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Personally I just wish that barbarians etc. actually had class features that allowed them to be better at this.

I mean, if half orcs get it, why shouldn't all barbarians? What intimidates or gets the respect of an orc? Barbarians. See Icewind Dale etc.

Maybe not for DEXbarians, though.

[False God]

They are. As Willowhelm mentioned, every skill check is really an ability check. If the DM determines it makes sense, you can add the bonus for a skill in which you are proficient.

Want to be indirect, using verbal cues and subtle body language to intimidate your interlocutor? Roll Charisma (Intimidate).
Want to put out a show of brawn, being menacing without too much subtlety? Roll Strength (Intimidate).

They are not.

Everything written in the DMG is largely treated with the same level of authority as Sage Advice. If a DM feels fit to use it, they do so, if they do not, they don't. My experience tends to be the DMG is treated as optional guidance, and not necessary to play the game.

Skills locked to stats should simply be officially eliminated. Not a "ruling", not "advice", not "optional content", it should become the new norm. There's no need for it, as it needlessly restricts gameplay based on very tenuous ideas of what any given skill or stat actually represents.

[Cicciograna]

They are not.
If you say so. Having had plenty of occasions in various groups to decouple the skill from the ability attached to it, I beg to differ, but I am not here to convince you.


Everything written in the DMG is largely treated with the same level of authority as Sage Advice. If a DM feels fit to use it, they do so, if they do not, they don't. My experience tends to be the DMG is treated as optional guidance, and not necessary to play the game.
Your experience and mine tend to differ consistently. I am not saying that either is better, just that this is a rather personal approach to how to conduct a game. The DMs I had in the past stuck to the rules, rather than seeing them as a mere guidance, and likewise I did when I DM'd. If your style is seeing them just as a suggestion, more power to you but don't assume that everybody does it.


Skills locked to stats should simply be officially eliminated. Not a "ruling", not "advice", not "optional content", it should become the new norm. There's no need for it, as it needlessly restricts gameplay based on very tenuous ideas of what any given skill or stat actually represents.
Why do you even care, at this point? If rules are just advice, that should not really make any difference for you. And again, you might want to reconsider your preconceptions on the game: the mere fact that we are having this conversation is an indication that stuff like this is open to debate, rather than being subject to an absolute and monolithical judgement.

[False God]

Why do you even care, at this point? If rules are just advice, that should not really make any difference for you. And again, you might want to reconsider your preconceptions on the game: the mere fact that we are having this conversation is an indication that stuff like this is open to debate, rather than being subject to an absolute and monolithical judgement.

What we do here online isn't anything like what's going on at tables.

My experience is that most DMs and most tables stick to the ability scores noted next to the skills.

I care because it's one of the reasons I play less D&D now than I did a few years ago. I got tired of a system saying I couldn't intimidate someone because my CHA was too low when I'm swinging doors around like like they're hammers. I got tired of a system saying I couldn't tell good berries from bad berries because Nature is a Wisdom skill.

I care because D&D can do better but the developers routinely choose not to. I'd like to see them change that, because I have mostly fond memories of playing D&D, but I outgrew its restrictions.

I'm not terribly interested in the debate. I want to see it change. That's really all there is to it.

[Cicciograna]

I care because it's one of the reasons I play less D&D now than I did a few years ago. I got tired of a system saying I couldn't intimidate someone because my CHA was too low when I'm swinging doors around like like they're hammers. I got tired of a system saying I couldn't tell good berries from bad berries because Nature is a Wisdom skill.
Except that the rules clearly state that you can do both the things, because they allow for the substitution of what ability is connected to a certain skill if it makes sense. You CAN intimidate with Strength, and you CAN associate Intelligence to Nature if it makes sense, the rules literally say that.


I'm not terribly interested in the debate. I want to see it change. That's really all there is to it.
On this, we are of the same mind. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

[JackPhoenix]

I didn't say muscles are scary, I said they are intimidating. People are not intimidated by many many possibilities, but they are intimidated by muscles, generally speaking.

It's not the theater major that's gut-checking you in the hallway for your lunch money, it's the jock.

We all know this on a very real, very instinctual level. There's no need to explain it away because D&D has decided Intimidation should be charisma-based.

People are intimidated by being convinced you're willing to go from threats to actually using violence without the ability stop you. I don't care how many muscles you have if I don't believe you're willing to actually attack me, or if I'm confident I can defend myself, because I have a knife in my pocket. And if you're already pushing my 4-hp commoner ass around and there's nothing I can do about that, why do you need any check? Muscle aren't gonna impress actually trained combatant, which is most of what you're facing in D&D.


My point is that strength absolutely makes sense in some contexts, and allowing it doesn't break the gate open for everything else. If your character is a big muscly warrior, the threat is going to be obvious. Strength determines accuracy and damage in melee combat.

Yes. And Charisma "measures your ability to interact effectively with others." If you're trying to intimidate someone, you're trying to interact effectively with an other. It has nothing to do with how accurate and damaging you're in melee combat. Or has anything to do with "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force". Strength isn't what you're doing when you're trying to intimidate someone, it's just a tool. But so is a sharp piece of metal, magical power, the right reputation or 3 other characters backing you up.

Str (Intimidate) is propably the worst possible example to use for using different ability scores with skills, because it goes against what Cha or Str are for in D&D. Con (Athletics) or Dex (Performance) (assuming you're focusing on doing a juggling act technically correct instead of on impressing people) would be much better.


Intimidation is charisma based to decouple it from that one type of intimidation (physicality), but let's not make the mistake of thinking only charismatic people are intimidating or something.

Yes and in the real world you don't need to be Robert Downey Jr. to pull this off.

"Charisma" in D&D is not the same thing as "charismatic people" in real life. You don't need to be RDJr to be charismatic in D&D. The Mountain in GoT may be big and strong, but in D&D, he would also have decent Cha, even if he doesn't use it for anything except Intimidate. Hodor is also big and strong, but lacks Cha (and Int) to impress anyone much in any way.


To my mind these are examples of failed checks.

Yes, because you've mistaken the ability to physically push someone around for the ability to get them to do what you want.

[Tanarii]

It's pretty simple to answer if you want to allow someone to do this: determine the appropriate ability score for the action without worrying about what skill proficiency (if any) might apply.

"I'm trying to get NPC A to do thing I want B by doing C"

Is doing C a Strength check, or some other kind of check?

Edit: actually I am mistaken. The question is: is trying to get someone to do what you want by doing C is a Strength check or not?

Edit2: Also, it's worth noting that using skill proficiencies with different ability scores is a PHB variant, and the variant specifically calls out using Strength (Intimidation). Without the variant, there's no question this should be Charisma (Intimidation).

[SharkForce]

I would also point out that unless your charisma is really spectacularly bad, I'm having a hard time seeing how you would be "unable" to intimidate people just because you didn't max charisma.

DC 20 is where social checks *top out*. for the most part, checks should start at around DC 10.

with a +1 charisma modifier and intimidate proficiency, you should be able to intimidate *in situations where the outcome is unclear* around 2/3 of the time as a level 1 character with no assistance (it improves considerably with help, too). and you know what that success rate lines up surprisingly well against? rolling your maxed out attack against the average armour class of a CR-equivalent creature.

this is not some massive impossible investment that no barbarian could ever hope to achieve. if you want to be intimidating, then don't dump your charisma and start complaining about how your terrible charisma makes you terrible at influencing people.

and if you find yourself constantly facing DC 30 checks for even the simplest thing, that isn't a problem with cha being the attribute that determines how well you intimidate people, it's the DCs that your DM is setting.

(on a side note: those bullies that people are talking about intimidating school kids... ever notice they tend to travel in groups, and that the *leader* does most of the talking? ever notice that they typically go after the socially inept? so really, you're likely looking at maybe a +2 or +3 modifier *with advantage* (from help action) to be effective in that scenario, and guess what? for DC 10 that's around 84% or 88% give or take. frankly, I'm not seeing the problem here)

[neonchameleon]

It's a popular houserule to allow one to roll Intimidation with Strength rather than Charisma. After all, brawn is spooky, right?

Brawn is imposing and scary. However you aren't engaging with the main motivations for the claim:

Fighters and barbarians should be scary and imposing in a way bards normally aren't
Strength only has one skill based on it - and is therefore massively short-changed compared to everything except Con



However, I contest that allowing one to roll Intimidation with Strength should logically translate to being able to roll Intimidation with any skill

If you can justify it in character why not? There's a reason that a lot of games decouple skills from stats and although they have common stat/skill combinations don't mandate that it always needs to be done the same way. It's just harder with other stats.


Constitution: (Chugging something poisonous or otherwise dangerous) :durkon: "Tastes like me mums' apple cobbler."

Better would be smashing a bottle against your own forehead.


(Aside: I know Medicine is a Wisdom skill, but it really ought to be an Int one, or at least split into Int and Wis branches)

Yup - and I can see times where Dex is important.

[strangebloke]

The ultimate problem here is that abilities are defined tautologically. "Strength is Strength and does what Strength does. Charisma is Charisma and does what Charisma is."

Definitionally, charisma is tied to intimidation because it is and has been for a while. Charisma is the stat that you invest in to be a 'face' and if you were a high-charisma character and you couldn't intimidate people effectively in some situations that would feel wrong. You invested in the 'social control' stat and you're being denied the ability to control things. I'm pretty confident nobody would argue that there are incidents where someone with charisma shouldn't be allowed to intimidate someone.

So what's the problem here? Well, the problem is that charisma does a lot more than just charisma and gets applied to a lot of things (sorcerer and warlock and paladin casting) that stretch the definition and feel awkward. So while it makes sense for a warlock to be scary, it makes less sense for the paladin to be scary. Meanwhile, some classes that archetypally feel as though they should be scary (like a barbarian) are not because they have little use for charisma otherwise.

The solution? No way around it, you have to actually do the work and go through the troublesome edge cases and develop solutions for each slight flavor problem

[Dr.Samurai]

Perhaps the classic Intimidate scenario is the mob protection racket, "Nice little business you have here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.".
Interesting. I would not consider this the classic situation. I wouldn't even consider a menacing average guy to be classic. I would consider a big strong threatening guy to be the classic Intimidate scenario. Similar to the image in the PHB for the Intimidate skill.

But it's not the two big brawny guys who are saying that. It's the scrawny little fellow in the expensive suit in between them who's doing the talking. The brawny guys are just the masterwork tool.
This doesn't follow for me. What is it about the two big brawny guys that allows others to use them to Intimidate people? Well, it's their big size and their brawny muscles. So somehow, those big guys can't intimidate you on their own with the very visual threat, but a scrawny guy pointing to them can Intimidate you? This doesn't follow. If the guys are trained in Intimidate, they should be able to leverage their visual presentation as a threat as well.

Note, I am not saying the scrawny guy can't do what you described. I am saying that doesn't preclude the big brawny guys from cutting the middle man out and doing it themselves.

Now, if the goal here is just to make barbarians more intimidating, then the proper solution isn't to let them use Str for intimidation in general. The proper solution is to make them still use Cha, but give them expertise.
Why is this the "proper" solution? I am not saying the barbarian is an expert at Intimidation. I am saying the barbarian's strength is intimidating and if he is trained in Intimidation, it is reasonable to think he can leverage that strength in intimidating people.

People are intimidated by being convinced you're willing to go from threats to actually using violence without the ability stop you. I don't care how many muscles you have if I don't believe you're willing to actually attack me, or if I'm confident I can defend myself, because I have a knife in my pocket.
Recall that we are specifically talking about an Intimidate check, not a Strength check. I am not saying you can intimidate people with a Strength check. I am saying you can use your strength to modify your Intimidate check. That this is at all contentious is mind-boggling. You're saying "If you're not using charisma, then you don't know how to convince people", and this is once again conflating the charisma skill with proficiency in Intimidate. The hypothetical person is proficient, so by definition they know how to convince people through Intimidation.

And if you're already pushing my 4-hp commoner ass around and there's nothing I can do about that, why do you need any check?
Precisely. Yes, exactly. In the GoT scene where the Hound and Aria are at that little tavern and the soldiers are there being god awful to the keeper and his daughter, do you think an Intimidate check is really needed? Not really. But why? Because of all the charisma going around in the air? No, it's because of all of the muscle. Someone said earlier that bullies tend to have a group with them. What does that group add? More charisma? No, more strength. This is so obvious, but people get hung up because Charisma is the default in D&D. People put too much stock in "you have to convince them", yes, that's what the roll is for, that's what proficiency is for.

Muscle aren't gonna impress actually trained combatant, which is most of what you're facing in D&D.
Well now you're just acting like Charisma is mind control. A roll is needed. So yes, I'm not saying muscles are going to have the Praetorian Guard parting to let you pass. You have to roll. But why would charisma be any more intimidating to a trained and armed combatant than another muscly trained and armed combatant? Charisma is not a god stat...

Yes. And Charisma "measures your ability to interact effectively with others." If you're trying to intimidate someone, you're trying to interact effectively with an other.
And here you're once again conflating the skill with the ability score. I don't really know what to say here except that the two things are distinctly not the same. One is a skill that is modified by an ability score. The other is an ability score.

If you say "Intimidate is trying to interact effectively with another person" and I say "my fighter is proficient in Intimidation", what does that mean to you?

The Mountain in GoT may be big and strong, but in D&D, he would also have decent Cha, even if he doesn't use it for anything except Intimidate.
I disagree. Again, think about it. The Mountain is PASSIVELY intimidating. He has a reputation and is a giant of a man. People are intimidated just when he walks by. He's not actively rolling charisma checks to do it. His size and violence is what drives the intimidation. Big muscles, plus history of violence (based on strength attacks/damage) has nothing to do with Charisma.

Yes, because you've mistaken the ability to physically push someone around for the ability to get them to do what you want.
Or, you've allowed a game mechanic to confuse you to the realities of nature, human nature, human history, etc.

Once again, I'm not arguing that charisma doesn't make sense. But the notion that strength doesn't fit in certain contexts is outright incorrect.

[MoiMagnus]

it makes less sense for the paladin to be scary

Do you use intimidation for things like "In the name of the Holy Light, I command you to stop and surrender!" or "You're under arrest for crime against the the universal Good! Do not resist!"? If yes, then I'd say it's quite reasonable for the paladin to be good at it, and more generally for Charisma to be the standard ability score for those intimidation checks.
If you consider they fall under persuasion (or maybe performance since it's arguably acting?), then yes, Intimidation should probably not be a Charisma skill at your table.

[Tanarii]

The ultimate problem here is that abilities are defined tautologically. "Strength is Strength and does what Strength does. Charisma is Charisma and does what Charisma is."

STRENGTH
Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.

STRENGTH CHECKS
A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation. The Athletics skill reflects aptitude in certain kinds of Strength checks.


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

CHARISMA CHECKS
A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. The Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Charisma checks.

The definitions are there. They tell us a couple of things: By default, strength is doing something by force, and charisma is doing something by interaction. And Intimidation proficiency is always a subset of Charisma checks.

The variant rule changes this. A DM might rule putting someone in a choke hold until they agree to do what you want is either Strength (Intimidation) or even Charisma (Athletics).

[Willowhelm]

The part I quoted from the dmg isn’t listed as a variant. It’s just standard.

Chapter 8. Skills.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#Skills

[strangebloke]

Do you use intimidation for things like "In the name of the Holy Light, I command you to stop and surrender!" or "You're under arrest for crime against the the universal Good! Do not resist!"? If yes, then I'd say it's quite reasonable for the paladin to be good at it, and more generally for Charisma to be the standard ability score for those intimidation checks.
If you consider they fall under persuasion (or maybe performance since it's arguably acting?), then yes, Intimidation should probably not be a Charisma skill at your table.

I'm just saying that paladins being good at channeling divine energy and paladins being scary doesn't seem like it should flow from the same source. It's the sort of problem that all ability scores run into eventually, as seen with the "why is my cleric good at wilderness tracking" issue.



The definitions are there. They tell us a couple of things: By default, strength is doing something by force, and charisma is doing something by interaction. And Intimidation proficiency is always a subset of Charisma checks.

Yes, thank you for quoting the part that literally says "skills are subsets of abilities" because that was my point. It's tautological. Charisma applies intimidation because definitionally intimidation is part of charisma. QED.

[ad_hoc]

Agreed.

Intimidation isn't the act of convincing someone you have the ability to hurt them.

It's having them believe that you will hurt them.

There is a huge difference.

I've worked around dangerous people. I've felt comfortable around someone twice my size who was stomping and swearing at people because I came to the conclusion that they were just trying to show how tough they were. I've been afraid of someone half my size because they made me believe that they wouldn't think twice about hurting me or the consequences for doing so.

[Abracadangit]

My experience is that most DMs and most tables stick to the ability scores noted next to the skills.

Yep. In my experience, it's kind of like counting ammunition -- on paper, every DM's "supposed" to make players do it, but in practice, almost every DM I've played under links the skills to their "default" ability scores. Athletics is always Str, so on.

What's so interesting about the "Why can't people do Strength (Intimidation)" debate is that it seems to always boil down to two poles.

The red corner:


The problem with Intimidation as a skill is that it shouldn't exist. Neither should Deception. Intimidation and Deception are just synonyms for Persuasion.

Persuasion is the only one that should exist.

And the blue corner:


This is it for me. You have someone in a headlock telling them to obey or die? Absolutely letting Str: Intimidation go.

You're trying to blend into a crowd? Not hiding behind anything or tucking your body away, just laughing with others to avoid detection? I'll allow a Cha: Stealth.

You're in an academic debate giving precise calculated talking points? Probably going to allow Int: Persuasion.

It just makes the game more flexible and interesting.

There are people who view all social interaction checks as a singular block, with no internal taxonomy or variation (i.e. "It all boils down to the player trying to get the NPC to do what they want, isn't that all the same thing,"), and then there are people who see social interaction as an arena where there's conceptual space for characters of different classes and strengths to matter. Neither of these approaches are right or wrong, but they define the role and texture of social interactions in a game where that approach is the central philosophy.

It's the problem with D&D advertising social interaction as a "pillar" -- while Charisma should certainly be the primary ability for purposes of getting what you want from people, there needs to be just a wee bit more ability score latitude, the way there is in combat. They found a way to make all the ability scores matter in combat (depending on what class/kind of caster you are), so there's an expectation that they would do something at least a little bit similar for social interaction, right. Why not threaten someone with Strength, put on a show with Dexterity, manipulate an unwitting pawn with Intelligence, or resolve a dispute using Wisdom. But if you don't subscribe to decoupling skills from singular abilities, then none of this ever happens, and social interactions feel like "you must have X Charisma or higher" in order to feel like you matter.

But again -- if you see all social interactions as one note, "You're trying to get X from Y, roll for it," then it feels silly to make social skills anything other than Charisma, it would be like making an Acrobatics check using Intelligence. I understand the logic of the viewpoint, even though I don't adopt it in my games.


Personally I just wish that barbarians etc. actually had class features that allowed them to be better at this.


But I strongly agree that EVERY class should have something it can do in a social situation and something it can do in an exploration situations just as much as every class has something in combat. Seriously, if these are the three pillars of play, then either every class needs to be good at all of them, or no class can be good at all of them. Some classes are only good at combat and others are good at combat + another pillar ONLY works if you take it as given that the other pillars are not pillars but are just ribbons.

Right there with you folks. Quick fix: give every player (at a certain level) a choice of either an ability that works like the Samurai's Elegant Courtier (add X ability bonus to this one kind of social check) or an ability that works like the Swashbuckler's Panache (you make X social check against enemy's Insight or Investigation, if successful, you impose Y attitude on the creature or compel the creature to react in Y fashion). It's not perfect, but it gives players in the classes that are totally social-pillar-bereft something fun to do when the right social situation comes up.

[Tanarii]

The part I quoted from the dmg isn’t listed as a variant. It’s just standard.

Chapter 8. Skills.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#SkillsNope. It's a variant. PHB 175.
DMG p139 is just describing the same variant without calling it out as being a variant rule.

By default without the variant rules, all skill proficiencies are fixed to and a subset of a specific ability check.



Yes, thank you for quoting the part that literally says "skills are subsets of abilities" because that was my point. It's tautological. Charisma applies intimidation because definitionally intimidation is part of charisma. QED.
Yup. I really should have included the first sentence of your next paragraph in my quote. :smallamused:

[ad_hoc]

This scene from Looper demonstrates why proving you have superior force isn't itself intimidating.

"It's not the gun I'm not afraid of."

Warning: ableist slurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcRmngeBHo

[KorvinStarmast]

Why not? The Hulk rampaging is the entire reason why I'm watching the movie! *grin*
I was referring to the TV show (Bill Bixby era Hulk) and he was speaking in character. I too loved watching Lou Ferrigno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Ferrigno) rampage across the screen.

[False God]

This scene from Looper demonstrates why proving you have superior force isn't itself intimidating.

"It's not the gun I'm not afraid of."

Warning: ableist slurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcRmngeBHo

If you have superior force and want to be intimidating you don't threaten with it, you use it.

A big guy stomping around isn't necessarily intimidating (it could be, lower check, depends on the person saving). Breaking all your fingers and rearranging your friend into a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone is far more effective at intimidation. You don't need to believe or be convinced this guy can hurt you. He doesn't even need to say anything.

I'd argue torture is a good argument for Strength+Intimidation.

[Dienekes]

This scene from Looper demonstrates why proving you have superior force isn't itself intimidating.

"It's not the gun I'm not afraid of."

Warning: ableist slurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcRmngeBHo

In fairness, neither is just being incredibly charismatic. Everyone can fail a roll.

[Willowhelm]

Nope. It's a variant. PHB 175.
DMG p139 is just describing the same variant without calling it out as being a variant rule.

By default without the variant rules, all skill proficiencies are fixed to and a subset of a specific ability check.


That’s odd. Elsewhere things are called out as explicitly variant rules.

[False God]

That’s odd. Elsewhere things are called out as explicitly variant rules.

Because the DMG is explicitly called out as unnecessary in this edition. You can run the entire game from the PHB. The DMG only provides additional options, some more details, and some information to help people dig deeper. Unlike 4E or 3.5, the 5E DMG is not required reading.

[ad_hoc]

If you have superior force and want to be intimidating you don't threaten with it, you use it.

A big guy stomping around isn't necessarily intimidating (it could be, lower check, depends on the person saving). Breaking all your fingers and rearranging your friend into a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone is far more effective at intimidation. You don't need to believe or be convinced this guy can hurt you. He doesn't even need to say anything.

I'd argue torture is a good argument for Strength+Intimidation.

That's not intimidation anymore.

Intimidation is making a threat and succeeding is having them believe you.

Carrying out the threat is just attacking. What someone does under torture is up to the DM (and possibly the table). If any charisma checks are happening at that point they're probably going to be deception or persuasion. Promising that the torture will stop if the victim does what the torturer says.

Personally I'm not interested in such a game and I'm glad we don't have mechanics for torture in D&D.

[False God]

That's not intimidation anymore.

Intimidation is making a threat and succeeding is having them believe you.
Bolded for emphasis. Intimidation is any approach to getting people to do what you want that isn't particularly nice. "Bad things will happen if you don't do what we say." can be conveyed with words, as I just did, or more. Heck, terrorism is just extreme intimidation. *blows up building* "Do what we say or we'll blow up more stuff." is pretty unsubtle intimidation tactics.

IRL intimidation tactics used against striking workers often included physical violence. You don't need to kill everyone or beat up everyone, you just need to rough up a few of them to demonstrate you're capable of doing that to everyone and potentially doing more.

Threats can be actions as much as words. The fact that you attacked once doesn't mean you can't attack again, or that you can't attack harder. You don't need to be particularly charismatic to say "Hey we just broke your friends face, you better stay in line if you don't want us to break your face." You just need to break someone's face.

[JackPhoenix]

Recall that we are specifically talking about an Intimidate check, not a Strength check. I am not saying you can intimidate people with a Strength check. I am saying you can use your strength to modify your Intimidate check.

A what? There's no such thing as Intimidate check. Or any skill check, for that matter. There are ability checks... 6 types, one for each ability... and you may add your proficiency bonus if you have a proficiency (skill, tool or other) if it's appropriate to what you're trying to do. So, the entirety of your argument is based on your misunderstanding of the rules we're talking about.


What does that group add? More charisma? No, more strength.

No, an advantage on the check (worth +5 to passive Cha (Intimidate) score, if you're using it, as per below, which is quite a lot). Assuming a check is needed, which it propably isn't when you're dealing with a commoner, depending on what do you want.


Well now you're just acting like Charisma is mind control. A roll is needed. So yes, I'm not saying muscles are going to have the Praetorian Guard parting to let you pass. You have to roll. But why would charisma be any more intimidating to a trained and armed combatant than another muscly trained and armed combatant? Charisma is not a god stat...

You're clearly confusing real-life definition of charisma with what the ability score represents.


If you say "Intimidate is trying to interact effectively with another person" and I say "my fighter is proficient in Intimidation", what does that mean to you?

It means you're putting words in my mouth (well, letters at my fingertips, as the case may be), because I said no such thing, and I wouldn't, because I understand how the rules work.


I disagree. Again, think about it. The Mountain is PASSIVELY intimidating. He has a reputation and is a giant of a man. People are intimidated just when he walks by. He's not actively rolling charisma checks to do it.

Irrelevant. Even if the GM decide to use his passive score, it's still 10 + Cha mod + proficiency + any other bonuses he may have. The same values he adds if he makes the check, only with the 10 replaced by a roll of d20.


Once again, I'm not arguing that charisma doesn't make sense. But the notion that strength doesn't fit in certain contexts is outright incorrect.

Strength doesn't fit in any context, because that's not how ability checks work.


If you have superior force and want to be intimidating you don't threaten with it, you use it.

A big guy stomping around isn't necessarily intimidating (it could be, lower check, depends on the person saving). Breaking all your fingers and rearranging your friend into a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone is far more effective at intimidation. You don't need to believe or be convinced this guy can hurt you. He doesn't even need to say anything.

I'd argue torture is a good argument for Strength+Intimidation.

I'd say if it get to that point, it's not a matter of the torturer's ability, but the victim's willpower. Actually, that may be good place for using the torturer's passive score as a DC for the victim's save, if the GM wants help with determining the DC.

[Catullus64]

Always mildly amused by any thread which is essentially "Unpopular Opinion: The Game as Written Actually Works Just Fine." Hardly an unpopular opinion, when the game in question is the most popular and widely-played in its genre.

I'm inclined to agree with the main post.


Now, of course, I can hardly deny that you could use another skill to SUPPLEMENT Charisma for the purposes of an Intimidation check (I just gave some examples, after all), so I'd be interested in hearing propositions on how to create a kind of Synergy Bonus mechanic.

Hearty agreement. I take a leaf from Xanathar's Guide, which suggests advantage on a check that involves both a relevant skill and tool proficiency, and apply it to this sort of thing. If the action which a player describes for an intimidation display corresponds convincingly to another proficient skill x, they can roll a Charisma (x) check. If they're also proficient in intimidation, advantage.

[ad_hoc]

Bolded for emphasis. Intimidation is any approach to getting people to do what you want that isn't particularly nice. "Bad things will happen if you don't do what we say." can be conveyed with words, as I just did, or more. Heck, terrorism is just extreme intimidation. *blows up building* "Do what we say or we'll blow up more stuff." is pretty unsubtle intimidation tactics.

IRL intimidation tactics used against striking workers often included physical violence. You don't need to kill everyone or beat up everyone, you just need to rough up a few of them to demonstrate you're capable of doing that to everyone and potentially doing more.

Threats can be actions as much as words. The fact that you attacked once doesn't mean you can't attack again, or that you can't attack harder. You don't need to be particularly charismatic to say "Hey we just broke your friends face, you better stay in line if you don't want us to break your face." You just need to break someone's face.

Yes, the threat is that you're going to attack again.

There needs to be a threat for it to be intimidation.

If the DM determines that the creature is sufficiently cowed due to your force that's not an ability check. The DM just determined success. It's not strength, or dexterity, or anything else. If the DM determines that it is uncertain whether the creature believes you will strike again we're back to charisma.

And sometimes acts of violence will be less intimidating than the mere threat. If someone tries too hard to be intimidating it is a give away that that is all they're trying to do, to be intimidating.

[Tanarii]

A Str 20 but Cha 8 character has low presence. They don't know how to project themselves into a situation. Even if they stand there doing nothing except looking muscle-y and maybe scarred (and possibly 3ft tall) they don't do it in a way that commands attention (-1 to all Cha checks). They are meek and fade into the background.

If they have proficiency in intimidation, not only do they know how to have a scary presence better than the next commoner (+1), but by the time they reach demigod level (17+) they do it as well (+5) as those with the absolute best presence, but who don't have a special focus in intimidating folks.

Anyone that sees them in action, not trying to scare someone into doing what they want, is going to be as terrified as watching any other PC slaughtering their enemies, and react appropriately. No checks needed.

[Dr.Samurai]

I had a whole response typed out to JackPhoenix but the tone I read into his reply really turned me off so I'm just going to make some general points here. To be fair to JackPhoenix, I was using 3rd edition parlance so I was indeed not speaking about the checks in 5E specifically how they work, but I'll reiterate my point here to clarify what I meant.

One of the general responses to people that don't think Strength fits with Intimidation is that "it doesn't matter how strong you are, if you can't convince me that you will carry out your threat, I won't be intimidated". The intimation here is that you need Charisma in order to convince someone.

This clearly is not true. The game revolves around dice rolls. You can have a -3 charisma modifier and still succeed on an Intimidation check if you roll well and beat the DC. This is why I say people conflate the Ability Score with the Skill check.

In addition, having Proficiency in Intimidation means that you have "a focus" in that particular skill. So to say that someone proficient in Intimidate wouldn't know how to compel someone through Intimidation doesn't follow. We are, by definition, speaking of someone that knows how to Intimidate people if we're talking about a character with proficiency in the skill.

Ok so why would Strength apply? It's pretty simple, to my mind:

STRENGTH
Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.

STRENGTH CHECKS
A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation. The Athletics skill reflects aptitude in certain kinds of Strength checks.

What people are arguing is that it doesn't make sense that you can intimidate someone with bodily power, or raw physical brute force. And this seems like a bad argument to make. So let's just imagine a fighter with proficiency in Intimidate. And he wants to make a Str(Intimidate) check. We can imagine the fighter flipping over a long table when he makes his demands, or grabbing someone's throat and holding them there, or bring his axe down in a powerful overhead chop on the table, or crushing a helmet in his hands, etc. This is all in line with applying brute physical force or bodily power.

This is why the variant mentions this. Because normally, when you use Charisma to Intimidate, you're doing it through "confidence and eloquence" or a "charming or commanding personality".

But with Strength, you're applying bodily power and brute force to do it. And this is in line with Intimidation because Intimidation says:

When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, or physical violence...

Obviously you can use bodily power and brute physical force to employ hostile actions and physical violence.

So to my mind, this isn't really an argument and the book is clear. I think people put way too much stock in Charisma as the only way by which anyone can be influenced by anything at any time. It just doesn't reflect reality, and I am glad the game included the variant so that DMs can give players flexibility to be creative and try different approaches.

[Tanarii]

What people are arguing is that it doesn't make sense that you can intimidate someone with bodily power, or raw physical brute force. And this seems like a bad argument to make. So let's just imagine a fighter with proficiency in Intimidate. And he wants to make a Str(Intimidate) check. We can imagine the fighter flipping over a long table when he makes his demands, or grabbing someone's throat and holding them there, or bring his axe down in a powerful overhead chop on the table, or crushing a helmet in his hands, etc. This is all in line with applying brute physical force or bodily power. Your argument breaks down right here. Str checks aren't about interacting with someone else, they're about actually doing something.

Flipping over a table and grabbing someone's throat or bring down your axe extra forcefully or crushing a helmet is either a strength check or no check.

Intimidating someone into doing what you want with a show of physical force is either a charisma check or no check at all.

If you can't automatically do the show of physical force without a Strength check first, and a show of physical force won't automatically cow them into doing what you want, now your attempt to intimidate includes 2 checks ... and the odds of success just went down.

[ad_hoc]

What people are arguing is that it doesn't make sense that you can intimidate someone with bodily power, or raw physical brute force. And this seems like a bad argument to make. So let's just imagine a fighter with proficiency in Intimidate. And he wants to make a Str(Intimidate) check. We can imagine the fighter flipping over a long table when he makes his demands, or grabbing someone's throat and holding them there, or bring his axe down in a powerful overhead chop on the table, or crushing a helmet in his hands, etc. This is all in line with applying brute physical force or bodily power.

I've been in similar real life situations (okay not the axe or helmet part).

It's not a matter of convincing someone you have the power to hurt them.

It's convincing them that you will hurt them.

There is a huge difference.

It's like the Looper clip. She has a gun but she isn't intimidating. This is the same thing as a huge person flipping over a table. They're showing that they 'have a gun' but are they convincing anyone they're going to use it? That's the question.

In the scenario of the fighter bringing an axe down onto a table I would likely to be less intimidated because it looks like desperation. They're putting a lot of effort into trying to look scary.

[GooeyChewie]

Westley: Give us the gate key.
Yellin: I have no gate key.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.
*Fezzik rolls Strength (Intimidate) with advantage due to Inigo’s help action*
Yellin: Oh, you mean this gate key.

Intimidation should usually be Charisma; that’s why is Intimidation lists Charisma as the key ability score. But I like letting my players advocate for using different ability scores, because it encourages them to think about how their character would approach situations instead of simply turning to the character with the highest score.

[Tanarii]

Westley: Give us the gate key.
Yellin: I have no gate key.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.
*Fezzik Inigo rolls Charisma (Intimidate) with advantage due to Inigo Fezzik's help action*

Yellin: Oh, you mean this gate key.

Fezzik is clearly proficient in Intimidation.
(Updated per post from JackPhoenix with correct version below.)

One thing worth pointing out is which classes and backgrounds get proficiency in Intimidation. These are the guys good at utilizing Charisma to get what they want by threats, under the base rules. Half-Orc, Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Soldier. Exactly what you'd expect, the muscle-heads and the manipulators.

---------

Edit: I don't have a problem with DMs that use the variant rules and allow Strength (Intimidation). It a variant rule it's specifically called out in the variant rule, and the important bit is many players expec it to work that way. It makes more sense to just allow it than argue at the table about it.

It's just that the justifications used for why it should actually be a Strength check never hold up under scrutiny.

[Dr.Samurai]

Your argument breaks down right here.
Pump the brakes lol.

Str checks aren't about interacting with someone else, they're about actually doing something.
Yes, you and I have both quoted the relevant information. We disagree on exactly what I mention above. You don't think that someone can be persuaded by brute force or bodily power. I don't know why you think this, it isn't supported by reality in any way whatsoever, but this is what you are saying.

Flipping over a table and grabbing someone's throat or bring down your axe extra forcefully or crushing a helmet is either a strength check or no check.

Correct. And if you're attempting to Intimidate someone with this action it becomes a Strength(Intimidation) check and if you're proficient in Intimidation you can add your proficiency to it. The variant rule literally explains this.

Intimidating someone into doing what you want with a show of physical force is either a charisma check or no check at all.
Tanarii, I am contesting the OP's remark that you can be as strong as you want but "selling it" must be charisma. I know what the rules say, we've both quoted them. I am contesting this idea that strong people aren't intimidating unless they're using charisma on you.

If you can't automatically do the show of physical force without a Strength check first, and a show of physical force won't automatically cow them into doing what you want, now your attempt to intimidate includes 2 checks ... and the odds of success just went down.
Not at all. This isn't what the variant rule describes and it isn't how these checks work in general. You don't roll a Charisma check first to see if you're being suitably "eloquent" or "commanding" and then, after you succeed, roll an Intimidation check to see if you compel the person. You wouldn't do this with Strength either.

I've been in similar real life situations (okay not the axe or helmet part).

It's not a matter of convincing someone you have the power to hurt them.

It's convincing them that you will hurt them.

There is a huge difference.
It's not just that though. It's also about convincing people that calling the bluff is not worth it. So if someone is suitably large, strong, violent, etc., maybe they will hurt you, maybe they won't, but it isn't worth the risk of finding out. This isn't just a joe schmoe that you can rebuff in kind. The point of the strength check is to show the power they will contend with if you make true on your threat. And you can think about it in those terms as the difference between the strength and charisma intimidation check. Charisma is implying or speaking the threat; strength is showing the threat. The die roll determines the success.

It's like the Looper clip. She has a gun but she isn't intimidating. This is the same thing as a huge person flipping over a table. They're showing that they 'have a gun' but are they convincing anyone they're going to use it? That's the question.
The question is the die roll.

Let's say I agree with you. Yes, a fighter can bury the edge of his axe into the innkeeper's bar and fail the intimidation. The innkeeper can backup in shock and say "How dare you?! Leave here at once or I will have the guard summoned to deal with you!".

Ok, we're all agreed.

Now, can you agree with me that the fighter can bury the edge of his axe into the innkeeper's bar and succeed the intimidation? And the innkeeper can put his hands up in fear and say "Please! Take the seat by the fire, we will bring your meals out shortly!"

In the scenario of the fighter bringing an axe down onto a table I would likely to be less intimidated because it looks like desperation. They're putting a lot of effort into trying to look scary.
Are you saying every NPC would feel this way in your game and you just wouldn't allow the attempt?

[Dr.Samurai]

Intimidation should usually be Charisma; that’s why is Intimidation lists Charisma as the key ability score. But I like letting my players advocate for using different ability scores, because it encourages them to think about how their character would approach situations instead of simply turning to the character with the highest score.
Agreed.

With regards to Fezzik, I think a better example is in the grove, when Inigo tells him to jog the torturer's memory and Fezzik bops him on the head. While the check fails because Fezzik knocks him out, it's clearly an attempt at Intimidation using brute strength.

[JackPhoenix]

One of the general responses to people that don't think Strength fits with Intimidation is that "it doesn't matter how strong you are, if you can't convince me that you will carry out your threat, I won't be intimidated". The intimation here is that you need Charisma in order to convince someone.

This clearly is not true. The game revolves around dice rolls. You can have a -3 charisma modifier and still succeed on an Intimidation check if you roll well and beat the DC. This is why I say people conflate the Ability Score with the Skill check.

Yes, you can still success at an ability check (not ability score, because that's not used in the roll, and not skill check, because that's not a thing in 5e) even with a negative ability modifier, though you're less likely to success than someone with better modifier. Nobody disputes that. But Cha 4-5 (to get that -3 mod) is still Cha.

I
In addition, having Proficiency in Intimidation means that you have "a focus" in that particular skill. So to say that someone proficient in Intimidate wouldn't know how to compel someone through Intimidation doesn't follow. We are, by definition, speaking of someone that knows how to Intimidate people if we're talking about a character with proficiency in the skill.

Good thing nobody says that, then.


Westley: Give us the gate key.
Yellin: I have no gate key.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.
*Fezzik rolls Strength (Intimidate) with advantage due to Inigo’s help action*
Yellin: Oh, you mean this gate key.

Intimidation should usually be Charisma; that’s why is Intimidation lists Charisma as the key ability score. But I like letting my players advocate for using different ability scores, because it encourages them to think about how their character would approach situations instead of simply turning to the character with the highest score.

You mean Inigo rolls the Cha (Intimidate) check, because he's the one who actually did anything. Fezzik is not the one giving the orders, he's just the accessory granting the advantage.

[Tanarii]

You mean Inigo rolls the Cha (Intimidate) check, because he's the one who actually did anything. Fezzik is not the one giving the orders, he's just the accessory granting the advantage.
Yes, good call there. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking Fezzik is the persuading them to do what they want by being big. It's definitely Inigo trying to get what he wants, and using Fezzik's size as the threat.

[Trafalgar]

I always use two movie quotes to explain why Intimidation is a Charisma skill.

Happy Gilmore

Shooter: "I eat pieces of **** like you for breakfast"

Happy: "You eat pieces of **** for breakfast?"


Knight's Tale

Wat: "I will fong you!"


https://youtu.be/NWQ8ARE-z9Q

[jas61292]

My big problem with Strength (Intimidation), from a mechanical perspective is that I simply do not think the rules support it. Yes, even using the variant rule that specifically calls it out. The issue is that characters make ability checks. Not skill checks. In order for a Strength (Intimidation) check to occur, you would need a situation that calls for a Strength check, but where your odds to succeed are somehow enhanced by your sill with intimidation. What a lot of people describe is a situation where you are trying to intimidate something, and being strong would help. But, by the rules themselves, that is not how you decide what kind of check you roll.

Strength checks are for things like pushing, pulling, lifting or breaking something. To have a Strength (Intimidation) check, your trained ability to be good at intimidation would need to somehow be relevant to helping you do one of those things. And, simply put, I can't really think of any situation where that is the case.

Ultimately, I agree with those who say they would like to see the Barbarian get features to help them in this area (and other classes get abilities to help them in social situations in a way comparably relevant to their archetype). But I don't think allowing Strength (Intimidation) is a good way to do that.

[ad_hoc]

It's not just that though. It's also about convincing people that calling the bluff is not worth it. So if someone is suitably large, strong, violent, etc., maybe they will hurt you, maybe they won't, but it isn't worth the risk of finding out. This isn't just a joe schmoe that you can rebuff in kind. The point of the strength check is to show the power they will contend with if you make true on your threat. And you can think about it in those terms as the difference between the strength and charisma intimidation check. Charisma is implying or speaking the threat; strength is showing the threat. The die roll determines the success.

If a character pulls out a crossbow on someone do they make a Dexterity Intimidation check?

What you do to intimidate will either have you succeed, fail, or make a check. A show of strength might get you to the check but it's Charisma that will help you with that check.




The question is the die roll.

Let's say I agree with you. Yes, a fighter can bury the edge of his axe into the innkeeper's bar and fail the intimidation. The innkeeper can backup in shock and say "How dare you?! Leave here at once or I will have the guard summoned to deal with you!".

Ok, we're all agreed.

Now, can you agree with me that the fighter can bury the edge of his axe into the innkeeper's bar and succeed the intimidation? And the innkeeper can put his hands up in fear and say "Please! Take the seat by the fire, we will bring your meals out shortly!"



Sure, they could succeed but it is their Charisma that will help them succeed, not their strength.




Are you saying every NPC would feel this way in your game and you just wouldn't allow the attempt?

Some will and some won't. I'm more inclined to give disadvantage rather than outright failure in such a circumstance.

The point is that a show of force is sometimes less intimidating.

I've been around some fairly dangerous people throughout my life. I'm often not too worried about someone stomping around or the like no matter how big they are because it's a tell that they're trying too hard. Conversely, I've been very worried about some people from just a look across their face. Something in their eyes told me to get out of there or get some friends.

[Trafalgar]

Intimidation as a Strength Skill

Batman: "I try to intimidate the Riddler by punching the window."
GM: "Okay"
Batman rolls a nat 1.
Batman: "Please don't put that in the trailer"
GM: "Sorry. Too Late."


https://youtu.be/mqqft2x_Aa4?t=56

[False God]

Yes, the threat is that you're going to attack again.

There needs to be a threat for it to be intimidation.
Yes I literally just said that and demonstrated a situation where an act of strength underpins a threat of violence.

Anyway, I frankly don't care. I've seen arguments go in circles with you before and as I said above to another I'm not interested in the debate.

You have your worldview, you're not going to change it. I have my worldview, I'm not going to change it.

Lets just leave it there.

[ad_hoc]

Yes I literally just said that and demonstrated a situation where an act of strength underpins a threat of violence.

Anyway, I frankly don't care. I've seen arguments go in circles with you before and as I said above to another I'm not interested in the debate.

You have your worldview, you're not going to change it. I have my worldview, I'm not going to change it.

Lets just leave it there.

I literally live this.

[Veldrenor]

My big problem with Strength (Intimidation), from a mechanical perspective is that I simply do not think the rules support it. Yes, even using the variant rule that specifically calls it out. The issue is that characters make ability checks. Not skill checks. In order for a Strength (Intimidation) check to occur, you would need a situation that calls for a Strength check, but where your odds to succeed are somehow enhanced by your sill with intimidation. What a lot of people describe is a situation where you are trying to intimidate something, and being strong would help. But, by the rules themselves, that is not how you decide what kind of check you roll.


From the rules on ability checks:

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand..."

So I as a player state an action I want to attempt and the DM decides which ability is most relevant. If I say "I want to bend a piece of rebar into a pretzel in order to scare the guard into giving us the key," that's my action. From a mechanical perspective, the rules then absolutely support:

The DM telling me to roll a Strength check - my action is that I'm trying to bend the rebar.
The DM telling me to roll a Charisma check - my action is that I'm trying to scare the guard.
The DM telling me to roll a Charisma check with advantage - I'm trying to scare the guard, and my ability to bend the rebar is a supporting element (like using a crowbar to pry open a door).
The DM telling me to roll a Wisdom check - I'm trying to get the guard to give us the key through an emotional response, and that requires that I be able to accurately judge the guard's emotions.

Based on the pure mechanics of the rules, all four are equally valid. 5e's action adjudication system is wonderfully flexible like that.

[jas61292]

From the rules on ability checks:

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand..."

So I as a player state an action I want to attempt and the DM decides which ability is most relevant. If I say "I want to bend a piece of rebar into a pretzel in order to scare the guard into giving us the key," that's my action. From a mechanical perspective, the rules then absolutely support:

The DM telling me to roll a Strength check - my action is that I'm trying to bend the rebar.
The DM telling me to roll a Charisma check - my action is that I'm trying to scare the guard.
The DM telling me to roll a Charisma check with advantage - I'm trying to scare the guard, and my ability to bend the rebar is a supporting element (like using a crowbar to pry open a door).
The DM telling me to roll a Wisdom check - I'm trying to get the guard to give us the key through an emotional response, and that requires that I be able to accurately judge the guard's emotions.

Based on the pure mechanics of the rules, all four are equally valid. 5e's action adjudication system is wonderfully flexible like that.

I agree. All of those ability checks are equally valid to call for. What I disagree with is the application of Intimidation. The one example of a strength check is for the character to bend the piece of rebar. One's intimidation proficiency should only be applied if having skill with intimidation somehow improves your chances of successfully bending the piece of rebar, and not if it is otherwise tangentially related to the situation.

[GooeyChewie]

Agreed.

With regards to Fezzik, I think a better example is in the grove, when Inigo tells him to jog the torturer's memory and Fezzik bops him on the head. While the check fails because Fezzik knocks him out, it's clearly an attempt at Intimidation using brute strength.

I thought about using that scene. Now, given further thought, I think the best example might be:

*rock explodes against a boulder*
Fezzik: I did that on purpose. I didn’t have to miss.
Man in Black: I believe you.

Could a DM treat Fezzik’s line as a Charisma (Intimidate) check? Sure. But it’s also reasonable for the DM to allow a Strength (Intimidate) check


You mean Inigo rolls the Cha (Intimidate) check, because he's the one who actually did anything. Fezzik is not the one giving the orders, he's just the accessory granting the advantage.

Yes, good call there. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking Fezzik is the persuading them to do what they want by being big. It's definitely Inigo trying to get what he wants, and using Fezzik's size as the threat.

That’s certainly one reasonable interpretation of the scene. It’s not the only reasonable interpretation.

[KorvinStarmast]

Westley: Give us the gate key.
Yellin: I have no gate key.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, tear his arms off.
*Fezzik rolls Strength (Intimidate) with advantage due to Inigo’s help action*
Yellin: Oh, you mean this gate key. Here's a way to parse that:
Fezzik applied the Help action to Inigo's intimidation attempt, which resulted in advantage on the roll.

[Veldrenor]

I agree. All of those ability checks are equally valid to call for. What I disagree with is the application of Intimidation. The one example of a strength check is for the character to bend the piece of rebar. One's intimidation proficiency should only be applied if having skill with intimidation somehow improves your chances of successfully bending the piece of rebar, and not if it is otherwise tangentially related to the situation.

But it's not tangentially related to the situation. The goal of the action, the intent, is to make the guard give us the key. And that's how having skill in Intimidation can improve your chances of successfully bending the rebar, because you have to bend the rebar in a way that's scary. Is bending it in half scariest? What about tying it in a knot? If I go origami on it, is that going to scare the guard or is he going to sit back and go "wow, a butterfly. That's neat!"

[Damon_Tor]

Cha is important to make the threat you pose have the actual desired result.

For example, you looking real dangerous might just mean that the enemy is inclined to kill you quickly, not surrender or flee or whatever you intended. Cha is your ability to make that fear translate into the desired outcome.

[Dr.Samurai]

My big problem with Strength (Intimidation), from a mechanical perspective is that I simply do not think the rules support it. Yes, even using the variant rule that specifically calls it out. The issue is that characters make ability checks. Not skill checks. In order for a Strength (Intimidation) check to occur, you would need a situation that calls for a Strength check, but where your odds to succeed are somehow enhanced by your sill with intimidation. What a lot of people describe is a situation where you are trying to intimidate something, and being strong would help. But, by the rules themselves, that is not how you decide what kind of check you roll.

Strength checks are for things like pushing, pulling, lifting or breaking something. To have a Strength (Intimidation) check, your trained ability to be good at intimidation would need to somehow be relevant to helping you do one of those things. And, simply put, I can't really think of any situation where that is the case.

Ultimately, I agree with those who say they would like to see the Barbarian get features to help them in this area (and other classes get abilities to help them in social situations in a way comparably relevant to their archetype). But I don't think allowing Strength (Intimidation) is a good way to do that.
I disagree with your last sentence, but I understand the rest of your post and it makes sense to me. I think this is the crux. We think "Intimidation is a social interaction, therefore charisma owns it and there is no other way to do it". But we forget that the first social interaction, the thing that caused us to evolve charisma and body language and social cues and stealth and camouflage, etc, is physical combat. The stealthy rogue is looking to resolve things without... fighting. The diplomatic bard is looking to resolve things without... fighting. Our laws and social norms are all there to allow us to live together and resolve disputes or compete with each other without... fighting.

Without these things the strong survive. Why? Because they can just take things or cow everyone else into submission. Everything else that isn't strength is simply an equalizer to strength; someway to avoid it or circumvent it or neutralize it. Because when we take everything else away we are corporeal beings that are simultaneously vulnerable to physical harm and capable of inflicting physical harm.

We know this. Someone gave the example of the mob enforcer with the brawny goons beside him. His threat is very different if he didn't have two muscled enforcers standing there with him. Another person mentioned that bullies travel in packs. They are not bringing more force of personality with them, they are bringing more physical force; more people to hold you while you get punched, or to help dunk your head in the toilet, etc. It's physical power. Someone else brought up Inigo and Fezzik; "Fezzik tear his arms off" is toothless if Fezzik was built like Vizzini, but because Fezzik is a giant it garners immediate submission.

So I say "Well surely if Inigo can use Fezzik's strength to intimidate someone, Fezzik can use his own strength to intimidate someone", and the argument goes that if he does it has to be by way of "confidence and eloquence" or a "charming or commanding personality", it cannot be through brute force or bodily power.

Now this makes no sense. The castle guard is intimidated because he thinks that Fezzik is going to harm him. And people are saying that if the scene were instead Fezzik forcibly lifting the castle guard in the air and shaking him for the key, the man would no longer be intimidated that Fezzik might harm him because... it isn't eloquence and confidence but rather brute strength:

Fezzik: I want to intimidate the Guard. I lift him up and shake him and yell "Give me the key or I'll tear your arms off!"
DM: Ok, roll Intimidation.
Fezzik: Ok, can I use my strength since I am a giant and I am much bigger and stronger than him, and my threat is physical and I'm literally man-handling him?
DM: No Fezzik, Intimidation is governed by Charisma. Please apply your negative modifier.
Fezzik: *rolls a 9*
DM: You lift him up and although you're trying to shake him in a menacing way you wind up tickling him and he's just having a grand old time and asking for more.
Fezzik: Really?
DM: Yeah look, this type of stuff, the scary intimidation stuff? It's not for big strong guys okay, it's for the cool dashing heroes, they get to be good at all the interactions.
Inigo: Ok, so can I try?
DM: Yeah, so Fezzik puts him down after the failed attempt and he reiterates he doesn't know what key you're talking about.
Inigo: Ok, I look at him and I matter of factly, with no menace or anything, just simply say "Fezzik, tear his arms off".
DM: Ok, roll.
Inigo: *rolls a 17*
DM: Ok, the guy is petrified, he's just looking up at Fezzik's enormous size and strength and is just totally intimidated, he can barely move he is so cowed by Fezzik's giant nature, without even thinking twice he says "oh you mean this key" and slips you the key.
Fezzik: ... wtf?

It doesn't make sense that Inigo can threaten Fezzik's physical violence to the guard and intimidate him, but Fezzik can't actually intimidate the guard with actual physical violence. There is a major disconnect there. All to say that while I appreciate your comment and I do find it compelling, I do think that the game allows for this type of weird interaction (I think it even mentions it is strange in the variant rule) to cover these types of use cases.

What you do to intimidate will either have you succeed, fail, or make a check. A show of strength might get you to the check but it's Charisma that will help you with that check.
Unless of course your charisma is 0 or negative. And it doesn't have to be a show of strength, both the strength ability score and the Intimidation skill mention actual physical force.

Sure, they could succeed but it is their Charisma that will help them succeed, not their strength.
I just have an image in my head of a villain in these games who goes around killing everyone because they never take his physical threats seriously. Because apparently in everyone's games, the NPCs are completely immune to physical violence and displays of brute force. Only the rogue can convince them of the harm that awaits them on the edge of his blade using his charismatic ways.

The point is that a show of force is sometimes less intimidating.
But so what? That's not a reason to not allow it, especially in a game that revolves around dice rolls for resolution.

Do you think that everyone that tries to menace me on the subway or in the streets is successful at it? Do you think I fall prey to every confidence man I walk by because they are using charisma? Of course not. Why is strength treated differently?

I've been around some fairly dangerous people throughout my life. I'm often not too worried about someone stomping around or the like no matter how big they are because it's a tell that they're trying too hard. Conversely, I've been very worried about some people from just a look across their face. Something in their eyes told me to get out of there or get some friends.
Unfortunately I don't know the details here to fully understand how this impacts what we're saying. If you are familiar with someone and know that it's all bluster, sure, of course they are not intimidating.

But do I think you're going to get physically dragged into an alley, pinned against a wall and told to give up your wallet, and you're going to roll your eyes and say "pfft, you dumped charisma, I'm outta here"? No, absolutely not.

[Abracadangit]

-snip-



For what it's worth, Doc, I'm on your side. Using-different-abilities-for-Cha-checks-sometimes gang, unite!

Here's the homebrew I use in my games. Keenly aware lots of people in this thread won't like it, and that's okay, but it came about when all of my players were like "Hey, we want our chars to have more to do in social, without feeling like we have to start with a good Cha."

1) I add more social skill types, like Bargaining, Diplomacy, Mockery, among others. Persuasion got split up, because to echo DarknessEternal's earlier sentiment, "Persuasion" is an odd name for a Cha check. Why not just smoosh all the Int skills together into "Knowledge," right.

2) Certain social skills come with an "alternate ability score." When you make your character (or when you acquire the proficiency later in the game), you have the choice to link the skill to Cha, or to its alt. Intimidation's alt is Str, Performance is Dex, Diplomacy is Wis, and so on. Once you decide to use the alt ability, you can't change it later. And any social skill you're not proficient in uses Cha by default. Plus the stronger social skills are Cha only, so if you don't have a good Cha, that's that.

And that's it! The Barb can be good at intimidating, the Monk can resolve arguments with zen and a level head, and so on, but without putting points into Cha, they can only be good at the social skill that already makes sense for their class. Now everyone can feel like they have a kind of social interaction where they can shine, even if the skill isn't useful all the time.

Again -- if people view all social interactions as a singular skillset, like disarming traps or medicine, then they won't want this, and I brook them no ill will. But for players who want to get more involved in social interactions, it's a fun way to open up opportunities for the whole party.

[JackPhoenix]

Ultimately, I agree with those who say they would like to see the Barbarian get features to help them in this area (and other classes get abilities to help them in social situations in a way comparably relevant to their archetype). But I don't think allowing Strength (Intimidation) is a good way to do that.

I could actually see it, but as a barbarian feature, not general rule that Str (Intimidate) is a thing. Not that different from hexblades or battlesmiths making melee (or ranged) attacks with Cha or Int. Not something anyone can do, not something that makes much sense within the context of what ability scores represent, but an exception for a specific class, sure.

[ad_hoc]

But do I think you're going to get physically dragged into an alley, pinned against a wall and told to give up your wallet, and you're going to roll your eyes and say "pfft, you dumped charisma, I'm outta here"? No, absolutely not.

That's not an intimidation check.

They won. They get the wallet. In a game unless there is a very good reason otherwise the DM shouldn't call for a check here. Just success.

FWIW I have had a knife to my throat before from a stranger in an alley. At that point there was nothing I could do so I just stood there. I was 16 and had no wallet to give but the assailant didn't ask for one anyway. My context clues told me that he was just trying to scare me and he was. He made too big of a show of it, the knife for example was entirely unnecessary as he was twice my size.

In another situation a man flashed a knife to me from his pocket across the room and my heart skipped a beat. For whatever reason I believed him and got out of there as fast as I could.

In both cases the strength of the person didn't help their intimidation. In the first case it actually hurt it.

[Ugmaro]

The only comment I've seen here that I agree with is that the intimidation skill is what counts. The proficiency in intimidation is what gives you force of conviction, not the charisma or the strength. These attributes simply augment your conviction with substance - something that exhudes the power of the individual doing the intimidation (which by definition: to make timid or fearful : frighten). This power can be physical, mental, hierarchical or a combination of all three, but there has to be something behind the very real threat to back it up.

Examples:
If I walk up to you in real life with a scrawny frame in a suit and say "I'll break your arms if you don't give me your wallet" you're probably gonna laugh.
If I walk up to you in real life with a scrawny frame in a suit and say "Your business will burn to the ground if you don't hand over our cut" you're probably gonna pay up.
If I walk up to you in real life with a massive frame in a t-shirt and say "I'll break your arms if you don't give me your wallet" you're probably gonna give me your wallet.
If I walk up to you in real life with a massive frame and a t-shirt and say "Your business will burn to the ground if you don't hand over our cut" you're probably going to attempt to outsmart me with delaying tactics while getting the police involved.


The simple truth of the matter is that nothing is ever black and white, I fully understand situations where a scrawny guy can intimidate a gorilla as well as situations where it's vice versa, which is why a DM exists in TTRPGs - he's supposed to think how an action affects the world around the character performing the action and which modifiers (if any) should have a bearing on the chance of success or failure.

[Anymage]

But do I think you're going to get physically dragged into an alley, pinned against a wall and told to give up your wallet, and you're going to roll your eyes and say "pfft, you dumped charisma, I'm outta here"? No, absolutely not.

You're oversimplifying this here on two levels.

First, I'm not a combat trained adventurer. Most likely, neither are you. Try pulling a knife on a MMA champion, that mugging might well turn out differently. Try it on an action hero (hp reflects that genre a lot better than it does real injury), he might well respond with a pithy one liner and risk the fight. I wouldn't even bother rolling if a PC wanted to go around mugging random commoners (except until someone more powerful was sent to stop them), but arguments about what normal noncombatants would do doesn't really apply to PCs or their usual enemies.

Second, let's say your threat involves anything more involved than asking someone to give you something that's currently on them. If you want information, they're liable to break down blubbering or telling you what they think you want to hear. If it involves them leaving your presence, they're very likely to flee. Size and/or a weapon can encourage someone to get out of your way and possibly to hand over something in their possession. Anything more than that, presence and an ability to get inside someone's head are more effective than raw capacity for violence.

[Dienekes]

You're oversimplifying this here on two levels.

First, I'm not a combat trained adventurer. Most likely, neither are you. Try pulling a knife on a MMA champion, that mugging might well turn out differently. Try it on an action hero (hp reflects that genre a lot better than it does real injury), he might well respond with a pithy one liner and risk the fight. I wouldn't even bother rolling if a PC wanted to go around mugging random commoners (except until someone more powerful was sent to stop them), but arguments about what normal noncombatants would do doesn't really apply to PCs or their usual enemies.

Second, let's say your threat involves anything more involved than asking someone to give you something that's currently on them. If you want information, they're liable to break down blubbering or telling you what they think you want to hear. If it involves them leaving your presence, they're very likely to flee. Size and/or a weapon can encourage someone to get out of your way and possibly to hand over something in their possession. Anything more than that, presence and an ability to get inside someone's head are more effective than raw capacity for violence.

Then they roll and fail the check.

This doesn’t seem all that hard. Especially with how much handwaved nonsense the rules already allow that we accept anyway to make the game more fun.

[Dr.Samurai]

For what it's worth, Doc, I'm on your side. Using-different-abilities-for-Cha-checks-sometimes gang, unite!

Here's the homebrew I use in my games. Keenly aware lots of people in this thread won't like it, and that's okay, but it came about when all of my players were like "Hey, we want our chars to have more to do in social, without feeling like we have to start with a good Cha."

1) I add more social skill types, like Bargaining, Diplomacy, Mockery, among others. Persuasion got split up, because to echo DarknessEternal's earlier sentiment, "Persuasion" is an odd name for a Cha check. Why not just smoosh all the Int skills together into "Knowledge," right.

2) Certain social skills come with an "alternate ability score." When you make your character (or when you acquire the proficiency later in the game), you have the choice to link the skill to Cha, or to its alt. Intimidation's alt is Str, Performance is Dex, Diplomacy is Wis, and so on. Once you decide to use the alt ability, you can't change it later. And any social skill you're not proficient in uses Cha by default. Plus the stronger social skills are Cha only, so if you don't have a good Cha, that's that.

And that's it! The Barb can be good at intimidating, the Monk can resolve arguments with zen and a level head, and so on, but without putting points into Cha, they can only be good at the social skill that already makes sense for their class. Now everyone can feel like they have a kind of social interaction where they can shine, even if the skill isn't useful all the time.

Again -- if people view all social interactions as a singular skillset, like disarming traps or medicine, then they won't want this, and I brook them no ill will. But for players who want to get more involved in social interactions, it's a fun way to open up opportunities for the whole party.
I like this idea. Currently the "social pillar" is dominated by charisma based characters, which is pretty lame. Meanwhile, melee combat should be the purview of strength based characters, but we have characters that can wade into melee and hold their own and use Intelligence instead, or Wisdom, or Charisma, and still be good at other skills. There's no questioning how someone can swing their sword through their eloquence or charming personality, but the idea of intimidating someone with your pure physical strength is incomprehensible, something akin to the revelations of the Far Realm.

That's not an intimidation check.
The PHB disagrees with you.

They won. They get the wallet. In a game unless there is a very good reason otherwise the DM shouldn't call for a check here. Just success.
I have two points to make here:

1. This seems to suggest that you believe if I make a Grab attack (because you're saying this isn't intimidation) and succeed, the person is auto-compliant? There is not screaming for help, trying to break the hold, being defiant in the face of tyranny? I just win the Grab check and now this person will do whatever I want? I don't think anyone believes that.

2. Follow the logic... by your estimation, if I use physical force successfully on someone, they become compliant automatically. So the physical force is the factor here that obtains compliance.

But if I telegraph that physical force with a Strength(Intimidation) check, it has absolutely no effect. Even though I'm showing the very thing that you believe is an auto-success to get someone to comply. But if I look at them real hard and roll charisma that'll do the trick? This doesn't make sense.

FWIW I have had a knife to my throat before from a stranger in an alley. At that point there was nothing I could do so I just stood there. I was 16 and had no wallet to give but the assailant didn't ask for one anyway. My context clues told me that he was just trying to scare me and he was. He made too big of a show of it, the knife for example was entirely unnecessary as he was twice my size.

In another situation a man flashed a knife to me from his pocket across the room and my heart skipped a beat. For whatever reason I believed him and got out of there as fast as I could.

In both cases the strength of the person didn't help their intimidation. In the first case it actually hurt it.
I don't mean to take away from this but I feel this says more about you than it does about the general case that people are intimidated by size and strength.

You're oversimplifying this here on two levels.
Quite the contrary. The oversimplification here is "charisma is the only way to intimidate someone". I am making the case that it is more nuanced than that, and the descriptions of both the Strength ability score and the Intimidation skill support this.

Bear in mind the argument someone made earlier, that Strength is an action and Charisma is influencing people. Intimidation allows for hostile actions and physical violence. We have already determined that actions are the purview of Strength, not Charisma. So how does someone engage in physical violence through a Charisma check?

See, this is not oversimplifying.

First, I'm not a combat trained adventurer. Most likely, neither are you. Try pulling a knife on a MMA champion, that mugging might well turn out differently. Try it on an action hero (hp reflects that genre a lot better than it does real injury), he might well respond with a pithy one liner and risk the fight. I wouldn't even bother rolling if a PC wanted to go around mugging random commoners (except until someone more powerful was sent to stop them), but arguments about what normal noncombatants would do doesn't really apply to PCs or their usual enemies.
I'm not making the case that this only applies to commoners though. I'm making the case that this is just how people work. You guys are in the position to argue that strength and size are not, on their own, intimidating. Which is an absurd position to take. Bring in the game rules and you have to argue that you can engage in physical violence with a charisma check. This is absurd as well.

Take your example of an MMA fighter. Ok, so I'm a big strong guy and I pull a knife on an MMA champion. Great. Now according to you he will be unimpressed with my intimidate check. Ok.

Now let's say a scrawny halfling rogue pulls a knife on the same MMA champion. Now this MMA champion, who is still top in his class and supremely talented at fighting and defending himself, is going to be convinced that he is in danger?

You can only believe this if you think Charisma is mind control. You have to come up with these stacked scenarios in order to make Strength look ineffective. What you're talking about is the Hound squaring up against Bron of the Blackwater. Neither guy is backing down, and neither guy is intimidated by the other. One is a giant, the other charismatic and dexterous. But both great warriors. And think about what ad_hoc said above "in the first case too much strength harmed the intimidation check". Well the same happens for Bron. He's so charismatic he tries to convince the Hound to just sit there and enjoy the women and drinks, and the Hound is annoyed and says something along the lines of "You think you're so clever" and he is even more convinced to fight the guy. In that case, charisma harmed the check as well. Anything that you can say about Strength you can say about any other ability score because this is a game with rules and dice rolls. As I said before, charisma is not a god-stat and it isn't an auto-win. As someone else mentioned earlier, proficiency in Intimidation means you have a focus in that skill. The ability score you use determines how you're attempting the Intimidation.

Second, let's say your threat involves anything more involved than asking someone to give you something that's currently on them. If you want information, they're liable to break down blubbering or telling you what they think you want to hear. If it involves them leaving your presence, they're very likely to flee. Size and/or a weapon can encourage someone to get out of your way and possibly to hand over something in their possession. Anything more than that, presence and an ability to get inside someone's head are more effective than raw capacity for violence.
Note, I'm not saying Charisma is inappropriate, but rather that Strength makes sense in some contexts. So is this comment agreeing with that?

[ad_hoc]

The PHB disagrees with you.

The DM decides whether there is a check, not the PHB.



I have two points to make here:

1. This seems to suggest that you believe if I make a Grab attack (because you're saying this isn't intimidation) and succeed, the person is auto-compliant? There is not screaming for help, trying to break the hold, being defiant in the face of tyranny? I just win the Grab check and now this person will do whatever I want? I don't think anyone believes that.

We're not talking about a grab check. You're switching things around. You gave a real life scenario and asked how someone would react.

Now we're going back to a fantasy game. In D&D grapple is merely you have a hand on them. Your scenario isn't supported well by the game because it isn't in genre for it. The best approximation of your scenario in the game is if you have restrained them and they have 1hp and no weapon. And yeah, I expect they will comply.



2. Follow the logic... by your estimation, if I use physical force successfully on someone, they become compliant automatically. So the physical force is the factor here that obtains compliance.


No, if there is a check that is called for it is the physical force that allows the check to happen in the first place.

What if I aim a crossbow at someone. Do I roll Dexterity (Intimidation) because my physical force is from a ranged weapon?



But if I telegraph that physical force with a Strength(Intimidation) check, it has absolutely no effect. Even though I'm showing the very thing that you believe is an auto-success to get someone to comply. But if I look at them real hard and roll charisma that'll do the trick? This doesn't make sense.

Yes because intimidation is not what you think it is.

I can believe someone has the ability to do something harmful to me while simultaneously believing that they won't.



I don't mean to take away from this but I feel this says more about you than it does about the general case that people are intimidated by size and strength.

...

I'm making the case that this is just how people work. You guys are in the position to argue that strength and size are not, on their own, intimidating. Which is an absurd position to take.

I don't think you have the actual experience or knowledge to make the claim that 'this is just how people work.'

I get this is how you think people work. It isn't.

[Tanarii]

Not to mention that D&D strength score != size.

A big Dragonborn can have Strength 10.

A small halfling or gnome can have Strength 20.

And yet somehow in these discussions, the assumption is always that high Strength correlates with big and scary.

[ad_hoc]

Not to mention that D&D strength score != size.

A big Dragonborn can have Strength 10.

A small halfling or gnome can have Strength 20.

And yet somehow in these discussions, the assumption is always that high Strength correlates with big and scary.

Unless we're talking about Tasha's.

[GooeyChewie]

What if I aim a crossbow at someone. Do I roll Dexterity (Intimidation) because my physical force is from a ranged weapon?
If you are just pointing it in their general direction, I would probably go Charisma. You don’t need to be able to shoot the crossbow well to try to intimidate with it.

If you are trying to do the thing where you shoot a warning shot that imbeds itself in the wall an inch from their face, go for Dexterity.


And yet somehow in these discussions, the assumption is always that high Strength correlates with big and scary.

Not necessarily. If a gnome jumped up in my NPC’s face and bent a crowbar in half, I’d let said gnome roll Strength (Intimidation).

[Segev]

I suppose the question becomes, if you're low Cha, high Str, and you're "unconvincing" in your willingness to hurt somebody because you come off as low-presence, does actually ripping their arm off after they scoff that "you don't have the stones" make the intimidate check unnecessary? Or does it just give you advantage on the Charisma (Intimidate) check?

I'm not even trying to be smart-alecky, here. It's just a question of where the line is drawn and the check ceases to be necessary to get people scared enough to cooperate even if you come off as "desperate" or "laughable" or the like because of low Charisma.

[Dr.Samurai]

The DM decides whether there is a check, not the PHB.
The PHB literally says that you can Intimidate someone with hostile action and physical violence. You have arbitrarily said this is not an Intimidation check.

We're not talking about a grab check. You're switching things around.
Ad_hoc, I said it was Intimidation and you said it wasn't. The character is still taking physical action so the next approximation is a Grab check, since you can move a grabbed character and if you have them against the wall and are standing in their way to leave, this is them being Grappled.

You gave a real life scenario and asked how someone would react.
I didn't ask, because I know the answer. The problem is that no example will work for you because in your mind strength is not intimidating. So anything I say, whether it's the axe on the table, the crushed helmet, the drag you into an alley, you're going to say it doesn't work one way or another.

Now we're going back to a fantasy game. In D&D grapple is merely you have a hand on them. Your scenario isn't supported well by the game because it isn't in genre for it. The best approximation of your scenario in the game is if you have restrained them and they have 1hp and no weapon. And yeah, I expect they will comply.
It doesn't have to be a 1HP person. That's you guys assuming every example involves commoners. I'm talking about the game as we play it. Bandits in the road, guards in the city, etc.

No, if there is a check that is called for it is the physical force that allows the check to happen in the first place.
The game already does this. It is the Strength check with the Intimidation proficiency bonus added to it. That's the physical force used to cow someone.

What if I aim a crossbow at someone. Do I roll Dexterity (Intimidation) because my physical force is from a ranged weapon?
Let's figure strength out first before we jump to other examples.

AS of now, you can think of any reason for a strength check to fail, and don't believe it can succeed. And Charisma can convince anyone of anything on a successful roll, despite the fact that we could be talking about a pixie with a needle for a sword intimidating a fully armored ogre. So let's not jump to other ability scores just yet.

Yes because intimidation is not what you think it is.

I can believe someone has the ability to do something harmful to me while simultaneously believing that they won't.
I know that ad_hoc. I know that. I have agreed with you on this point several times now. The fact that you might fail to intimidate someone with physical force does not mean that you can never succeed to intimidate someone with physical force. The same is true of charisma checks. What is the issue here?

I don't think you have the actual experience or knowledge to make the claim that 'this is just how people work.'

I get this is how you think people work. It isn't.
That's fine. I'll take my chances in the conversation; you're literally basing your opinion on a game so I think I'm doing okay :).

Not to mention that D&D strength score != size.

A big Dragonborn can have Strength 10.

A small halfling or gnome can have Strength 20.

And yet somehow in these discussions, the assumption is always that high Strength correlates with big and scary.
No one is arguing that all high strength characters are big and muscular. I am saying that if they are, in some instances they can use strength checks to intimidate people.

I suppose the question becomes, if you're low Cha, high Str, and you're "unconvincing" in your willingness to hurt somebody because you come off as low-presence, does actually ripping their arm off after they scoff that "you don't have the stones" make the intimidate check unnecessary? Or does it just give you advantage on the Charisma (Intimidate) check?

I'm not even trying to be smart-alecky, here. It's just a question of where the line is drawn and the check ceases to be necessary to get people scared enough to cooperate even if you come off as "desperate" or "laughable" or the like because of low Charisma.
I don't think you even have to rip someone's arm off. The PHB says Intimidation can be done through hostile actions and physical violence. For most melee attacks, that is the purview of Strength.

Just take the picture in the PHB; a big guy is walking right up to the guard and grabbing him by his helmet. This is easily a Strength check. The argument otherwise is that a Charisma check does what? Make the guard believe that the rogue is gripping his helmet really tight even though he doesn't have the strength to? Strong enough to wobble his head back and forth like he's a child even though he isn't? Convince him that he can't get out of a what is otherwise a normal person's grip? Can the rogue even reach over and hold the helmet in that way or is he of an average build?

If the Strength(Intimidation) check is to grab the person and back them to a wall, why is this an auto-success like Ad_hoc says? Why is a roll not necessary here? If Intimidation literally calls out hostile actions and physical violence, why then do we say that hostile actions and physical violence don't require a roll?

The answer is because you're trying not to let Strength work, as opposed to operating by any sort of logic we can all agree to.

EDIT: Adding a response to Segev's comment about the low charisma/low presence: It's easy for us to fall into the trap that low charisma means we can't win charisma checks, but we know that's not true. Even if you have a 0, you're average, but still not menacing. But that doesn't mean you can't win intimidation checks. So the idea that if you tried with Strength, but because you're not using charisma it will somehow fail doesn't track for me. If I have a 10 charisma, what is it doing for me on my Intimidation check? Nothing. But if I'm built like the Mountain and grab a guy by the throat, my strength doesn't matter? As I keep saying, that's absurd.

[OldTrees1]

Lennie Small from Of_Mice_and_Men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Mice_and_Men) intimidates me. It is not their low Charisma that is causing me to be intimated.

[Tanarii]

No one is arguing that all high strength characters are big and muscular. I am saying that if they are, in some instances they can use strength checks to intimidate people.
Why does the 6ft tall 20 strength human get +5 to Strength (Intimidate) and the 3ft tall 20 Strength gnome either doesn't or can't make that check?

Why does the 7ft tall 300lb 10 Strength Dragonborn get +0 to Strength (Intimidate) while the shorter less heavy human gets +5?

Of course, the subtext of my question is how a D-born can have strength that low or a gnome strength that high in a sensible universe. If the answer is "because Magic", then there's no reason size would be scary anyway, and even if it was you can't use Strength either because it's not correlated with anything perceivable. :smallamused:

This all boils down to trying to use a Strength check, a check designed to do something by physical force, in place of a charisma check, a check designed to get something you want from someone, all because the character does something by physical force in the process of trying to get what one wants. It's like allowing a Attack roll (Intimidate) check or Cast a spell (Intimidate) check to scare someone, because it boils down to a basic misunderstanding of trying to treat the proficiency as the primary thing being done, not the ability check. You're not trying to bend a bar, you're trying to get someone to do what you want. So the ability check is Charisma. Then and only then do you think about what proficiency to add. Even if using the variant rule, Stength (Intimidate) should never be a check if following the basic concept of what ability scores do what.

The only reason to allow it as a DM is because players are also laboring under the same misconception, and it's not worth arguing it at the table.

[JackPhoenix]

AS of now, you can think of any reason for a strength check to fail, and don't believe it can succeed. And Charisma can convince anyone of anything on a successful roll, despite the fact that we could be talking about a pixie with a needle for a sword intimidating a fully armored ogre. So let's not jump to other ability scores just yet.

Your mistake is assuming there will be a Str check in the first place. Even if you're pushing someone around through Str (Athletics) checks, you're making Cha check to intimidate them. The grapple, or shove, or whatever, and the intimidation are two separate things you're doing.


Just take the picture in the PHB; a big guy is walking right up to the guard and grabbing him by his helmet. This is easily a Strength check. The argument otherwise is that a Charisma check does what? Make the guard believe that the rogue is gripping his helmet really tight even though he doesn't have the strength to? Strong enough to wobble his head back and forth like he's a child even though he isn't? Convince him that he can't get out of a what is otherwise a normal person's grip? Can the rogue even reach over and hold the helmet in that way or is he of an average build?

What do you mean, "doesn't have strength to grip his helmet"? If he succeeded on the Str check, then he, obviously, DOES have the Str to grip his helmet. But Str check to grab the helmet is different from a Cha (Intimidate) check to, well, try to get the guard to do whatever you want.


If the Strength(Intimidation) check is to grab the person and back them to a wall, why is this an auto-success like Ad_hoc says? Why is a roll not necessary here? If Intimidation literally calls out hostile actions and physical violence, why then do we say that hostile actions and physical violence don't require a roll?

Again, it's not Strength (Intimidate) check. It's Str (Athletics) check to engage in grapple. Then it's up to the GM to decide what the victim does. They're now grappled, which means running is not an option (at least not without escaping first), and even then, if they use their action to escape the grapple (which they may or may not succeed on), they can't also disengage to run away without provoking an attack of opportunity. They are clearly in a disadvantaged position. Now, a non-combatant commoner propably surrenders in such situation without any further need to intimidate them (the Cha (Intimidate) check automatically succeeds). A PC will instead fight back, because that's what PCs do, also without any further need to intimidate them (the Cha (Intimidate) check automatically fails). But if the GM decides the check is neither automatic success or failure (like, say, with combat-capable NPC who's not certain of the outcome of the fight), he sets the DC and asks for Cha (Intimidate) check. If the check succeeds, hey, great, the victim does whatever the attacker wants. If not, well, the victim can do something else. Attempt to escape, call for help, fight back....

If you fail the initial Str (Athletics) check to grapple the victim, there's no Cha (Intimidate) check, because the victim is *not* in the same disadvantegous position. The non-combatant may run screaming for help without risking being killed by an opportunity attack, the PC still fights back, because that's what the PCs do, and the combat-capable NPC is free to flee or fight back.

The physical violence might require a roll, but it's a roll to succeed on whatever physical thing you're trying, not to intimidate. Success on that roll is what allows you to attempt to intimidate. Or you may achieve the same thing with aiming a crossbow or brandishing a knife, or conjuring a flame in your hand, or having a bunch of friends, or whatever. If the situation seems appropriate, the GM may even decide that the first success grants you advantage on your Cha (Intimidate) check, if one is required.


EDIT: Adding a response to Segev's comment about the low charisma/low presence: It's easy for us to fall into the trap that low charisma means we can't win charisma checks, but we know that's not true. Even if you have a 0, you're average, but still not menacing. But that doesn't mean you can't win intimidation checks. So the idea that if you tried with Strength, but because you're not using charisma it will somehow fail doesn't track for me. If I have a 10 charisma, what is it doing for me on my Intimidation check? Nothing. But if I'm built like the Mountain and grab a guy by the throat, my strength doesn't matter? As I keep saying, that's absurd.

What is Cha 10 doing for you on your Cha (Intimidate) check? Everything. It's tautological: you're doing what falls under Cha check, so you're, by definition, using Cha, even if your Cha modifier is 0 or negative. That's how the game works.

[Tanarii]

Your mistake is assuming there will be a Str check in the first place. Even if you're pushing someone around through Str (Athletics) checks, you're making Cha check to intimidate them. The grapple, or shove, or whatever, and the intimidation are two separate things you're doing.
Exactly.

What are you trying to do? "Make them do what I want." -> Charisma check.
How are you trying to do it? "Scaring them by [being big and mean looking | demonstrating my physical strength | physically assaulting them]" -> DM decides what proficiency, if any, applies. None, Intimidation, ... maybe Athletics?

If the act of how you're trying to use to scare them isn't certain, that's a whole separate check first.

[Veldrenor]

Exactly.

What are you trying to do? "Make them do what I want." -> Charisma check.
How are you trying to do it? "Scaring them by [being big and mean looking | demonstrating my physical strength | physically assaulting them]" -> DM decides what proficiency, if any, applies. None, Intimidation, ... maybe Athletics?


So you're saying that the intent of an action determines which ability is used, not the action itself?

If I've read that accurately, then I can see the appeal of it for intent-focused players, as the same intent will always use the same ability. It seems really confusing for action-focused players, though, because their actions will constantly vary in terms of which ability is used to perform them. A PC lifting a boulder is strength, but it turns into charisma the moment that they're showing someone else that they can do it. Also, a substantial portion of the game directly conflicts with that approach: combat.

In combat, what you are trying to do is usually "hurt the enemy" or "avoid the enemy's spell/ability." If "what are you trying to do" determines the ability used, then everyone should use the same exact ability when trying to hurt the enemy or avoid an enemy ability (regardless of what the ability does, because the ability is the enemy's "how" for their "what" of "hurt the PCs"). But that's not how the rules do it.


If what you're trying to do is "hurt the enemy," and how you're trying to do it is "swing my greatsword," then you use strength.
If what you're trying to do is "hurt the enemy," and how you're trying to do it is "cast a spell learned through long days of thought and study," then you use intelligence.
If what you're trying to do is "avoid the enemy's spell," and how you're trying to do it is "dodge out of the way of its effect," then you use dexterity.
If what you're trying to do is "avoid the enemy's spell," and how you're trying to do it is "center myself and focus on my presence and the world around me," then you use wisdom.
etc.

An "intent over method" paradigm for ability checks means that the exploration/social pillars of the game function in the complete opposite manner from the combat pillar. "Method" is the determining factor for attacks/saves, but "intent" is the determining factor for checks. That makes the game less internally consistent because there isn't a single "this is how you add an ability to a d20 roll". But maybe that's the point. Maybe the game is supposed to play differently in combat than out-of-combat, like a Final Fantasy/Pokemon game. You use "intent over method" while wandering about the overworld, then there's a screen wipe to combat ("Roll Initiative"), and you use "method over intent" while fighting.

[Willowhelm]

All these posts trying to dissect arguments people aren’t even making are tedious.

Some people make one roll for an action and a second for whether it was successful. Others combine it into a single roll.

It’s a mechanical choice about how to reflect the event in game and it is the DMs call.

I like to get players to roll perception and then investigation to determine what they can see and what they can figure out from it. Other people will make it one or the other depending on various factors. Mix and match. Have fun.

[Segev]

I don't think you even have to rip someone's arm off. The PHB says Intimidation can be done through hostile actions and physical violence. For most melee attacks, that is the purview of Strength.

Just take the picture in the PHB; a big guy is walking right up to the guard and grabbing him by his helmet. This is easily a Strength check. The argument otherwise is that a Charisma check does what? Make the guard believe that the rogue is gripping his helmet really tight even though he doesn't have the strength to? Strong enough to wobble his head back and forth like he's a child even though he isn't? Convince him that he can't get out of a what is otherwise a normal person's grip? Can the rogue even reach over and hold the helmet in that way or is he of an average build?

If the Strength(Intimidation) check is to grab the person and back them to a wall, why is this an auto-success like Ad_hoc says? Why is a roll not necessary here? If Intimidation literally calls out hostile actions and physical violence, why then do we say that hostile actions and physical violence don't require a roll?

The answer is because you're trying not to let Strength work, as opposed to operating by any sort of logic we can all agree to.

EDIT: Adding a response to Segev's comment about the low charisma/low presence: It's easy for us to fall into the trap that low charisma means we can't win charisma checks, but we know that's not true. Even if you have a 0, you're average, but still not menacing. But that doesn't mean you can't win intimidation checks. So the idea that if you tried with Strength, but because you're not using charisma it will somehow fail doesn't track for me. If I have a 10 charisma, what is it doing for me on my Intimidation check? Nothing. But if I'm built like the Mountain and grab a guy by the throat, my strength doesn't matter? As I keep saying, that's absurd.

To be fair, "grabbing somebody by the helmet and wobbling his head back and forth" could be argued to be Charisma for the reason that you need to know that that behavior is intimidating.

The "you have to use Charisma, not Strength" arguemnt, I think, boils down to the notion that all these very scary strength-based intimidations require knowing how to use that strength to be intimidating. If you roll poorly, have a low Charisma, or whatnot, then your problem isn't that you couldn't make the strength requirement to be scary, but that you don't know what to do to be scary with it. You don't smash your axe into the table intimidatingly; you flex your pecs and think you're being intimidating when you're really just being a bit goofy. You make a threat, and come off as creepy rather than frightening. Uncomfortable rather than overwhelming. OR they just don't "get" what you're threatening or demanding.

I'm not saying I even support this "no, you can't use strength" argument. I'm just pointing out that I think that's the line of reasoning it goes down: all those strength-based measures are using Charisma to determine if you know what you're doing well enough to think to use them.

Just like it might take tremendous dexterity to pipet in exactly the right amount of acid to make the mixture exactly the right level of volatile, but it's still Intelligence that determines if you know how much the exact right amount is.

[Kvess]

IMHO it depends on how subtle you want to be about the intimidation, and how much control you expect to have on the person you’re intimidating. If you just want to apply the Frightened condition, I’d allow Strength in place of Charisma.

It’s not difficult to convince someone that you are a threat when you’re armed and very, very strong. It is often difficult to intimidate someone precisely enough that they do what you want, instead of panicking in such a way where they scream for help, run, or desperately attempt to incapacitate you before you murder them first.

An intimidated person is compliant. A panicked person is unreliable and dangerous. Charisma is what you use to keep your mark from crossing that line.

[Dr.Samurai]

Why does the 6ft tall 20 strength human get +5 to Strength (Intimidate) and the 3ft tall 20 Strength gnome either doesn't or can't make that check?
That's for you to decide; I am perfectly fine with using physical force and bodily power to try and intimidate people. But my argument is specifically about the big guys because that's the easier point to make, and I'm trying to show people why it makes sense for it to work. Feel free to argue a different point.

This all boils down to trying to use a Strength check, a check designed to do something by physical force, in place of a charisma check, a check designed to get something you want from someone, all because the character does something by physical force in the process of trying to get what one wants.
Yes, and it boils down further to some people, such as yourself, refusing to believe that you can interact with a person, and influence them, physically. So you say "Charisma is the ability score that is about interacting with people, therefore the only way to compel someone is by using Charisma".

But you yourself quoted the definition of the Strength ability score and the Strength check. And the definition of Intimidation specifically mentions "hostile actions" and "physical violence". The issue is that Intimidation, unlike Persuasion or Deception, can have a physical element to it, and specifically a physical element that involves interacting with another person. That is the purview of Strength. That's why it is specifically called out in the Variant Rule.

It's not an allowance because players are confused and it's just easier to let it slide. It actually makes sense in real life, so it lends itself to verisimilitude, and it is perfectly in line with the definitions of the ability scores and Intimidation.

It's like allowing a Attack roll (Intimidate) check or Cast a spell (Intimidate) check to scare someone, because it boils down to a basic misunderstanding of trying to treat the proficiency as the primary thing being done, not the ability check. You're not trying to bend a bar, you're trying to get someone to do what you want.
Sorry Tanarii but I think that you're just arguing to get to the conclusion that you want. There is no reason it has to be this way. It could easily go like this:

DM: The guard gives you a look that basically says you're not going to convince him, and says, "I don't have the key". So what do you guys want to do? Find another way in?
Barbarian: Eh, no. I'm going to show this guy he's not the one calling the shots here. I'd like to drag him all the way to the door at the end of the corridor and push him into it so he can unlock it.
DM: Ok, give me a Strength check.
Barbarian: Ok, can I add my Intimidation proficiency bonus since I'm basically man-handling him to show him he doesn't have a choice but to do what I say?
DM: Yeah, that makes sense. Go ahead and add your Intimidation proficiency to it, your barbarian knows how to scare people and he's using his brute strength to do it.

Even if using the variant rule, Strength (Intimidate) should never be a check if following the basic concept of what ability scores do what.
Intimidation: When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, or physical violence...

Strength checks: Attack Rolls (Grab/Shove) and Damage Rolls, Push, Drag, Lift, Size and Strength

What you just said is factually incorrect. Again, the core of your argument is that you can never influence someone through hostile actions or physical violence.

An "intent over method" paradigm for ability checks means that the exploration/social pillars of the game function in the complete opposite manner from the combat pillar. "Method" is the determining factor for attacks/saves, but "intent" is the determining factor for checks. That makes the game less internally consistent because there isn't a single "this is how you add an ability to a d20 roll". But maybe that's the point. Maybe the game is supposed to play differently in combat than out-of-combat, like a Final Fantasy/Pokemon game. You use "intent over method" while wandering about the overworld, then there's a screen wipe to combat ("Roll Initiative"), and you use "method over intent" while fighting.
Interesting point.

I don't think "intent" is actually how it works though, even though they are saying it is. The PHB says you can apply your proficiency in a skill to an ability check that corresponds to that skill. This has nothing to do with intent; this is just the default way the skills are laid out. There is nothing in the PHB that says "the only way you can compel someone is with Charisma checks, and no amount of roleplaying or context can change that". The PHB simply says Intimidation is a charisma check. That means you can only add your proficiency in Intimidation to charisma checks, but the variant rule changes that. And of course, a DM can do whatever they want in any event.

To be fair, "grabbing somebody by the helmet and wobbling his head back and forth" could be argued to be Charisma for the reason that you need to know that that behavior is intimidating.
I actually think this is an unfair assessment. I sound like a broken record but I think people put way too much on Charisma. I don't believe, for one moment, that all of the bullies and abusers out there need charisma to do what they do.

This, to me, is like saying that the guard he's intimidating needs to have a good Wisdom modifier to understand that the guy wobbling his head is making a threat and trying to Intimidate him. It's like none of us know anything about social interactions unless we have a positive charisma modifier. That doesn't track.

The "you have to use Charisma, not Strength" arguemnt, I think, boils down to the notion that all these very scary strength-based intimidations require knowing how to use that strength to be intimidating.
But if you have proficiency in Intimidation, by definition you already know this.

If you roll poorly, have a low Charisma, or whatnot, then your problem isn't that you couldn't make the strength requirement to be scary, but that you don't know what to do to be scary with it.
I don't think this is how the game works. I don't think it's "Schrodinger's Intimidation" where you simultaneously know how to Intimidate someone and also do not know how to Intimidate someone until the die is rolled and you either beat the DC or you don't. There are plenty of ways to explain a failure on the roll that aren't "let me prove my point that strength wouldn't work".

To my mind, a Barbarian with proficiency in Intimidation knows how to intimidate people.

Otherwise, what we're saying is a person with a -2 Charisma modifier doesn't know how to Intimidate people and therefore should never try because they will always fail. That's not how the game works. I could be a halfling with a 10 charisma and no proficiency and roll an Intimidation check and beat the DC. So to say that if I'm a 7ft tall muscled warrior with a 16 strength and proficiency in Intimidation but it wouldn't work because I don't know what I'm doing doesn't really apply because the game never does this.

You don't smash your axe into the table intimidatingly; you flex your pecs and think you're being intimidating when you're really just being a bit goofy. You make a threat, and come off as creepy rather than frightening. Uncomfortable rather than overwhelming. OR they just don't "get" what you're threatening or demanding.

I'm not saying I even support this "no, you can't use strength" argument. I'm just pointing out that I think that's the line of reasoning it goes down: all those strength-based measures are using Charisma to determine if you know what you're doing well enough to think to use them.
The die roll determines success, not the ability score being used. Like, this to me seems like an alien way to think about how the game works. Charisma rolls can fail too. I think really people just think about charisma differently and it leads to this weird double standard.

Consider the Intimidation check through "hostile actions/physical violence". No one thinks that if you roll charisma you would also have to roll a strength check for the actual hostile action/physical violence. But when you reverse it, suddenly it requires two checks instead of one. Even though we know that Charisma does not govern action, as Tanarii pointed out last page.

Just like it might take tremendous dexterity to pipet in exactly the right amount of acid to make the mixture exactly the right level of volatile, but it's still Intelligence that determines if you know how much the exact right amount is.

It's a fair point. But dexterity can never replace knowledge. Whereas forcibly dragging someone to a locked door so they can unlock it can indeed replace telling them to do it in a menacing way. This has always been the disconnect; this notion that physical strength can't influence people on it's own. That if the bully repeatedly gut punches the kid for his lunch money, he'll never hand it over until the charismatic kid comes over and tells him to. It's a ridiculous perspective, but here we are.

[Psyren]

I'd like to point out that the DMG 239 gives guidance for rolling a skill with a different ability modifier.


Under certain circumstances, you can decide a character's proficiency in a skill can be applied to a different ability check. For example, you might decide that a character forced to swim from an island to the mainland must succeed on a Constitution check (as opposed to a Strength check) because of the distance involved. The character is proficient in the Athletics skill, which covers swimming, so you allow the character's proficiency bonus to apply to this ability check. In effect, you're asking for a Constitution (Athletics) check, instead of a Strength (Athletics) check.

Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to the check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking.

There you go, official sanction to allow a Strength (Intimidation) check if the character's muscles could make a difference to a particular situation.

[Willowhelm]

I'd like to point out that the DMG 239 gives guidance for rolling a skill with a different ability modifier.



There you go, official sanction to allow a Strength (Intimidation) check if the character's muscles could make a difference to a particular situation.

Nice try. I pointed it the same thing on the first page yet here we are three pages later…

[Psyren]

Nice try. I pointed it the same thing on the first page yet here we are three pages later…

Looking back, I see the conclusion was that that line, along with PHB 175, constitute a variant rule. To which I say, "ok, so?" Its a variant that makes sense to me and makes the game better, like point buy. I think intimidation defaulting to Cha but being usable with other scores under specific circumstances is fine.

[Segev]

I actually think this is an unfair assessment. I sound like a broken record but I think people put way too much on Charisma. I don't believe, for one moment, that all of the bullies and abusers out there need charisma to do what they do.

This, to me, is like saying that the guard he's intimidating needs to have a good Wisdom modifier to understand that the guy wobbling his head is making a threat and trying to Intimidate him. It's like none of us know anything about social interactions unless we have a positive charisma modifier. That doesn't track.

But if you have proficiency in Intimidation, by definition you already know this.

I don't think this is how the game works. I don't think it's "Schrodinger's Intimidation" where you simultaneously know how to Intimidate someone and also do not know how to Intimidate someone until the die is rolled and you either beat the DC or you don't. There are plenty of ways to explain a failure on the roll that aren't "let me prove my point that strength wouldn't work".

To my mind, a Barbarian with proficiency in Intimidation knows how to intimidate people.

Otherwise, what we're saying is a person with a -2 Charisma modifier doesn't know how to Intimidate people and therefore should never try because they will always fail. That's not how the game works. I could be a halfling with a 10 charisma and no proficiency and roll an Intimidation check and beat the DC. So to say that if I'm a 7ft tall muscled warrior with a 16 strength and proficiency in Intimidation but it wouldn't work because I don't know what I'm doing doesn't really apply because the game never does this.

The die roll determines success, not the ability score being used. Like, this to me seems like an alien way to think about how the game works. Charisma rolls can fail too. I think really people just think about charisma differently and it leads to this weird double standard.
I agree that the die roll determines success. An 8 Charisma doesn't mean you can't possibly know how to intimidate somebody! It just means you aren't as good at it as somebody with a 20 Charisma (and the same amount of training).

The die roll determining success does not translate to any ability score you like being able to be used to generate the modifiers to the die roll. Given that my point was about which ability score governs your success, countering by saying the die roll determines it and not the ability score's absolute value seems to suggest you're arguing that the die roll determining success justifies any stat you want to use. I do not think you mean to be making that argument, but I could be wrong; either way, I invite you to correct or contradict or debate me on this or on what I read into what you're saying. I suspect I am missing something, or that you do not intend what you're saying to be taken as I read it, but I do not know what you mean to be saying.

My point, in the meantime, is that Charisma(Intimidation) is the correct set of modifiers to use for the "hold the guy by the helmet and wiggle his head back and forth" move, for the simple reason that Charisma(Intimidation) informs us of how well the character rolling it knows how to play that up, or even to use that technique. He can roll high, or have low Charisma and proficiency in Intimidation, and get a good result.

Now, we can argue that Strength should be allowed instead - I do not really oppose this, honestly - but I think it important to examine why the "grab the helmet" technique of intimidation can be seen NOT as Strength(Intimidation) at all: even thinking to do that rather than something less effectively persuasive is a Charisma "thing."

Your bullies need not have high Charisma to intimidate successfully precisely because die rolls determine success. 8 Charisma CR 1 commoners trained in Intimidation have a net +1 to the roll, and will roll 11+ 55% of the time. They'll roll 15+ 35% of the time. Give them a gang to Help and give them Advantage, and that jumps higher still (though I'm too lazy to do the math).

I totally get and in fact condone the argument for Strength(Intimidation), but it probably is not really 'fair' to grant it as much as I would like to, precisely because the ways we think of as being Strength(Intimidation) are still arguably Charisma-based, just based on Charisma being the knowledge or instincts to effectively project what you want to project. Thinking to grab him by the helmet in that particular way is a Charisma thing.

[Tanarii]

Intimidation: When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, or physical violence...

Strength checks: Attack Rolls (Grab/Shove) and Damage Rolls, Push, Drag, Lift, Size and Strength

What you just said is factually incorrect. Again, the core of your argument is that you can never influence someone through hostile actions or physical violence.
The intimidation description you just quoted is, per the standard PHB rules, a subset of things you do with a Charisma check. You can't take the definition of something that is the very thing defining that this particular thing is a charisma check and try to use it to prove that it's usable with a strength check instead.

I feel like you're stuck on the 3e idea that skills checks are something in and of themselves, and that skill proficiencies are something separate from the base ability score. They aren't. They're explicitly "a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect" (PHB 174) Everything described under a skill description is part of the things a PC can do with the related ability check. They're just categorized in a way that you can select certain aspects of that ability score checks to gain a proficiency bonus in.

By the very thing you quoted, under the section on Charisma checks, attempting to influence someone through hostile actions or physical violence is a Charisma check.

[Anymage]

I actually think this is an unfair assessment. I sound like a broken record but I think people put way too much on Charisma. I don't believe, for one moment, that all of the bullies and abusers out there need charisma to do what they do.

Bullies are also well known for picking on easy targets, and backing off if challenged. The high school bully isn't working off of a stronger stat mod, so much they're targeting low DC situations and only sticking around when they roll high.

Also, the most successful high school bullies absolutely do run off of Cha. Being able to get a gang around to back you up and having the school think that you're a reasonable authority on what's cool sound a lot more Cha based than Str based.


DM: The guard gives you a look that basically says you're not going to convince him, and says, "I don't have the key". So what do you guys want to do? Find another way in?
Barbarian: Eh, no. I'm going to show this guy he's not the one calling the shots here. I'd like to drag him all the way to the door at the end of the corridor and push him into it so he can unlock it.
DM: Ok, give me a Strength check.
Barbarian: Ok, can I add my Intimidation proficiency bonus since I'm basically man-handling him to show him he doesn't have a choice but to do what I say?
DM: Yeah, that makes sense. Go ahead and add your Intimidation proficiency to it, your barbarian knows how to scare people and he's using his brute strength to do it.

If the guard is at all combat competent, you just precipitated an initiative roll. If his employer is competent enough to have multiple guards around so they can back each other up, you might very well be in trouble. Ask yourself how likely you are to be successful trying to manhandle a police officer into doing what you want.

If your barbarian has enough of an advantage that their success is essentially assured, why are you rolling in the first place? Autosuccesses make a lot of sense when you massively outmatch the enemy, when the 5e rules engine intentionally makes the randomness of the d20 roll relevant in the vast majority of cases.

Having said that, I could absolutely see times when proficiency in Intimidation could be leveraged to other stat rolls. Including but not limited to Str. It's just that the most common requests for this tend to involve the idea that high Str intrinsically makes one big and scary (disproven if one asks how much a belt (https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/belt-of-giant-strength) changes one's physique), that a display of might will be effectively cow level appropriate challenges, or that "it just makes sense" arguments based on average people in real life will dictate how action heroes or stronger will react. (Doubly so on that last one when the "it just makes sense" argument doesn't quite work out that way when put to the test. i.e.: torture.) Intimidating someone so they struggle less and they're easier to manhandle is a sensible strength (intimidation) roll. Flexing your pecs so they're scared enough to spill all their organizational details, not so much.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree that the die roll determines success. An 8 Charisma doesn't mean you can't possibly know how to intimidate somebody! It just means you aren't as good at it as somebody with a 20 Charisma (and the same amount of training).

The die roll determining success does not translate to any ability score you like being able to be used to generate the modifiers to the die roll. Given that my point was about which ability score governs your success, countering by saying the die roll determines it and not the ability score's absolute value seems to suggest you're arguing that the die roll determining success justifies any stat you want to use. I do not think you mean to be making that argument, but I could be wrong; either way, I invite you to correct or contradict or debate me on this or on what I read into what you're saying. I suspect I am missing something, or that you do not intend what you're saying to be taken as I read it, but I do not know what you mean to be saying.
Hi Segev, I am not sure how much of the thread you've read but I have been arguing this entire time that Strength makes sense sometimes.

A common response to that is "well just because you're strong doesn't mean you'd know how to intimidate someone", but this is not a helpful argument because it's never defined what it means to "know to intimidate someone". How does a character know this? By having at least a 0 Charisma modifier? Does it have to be at least +1? Do they need proficiency in it? What if they've seen it in action before, do they know it then?

This is one of the reasons I say Charisma is an overrated stat; people think no one would even have a clue how to attempt it without making a charisma check, and they wouldn't have a shot at success without making a charisma check. Everyone is just blissfully unaware of physicality and dominance and competition and conflict until... well I don't know, you guys tell me, until they have at least a 12 charisma?

In other words, people are imparting knowledge and information through Charisma without defining how that happens. Charisma says "you're eloquent or charming or commanding, and these things influence your interactions with people". It doesn't say "Charisma gives you the knowledge to Intimidate people, and without using Charisma, you don't have a concept of Intimidation".

My point, in the meantime, is that Charisma(Intimidation) is the correct set of modifiers to use for the "hold the guy by the helmet and wiggle his head back and forth" move, for the simple reason that Charisma(Intimidation) informs us of how well the character rolling it knows how to play that up, or even to use that technique. He can roll high, or have low Charisma and proficiency in Intimidation, and get a good result.
I understand. I have agreed with this many times now. I am not disputing that Charisma doesn't make sense. I am arguing that Strength can also make sense in some situations.

I totally get and in fact condone the argument for Strength(Intimidation), but it probably is not really 'fair' to grant it as much as I would like to, precisely because the ways we think of as being Strength(Intimidation) are still arguably Charisma-based, just based on Charisma being the knowledge or instincts to effectively project what you want to project. Thinking to grab him by the helmet in that particular way is a Charisma thing.
I think for me it seems nonsensical that the actual strong guy, the person that is an expert at physicality, the one that actually engages in the hostile actions day in and day out adventuring, cannot leverage this successfully to intimidate someone. But the cool suave charismatic guy who can't actually perform these hostile actions in the same way can. So casually saying "Fezzik, tear his arms off" works without the slightest bit of menace, but Fezzik actually grabbing the guys arm and twisting it wouldn't work because "Strong guys are big dummies and don't know how to scare people".


The intimidation description you just quoted is, per the standard PHB rules, a subset of things you do with a Charisma check. You can't take the definition of something that is the very thing defining that this particular thing is a charisma check and try to use it to prove that it's usable with a strength check instead.
The conversation is about why Strength would make sense. Telling me, over and over and over again, what the actual rules are is not helpful because the conversation is why the rules can be different and make sense.

I feel like you're stuck on the 3e idea that skills checks are something in and of themselves, and that skill proficiencies are something separate from the base ability score. They aren't. They're explicitly "a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect" (PHB 174) Everything described under a skill description is part of the things a PC can do with the related ability check. They're just categorized in a way that you can select certain aspects of that ability score checks to gain a proficiency bonus in.
I explained this very thing in the post you're quoting.

Are you not understanding the hypothetical nature of this conversation? The "this is why the game could also make it a Strength check" premise of this discussion?

By the very thing you quoted, under the section on Charisma checks, attempting to influence someone through hostile actions or physical violence is a Charisma check.
Yes, as the rules are now. Remember when you said this though:

The definitions are there. They tell us a couple of things: By default, strength is doing something by force...
My argument is that Strength makes sense. Strength governs physicality, doing things by force. If you're intimidating someone through physical violence, then you can roll a strength check and apply Intimidation. It's not a complex argument except that people think "influence" must always be gated through Charisma.

If the guard is at all combat competent, you just precipitated an initiative roll. If his employer is competent enough to have multiple guards around so they can back each other up, you might very well be in trouble. Ask yourself how likely you are to be successful trying to manhandle a police officer into doing what you want.
Me? Not at all. I'm not an adventurer though. But the guys running into a bank and firing the rifle in the air to tell everyone to get on the ground? Pretty likely. I can see them running up and pointing the gun and telling the guard to relinquish his gun.

And normal people do fight police officers every day.

But just think about the excuses you and others keep giving... the actual show of force is not enough to compel someone. Ok, fine. So what exactly is the charisma guy threatening them with? What's the menacing glare telegraphing exactly? If everyone is so competent that a big strong guy doesn't scare them, why would a charisma check work? The charisma check says "If you don't do what we want we will hurt you" but you and others are already saying the guards are armed and armored and competent so they aren't afraid of fighting.

In other words, by your own definition the threat is toothless, but you allow charisma the success because you treat it as mind control if you beat the DC. Suddenly it doesn't matter that this guard has sized up the threat and isn't impressed, because the rogue used Language and it was Super Successful. The guard forgets that he and his mates are also dangerous warriors and he just submits before the party face.

This doesn't make sense.

If your barbarian has enough of an advantage that their success is essentially assured, why are you rolling in the first place? Autosuccesses make a lot of sense when you massively outmatch the enemy, when the 5e rules engine intentionally makes the randomness of the d20 roll relevant in the vast majority of cases.
I don't see Strength as an auto-success, so I can't answer this question. It seems you guys can't get beyond "If Strength allowed, either completely useless, or auto-win", and I think it's because you all assume Charisma is an auto-win.

[JackPhoenix]

Charisma checks absolutely *are* mind control, to a certain extent. You see, the thing with Charisma checks is that, unlike other ability checks (with two exceptions*), success on them doesn't just determine what your character does or knows at the moment. Success on a Charisma checks decides how the TARGET acts (or reacts). It robs the target of agency, just like mind control does. That's why Cha skills (with one exception) don't work against PCs: The players losing control over their characters like that is not good for the game (yes, there's magic and monsters that can mind control characters, but neither is as omnipresent as ability checks, and usually have some countermeasures). You can use other ability checks against other characters (NPCs or PCs), but they generally require opposed roll of some kind, and don't determine the target's actions on success. Even shoving or grappling and dragging someone is not the same thing.

*One exception being Animal Handling, which acts like Cha skill against animals, but it's Wis based (it also covers wider variety of stuff than Cha skills do), the other being (most uses of) Deception, which doesn't as much determine how the target'll act, but if it can tell you're lying. Deception is also an opposed check (against the target's Insight) and it's one Cha skill that *does* work against PCs.


This doesn't make sense.

Strawman arguments don't tend to, that's true.

[Psyren]

For those who are okay with the "skill proficiency can be added to different ability score" variant - are there example circumstances where might you be comfortable with calling for a Strength (Intimidation) roll? And are there examples where you wouldn't?

For me personally, I would want to err on the side of Intimidation being a Charisma check most of the time, but I'd love suggestions on when having it be a Strength, Dex, or even Int check might be reasonable. Bonus points if you can think of any where Con or Wis might apply too (I don't think I can for those but I'm open to ideas.)

One example I heard earlier in the thread that I kind of liked for Str (Intimidate) was if you actively have someone in a headlock. While I wouldn't want to encourage the barbarian to try grappling everyone they talk to - and I suppose that's one of the dangers to allowing this variant - I would probably allow someone who feels the level of force you're capable of asserting to be intimidated by that even if the character is stoic or reserved otherwise.

[JackPhoenix]

For those who are okay with the "skill proficiency can be added to different ability score" variant - are there example circumstances where might you be comfortable with calling for a Strength (Intimidation) roll? And are their examples where you wouldn't?

I am OK with the basic premise, and I do allow adding skill proficiencies to different ability checks when appropriate in my games. I just don't think there are *any* circumstances when Str (Intimidation) is appropriate.

I've also just noticed that somewhere along the way, I've started calling the skill Intimidate instead of Intimidation. Way to go, me.

And because I've missed this:

So you're saying that the intent of an action determines which ability is used, not the action itself?

What makes you think it has to be one or the other? It can be either or both, depending on the context.

[Psyren]

I am OK with the basic premise, and I do allow adding skill proficiencies to different ability checks when appropriate in my games. I just don't think there are *any* circumstances when Str (Intimidation) is appropriate.

May I ask why? The PHB explicitly calls this substitution out as a valid example of the rule, so clearly the designers feel it is appropriate at least some of the time.

Interestingly, they call out the race of the character in question for this example, so it may very well be that some races (like Half-Orcs, Goliaths, and Minotaurs) "wear" their strength score better than others, such that they might be afforded this substitution more often than, say, halflings and kobolds of the same strength. Which makes sense in a way, since Intimidation is more about making someone believe you can harm them than it is actual capacity to inflict harm.

Even if a Halfling is every bit as strong as the strongest Goliath, it doesn't mean their physique will be as naturally intimidating.

[Dienekes]

For those who are okay with the "skill proficiency can be added to different ability score" variant - are there example circumstances where might you be comfortable with calling for a Strength (Intimidation) roll? And are their examples where you wouldn't?


When you are attempting to intimidate someone by the method of a demonstration of strength. Choke hold, breaking a walnut in your hands, that kind of thing. Where there is an implicit threat that it will be done to the target.

Same could be done with a Dex check if you do a particularly skillful looking rapier flourish. Or any ability score really, provided the action you’re doing has a threat behind it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Re: Charisma is mind control

Everything that people throw up as an excuse for Strength applies to Charisma. When I say that people treat it as Mind Control, I mean that they believe it overrides all other considerations that the NPC might have and they simply do as they are told as if by a Command spell.

Consider the example I gave... If the guard is not impressed by another combatant because the guard themselves is an armed combatant, the Strength check fails according to virtually everyone in this thread, because the guard doesn't consider there to be a threat. So if my barbarian manhandles the guard in some way, it's not Intimidation, it's "roll initiative", because the Guard was never going to be afraid of physical harm.

However, again, according to all of you, if the rogue threatens physical harm, the Guard is now intimidated. You are not treating Charisma as a way to influence someone, but rather as a way to override reality. The guard is not deterred by physical violence. But now he is. How?

If there is no threat (this is established by saying the Strength check would fail), then this is how it would work:

Fezzik: I grab the guard's arm and twist, telling him I'll tear it off if he doesn't comply. (Strength: Intimidation check)
DM: Sorry, that doesn't work. This is an armed and armored veteran and he isn't deterred by physical violence.
Inigo: Ok, I'll give it a shot. I tell him "Fezzik, tear his arms off". (Charisma: Intimidation check)
DM: Sorry, that doesn't work. This is an armed and armored veteran and he isn't deterred by physical violence.

The Mind Control is this:

Fezzik: I grab the guard's arm and twist, telling him I'll tear it off if he doesn't comply. (Strength: Intimidation check)
DM: Sorry, that doesn't work. This is an armed and armored veteran and he isn't deterred by physical violence.
Inigo: Ok, I'll give it a shot. I tell him "Fezzik, tear his arms off". (Charisma: Intimidation check)
DM: Suddenly, the Guard forgets that he is unafraid of Fezzik. Even though he is a veteran warrior, and has taken down ogres before and I literally just told you that he isn't deterred by this very premise, his demeanor changes completely in an instant, and he suddenly finds himself very scared of engaging in physical combat with someone like Fezzik. He complies completely.

Doesn't make sense. When you make your arguments, they are made assuming Strength will fail. The argument is "Strength check doesn't work because Strength check doesn't work". Anything that you say for Strength in the arguments presented thus far apply to Charisma as well.

And remember, if there is no threat, as many of you argue in the case of a strength based check, then the rogue isn't rolling Intimidation, they are rolling Deception.

[Psyren]

When you are attempting to intimidate someone by the method of a demonstration of strength. Choke hold, breaking a walnut in your hands, that kind of thing. Where there is an implicit threat that it will be done to the target.

Are there any limits on it in your mind? What's stopping a barbarian from just, say, carrying around a bag of walnuts and never worrying about Charisma again regardless of circumstance?

For me, one limitation I might put on it based on the race example is size. A halfling rogue or bard who invests in Cha (Intimidate) can theoretically intimidate anyone. A character relying on Str (Intimidate) might only be able to use that on creatures up to one size larger than him, so your Goliath Barbarian is forced to use Cha to try and intimidate a Huge dragon.


Same could be done with a Dex check if you do a particularly skillful looking rapier flourish. Or any ability score really, provided the action you’re doing has a threat behind it.

Dex I'm fine with too. Maybe Int if I'm threatening something highly logical like an intelligent robot?

I struggle to get there with Con and Wis though, both of which tend to be much more "passive" or "internal" abilities.

[Tanarii]

May I ask why? The PHB explicitly calls this substitution out as a valid example of the rule, so clearly the designers feel it is appropriate at least some of the time.I think it's more the case that the designers recognize that a large number of players and DMs will seem to think it should be. And accepting that many players and DMs won't understand their system because they've got a notion that just because you're physically assaulting someone or demonstrating strength while trying to influence someone changes it to a score for doing things by physical force instead of the one for influencing someone, and thus including variant rules for it, is mere practicality.

So far I've yet to see any situations at the table or given in any thread about using Strength (Charisma) that actually "make sense". But I'm also a practical DM. If players expect it (ie explicitly ask for it on a check), I certainly consider allowing it anyway.

[JackPhoenix]

May I ask why? The PHB explicitly calls this substitution out as a valid example of the rule, so clearly the designers feel it is appropriate at least some of the time.

And JC said rakshasas can walk through explicitly nonmagical stone wall just because it was created by a spell. I disagree with that interpretation of the rules, and I disagree that the example used for the variant rule makes any sort of sense. Con (Athletics) to run a marathon, Int (Medicine) for theoretical medical knowledge, sure.

Besides, imagine two characters, both have Cha of 10 and proficiency (or not, it doesn't matter) in Intimidation. One has Str 16 and is unarmed, the other has a Str 10, but has a longsword. Both threaten someone with physical violence if the victim doesn't do what they want. Why should the strong unarmed guy have 15% better chance of success against the same DC than the average guy with a sword, who's (potentially, there *is* 32.5% chance that the random roll of d8 results less than 4 damage) more dangerous?


Re: Charisma is mind control

Everything that people throw up as an excuse for Strength applies to Charisma. When I say that people treat it as Mind Control, I mean that they believe it overrides all other considerations that the NPC might have and they simply do as they are told as if by a Command spell.

What 'people'? Who is 'they'?


However, again, according to all of you, if the rogue threatens physical harm, the Guard is now intimidated. You are not treating Charisma as a way to influence someone, but rather as a way to override reality. The guard is not deterred by physical violence. But now he is. How?

From 'all of us', you're the only one making such claims. If a threat of physical violence can't get the guard to do what you want, it doesn't work for the rogue any more than it works for the barbarian.


Doesn't make sense. When you make your arguments, they are made assuming Strength will fail.

You're the only one making such claims, and attributing them to other people.


The argument is "Strength check doesn't work because Strength check doesn't work". Anything that you say for Strength in the arguments presented thus far apply to Charisma as well.

*My* argument (and some other people agree with me) is that Str check doesn't work, because THERE IS NO STR CHECK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think it's more the case that the designers recognize that a large number of players and DMs will seem to think it should be. And accepting that many players and DMs won't understand their system because they've got a notion that just because you're physically assaulting someone or demonstrating strength while trying to influence someone changes it to a score for doing things by physical force instead of the one for influencing someone, and thus including variant rules for it, is mere practicality.

So far I've yet to see any situations at the table or given in any thread about using Strength (Charisma) that actually "make sense". But I'm also a practical DM. If players expect it (ie explicitly ask for it on a check), I certainly consider allowing it anyway.

I'd say that's a pretty unfair assumption, I think a more fair assumption is that if the designers didn't think it was reasonable they wouldn't have included it as a specific example.

To make a statement that it's the players fault for misunderstanding the system because of a variant rule they might want to use presented in the book is... Well, ludicrous honestly. If the rule wasn't included I might understand your reasoning here, clearly the designers would have had no intention of your skill proficiencies applying to any non associated ability check. We don't have that type of clarity though because at a cursory glance there's clear evidence that they could.

If my memory is correct, though it might not be in this case, there are rare cases of variant ability checks in written adventure modules as well. If I am in fact recalling correctly, is that an instance of the writer misunderstanding the ability check system or is it a use of a variant rule in a circumstance they find reasonable?

[Veldrenor]

And because I've missed this:


What makes you think it has to be one or the other? It can be either or both, depending on the context.

What makes you think that I think it has to be one or the other? I said nothing about my stance in regard to intent and/or method. I didn't say it had to be one or the other. All I did was point out that the post I was quoting from Tanarii:



What are you trying to do? "Make them do what I want." -> Charisma check.
How are you trying to do it? "Scaring them by [being big and mean looking | demonstrating my physical strength | physically assaulting them]" -> DM decides what proficiency, if any, applies. None, Intimidation, ... maybe Athletics?


implied that they were taking a stance that intent determines ability and method determines proficiency. I was asking if that was an accurate interpretation of what they meant by their example and pointing out that, if it was accurate, it could be beneficial in some cases and conflicting in others. I didn't say that they were right or wrong. I didn't say that it must be one or the other and could never be both or either. I just pointed out some of the further implications of the stance they seemed to be taking.

[Psyren]

I think it's more the case that the designers recognize that a large number of players and DMs will seem to think it should be. And accepting that many players and DMs won't understand their system because they've got a notion that just because you're physically assaulting someone or demonstrating strength while trying to influence someone changes it to a score for doing things by physical force instead of the one for influencing someone, and thus including variant rules for it, is mere practicality.

If they codified that substitution as an explicit example because a lot of players and GMs are likely to find it intuitive, that's a point in its favor, not against. Rules should be intuitive to the users of the game, unless there's a very good reason (e.g. balance) to disallow something that would otherwise be intuitive, like wearing magic rings on all your fingers. And thanks to both bounded accuracy and the GM's huge power over skill checks in this edition, we know that a "Strength (Intimidation)" check isn't unbalanced.

Note that I'm not saying that you should be allowed to roll "Strength (Intimidation)" in every single instance where you would have had to roll "Charisma (Intimidation)" however. I gave an example earlier of where the former might have limits that the latter would not.


I'd say that's a pretty unfair assumption, I think a more fair assumption is that if the designers didn't think it was reasonable they wouldn't have included it as a specific example.

To make a statement that it's the players fault for misunderstanding the system because of a variant rule they might want to use presented in the book is... Well, ludicrous honestly. If the rule wasn't included I might understand your reasoning here, clearly the designers would have had no intention of your skill proficiencies applying to any non associated ability check. We don't have that type of clarity though because at a cursory glance there's clear evidence that they could.

This.

[GooeyChewie]

If the guard is at all combat competent, you just precipitated an initiative roll. If his employer is competent enough to have multiple guards around so they can back each other up, you might very well be in trouble. Ask yourself how likely you are to be successful trying to manhandle a police officer into doing what you want.
If the guard is at all combat competent, they probably have a higher than average DC against Intimidation. Failing the intimidation check probably precipitates an initiative roll regardless of whether you used Strength or Charisma.


I think it's more the case that the designers recognize that a large number of players and DMs will seem to think it should be. And accepting that many players and DMs won't understand their system because they've got a notion that just because you're physically assaulting someone or demonstrating strength while trying to influence someone changes it to a score for doing things by physical force instead of the one for influencing someone, and thus including variant rules for it, is mere practicality.
That seems like an awfully big assumption, especially since officially published modules often use variant ability scores for various checks. If WotC intended for DMs not to allow players to use alternate ability scores, I think it would have been a lot simpler for them to just say that the skills are always tied to certain ability scores, rather than to give examples of how to play the game "wrong."


So far I've yet to see any situations at the table or given in any thread about using Strength (Charisma) that actually "make sense". But I'm also a practical DM. If players expect it (ie explicitly ask for it on a check), I certainly consider allowing it anyway.
To me, any time a player says "I would like to try to intimidate this NPC by showing them how strong I am" is a situation where calling for a Strength (Intimidation) check "makes sense." I do enjoy it when a player goes into further detail of how they would like to accomplish this goal, but not every player is equally apt to come up with such descriptions.


*My* argument (and some other people agree with me) is that Str check doesn't work, because THERE IS NO STR CHECK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
That's circular reasoning. Strength doesn't work because there's no Str check in the first place, but the only reason there's no Str check is because you've already decided Str can't work.

[Kvess]

For those who are okay with the "skill proficiency can be added to different ability score" variant - are there example circumstances where might you be comfortable with calling for a Strength (Intimidation) roll? And are their examples where you wouldn't?

As a DM, for me it would depend on what the players are trying to do.

If you want to convince someone that attacking you will go poorly for them, a Strength (Intimidation) check may be appropriate. In this case, the character is metaphorically using their muscle as a blunt instrument against an opponent’s resolve to stop them (with the DC affected by the number of NPCs and their disposition). If you want to frighten someone or apply the Frightened Condition, I’d allow a Strength check.

If you want to convince a non-combatant NPC that they should hand over a MacGuffin or else, the difficult part isn’t convincing them that you are capable of causing harm, injury or death. You’re presumably an armed adventurer: You ARE going to scare most ordinary people, but just scaring someone doesn’t always get you what you want. This situation requires more finesse.

What a Charisma (Intimidation) check will allow you to do is scare the target in a way where they comply with your demand instead of panicking in a way that’s much less constructive. If you fail the check, you might still scare them, but instead of cooperating they might run while calling out for help against the armed lunatics pursuing them.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's circular reasoning. Strength doesn't work because there's no Str check in the first place, but the only reason there's no Str check is because you've already decided Str can't work.

There might not have to be, everything is under the DM's purview so if they ask for an attack roll, an athletics check or even just accept that your physique and ability score present themselves openly and forgo a roll you never make it to the Intimidation (strength) check.

Which is a line of reasoning I can agree with, there are likely more "accurate" ways to represent an attempt to intimidate someone with strength that will achieve the same or similar results as adjusting the ability used. With that said however, I don't see the harm in allowing it if that's what you (as a group) think is the most reasonable way to reach those conclusions since they'd be pretty much the same regardless of how you choose to get there.

[Psyren]

If you want to convince someone that attacking you will go poorly for them, a Strength (Intimidation) check may be appropriate. In this case, the character is metaphorically using their muscle as a blunt instrument against an opponent’s resolve to stop them (with the DC affected by the number of NPCs and their disposition). If you want to frighten someone or apply the Frightened Condition, I’d allow a Strength check.

I'm okay with this, although again I'd point out that it might just not work well on the NPC in question. Flexing at a bunch of giants or trolls or a dragon is unlikely to faze them even if you're 20 Str and rippling with muscles. Same for mindflayers or beasts, for wholly different reasons. I would let a Cha Intimidate have a chance to work on most if not all of these, but not Str. Against a humanoid however I could see the Str approach working.



If you want to convince a non-combatant NPC that they should hand over a MacGuffin or else, the difficult part isn’t convincing them that you are capable of causing harm, injury or death. You’re presumably an armed adventurer: You ARE going to scare most ordinary people, but just scaring someone doesn’t always get you what you want. This situation requires more finesse.

That's fine too.



What a Charisma (Intimidation) check will allow you to do is scare the target in a way where they comply with your demand instead of panicking in a way that’s much less constructive. If you fail the check, you might still scare them, but instead of cooperating they might run while calling out for help against the armed lunatics pursuing them.

I would have this be a potential consequence of intimidation failure regardless of the score used personally.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think it's more the case that the designers recognize that a large number of players and DMs will seem to think it should be. And accepting that many players and DMs won't understand their system because they've got a notion that just because you're physically assaulting someone or demonstrating strength while trying to influence someone changes it to a score for doing things by physical force instead of the one for influencing someone, and thus including variant rules for it, is mere practicality.
This is wishful thinking... that the writers of the book included this variant rule not because it can make sense and there is legitimate reason to, but because people are just too thick-headed to figure it out.

So far I've yet to see any situations at the table or given in any thread about using Strength (Charisma) that actually "make sense".
"So far I've yet to see any situations at the table or given in any thread about using Strength that I admit make sense."

@JackPhoenix: I don't think you're following my line of argumentation and it appears by not understanding it (which could very well be my fault for not explaining it well) you are taking on a bad attitude with me (which is your fault). I literally say "You're making a circular argument" and you reply "who? who?" and then go on to make a circular argument. Please try better, and I'll continue to engage with you.



implied that they were taking a stance that intent determines ability and method determines proficiency. I was asking if that was an accurate interpretation of what they meant by their example and pointing out that, if it was accurate, it could be beneficial in some cases and conflicting in others. I didn't say that they were right or wrong. I didn't say that it must be one or the other and could never be both or either. I just pointed out some of the further implications of the stance they seemed to be taking.
Correct. And if it is intent based as Tanarii is saying, then he can say "oh, you're intent is to influence someone, therefore default to Charisma". If it isn't intent based, as JackPhoneix and you are questioning, then we don't have to default to Charisma. We can say "I'm going to knock him on his butt and step on his chest to pin him to the ground". Ok, make a Strength check and apply Intimidation.

Note that I'm not saying that you should be allowed to roll "Strength (Intimidation)" in every single instance where you would have had to roll "Charisma (Intimidation)" however. I gave an example earlier of where the former might have limits that the latter would not.
Hi Psyren, I agree with you here. But the crux here is that Strength is a non-starter for the people that are disagreeing. Your limitations are redundant because they simply do not believe it can ever work, period.

If the guard is at all combat competent, they probably have a higher than average DC against Intimidation. Failing the intimidation check probably precipitates an initiative roll regardless of whether you used Strength or Charisma.
This is exactly the point. Charisma gets conflated with Knowledge of Intimidation and with Success, and in some cases Memory Wipe, where the guard forgets he doesn't feel threatened all of a sudden.

[Anymage]

So far I've yet to see any situations at the table or given in any thread about using Strength (Charisma) that actually "make sense". But I'm also a practical DM. If players expect it (ie explicitly ask for it on a check), I certainly consider allowing it anyway.

Trying to think of it less as an Intimidation (Strength) check and more as a Strength (Intimidation) check - less as the skill being the core function with a stat modifier and more as the stat being the core call with the skill determining if the bonus is applied - I can think of trying to push your way through a crowd while being large and scary enough to encourage people to scatter out of your way as well. Thinking of it as applied stat first instead of applied skill first does make a lot of alternate stat intimidation rolls fall flat, though.


Fezzik: I grab the guard's arm and twist, telling him I'll tear it off if he doesn't comply. (Strength: Intimidation check)
DM: Sorry, that doesn't work. This is an armed and armored veteran and he isn't deterred by physical violence.
Inigo: Ok, I'll give it a shot. I tell him "Fezzik, tear his arms off". (Charisma: Intimidation check)
DM: Suddenly, the Guard forgets that he is unafraid of Fezzik. Even though he is a veteran warrior, and has taken down ogres before and I literally just told you that he isn't deterred by this very premise, his demeanor changes completely in an instant, and he suddenly finds himself very scared of engaging in physical combat with someone like Fezzik. He complies completely.

Doesn't make sense. When you make your arguments, they are made assuming Strength will fail. The argument is "Strength check doesn't work because Strength check doesn't work". Anything that you say for Strength in the arguments presented thus far apply to Charisma as well.

And remember, if there is no threat, as many of you argue in the case of a strength based check, then the rogue isn't rolling Intimidation, they are rolling Deception.

There are failure states to rolling the intimidation check, regardless of whether you assume it's a Cha base or let the player use Str for being so large and imposing. The guard might very well conclude that the barbarian plans to dispose of him as a loose end once his usefulness is ended, and that his chances of coming out alive are better if he gets the first hit in. If the intimidator wants to be led somewhere, the guard will instead lead to another group of guards who will give him backup. If you want information, he might either lie or break down into a useless blubbering mess. In any case other than handing over an item or performing an action whose results are immediately apparent, he can appreciate the threat but act in a way where his own self-preservation does not align with the intimidator's desires. And even in those cases, if escape is possible he might just decide to turn tail and run instead.

(I might allow being big and mean looking to let you convince minor threats to run away instead of needing to rely on being charismatic. Minor threats, by definition, aren't going to be much more than a speed bump no matter how you approach them.)

Once you accept that there are plenty of ways to be scared, and that many of those involve behaviors other than immediate and total compliance with your requests, it isn't hard to see how the charismatic guy is better able to leverage the threat of unleashing his strong friend, while the strong guy is more likely to get an unproductive fear response if he doesn't have the people skills to back it up.

[Psyren]

Hi Psyren, I agree with you here. But the crux here is that Strength is a non-starter for the people that are disagreeing. Your limitations are redundant because they simply do not believe it can ever work, period.

I never go into any discussion expecting to convince everyone, nor even the specific people I'm talking to. The beauty of a message board is that people outside the discussion or only casually involved can read my posts too :smallsmile: Though I'm open to the possibility (or even my mind being changed), hence asking JackPhoenix why they appear to disagree so stridently with the game designers on this.

[OldTrees1]

For those who are okay with the "skill proficiency can be added to different ability score" variant - are there example circumstances where might you be comfortable with calling for a Strength (Intimidation) roll? And are there examples where you wouldn't?

I err on the side of Intimidation being a Charisma check however there are cases where Strength makes more sense to me. There are times when you are more intimidated by the present danger than by the verbal threats of danger.

For example Lennie Smalls from Of Mice and Men is a giant of a man that does not understand their own strength. They would never threaten to hurt a fly, but their pets frequently die. If Lennie Smalls wanted to give me a hug I would be terrified. Lennie is threatening even if Lennie would never threaten. That is the distinction I would draw. A Strength(Intimidation) check leaves the victim scared of your strength, not of your threats. They are not worried about your threat to track them down, they might not even believe you would bother to track them down. They are worried about being caught by your arms, even if they comply with your wishes.

"If you let me go and promise to never touch me again I will do what you want."

[Dr.Samurai]

There are failure states to rolling the intimidation check, regardless of whether you assume it's a Cha base or let the player use Str for being so large and imposing.
Correct.

So if I propose to Intimidate someone with Charisma, an appropriate response from the DM would not be "Well, here are all of these cases that result in a failure so it doesn't make sense to allow this in this case".

It is the same when considering Strength. You can say "A show of force or violent action won't always work" but you can't say "A show of force or violent action would never work and therefore should not be allowed", because the latter simply is not true.

A Strength(Intimidation) check leaves the victim scared of your strength, not of your threats. They are not worried about your threat to track them down, they might not even believe you would bother to track them down. They are worried about being caught by your arms, even if they comply with your wishes.
This lends itself to another point I made about the Strength check, which is that demonstrating your power can make the character decide it's not worth not complying. They have experienced your brute power and whether or not you will actually hurt them, it isn't worth the risk to call your bluff. So they comply. If I think that not complying will result in you and me tussling but I'm going to push you off me and escape the encounter, I'm not intimidated. But if I think that if you make good on your threat I can easily wind up with broken ribs or a dislocated jaw or worse, I won't think it is worth pushing you on the matter and I will comply; I'm intimidated.

@Psyren: Understood and agreed.

[Psyren]

I err on the side of Intimidation being a Charisma check however there are cases where Strength makes more sense to me. There are times when you are more intimidated by the present danger than by the verbal threats of danger.

For example Lennie Smalls from Of Mice and Men is a giant of a man that does not understand their own strength. They would never threaten to hurt a fly, but their pets frequently die. If Lennie Smalls wanted to give me a hug I would be terrified. Lennie is threatening even if Lennie would never threaten. That is the distinction I would draw. A Strength(Intimidation) check leaves the victim scared of your strength, not of your threats. They are not worried about your threat to track them down, they might not even believe you would bother to track them down. They are worried about being caught by your arms, even if they comply with your wishes.

"If you let me go and promise to never touch me again I will do what you want."

Yes, however to be clear - if intimidation is a possibility at all I think Cha (Intimidation) should always be allowed. For some subset of those instances where intimidation might work, I think Str (Intimidation) is also possible. I don't think there are any instances where Str (Intimidation) should be allowed and Cha (Intimidation) wouldn't, which is why Intimidation is primarily/defaults to being a Charisma skill.

(There might be instances where I have the player roll twice, once for each ability score, similar to the DMG's "I swim across a large body of water" example of (Athletics) being applicable to both Str and Con.)

[JackPhoenix]

That's circular reasoning. Strength doesn't work because there's no Str check in the first place, but the only reason there's no Str check is because you've already decided Str can't work.

It's circular reasoning as far as the rules themselves are circular reasoning. "Charisma is an ability score that determines how good your character is at interacting with other people, therefore, you have to use Cha for ability checks when you try to interact with other people."

[Tanarii]

Trying to think of it less as an Intimidation (Strength) check and more as a Strength (Intimidation) check - less as the skill being the core function with a stat modifier and more as the stat being the core call with the skill determining if the bonus is appliedI am thinking of it that way. It's people that want to allow it that are thinking of it in reverse as Intimidation (Strength)


- I can think of trying to push your way through a crowd while being large and scary enough to encourage people to scatter out of your way as well. Thinking of it as applied stat first instead of applied skill first does make a lot of alternate stat intimidation rolls fall flat, though.Thank you. That is a good example of a Strength check that is helped by a focus in being threatening, minus the "big" part. The primary action is the pushing through the crowd, not getting someone to cooperate with what you want. Kudos!

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like you're stuck on the 3e idea that skills checks are something in and of themselves, and that skill proficiencies are something separate from the base ability score. They aren't.
Took me almost a year to convince my brother of that. Conceptually, he spent a lot of time as a 3.xe refugee playing in 5e.

Charisma checks absolutely *are* mind control, to a certain extent. I beg to differ, but I like what you did there.
"It is absolutely this, sort of." :smallbiggrin:

I'll suggest that there's another way to fold the Strong/Physically Imposing PC idea into an intimidate check. It's called "use the advantage / disadvantage rules as in Chapter 7" by offering situational (based on the context of the situation in play at the time) advantage (or disadvantage) on some intimidation checks where it makes sense. (Likewise with disadvantage, but I digress).
A page back I parsed the Fezik/Inigo thing as Inigo gets help from Fezik on the intimidation check, and thus has advantage. Inigo is the higher charisma PC, right? :smallwink:

But let's look at a Big old Rune Knight Goliath who has an imposing presence, who didn't boost charisma.
(a) does have intimidation as a a proficient ability
(b) does not.

a. Sometimes, when trying to get someone to back down his own imposing presence (versus a commoner stable hand, for example) may offer him situational advantage. Roll 2d20, add proficiency bonus, see the result.
Other times, just roll straight up since the NPC Gladiator isn't afraid of a big guy just for his size.
As he goes up in level he'll be (potentially) a bit more intimidating, in any event.

b. Same as above, but he never gets much better as he goes up in level.
Sometimes, being big and imposing will aid an abet a threat, other times it won't.

But he's still using a Charisma check on the roll. The rules on situational disadvantage and advantage are worth reading, yet again. (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=60) again.
I will appeal to all DM's to think through how to apply this to the situation at hand in any given scenario where you call for an ability check. The better DMs I've played with in this edition apply that - adv disadv - based on the situation with some frequency.
You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. Inspiration can also give a character advantage (as explained in chapter 4, “Personality and Background”). The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. Over the past year, I think I've tended to more often apply advantage, but sometimes I apply disadvantage based on the circumstance.

I think that using this tool, already to hand, renders a lot of the argument about the variable ability thing in the past few pages moot. (But I may be alone in thinking this).

[Psyren]

I'll suggest that there's another way to fold the Strong/Physically Imposing PC idea into an intimidate check. It's called "use the advantage / disadvantage rules as in Chapter 7" by offering situational (based on the context of the situation in play at the time) advantage (or disadvantage) on some intimidation checks where it makes sense. (Likewise with disadvantage, but I digress).

Per Chapter 8 of the DMG though, those rules specifically apply to "circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities." So I would say that getting advantage just because you've got muscles wouldn't fly.

I also dislike "just grant advantage" in general because it invalidates tactics/features that would grant advantage anyway, like Inspiration, the Help action, the Charmed condition, and spells like Friends/Enlarge/Enhance Ability etc. In those cases, a burly character would actually get no advantage (at least, no additional advantage) at all, which to me defeats the purpose.

[Dienekes]

Are there any limits on it in your mind? What's stopping a barbarian from just, say, carrying around a bag of walnuts and never worrying about Charisma again regardless of circumstance?

For me, one limitation I might put on it based on the race example is size. A halfling rogue or bard who invests in Cha (Intimidate) can theoretically intimidate anyone. A character relying on Str (Intimidate) might only be able to use that on creatures up to one size larger than him, so your Goliath Barbarian is forced to use Cha to try and intimidate a Huge dragon.

Threat has to be credible and make sense, and of course even if it is credible there is always a chance of failure. Trying to physically browbeat a high level trained warrior or a dragon is probably not going to work. But at the same time, trying to threaten a dragon is probably not going to work either … it’s a dragon. And trying to verbally menace a high level king or advisor used to dealing with strong personalities every day is probably going to be less than impressed.

I’d be willing to make up a rigorous point and counter point list of where everything applies, as soon as WotC does any of that for the skill system in general. As of now, arbitrating the actions of my players and rewarding quick thinking by letting them use a better stat that makes sense with what they’re trying to accomplish works fine for me.



Dex I'm fine with too. Maybe Int if I'm threatening something highly logical like an intelligent robot?

I struggle to get there with Con and Wis though, both of which tend to be much more "passive" or "internal" abilities.

It would have to be very specific cases. The Con character proving a point by swallowing poison or handling extreme amounts of pain as some display of dominance. The Wis character… yeah I got nothing. But I am open to a player coming up with something and rolling with it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Per Chapter 8 of the DMG though, those rules specifically apply to "circumstances not related to a creature's inherent capabilities." So I would say that getting advantage just because you've got muscles wouldn't fly. Sorry, I don't think you quite caught what I was after. That isn't what I said. It makes sense in some situations, and in others would make no sense at all. That's the whole thing about the rules in Chapter 7 that I cited.
I am not recommending yet another "win button." :smalltongue: I am advocating for the DM to apply the in context situation to, on an occasion that fits, advantage or disadvantage to any check. It's all a matter of context in the scene that's going on. Any ability check is still going to follow the situation, intent, approach scheme in order to see if a roll is even appropriate.

I also dislike "just grant advantage" Nobody named Korvin suggested that, so please don't pull that kind of reductionism to my recommendation. This isn't about creating an on / off switch.

Your reductionist summary of my post isn't well done. :smallfrown:

As of now, arbitrating the actions of my players and rewarding quick thinking by letting them use a better stat that makes sense with what they’re trying to accomplish works fine for me. And that works out fine too; seen that done also in this edition.
The DM was originally called The Referee. :smallsmile:

[Dr.Samurai]

Threat has to be credible and make sense, and of course even if it is credible there is always a chance of failure. Trying to physically browbeat a high level trained warrior or a dragon is probably not going to work. But at the same time, trying to threaten a dragon is probably not going to work either … it’s a dragon. And trying to verbally menace a high level king or advisor used to dealing with strong personalities every day is probably going to be less than impressed.
Exactly. Whenever someone says "Well that wouldn't work because someone might not be impressed by the size", it implies that a charisma-based character can succeed at any check no matter the context. But this isn't true. I fully agree with Dienekes' point here; in the same way a veteran guard might not be impressed with a big strong warrior, some NPCs won't be deterred by a menacing threat, no matter how mean the PC looks.

Re: Advantage

I think if you grant that a big strong guy grants Advantage on the check, you are granting that the show of strength or physical power can influence someone, and I think it absolutely opens up the door for Strength(Intimidation) checks. And if the big strong guy is also charismatic, you can say something like:

Barbarian: I will smash the door he's locked behind to show him I'm too strong to get away from, and see if that changes his mind.
DM: Ok, roll a Strength(Intimidation) check.
Barbarian: Ok, does the fact that I've got a +4 charisma modifier, so I can make this interaction real menacing impact my roll at all?
DM: Sure, since you're both really big and strong and naturally good at influencing people, I'll give you Advantage on the Intimidation check.

[Willowhelm]

It would have to be very specific cases. The Con character proving a point by swallowing poison or handling extreme amounts of pain as some display of dominance. The Wis character… yeah I got nothing. But I am open to a player coming up with something and rolling with it.

Wisdom could be a gut feeling or insight into exactly what threat is going to work for this target.

I find it interesting in all the strength examples that people discuss a threat of violence. If we take torture as intimidation then you can plainly see that you can perform one act (break an arm) and then continue to the next. There’s no change in your charisma in between. Your physical strength is what allows you to break a limb. You can play this as separate checks, different abilities or a change in the DC (all the way until there is no charisma check required because the DC is now an auto pass). As I said previously it is a choice of mechanics, not whether or not such acts can actually be intimidating.

Torture also provides examples of other ability scores and how they might apply. Spymaster with knowledge of the target (int), brute enforcer (str), surgical implements (dex) etc.

It’s not pleasant and I don’t have any such scenes in my games but it illustrates the point (to me at least) that there are a lot of different ways to intimidate people. Equally the ability they require to resist can be more than just charisma or they may help/hinder them. Do they know the spymaster’s history (int)? Can they see the intent of the brute (wis)? Can they withstand the punishment (con?). It isn’t all just charisma on both sides.

Verbal threat with nothing but the words - charisma for sure.

Flip all of this around and make it a persuasion check and you can do the same things. Can you persuade someone of something using strength? Yes! Give me a job doing manual labour - look how strong I am! Same for all the other abilities.

[jas61292]

Trying to think of it less as an Intimidation (Strength) check and more as a Strength (Intimidation) check - less as the skill being the core function with a stat modifier and more as the stat being the core call with the skill determining if the bonus is applied.

The thing is, this is not simply a good way to think of it, it is the rule. Plain and simple. Skills modify ability checks. They are not checks themselves. A player describes what they are doing, and the DM calls for an ability check. If they think a certain skill or tool proficiency might apply to that check, they can say that a player proficient in it can add their proficiency bonus to the check. And yes, if a player thinks that maybe one of their proficiencies should apply, they can ask about it. But the check itself is an ability check.

The core issue that I, and others, have with Strength (Intimidation) checks is that it feels like people want to take something that is a Charisma (Intimidation) check and just sub out Strength for Charisma, as if the way the game works is that there are skill checks and you decide on a relevant skill first and then an appropriate ability. But that is just not the case. If something is to be a Strength (Intimidation) check, then it must be a Strength check first and foremost. Then, furthermore, Intimidation must somehow augment the characters ability to succeed on the Strength check, and not simply be tangentially related to the situation.

Basically, for it to make any sense, then the situation needs to be one where, as a DM, you would be calling for a strength check, regardless of whether the player character has 18 Strength or 8. Its not "well, this is normally a Charisma thing, but you are strong, so you can use Strength." That's not how it works. Either its a Charisma thing or its a Strength thing. And as far as I, and some other people, are concerned, the kinds of situations where Intimidation would be relevant are pretty much always a Charisma thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think if you grant that a big strong guy grants Advantage on the check, As I said to Psyren, that kind of reductionist take on my post really doesn't capture what I was getting at. This isn't about an on/off button.
It's a contextual Adv/Disadv {yeah, it can happen in both directions) within a given scene.

[Dr.Samurai]

As I said to Psyren, that kind of reductionist take on my post really doesn't capture what I was getting at. This isn't about an on/off button.
It's a contextual Adv/Disadv {yeah, it can happen in both directions) within a given scene.
Hi Korvin, my argument has always been "based on the situation", so I didn't mean to reduce your point. But if you allow it under some circumstances, then I would make the case that it is evidence that Strength(Intimidation) can be appropriate depending on the given scene.

EDIT:


The core issue that I, and others, have with Strength (Intimidation) checks is that it feels like people want to take something that is a Charisma (Intimidation) check and just sub out Strength for Charisma, as if the way the game works is that there are skill checks and you decide on a relevant skill first and then an appropriate ability.
Rather, some people think not necessarily that the game works that way, but that real life works that way, and so they don't mind making the game a little flexible to accommodate it.

But that is just not the case. If something is to be a Strength (Intimidation) check, then it must be a Strength check first and foremost. Then, furthermore, Intimidation must somehow augment the characters ability to succeed on the Strength check, and not simply be tangentially related to the situation.
For me, this is getting lost in the weeds.

If I tell the DM "I want to knock him prone so I can ground and pound him", the DM is going to tell me to roll initiative. If I tell the DM "I want to knock him on the ground to intimidate him", the DM can easily tell me to roll a Strength(Intimidation) check. It's an action with the intent to Intimidate. It's not so complicated that we need to get tripped up over these technicalities. If you want it to work, it can work. If you don't want it to work, then you don't want it to work and that's fine, but we don't need to pretend that we are constrained by the laws of the PHB.

Basically, for it to make any sense, then the situation needs to be one where, as a DM, you would be calling for a strength check, regardless of whether the player character has 18 Strength or 8. Its not "well, this is normally a Charisma thing, but you are strong, so you can use Strength." That's not how it works. Either its a Charisma thing or its a Strength thing. And as far as I, and some other people, are concerned, the kinds of situations where Intimidation would be relevant are pretty much always a Charisma thing.
Yes but then this means you can never do anything physical as part of an Intimidation check. All the examples given in this thread about smashing stuff or manhandling someone or crushing their helmet are simply not allowed in yours and other games because that would be a Strength check, and that's not "a Charisma thing". So if I say "I shove him down to intimidate him" you as the DM have to say "that is impossible because that's not a charisma thing and Intimidation is a charisma check".

And if you say "well, I would just have you roll a strength check first to set up the Intimidation check" remember that earlier in this thread people considered a successful strength check to be an auto-win. So grant that strength check at your own peril because "if he is already manhandling the person, you've won, there is no need for an Intimidation check".

It all comes back down to this; strength is only useful for Athletics and hitting things. A hostile action is not intimidating for you guys, but telling someone you will commit a hostile action to them is. *shrugs*

[Tanarii]

Yes but then this means you can never do anything physical as part of an Intimidation check. All the examples given in this thread about smashing stuff or manhandling someone or crushing their helmet are simply not allowed in yours and other games because that would be a Strength check, and that's not "a Charisma thing". So if I say "I shove him down to intimidate him" you as the DM have to say "that is impossible because that's not a charisma thing and Intimidation is a charisma check".

And if you say "well, I would just have you roll a strength check first to set up the Intimidation check" remember that earlier in this thread people considered a successful strength check to be an auto-win. So grant that strength check at your own peril because "if he is already manhandling the person, you've won, there is no need for an Intimidation check".

Knocking someone down on the ground is not attempting to influence them to do what you want. It's knocking them down on the ground. That's why it's two checks, if a check is required to knock them down.

That's not getting lost in the weeds, it's correctly identifying the intent and approach.

Now the example given above, pushing your way through a crowd, was a good one. Because the primary goal isn't to influence someone to do what you want, it's to push them out of your way. And if a DM uses the variant rules, a player asking if they can use their skill proficiency in knowing how to intimidate people to make it easier might be considered a valid use.

But if the primary goal is to get them to do something you want by doing X, then it's a charisma check.

[Kvess]

If I tell the DM "I want to knock him prone so I can ground and pound him", the DM is going to tell me to roll initiative. If I tell the DM "I want to knock him on the ground to intimidate him", the DM can easily tell me to roll a Strength(Intimidation) check. It's an action with the intent to Intimidate. It's not so complicated that we need to get tripped up over these technicalities. If you want it to work, it can work. If you don't want it to work, then you don't want it to work and that's fine, but we don't need to pretend that we are constrained by the laws of the PHB.

How would that work? If someone’s trying to knock an NPC prone, would they make an athletics or acrobatics check to contest the attempt, or is it just a DC? Would that make intimidation a version of super athletics that knocks people over and frightens them?

Could I use Strength (Intimidation) to knock someone over, purely with the intent to frighten them of course, while in combat with allies nearby? It just seems a bit too wobbly to me.

[Segev]

I think for me it seems nonsensical that the actual strong guy, the person that is an expert at physicality, the one that actually engages in the hostile actions day in and day out adventuring, cannot leverage this successfully to intimidate someone.

That's just it: he's not "a dummy with no clue how to leverage it," but he is no better at leveraging ithan a guy with a high intelligence is at leveraging that to scare people, if both strongman and smartguy have the same Charisma and level of training in intimidation.

If Strongman has no intimidation proficiency and an 8 Charisma, he can still roll as high as a 19 on a Charisma(Intimidate) check. That isn't bad at all.

If he's proficient in intimidation, that goes up as high as 25 at high level!

But for his strength to do more than create a circumstance that might give advantage, he needs the mere fact of his strength to be inherently intimidating, regardless of his performative instincts or ability to "sell" it.

I think the headlock example is a good one. As would be starting to twist arms. But you're going to have to be exerting harmful strength, not just intimating you would or could.

[Abracadangit]

Part of the trouble here is it sounds like people are discussing how to use Strength to do two different things:

1) Use Strength to Make an Impression on an NPC;

2) Use Strength to Convince an NPC of something.

1) is for when you want to generally look tough, or create an impression that you and your crew aren't to be messed with. If you successfully make that check, it might change an NPC's opinion of you or their attitude towards you (not in DMG terms, in general hand-wavey terms), and one could argue that it might grant you advantage if you subsequently try to do 2).

2) is when the players tell the DM "I want the NPC to do X, and I want to use Intimidation to get them to do it." Depending on circumstances, the way the players go about it, whether or not they already did 1), this could go any number of ways.

I see the argument from the "Cha-only for Intimidation" crowd, and understand it. Ok, if the player wants to push a guy down, that's fine, but that's Strength (Athletics), and then a subsequent Intimidation check to see if you scare the NPC into doing what you want them to do. Again, I'm part of the "It's cool to make a Strength (Intimidation) check" crowd, but I get the other side's logic.

Here's a question: if we gave certain martial classes an ability like the Samurai where they could add their Strength modifier as a bonus to Charisma (Intimidation) checks, would you guys be cool with that? I know this is kind of oblique to the main debate, but I'm just curious how people feel about that.

[Psyren]

I’d be willing to make up a rigorous point and counter point list of where everything applies, as soon as WotC does any of that for the skill system in general. As of now, arbitrating the actions of my players and rewarding quick thinking by letting them use a better stat that makes sense with what they’re trying to accomplish works fine for me.

To be clear I wasn't expecting anything rigorous, just an example or two of where you think Cha would work but Str wouldn't (staterus paribus :smallbiggrin:) and possibly vice-versa.
From my end, I gave one such example, while also stating that I don't think there should be any situations where you could intimidate with muscles but not with force of personality.


Threat has to be credible and make sense, and of course even if it is credible there is always a chance of failure. Trying to physically browbeat a high level trained warrior or a dragon is probably not going to work. But at the same time, trying to threaten a dragon is probably not going to work either … it’s a dragon. And trying to verbally menace a high level king or advisor used to dealing with strong personalities every day is probably going to be less than impressed.

While it's true that you need a credible threat to make intimidation work, this highlights exactly the point I made above. Charisma (Intimidation) gives you access to a much wider variety of such threats. A muscular Goliath might never be able to threaten a dragon by flexing at it or cracking walnuts, but promising that your entire party has enough martial and magical might to kill or debilitate it, or promising to leak its lair's location to an order of paladins or a dangerous rival etc are all doable with regular intimidation.


It would have to be very specific cases. The Con character proving a point by swallowing poison or handling extreme amounts of pain as some display of dominance. The Wis character… yeah I got nothing. But I am open to a player coming up with something and rolling with it.

I feel like the Con examples still require you to threaten the listener with something to go along with your display of fortitude, which brings it right back around to Cha again. I might allow the Con check/save to rattle the listener and give them disadvantage on their opposed Insight check or something, or lower the DC if it's static, instead.


Sorry, I don't think you quite caught what I was after. That isn't what I said. It makes sense in some situations, and in others would make no sense at all. That's the whole thing about the rules in Chapter 7 that I cited.
I am not recommending yet another "win button." :smalltongue: I am advocating for the DM to apply the in context situation to, on an occasion that fits, advantage or disadvantage to any check. It's all a matter of context in the scene that's going on. Any ability check is still going to follow the situation, intent, approach scheme in order to see if a roll is even appropriate.
Nobody named Korvin suggested that, so please don't pull that kind of reductionism to my recommendation. This isn't about creating an on / off switch.

I didn't say anything about a "win button" :smallconfused: (it's kind of ironic you accuse someone of being reductionist with your post and immediately do the same to them...)

The example you gave was:



But let's look at a Big old Rune Knight Goliath who has an imposing presence, who didn't boost charisma.
(a) does have intimidation as a a proficient ability
(b) does not.

a. Sometimes, when trying to get someone to back down his own imposing presence (versus a commoner stable hand, for example) may offer him situational advantage. Roll 2d20, add proficiency bonus, see the result.
Other times, just roll straight up since the NPC Gladiator isn't afraid of a big guy just for his size.
As he goes up in level he'll be (potentially) a bit more intimidating, in any event.

b. Same as above, but he never gets much better as he goes up in level.
Sometimes, being big and imposing will aid an abet a threat, other times it won't.

But he's still using a Charisma check on the roll. The rules on situational disadvantage and advantage are worth reading, yet again. (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=60) again.
I will appeal to all DM's to think through how to apply this to the situation at hand in any given scenario where you call for an ability check. The better DMs I've played with in this edition apply that - adv disadv - based on the situation with some frequency. Over the past year, I think I've tended to more often apply advantage, but sometimes I apply disadvantage based on the circumstance.

I think that using this tool, already to hand, renders a lot of the argument about the variable ability thing in the past few pages moot. (But I may be alone in thinking this).

I'm not saying you're wrong to give them advantage in this situation, just that I would handle it differently, for two reasons:

1) The rules you cite in the link (from PHB 173), I view as being the same as the more detailed rules from DMG 239, which specify that circumstances that grant adv/disadv are usually external to the character, which their strength wouldn't be. (It makes sense that the DMG ones are more detailed since the DM is the one who needs that kind of guidance in order to decide.)

2) I think the relative weakness of the stablehand and the relative strength of the gladiator already are part of Str (Intimidate) check from the player, and can furthermore be factored in to the opposed check or DC if needed as well.

Neither of those objections is saying you're handing the Goliath a win button by giving them advantage, however I do think the adjudication is cleaner this way. Best of all, it allows them to get advantage from another source entirely, like Inspiration or Rage or a spell.

[Dr.Samurai]

Knocking someone down on the ground is not attempting to influence them to do what you want. It's knocking them down on the ground. That's why it's two checks, if a check is required to knock them down.

That's not getting lost in the weeds, it's correctly identifying the intent and approach.
What's an example of physical violence that does not require a check? Not every intimidation check is going to be an "overt threat". There are other options such as "hostile actions" and "physical violence". Please give examples of these. And I'm not putting anyone on the spot, I'm genuinely asking, because to my mind these are going to be things like grabbing, dragging, pushing, knocking prone, hitting, etc.

Now the example given above, pushing your way through a crowd, was a good one. Because the primary goal isn't to influence someone to do what you want, it's to push them out of your way. And if a DM uses the variant rules, a player asking if they can use their skill proficiency in knowing how to intimidate people to make it easier might be considered a valid use.

But if the primary goal is to get them to do something you want by doing X, then it's a charisma check.
I think you're parsing this in very arbitrary ways. How does your Intimidation make it easier to push people in a way that doesn't support what I've been saying? You're not influencing them, and Intimidation is, as you have been saying all along, just a social interaction. So how does this social interaction make people easier to push, without using that ol' charisma? How are you getting through to people without sweet social interaction? It can't be physical, but you're not telegraphing anything because that is the sole domain of charisma. So how does this work?

How would that work? If someone’s trying to knock an NPC prone, would they make an athletics or acrobatics check to contest the attempt, or is it just a DC? Would that make intimidation a version of super athletics that knocks people over and frightens them?

Could I use Strength (Intimidation) to knock someone over, purely with the intent to frighten them of course, while in combat with allies nearby? It just seems a bit too wobbly to me.
Well it has to be adjudicated by the DM, so presumably we're not allowing cheating. I've never said this should always be the case to use Strength. I'm just trying to get people to meet me somewhere along this spectrum and they're all "never ever" about it. In any event, ignore knocking prone and just use some other less invasive example that's been given in the thread.

I don't think it's any more wobbly than thinking a charismatic rogue can intimidate Tiamat or something, but here we are.

That's just it: he's not "a dummy with no clue how to leverage it," but he is no better at leveraging ithan a guy with a high intelligence is at leveraging that to scare people, if both strongman and smartguy have the same Charisma and level of training in intimidation.
Yes but see my earlier point about "non-compliance being not worth it". Strength(Intimidation) doesn't have to, and maybe shouldn't, work the same as Charisma(Intimidation). Charisma is convincing someone they will come to harm if they don't comply. Strength is showing them the harm if they don't comply. Now you may think "well, if they aren't 100% convinced that you will harm them, they will remain defiant", but that's not the only way people make decisions. It could also be "I'm not sure if he's bluffing, but one swing of that axe will cleave me in two, better to just do what he says and not risk it". You would get that from a demonstration of power.

I think the headlock example is a good one. As would be starting to twist arms. But you're going to have to be exerting harmful strength, not just intimating you would or could.
Yes correct. And the skill Intimidation specifically says "hostile actions or physical harm" so this is perfectly in line with that.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, however to be clear - if intimidation is a possibility at all I think Cha (Intimidation) should always be allowed. For some subset of those instances where intimidation might work, I think Str (Intimidation) is also possible. I don't think there are any instances where Str (Intimidation) should be allowed and Cha (Intimidation) wouldn't, which is why Intimidation is primarily/defaults to being a Charisma skill.

(There might be instances where I have the player roll twice, once for each ability score, similar to the DMG's "I swim across a large body of water" example of (Athletics) being applicable to both Str and Con.)

I think I agree at both the gameplay and the fiction levels.
Gameplay: Players expect to be able to leverage their charisma when they try to intimidate. Even those that are thinking about strength intimidate see it as an alternative rather that charisma being off the table.

Fiction: Lennie Smalls would probably fail a Charisma(Intimidate) check against me, but they could try. They could threaten me and I would know they probably don't mean it. Lennie would never try to hurt a fly. However they could try and I might be wrong. I would still be intimidated by their strength. If they demanded I stay in range it might be a contested check between Lennie Small's Str(Intimidate) and their Cha(Intimidate).

[ad_hoc]

I would be into a Str (intimidation) for a shove.

Your ability to intimidate makes the opponent second guess themselves for a moment, granting an upper hand.

[SharkForce]

I suppose I shall try putting this a different way.

I would be inclined to allow strength(intimidate) for something like "I want to make my character seem more dangerous" sort of like some animals will puff themselves up to seem like a bigger threat to another creature by using their physique to seem larger than they are. but to be clear: that can make a target think you're more dangerous, but it doesn't let you decide in any way what they do (and no, it isn't going to inflict the frightened status either). many animals that view you as a threat will back off, but not all. many people who are not actively fighting you will decide not to mess with you (or at least, not to your face), but not all.

they may respond by making it a priority to subdue you in some way. they may respond by deciding to use a means other than direct confrontation to oppose you. if they have too much to lose by running away, it might make them decide that you need to be attacked right now. in essence, you get no control over what they do.

furthermore I will add that as per usual, you only get to *make* that die roll when it is in question. that may allow your warrior to convince a guard that they are dangerous (but again, not to determine how the guard responds to that; it may simply persuade them that you are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed into the town), but it is unlikely to be necessary against a beggar and typically won't work against a creature noticeably larger than you (unless they are already prone to being wary of you, like an untrained horse, in which case you once again don't need to roll; they're already afraid).

if, on the other hand, you want to have ANY degree of control over what decision they make (for example, "I want to make them run away because I'm dangerous") then that's no longer a strength check. your strength may *enable* a charisma (intimidation) check, in the sense that fear of you applying that strength to them gives you a threat you can use for intimidation. as has been noted, this is far from your only option however, and people with low strength likely have dozens of other threats they can issue.

[SharkForce]

I think I agree at both the gameplay and the fiction levels.
Gameplay: Players expect to be able to leverage their charisma when they try to intimidate. Even those that are thinking about strength intimidate see it as an alternative rather that charisma being off the table.

Fiction: Lennie Smalls would probably fail a Charisma(Intimidate) check against me, but they could try. They could threaten me and I would know they probably don't mean it. Lennie would never try to hurt a fly. However they could try and I might be wrong. I would still be intimidated by their strength. If they demanded I stay in range it might be a contested check between Lennie Small's Str(Intimidate) and their Cha(Intimidate).

hard disagree.

lenny smalls may be scary, but that doesn't mean he is even remotely good in any way at intimidating people, at least in a D&D sense.

if people aren't doing what you want, then in D&D terms you are not intimidating them. period.

intimidation in D&D terms is not the proficiency of being scary, it is the proficiency of getting people to do what you want "through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence". this is an extremely important distinction.

this means that lenny smalls is, in fact, *terrible* at intimidation, otherwise *people would be doing what he wants.*

that is what intimidation means in 5th edition D&D. I don't give a damn what common language meanings it may have elsewhere, in THIS game it is clearly defined, and that definition does not mean just being baseline frightening.

you could make use of someone being afraid of you in your intimidation check, *regardless* of why they are afraid of you; it doesn't matter if that fear is because you have strength 12 or strength 30, whether it is because you are large and able to crush them or tiny and able to crawl into their ear and puncture their ear drum, whether it is because you are a master of weapons or words, whether you have a dagger at their throat or are threatening to place a horrible curse on them for the rest of their life, whether it is because you are dangerous or because you know dangerous people, or whatever other reason. none of that matters, because this is not the skill proficiency of persuading someone that you are scary.

it is not the skill proficiency of making threats that sound scary. it is not even the skill of making people believe that you can and will follow through on those threats. those things can be useful, but they are not themselves the skill any more than proficiency with armour is merely the skill of buckling buckles or knowing which body part gets which piece of armour strapped to it. you can have an abject failure of intimidation in D&D terms even if the other person thinks you are the most terrifying thing they have ever seen, and even if they fully believe that you are capable and willing of doing something horrible to them, because intimidation in D&D terms is a proficiency in getting people to do what you want.

[Sindeloke]

Here's a question: if we gave certain martial classes an ability like the Samurai where they could add their Strength modifier as a bonus to Charisma (Intimidation) checks, would you guys be cool with that? I know this is kind of oblique to the main debate, but I'm just curious how people feel about that.

I think it's less oblique than it appears. One of the early arguments, and I think a sentiment still underlying the pro-Str(intim) side, was that "if we can swing a sword with Charisma why the heck can't we intimidate with Strength." It's a quest for system parity.

But swords-via-Charisma is, in fact, a class feature, that explicitly represents your magic governing your sword's movements, and thus a secondhand bonus, rather than direct application of force of personality to hitting someone, because that would make no sense whatsoever. But as a class feature, things that don't make sense in general are allowed for certain people specifically, because a) class flavor can add that intermediate step between attribute and action really easily in a way that generic flavor can't, and b) the whole point of a class feature is that you pay in opportunity cost in order to be able to do something that isn't part of the normal everyone-else-can-do-it-too landscape. Suddenly you don't have to justify why this makes sense in the world, just why it makes sense for this class, which allows a lot more freedom. And, beneficially, encourages classes to interact with the game mechanics in distinct and thematic ways. So, yeah, tl;dr, Str(intim) as a (thematically appropriate) class feature is totally fine, because it actually does provide system parity with Int-based attack cantrips, and doesn't require ten pages of logical justification for anyone to buy in.

[Tanarii]

intimidation in D&D terms is not the proficiency of being scary, it is the proficiency of getting people to do what you want "through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence". this is an extremely important distinction.Right.

And that means for a Strength (Intimidation) check to be called for, if allowed by the DM under the Variant rule, should be:

1) A primary goal (intent) which is accomplished primarily by (approach) direct application of force.
2) is somehow enhanced by skill in getting people to do what you want, specifically with the method of overt threats, hostile actions, or physical violence.

That's why I liked the pushing through the crowd example. The primary goal is to move people out of your way to move faster (or at all), the approach is to shove people out of your way while growling threateningly about what you'll do to their momma. That's definitely Strength, and has potential for interpreting that Intimidation makes people back off slightly making them easier to shove.

And that is Intimidation enhancing a Strength check, which is what Strength (Intimidation) is supposed to be.

The mistake the pro-using-Str-for-Intimidation folks are making is they are giving examples to try and make Intimidation (Strength) checks, and use Strength to enhance Intimidation.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hi Korvin, my argument has always been "based on the situation", so I didn't mean to reduce your point. But if you allow it under some circumstances, then I would make the case that it is evidence that Strength(Intimidation) can be appropriate depending on the given scene.
OK, similar idea, I was still making the distinction of using Cha, with Str as an occasional booster pack. (Based on scene situation) or even a detriment (based on scene/situation).

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't say anything about a "win button" :smallconfused: (it's kind of ironic you accuse someone of being reductionist with your post and immediately do the same to them...) But that's the result of what you asserted - that all my proposal did was result in advantage, and neglected the point is that it is scenario dependent per the Chapter 7 citation I made.

1) The rules you cite in the link (from PHB 173), I view as being the same as the more detailed rules from DMG 239,
From where I sit, that's approaching the rules a little backwards.
Basic rules for the game engine are in PHB, and the DMG are additional guidance, but I can see how you may wish to consider DMG top level overriding PHB. To put that another way, the game was out with the PHB as the only rule set beyond the free pdf rules, for about six months, and people were able to play just fine.
DMG was released after the MM.
Both the MM and DMG are mostly 'DM facing' sources, but the PHB has the basic game engine.

2) I think the relative weakness of the stablehand and the relative strength of the gladiator already are part of Str (Intimidate) check from the player, and can furthermore be factored in to the opposed check or DC if needed as well. That is a way to peel the onion. Using Strength as a passive Intimidation factor is another way to peel the onion. Yeah, Intimidation as a passive skill check: I've used it on occasion. :smallwink: (As a DM).

Neither of those objections is saying you're handing the Goliath a win button by giving them advantage, however I do think the adjudication is cleaner this way. Best of all, it allows them to get advantage from another source entirely, like Inspiration or Rage or a spell. They can already get advantage from another source mechanically, sure.

[Psyren]

But that's the result of what you asserted, that my position was to give advantage - part of the point is that it is scenario dependent.

I have no disagreement with advantage being scenario-dependent, but (a) I don't consider advantage to be a "win button" and (b) for the reasons I provided earlier, I don't think giving advantage is the ideal approach here in any case (whether it is seen as a win button or not.)


From where I sit, that's approaching the rules a little backwards.
Basic rules for the game engine are in PHB, and the DMG are additional guidance, but I can see how you may wish to consider DMG top level overriding PHB. To put that another way, the game was out with the PHB as the only rule set beyond the free pdf rules, for about six months, and people were able to play just fine. DMG was released after the MM. Both the MM and DMG are mostly 'DM facing' sources, but the PHB has the basic game engine, as it were.

Deciding whether you get advantage for a scenario is absolutely a "DM-facing rule" in my view, so the DMG guidance takes precedence. I view the PHB rule as saying "hey, sometimes your GM might give you advantage on your check, here's what you do if they say that" while the DMG rule is "here are the factors you might want to consider if you're trying to decide whether to give advantage or disadvantage."

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't find that "DM-facing rule" based stance to fit. The DMG isn't rules that a DM must follow.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I don't see how the PHB could ever be the definitive source for something that the DM decides when the DMG also covers that subject, so I guess we're at an impasse. Agree to disagree.

[Doug Lampert]

Right.

And that means for a Strength (Intimidation) check to be called for, if allowed by the DM under the Variant rule, should be:

1) A primary goal (intent) which is accomplished primarily by (approach) direct application of force.
2) is somehow enhanced by skill in getting people to do what you want, specifically with the method of overt threats, hostile actions, or physical violence.

That's why I liked the pushing through the crowd example. The primary goal is to move people out of your way to move faster (or at all), the approach is to shove people out of your way while growling threateningly about what you'll do to their momma. That's definitely Strength, and has potential for interpreting that Intimidation makes people back off slightly making them easier to shove.

And that is Intimidation enhancing a Strength check, which is what Strength (Intimidation) is supposed to be.

The mistake the pro-using-Str-for-Intimidation folks are making is they are giving examples to try and make Intimidation (Strength) checks, and use Strength to enhance Intimidation.

Agreed, that's an excellent example of strength (intimidation), because it FITS THE SYSTEM! It is a strength check, that intimidate would help on.

The key realization is that there are no intimidate checks, so it's utter and complete nonsense to ask if you can use strength for an intimidate check. There are charisma checks, and there are strength checks, and some of these checks may benefit from training in intimidation.

[Segev]

"Getting people to do what you want" is a good thing to keep in mind. Being scary doesn't necessarily mean folks react how you'd like. They might run away, screaming for help, rather than cowering and hoping you don't notice them, for example. They might try to treat you like a wild animal rather than a cunning threat to appease. Etc.

[ProsecutorGodot]

"Getting people to do what you want" is a good thing to keep in mind. Being scary doesn't necessarily mean folks react how you'd like. They might run away, screaming for help, rather than cowering and hoping you don't notice them, for example. They might try to treat you like a wild animal rather than a cunning threat to appease. Etc.

And what if that is the goal?

[Segev]

And what if that is the goal?
You may luck out and they act how you want. Or you may not. Unless you use Charisma to guide the reaction.

[Psyren]

"Getting people to do what you want" is a good thing to keep in mind. Being scary doesn't necessarily mean folks react how you'd like. They might run away, screaming for help, rather than cowering and hoping you don't notice them, for example. They might try to treat you like a wild animal rather than a cunning threat to appease. Etc.


And what if that is the goal?

I feel like "unintended reaction" is as much a consequence of failure as simply no-selling the initimidate attempt would have been. A failure means the target doesn't behave as intended, so the DM has freedom to narrate that in a variety of ways.

This is not to say that a success can't have unintended consequences either of course!

[Tanarii]

And what if that is the goal?
The question is: is the goal manhandling someone (Strength) or influencing them (Charisma). And if it's manhandling them, is it possible to enhance your chance of success by applying your focus in influencing people to do what you want with over threats etc etc.

If it is manhandling them as the goal, and it can be enhanced by that, then it's a Strength (Intimidation) check.

If it's making them scared of you and reacting normally based on whatever they'd do when they're scared, that may not require a check at all if it's an action that'll normally scare them. But IMO it's still a Charisma check if there is one needed to determine if you'll scare them because it's not certain based on the actions taken, because that describes how you apply your presence to influence someone with actions.

[Anymage]

I feel like "unintended reaction" is as much a consequence of failure as simply no-selling the initimidate attempt would have been. A failure means the target doesn't behave as intended, so the DM has freedom to narrate that in a variety of ways.

This is not to say that a success can't have unintended consequences either of course!

And an unintended reaction is more likely if you don't have the presence/people skills to pull it off properly. How much more likely depends on the difference between your Str and Cha scores.


Here's a question: if we gave certain martial classes an ability like the Samurai where they could add their Strength modifier as a bonus to Charisma (Intimidation) checks, would you guys be cool with that? I know this is kind of oblique to the main debate, but I'm just curious how people feel about that.

As a barbarian feature? Sure. It's justifiable that whatever primal powers let you hulk out also enhance your presence in a specific way, it gives a class without many social buttons better access to one, and if the barbarian does decide to have a decent score in Cha as well as their Str it gives them a leg up. I'd want to create a general rule that mitigated how letting you tap a second stat mod would interact with expertise in order to mitigate the effects of bonus stacking, but that's less about this case and more about future proofing similar ideas in this vein.

That's still about getting a bonus to a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Not about the idea that imminent violence triggers immediate compliance with the intimidator's wishes.

[Dr.Samurai]

The mistake the pro-using-Str-for-Intimidation folks are making is they are giving examples to try and make Intimidation (Strength) checks, and use Strength to enhance Intimidation.
So to clarify; this is an argument not about whether people can actually be intimidated by brute force, but rather about how the skills are organized and that even in introducing variants we should stick to this strict reading of the ability scores and skills.

Obviously no example I give is going to change how the skills are organized in the PHB, so we won't be able to agree if that's how you're approaching this.

The conversation is surprising because many of the responses are made specifically to not allow this to work. If we imagine ourselves as the design team for 5E we can see the conversation going something like this:

Dev 1: Great, we've agreed that Deception should go under Charisma. Now let's discuss Intimidation.
Dev 2: Charisma I think, obviously.
Dev 1: Yeah but think about it, just because you're acting menacing doesn't mean you're going to convince someone to do what you want.
Dev 3: Yeah, just because you exude an aura of confidence and malice, it doesn't mean people are going to listen to you and do what you say.
Dev 2: Well that's why we roll the dice right?
Dev 1: No no, I think he's onto something, it could be the case that the person you are speaking to is even harder than you are, and has dealt with more threatening individuals before.
Dev 3: Exactly, in that case, they wouldn't feel threatened by you. Really, they might even see you as challenge. You trying to intimidate them with your charisma might actually feel like a competition and get them to do the exact opposite of what you want!
Dev 1: And what if this person is just a huge giant, with muscles the size of your torso, and you're a halfling with a rapier that wouldn't even penetrate his skin? It doesn't matter how charismatic you are or commanding you are, some creatures just won't feel threatened that way.
Dev 3: True, some people just wouldn't respond to that because they are so physically powerful and imposing they wouldn't really care that someone is looking at them cross.
Dev 1: Yeah, Charisma makes no sense at all. Eloquence and charm isn't going to make a great wyrm dragon afraid of a gnome...
Dev 2: ....
Dev 2: .... So which ability score do you think it should fit under?
Dev 1: You can literally say any ability score and if we answer in this way every time none of them will be appropriate!

That's basically the nature of this conversation. It wouldn't work because we can describe circumstances where it shouldn't work. And the fall back will be "yes but the way Charisma is described...", which is all to say that some people simply do not want to deviate from the written rules, even if there is a variant.

The answer is no, because the answer is no. Good convo :smallsmile:

[Ugmaro]

So to clarify; this is an argument not about whether people can actually be intimidated by brute force, but rather about how the skills are organized and that even in introducing variants we should stick to this strict reading of the ability scores and skills.

Obviously no example I give is going to change how the skills are organized in the PHB, so we won't be able to agree if that's how you're approaching this.

The conversation is surprising because many of the responses are made specifically to not allow this to work. If we imagine ourselves as the design team for 5E we can see the conversation going something like this:

Dev 1: Great, we've agreed that Deception should go under Charisma. Now let's discuss Intimidation.
Dev 2: Charisma I think, obviously.
Dev 1: Yeah but think about it, just because you're acting menacing doesn't mean you're going to convince someone to do what you want.
Dev 3: Yeah, just because you exude an aura of confidence and malice, it doesn't mean people are going to listen to you and do what you say.
Dev 2: Well that's why we roll the dice right?
Dev 1: No no, I think he's onto something, it could be the case that the person you are speaking to is even harder than you are, and has dealt with more threatening individuals before.
Dev 3: Exactly, in that case, they wouldn't feel threatened by you. Really, they might even see you as challenge. You trying to intimidate them with your charisma might actually feel like a competition and get them to do the exact opposite of what you want!
Dev 1: And what if this person is just a huge giant, with muscles the size of your torso, and you're a halfling with a rapier that wouldn't even penetrate his skin? It doesn't matter how charismatic you are or commanding you are, some creatures just won't feel threatened that way.
Dev 3: True, some people just wouldn't respond to that because they are so physically powerful and imposing they wouldn't really care that someone is looking at them cross.
Dev 1: Yeah, Charisma makes no sense at all. Eloquence and charm isn't going to make a great wyrm dragon afraid of a gnome...
Dev 2: ....
Dev 2: .... So which ability score do you think it should fit under?
Dev 1: You can literally say any ability score and if we answer in this way every time none of them will be appropriate!

That's basically the nature of this conversation. It wouldn't work because we can describe circumstances where it shouldn't work. And the fall back will be "yes but the way Charisma is described...", which is all to say that some people simply do not want to deviate from the written rules, even if there is a variant.

The answer is no, because the answer is no. Good convo :smallsmile:

This is literally the only reason I like DMing - if a player can make a good arguement why something might work I'll let them roll for it but the whole "I'm rolling for x and rules say I roll this" just makes me stop them right there and then. Sure, you don't need to be eloquent if you want your character to be eloquent but if you can't make sense in what you're asking for there's no way in hell it'll work. My response to "I intimidate the dragon" is "The dragon bites at you with a *roll with advantage* 30 to hit"...

[Tanarii]

That's basically the nature of this conversation. It wouldn't work because we can describe circumstances where it shouldn't work. And the fall back will be "yes but the way Charisma is described...", which is all to say that some people simply do not want to deviate from the written rules, even if there is a variant.

The answer is no, because the answer is no. Good convo :smallsmile:
And the conversation has nothing to do with Strength. Unless the people in question are making the same mistake of assuming a small halfling has low Str and big whatever has high strength?

I mean, if you want to call for a "Size & Bulk (Intimidate)" check, we can have a conversation about how to stat that up. Or better might be a conversation about how size differences affect Charisma (Intimidate) checks.

[SharkForce]

The answer is no, because the answer is no. Good convo :smallsmile:

the answer is no because the variant rule is not a way to warp the rules of reality according to your whim, and thus it is still subject to the basic rules. if it was "some creatures have the ability to do impossible things and use attributes that are not at all related to what they're trying to do", then that would be fine. but it isn't that.

instead it's people saying they should be able to use strength in exactly the same way that someone else would use charisma. well, fine then: I fully expect that my max intelligence wizard is allowed to be so smart that I can jump just as well as a max strength barbarian using learned technique instead of raw power. likewise my druid should be able to use exceptional wisdom to pick a lock by instantly perceiving everything about it. my bard should be able to sneak around by using charisma to seem so bland and uninteresting that nobody will notice me in the shadows.

now, this is not to say that there could *never* be an intelligence (athletics), wisdom (thieve's tools) or charisma (stealth) check. likewise, there could be a situation that calls for a strength (intimidate) check. but it isn't going to be the *standard* situation, and it's not going to replace the typical uses. an intelligence (athletics) check could be used to notice that the local champion wrestler seems to be moving strangely, as if it has an extra joint for example. you might use a wisdom (thieve's tools) check to notice that the lock you're picking is so similar to another lock you've seen the guts of that they likely share a master key. a charisma (stealth) check might be a suitable roll for attempting to blend in with a crowd's behaviour and avoid drawing attention to yourself.

but these aren't going to be duplicating the full straightforward standard use of the ability. there absolutely could be a situation where intimidation proficiency applies to a strength check (and we've suggested a couple at least so far), it just isn't going to be the standard use of intimidation. instead, it will be a situation where the primary goal is to perform some physical task involving pure strength, but in such a way that your knowledge of how to intimidate people would apply.

the moment your primary goal is "get the target to agree to do what I want", strength becomes the wrong attribute for the job.

[Dr.Samurai]

And the conversation has nothing to do with Strength.
If I roll a strength check to break something, twist your arm, bend something, crush your helmet, etc. when we are absolutely talking about strength.

Size is decoupled (to a degree) from strength because they don't want to force anyone to play a certain type of character. Similar to how you're no longer assumed to be attractive if you have high charisma. (But do notice that lift/push/drag/carry is a factor of Strength, and that is modified by size. Because the game is based on reality to some degree. I get that you only want to argue about the letters on the pages of the PHB, so that's fine.)

But if you're taking an action based on strength, it has everything to do with strength.

Your argument about size is weak, as most of the arguments made in opposition to Strength(Intimidation), but it's also not necessary. We don't have to mention size at all and just rely on crushing hostile actions or brute force physical violence. Those are Strength related actions.

[Abracadangit]

Even though I'm on Team "Strength (Intimidation) is cool," I understand the logic behind the other side.

The logic is there are six types of ability checks: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, right. One for each ability score. And when the player tells the DM what they're trying to achieve, that's when the DM assigns it to one of those six categories. And if the way in which the task is conducted connects solidly to a skill proficiency X, then it becomes Ability (X). I got all that.

So in the case of a check that's being made to sway/persuade/influence an NPC, by aforementioned logic, it will always be Cha, every single time. Because Charisma checks encompass any and all attempts to affect the opinions, ideas, or behaviors of an NPC. The check will never get through the sorter without ending up in Cha.

While I understand and respect that logic, my issue is that in my games, I want other ability scores to matter in social interactions, the way other ability scores matter in combat. (To be clear, I am not saying we should turn social interaction into a pseudo-combat system. That would suck, in my opinion.) But, momentarily using combat as a comparative element, swinging an axe is Str, shooting a bow is Dex, hurling a wizard's fire bolt is Int, and so on. Combat has no problem assigning different ability score modifiers to different kinds of attacks, weapons, spells, Unarmored Defenses, etc. And right now, social interaction has no real analog to that, outside of the extremely occasional class ability (a la Samurai), or using a casting stat to cast some kind of charm spell, which shouldn't even count as social interaction.

So to those of you who are using the logic "Influencing people will always and can only ever be Charisma checks," I get it. If I played in your game and you were the DM, I wouldn't begrudge you that. I really do get it. But speaking for myself, my reasoning behind linking other ability scores (sometimes!) to social checks is because I want to get away from "the one high-Cha Face Guy" paradigm and into more of a place of "Different players may be able to contribute in different social scenarios and circumstances, even if they dumped Cha, based on other elements of the character/class."

[Ugmaro]

the moment your primary goal is "get the target to agree to do what I want", strength becomes the wrong attribute for the job.

I'd argue the moment your primary goal is "get the target to agree to do what I want" intimidation becomes the wrong check and persuasion should be rolled instead...

[SharkForce]

I'd argue the moment your primary goal is "get the target to agree to do what I want" intimidation becomes the wrong check and persuasion should be rolled instead...

there are a variety of ways to get someone to do something.

intimidation proficiency applies when you try to get someone to agree to do what you want by using overt threats, physical violence, etc.

persuasion proficiency applies when you're trying to offer them something that they want in exchange.

deception proficiency applies when you try to get someone to do what you want by feeding them false information until they think it's a good idea.

[Ugmaro]

there are a variety of ways to get someone to do something.

intimidation proficiency applies when you try to get someone to agree to do what you want by using overt threats, physical violence, etc.

persuasion proficiency applies when you're trying to offer them something that they want in exchange.

deception proficiency applies when you try to get someone to do what you want by feeding them false information until they think it's a good idea.

That is simply incorrect.

Intimidation and deception are close enough to the truth that I don't want to split hairs about it but the persuasion is off the mark. What you've described is trade, not persuasion... sure, you could attempt to persuade someone into thinking the deal you're offering is better than it actually is (though that could be deception, it depends on whether or not you believe it yourself) but persuasion is not trade and never has been. Persuasion is the act of convincing someone that your point is valid and has the result to change their mind about it.

Now if we REALLY want a "you do what I want" then the only way to completely do that is Dominate Person, though that might not be the ideal solution :P

[Dr.Samurai]

Even though I'm on Team "Strength (Intimidation) is cool," I understand the logic behind the other side.

The logic is there are six types of ability checks: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, right. One for each ability score. And when the player tells the DM what they're trying to achieve, that's when the DM assigns it to one of those six categories. And if the way in which the task is conducted connects solidly to a skill proficiency X, then it becomes Ability (X). I got all that.

So in the case of a check that's being made to sway/persuade/influence an NPC, by aforementioned logic, it will always be Cha, every single time. Because Charisma checks encompass any and all attempts to affect the opinions, ideas, or behaviors of an NPC. The check will never get through the sorter without ending up in Cha.
I understand this too. The issue is that people are arguing simultaneously that Strength doesn't make sense in general (a person can never be intimidated by size or strength unless you are beaming invisible charisma lasers at them), and then falling back on the wording of ability scores in the PHB, which is a different argument.

While I understand and respect that logic, my issue is that in my games, I want other ability scores to matter in social interactions, the way other ability scores matter in combat. (To be clear, I am not saying we should turn social interaction into a pseudo-combat system. That would suck, in my opinion.) But, momentarily using combat as a comparative element, swinging an axe is Str, shooting a bow is Dex, hurling a wizard's fire bolt is Int, and so on. Combat has no problem assigning different ability score modifiers to different kinds of attacks, weapons, spells, Unarmored Defenses, etc. And right now, social interaction has no real analog to that, outside of the extremely occasional class ability (a la Samurai), or using a casting stat to cast some kind of charm spell, which shouldn't even count as social interaction.

So to those of you who are using the logic "Influencing people will always and can only ever be Charisma checks," I get it. If I played in your game and you were the DM, I wouldn't begrudge you that. I really do get it. But speaking for myself, my reasoning behind linking other ability scores (sometimes!) to social checks is because I want to get away from "the one high-Cha Face Guy" paradigm and into more of a place of "Different players may be able to contribute in different social scenarios and circumstances, even if they dumped Cha, based on other elements of the character/class."
Agreed.

the moment your primary goal is "get the target to agree to do what I want", strength becomes the wrong attribute for the job.
Some people are having a very literal conversation about this topic, and others are open to doing things a little differently.

Your quote here is wrong. Consider this... I want to cross a bridge but I don't want to pay the toll. I tell the tollman to let me pass, he won't. We fight and I beat the crap out of him with my melee attacks until he submits and says through chipped teeth and a bloodied nose, "Okay, okay, go ahead".

I just got "the target to agree to do what I want" and Strength made it happen. Now I'm not suggesting a combat encounter is an Intimidation check. I am just showing you you're all wrong in your very strict thinking that only charisma can do this. If someone beats you up and gets you to comply, then someone can telegraph to you that they can easily beat you up and get you to comply. And there is no reason, apart from the wording in the PHB, that this doesn't make sense to be a Strength check. In fact, the definition of Intimidation says as much, but it's gated behind Charisma.

[Tanarii]

I'd argue the moment your primary goal is "get the target to agree to do what I want" intimidation becomes the wrong check and persuasion should be rolled instead...
Not really. The entire basis of resolving a social interaction (on the DMs side of the screen) is determining what the players want, and if the NPC(s) do as asked. See DMG p244-245. What kind of proficiency applies to the Charisma check, if a check is needed, depends on how they do the asking. Outcomes are provided on a table, and are based on starting attitude modified by the preceding conversation, and risk involved for the NPC. But they're all framed around agreeing to do what the PCs want.


If I roll a strength check to break something, twist your arm, bend something, crush your helmet, etc. when we are absolutely talking about strength.At which point the check's goal is about if they successfully break something, twist the arm, bend something, or crush the helmet. It's no longer a check about if you succeed in influencing someone. Nor is the chance of success at doing those particular things you just listed, by any sensible standard, increased by being good at Intimidation.

That's the core of it to me. The process is to leave Intimidation off the table, and determine what you're trying to do without the proficiency in play, and see what kind of check it should be.

Are you trying to determine if the application of physical force is successful? Strength.
Are you trying to determine if you are successful at influencing another person? Charisma.
Both, and one is dependent on the other succeeding? Two checks in a row, one followed by the other.

Then, and only then, should you determine if the variant proficiency applies to a given check. Is the chance of success of this thing you're trying to determine improved by the kind of things that Intimidation covers, and you are using an approach that matches up with the things covered by that proficiency description (taking into account you're using the variant rule)? If yes, apply your proficiency bonus to that check.

[SharkForce]

Some people are having a very literal conversation about this topic, and others are open to doing things a little differently.

Your quote here is wrong. Consider this... I want to cross a bridge but I don't want to pay the toll. I tell the tollman to let me pass, he won't. We fight and I beat the crap out of him with my melee attacks until he submits and says through chipped teeth and a bloodied nose, "Okay, okay, go ahead".

I just got "the target to agree to do what I want" and Strength made it happen. Now I'm not suggesting a combat encounter is an Intimidation check. I am just showing you you're all wrong in your very strict thinking that only charisma can do this. If someone beats you up and gets you to comply, then someone can telegraph to you that they can easily beat you up and get you to comply. And there is no reason, apart from the wording in the PHB, that this doesn't make sense to be a Strength check. In fact, the definition of Intimidation says as much, but it's gated behind Charisma.

have you accomplished making him give you what you want though, or is it just that he is forced to acknowledge that he can't stop you? is there any roll *at all* for getting him to allow you to pass when that's what happened?

you roll when things are in doubt. if there is no doubt of the outcome, it is not going to be a charisma check or a strength check, and there is no question of whether intimidation proficiency applies, it just happens. period.

and when you're gone, is that person going to act as you want? I mean, it's possible, but you have no guarantee. maybe he'll call for more guards. maybe your picture will be circulated in wanted posters around the kingdom. maybe next time you show up he'll have three friends with him. heck, maybe the moment your back is turned he puts a dagger into your back if he thinks he can get away with it. of course, maybe he'll be impressed and decide to let you through next time as well... any of those are valid responses to an event that occurred. that NPC can choose to do any of those things specifically because you have *not* gotten him to give you what you want, rather you have simply demonstrated that he can't stop you from doing what you want which is not the same thing.

[Dr.Samurai]

At which point the check's goal is about if they successfully break something, twist the arm, bend something, or crush the helmet. It's no longer a check about if you succeed in influencing someone. Nor is the chance of success at doing those particular things you just listed, by any sensible standard, increased by being good at Intimidation.

That's the core of it to me. The process is to leave Intimidation off the table, and determine what you're trying to do without the proficiency in play, and see what kind of check it should be.
Bringing up intents and goals is good because it appears to me that the crux of it here is that you as a DM are adjudicating this with the goal/intent of keeping the rules as written intact. So no amount of persuasion (snicker snicker) will convince you to do otherwise because at the end of the day, the PHB says that Intimidation is governed by Charisma, end of story.

That's certainly one way to do it, and I have nothing to contend with here. If that's the goal, that's what the PHB says. Can't argue with that.

have you accomplished making him give you what you want though, or is it just that he is forced to acknowledge that he can't stop you? is there any roll *at all* for getting him to allow you to pass when that's what happened?
What do you think happens when you succeed on a Charisma Intimidation check? What is the NPC acknowledging then? That they CAN stop you? Of course not. They are afraid that they can't contend with you, so they comply. The example of the encounter is to remind all of you that Strength can indeed force someone into complying. It is what awaits at the other end of the threat.

You all forget what a threat is. The goal of Intimidation is to communicate to the other person that you will hurt them. That's a threat. It's not deception; you're not pretending that you can hurt them. You can hurt them, and you're threatening them with that reality. What is the reality that Inigo is threatening them with? Fezzik's strength.

If the threat comes in the way of Strength-gated melee attacks, such as in the example I gave above, someone can size you up, see or experience your hostile action/physical violence, and decide they don't want to risk the actual encounter with you. They comply.

With a charisma check, you don't have to display the strength, you can simply use language or body language, and make a verbal threat. With a strength check, you're demonstrating the power they are up against if they don't comply.

This is so basic and obvious; the only reason to disagree with this is to stay within the RAW. Or, people are so accustomed to living in polite society that they honestly think no one can actually physically coerce them to do anything.

and when you're gone, is that person going to act as you want? I mean, it's possible, but you have no guarantee. maybe he'll call for more guards. maybe your picture will be circulated in wanted posters around the kingdom. maybe next time you show up he'll have three friends with him. heck, maybe the moment your back is turned he puts a dagger into your back if he thinks he can get away with it. of course, maybe he'll be impressed and decide to let you through next time as well... any of those are valid responses to an event that occurred. that NPC can choose to do any of those things specifically because you have *not* gotten him to give you what you want, rather you have simply demonstrated that he can't stop you from doing what you want which is not the same thing.
Any of these are possible with a charisma based check. Once again, charisma is not mind control. In fact, in previous editions a person was hostile to you after using intimidation, and that was also charisma based. Do you think if your smooth operator came into my home and intimidated me into opening my safe and giving him my valuables, I would not call the police after he left? I am under his spell forever now because he has charisma?

[Sindeloke]

What is the reality that Inigo is threatening them with? Fezzik's strength.

No. Fezzik's strength, and Fezzik's willingness to comply with Inigo's commands.

Can Fezzik hurt anyone he pleases, potentially a great deal? Yeah, absolutely.

Will he? It is in fact actually a really integral part of his character that no, he won't. He doesn't like hurting people. He prefers not to. He only does this whole Brute Squad thing because he's not good at anything else, and it's what people seem to expect of him. It is written all over his face and demeanour that he has no interest in actually doing any damage to you. Despite his body shape, the presence he projects is very kind and affable (no small thanks to Andre the Giant, who was apparently the biggest sweetheart you'd ever meet in real life).

However, Inigo is Fezzik's friend, who he trusts. He believes that if Inigo tells him to hurt someone, that person deserves to be hurt, so he's willing to do violence on Inigo's say-so that he would never do of his own accord.

What Inigo's Charisma check proves, on its success, is that a) he is willing to command violence and b) he is the sort of person who will be obeyed, when he does. That violence is possible is not an issue on the table to begin with; violence is always possible.

[Gurgeh]

Yeah, Sindeloke has the right of it. I'm not taking a position on the mechanical debate, but the specific Princess Bride example is very clearly a case of Inigo intimidating the guard; Fezzik is what the guard is being threatened with, but Inigo is the one making the threat.

[Tanarii]

Bringing up intents and goals is good because it appears to me that the crux of it here is that you as a DM are adjudicating this with the goal/intent of keeping the rules as written intact. So no amount of persuasion (snicker snicker) will convince you to do otherwise because at the end of the day, the PHB says that Intimidation is governed by Charisma, end of story.

That's certainly one way to do it, and I have nothing to contend with here. If that's the goal, that's what the PHB says. Can't argue with that
No. You've missed the point. Regardless of if you use the variant rule or not, regardless of any proficiencies, intent and approach determine what ability score to use.

Are you determining a question of successful attempt to use physical force? Strength.
Are you determining a question of successful attempt to influence someone? Charisma.

With variant rules and Intimidation this still holds true.

Strength (Intimidation) means you're determining if the attempt to use physical force was successful, and get a bonus to it because you know how to threaten well.

Charisma (Athletics) means you're determining if the attempt to influence someone was successful, and get a bonus to it because you know how to climb/swim/jump well.

They're both hard to come by good examples of, but "I crush their helmet so they do what I want" isn't a Strength check under standard or variant rule unless unless the primary question at hand is: Can you crush the helmet?

[Dr.Samurai]

No. Fezzik's strength, and Fezzik's willingness to comply with Inigo's commands.
This doesn't matter. Seriously... all of these responses are trying to:

1. Have Strength matter, and...
2. have Strength simultaneously not matter.

Why does it matter if Fezzik is willing to comply with Inigo's command? Is it because he is rail thin and can barely stand on his spindly legs? Is it because he looks like a slight breeze will blow him over? Is it because the castle guard thinks if he flicks Fezzik in the nose he will harm him greatly?

No. None of these things.

The reason you are making the point that Fezzik's willingness to comply is important is precisely because... Fezzik is a giant with massive strength and capacity to harm people. It is OBVIOUS that he will greatly harm people if he wants to. There is nothing compelling about Inigo's delivery of "Fezzik, tear his arms off". It is very casual and matter of fact (which I'm sure you will all argue is the genius delivery of a superb charisma), and the guard doesn't even have to think about it for a split second, he immediately hands the key over at the slightest chance that Fezzik might put hands on him.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Inigo's charisma. The castle guard is clearly, obviously, 100% intimidated by Fezzik's size and strength. If you replace Fezzik with Vizzini, Inigo's charisma check doesn't convince the guard that Vizzini is going to tear his arms off. Charisma is not mind control/auto-win/god stat/etc. ad nauseum.

They're both hard to come by good examples of, but "I crush their helmet so they do what I want" isn't a Strength check under standard or variant rule unless unless the primary question at hand is: Can you crush the helmet?
I'm afraid your argument does not extend that far; it stops precisely at "Under RAW, Intimidation is gated by Charisma.", which is less an argument and more a matter of fact.

The variant rule reads:

Similarly, when your half-orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.

The intent is "to intimidate an enemy". The approach is "a display of raw strength". The roll is "Strength(Intimidation)".

[Ugmaro]

Not really. The entire basis of resolving a social interaction (on the DMs side of the screen) is determining what the players want, and if the NPC(s) do as asked. See DMG p244-245. What kind of proficiency applies to the Charisma check, if a check is needed, depends on how they do the asking. Outcomes are provided on a table, and are based on starting attitude modified by the preceding conversation, and risk involved for the NPC. But they're all framed around agreeing to do what the PCs want.

You'll excuse the fact that I only quoted that little bit of the entire thread up to that point instead of writing a long response but I suppose I'll need to do that now. the entire "get the target to agree to do what I want" in this context is meant more as a "the NPC changes their mind and now thinks and acts exactly as I want them to, forever, amen". While you might be able to persuade someone into thinking the way you do about a certain matter you will never be able to intimidate them into thinking what you're telling them to think. Sure, they'll act it out infront of you but they won't actually believe it. Long term propaganda is off the table for this case to be clear.

As someone that is also on the DM side of the screen however I must say I really dislike using the DMG suggested ruling - I find that it slows down play considerably, does not allow partial success and does not have any real suggestions on unintended side effects of actions, which is likely one of the best ways a DM can respond to players stacking bonuses to stupidly high points (mostly looking at expertise here, but I digress). In most cases intimidation simply either works or doesn't work in my games as it mostly depends on the personality of the NPC though in some edge cases a roll might be needed and indeed in most cases it is a charisma roll, though sometimes I will call for a str roll, depending on how the player words what he's doing. Generally speaking a failure in intimidation is the result of the NPC not believing that the PCs will actually follow through with their threats that ends up in them becoming a bloody pulp though sometimes interesting things may occur instead, which is what makes the game fun (at least for me and my table).

[Tanarii]

I'm afraid your argument does not extend that far; it stops precisely at "Under RAW, Intimidation is gated by Charisma.", which is less an argument and more a matter of fact.No. you've missed the point. My comments apply to the variant rule, specifically.


The variant rule reads:

Similarly, when your half-orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.

The intent is "to intimidate an enemy". The approach is "a display of raw strength". The roll is "Strength(Intimidation)".
You're describing a Intimidation (Strength) check. The example says what it says, but it isn't actually describing a Strength (Intimidation) check. You've done a wonderful job of explaining why. It's 3e skill thinking. Not 5e ability check thinking.

[Ugmaro]

It has absolutely nothing to do with Inigo's charisma. The castle guard is clearly, obviously, 100% intimidated by Fezzik's size and strength. If you replace Fezzik with Vizzini, Inigo's charisma check doesn't convince the guard that Vizzini is going to tear his arms off.

This I disagree with. While Fezzik might be intimidating just by standing there he won't really force the guard into doing anything without saying anything (except maybe have the guard be very polite for no particular reason :P). If Fezzik does not start moving towards the guard when Indigo says "tear his arms off" then as a DM I'd say either the intimidation fails or Indigo is forced to roll with disadvantage. This is simply because obviously Indigo does not have the heirarchical power (something I'd say is one of the perks of being charismatic) to back his threat up.

If Fezzik on the other hand just goes "KEY! NOW!" with an outstreched hand as he menacingly moves towards the guard I'd make it a STR(intimidation) check without a 2nd thought. In this case the power is physical.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Tanarii: Ah, so we’re at an even greater impasse than I thought, because now the words in the PHB don’t even mean what they mean. I’ll be sure to consult you when I’m adjudicating these things at my table ;).

Edit:

@Ugmaro: I’m not disputing Inigo made the threat. I’m saying it’s success has nothing to do with his charisma. You can replace Inigo with anyone else and they can make the roll. The key to that success is Fezzik.

Recall, the guard is presented with their display and doesn’t make it through the gate in time. He’s outnumbered and alone and he still refused to give them the key. Replace Fezzik with any normal person and the intimidate doesn’t work. On the flip side, instead replace Inigo with any other person and the intimidate works. Because the key is Fezzik.

[Ugmaro]

@Samurai that is assuming you use the same words there. If you replace Fezzik with a super creepy witch and the "tear his arms off" with "make him start melting" you see nothing really changes - it's the fact that Indigo has this power at his beck and call that's giving his words... well... power.

[SharkForce]

if you replace "fezzik, tear his arms off" with "I'm going to cut off your arms with my sword" you don't get an appreciably different outcome. both are a perfectly plausible threat, both end with the guard captain having no arms.

inigo does not get a bonus based on how strong fezzik is. he does not get a bonus based on how swordy his sword is. if he was to threaten the captain with lighting him on fire, he would not get a bonus for how fiery the fire is.

but this all presumes there even really was an intimidate check in the first place. you only roll when the outcome is in doubt. the guard captain had the option of either giving up the gate key, or being killed and having it taken from his corpse by an annoyed enemy a few seconds slower. realistically, he had nowhere to go; inigo's sword was at his throat, and he was badly outclassed by a man who was only the second-best swordsman in the land (possibly the world) because the actual best swordsman in the kingdom (possibly the world) was beside him, plus there was a giant, and they had literally just ran off 40 armed guards with their superior planning ability.

in such a case, there is no roll. the outcome is not really in question. furthermore, all they really care about is a few seconds of compliance. what you would roll is nothing. you don't roll that, any more than you demand a dex check for a PC to put their belt on or an int check to remember to breathe.

the only way the guard captain ever says no in this circumstance is if he would absolutely not ever under any circumstance imaginable say yes. the outcome is not in question, either there is no chance he will say no, or there is no chance he will say yes, regardless of how charismatic or proficient in intimidation the person in inigo's position may be.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Samurai that is assuming you use the same words there. If you replace Fezzik with a super creepy witch and the "tear his arms off" with "make him start melting" you see nothing really changes - it's the fact that Indigo has this power at his beck and call that's giving his words... well... power.
If the creepy witch hasn't displayed her power, then sure, Inigo's charisma is needed. Fezzik literally lifts the portcullis on his own to prevent the guard from separating himself from them and keeping them from the gate door. It is Fezzik's strength that gives Inigo's words power, if you want to phrase it that way.

This isn't a hill I need to die on; I've made plenty of other arguments that are much more compelling. I just don't think that Inigo, in this scene, is doing anything particularly charisma-based and I think we're so primed to think that Charisma is the key to all interactions, that even when Fezzik comes towering into the yard on fire and then raises the portcullis with raw physical power, we reflexively say "yep, Inigo's charisma did that, all the way".

the only way the guard captain ever says no in this circumstance is if he would absolutely not ever under any circumstance imaginable say yes. the outcome is not in question, either there is no chance he will say no, or there is no chance he will say yes, regardless of how charismatic or proficient in intimidation the person in inigo's position may be.
He literally refuses to hand over the gate key, and then is threatened with Fezzik's strength and immediately gives them the gate key.

but this all presumes there even really was an intimidate check in the first place. you only roll when the outcome is in doubt. the guard captain had the option of either giving up the gate key, or being killed and having it taken from his corpse by an annoyed enemy a few seconds slower. realistically, he had nowhere to go; inigo's sword was at his throat, and he was badly outclassed by a man who was only the second-best swordsman in the land (possibly the world) because the actual best swordsman in the kingdom (possibly the world) was beside him, plus there was a giant, and they had literally just ran off 40 armed guards with their superior planning ability.
Inigo did not have his sword at his throat, Inigo was carrying a guy that clearly cannot stand or walk on his own. The guard DID refuse to give them the key, despite everything you are saying here. It wasn't until the possibility of having the giant, that just raised the portcullis (display of power), tear his arms off that he decided to comply. He is literally looking at Fezzik wide-eyed and backing away because he can't believe what he just saw.

There is no problem saying "Oh, Fezzik is the tool that Inigo uses", meanwhile, Fezzik has the immense size and literally just displayed his raw strength, and we can't say something like "Fezzik rolled the Intimidation check, Inigo is just the tool he used, but it was clearly a Strength check".

if you replace "fezzik, tear his arms off" with "I'm going to cut off your arms with my sword" you don't get an appreciably different outcome. both are a perfectly plausible threat, both end with the guard captain having no arms.
But that's not what happened, and this goes back to my point about different reasons for noncompliance. Yes, Inigo would have to convince the guard that he will harm him, because the guard has not seen Inigo in action and Inigo doesn't even have his sword out, he's carrying Wesley. So if you're going to threaten this guy, of course you're going to need Charisma to pull the Jedi mind trick off.

But that didn't happen. The guard saw Fezzik's raw power, so he already knows exactly what the risk is, and decides it's not worth it. Even though he drew his sword, even though he refused the first demand for the key, he sees the power and decides "yeah, he can definitely take this key off my corpse if he wanted to, so I'll just give it to them". The key there is "if he wanted to", not "he definitely will". It doesn't matter if he definitely will or not, the Guard literally just watched them pull a major deception/hijinks on his entire team. They may be bluffing again for all he knows, Wesley can't even stand or walk. It doesn't matter; it's not worth the risk if Fezzik really will put hands on him. That's the Strength(Intimidation) check, to my mind.


@General: Someone mentioned something about parity earlier and the comment I brought up and I forgot to speak to it. My intent is not to achieve system parity; my intent is simply to explain that Strength does make sense. If you want to abide strictly by the rules, then it doesn't, because the rules lock Intimidation behind Charisma. But if we're just speaking to verisimilitude and mirroring real life, then Strength does make sense in certain contexts, like Fezzik lifting the portcullis. I did mention using melee attacks with mental stats, but that was just me sort of whining about the fact that Strength is so pigeon-holed, and that while we happily accept all the other ability scores encroaching on melee attacks/damage, we will make a spirited case for why Strength should never be allowed to influence Intimidation checks. I don't think it breaks anything, and I think it can make sense, so to me it seems weird to really put your foot down against it, especially when you can make a melee attack with every other ability score (including Con, if you're a dhampir).

[ProsecutorGodot]

They're both hard to come by good examples of, but "I crush their helmet so they do what I want" isn't a Strength check under standard or variant rule unless unless the primary question at hand is: Can you crush the helmet?



You're describing a Intimidation (Strength) check. The example says what it says, but it isn't actually describing a Strength (Intimidation) check. You've done a wonderful job of explaining why. It's 3e skill thinking. Not 5e ability check thinking.
I think you should stick with the former as far as trying to argue your point, it's the most convincing and concise argument I've seen for it. We have evidence to support this line of thought and I'm fairly convinced that adding "to get them to do what I want" isn't a magic phrase that makes this less of a pure showing of strength and more of an attempt to force a desired reaction. There would need to be something more nuanced done, simply because Intimidation offers that physical violence or the threats of it can be intimidating doesn't mean they always will be. With that said, I can see situations where this could circumstantially be a good example of strength based Intimidation, more on that later.

The latter quote however is, again, your own opinion of how the rules were designed and I'll point out, again, that as much as you may believe them your opinion in this instance is only going to resonate with others who already agree with you on this case. It's poor evidence to convince someone if all you have to say is "the book and the designers are wrong" and offer nothing but your own word to support such a statement. For what it's worth, I'm not discounting that you could be correct, but regardless of their perceived competence I'm going to take things as I read them, the designers intent a distant second and third party opinions as a last option if I'm not convinced in steps one and two.

To explain what I read in the phrase "when your half-orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy" we need to acknowledge that there are no wasted words here. You are intimidating someone through action. In the first place your actions need to be obvious and physical, they will also usually be violent considering that we're trying to use strength here. Going back to that "circumstantial" case of crushing a helmet, let's build a scene:

Your strength based character is currently detained. The room you're in is locked, you're manacled and a single armored guard is questioning you about crimes you may or may not have committed. You want to be released, you're confident that you may be able to fight your way out to your party but being released willingly would be preferable. You're not good with words but there might be an opportunity to convince this authority figure that they'd be in imminent danger keeping you here. Considering the nature of this escape and your poor charisma, you'd still rather take the multiple checks to first break your manacles with a strength check and then attempt to crush the guards removed helmet to intimidate him into releasing you which he'd left on the interrogation table in his own attempt to convince you that he is comfortable alone in this room with you and unworried that you might be able to escape. If you escape the manacles and immediately crush the discarded helmet, there's a good chance that you've convinced this guard that a locked door is no obstacle for you. You've successfully spun his attempt to intimidate you into him being locked in a room with you. Remember that you don't want to fight here, though you could, which is why you opted for crushing his helmet rather than his face.

Now, is the situation unlikely? Yes, because I agree that it would take exceptionally specific circumstances to warrant an Intimidation (strength) check. Do I think that this example is both a display of raw strength and an overt physical threat meant to make someone act how you want? Yes. I'm alright with this process being more difficult to achieve than the alternative of "fight your way out" and "talk your way out" because I do believe that it would be exceptionally difficult to achieve your desired outcome without the situation essentially lining up the pins for you.

[Dr.Samurai]

In light of ProsecutorGodot's reply to Tanarii, I wanted to come back to this:


They're both hard to come by good examples of, but "I crush their helmet so they do what I want" isn't a Strength check under standard or variant rule unless unless the primary question at hand is: Can you crush the helmet?
To my mind, this is only compelling if you already believe strength cannot intimidate someone.

If you do think it can intimidate someone, then yeah, the primary question is "can you crush this helmet", "can you burst these manacles", "can you cleave the table in two", etc. Because if you can do those things, the NPC might not want to cross you.

Imagine you're at the game table and you are doing anyone of these and the DM just says "sorry, no displays of your awesome power have any chance of compelling this person because it is based on your strength".

It reminds me of the scene from Berserk where Guts fights the 100 men in the forest, and they have to be bribed to fight him because they are all terrified of his power. They say things like "He just chopped that man in half like it was nothing" and "Every time he swings his sword a man dies". If this was D&D, we'd have to rewrite the scene because people are not influenced by someone's strength. There's no chance of the guard captain shouting at his soldier "How did they get through?" and his soldier stammering "Sir... he just lifted the portcullis a-a-and..." and it's revealed that the soldier simply let them through because he didn't feel like getting splatted by a giant.

Here, in D&D-land, NPCs cannot consider risk/reward ratios without a PC influencing them through Charisma. They can see Guts cleaving everyone in front of him in half and they will march, as if blind, right into his Dragonslayer. Fezzik will lift the portcullis gate and the guard will challenge him to a wrestling match because he simply can't comprehend what strength is and how it works.

[MoiMagnus]

My problems with the Strength (Intimidation) is that peoples try to put it as an action, while IMO if you ever use it that should most of the time be a consequence of another strength-based action.

You are using you action to attack twice with your Battleaxe doing massive damages? That's at this moment that you should get a passive Strength (Intimidation) check against the surviving enemies to check for their morale, with an advantage (i.e. a +5 since it's passive) if you killed someone as part of this attack action.
Same for Intelligence (Intimidation) when you're a Wizard and you just cast a big spell, or Wisdom (Intimidation) for a Druid.

But when you use an action to specifically manipulate others and no other goals, I'm more in favour of keeping Charisma.

[Tanarii]

It's poor evidence to convince someone if all you have to say is "the book and the designers are wrong" and offer nothing but your own word to support such a statement. What I said is the equivalent of "the book and the designers are wrong, because a, b, c". It's not my "own word" any more than anything is here, it's a statement of proof based as my entire discussion has been on their own words on what 5e ability checks are. I'll break it down for you.

(a) The book and the designers are wrong in the variant rule with their Strength (Intimidate) example, because what they wrote the equivalent of an incorrect claim there is intent to intimidate, and method show of force. And that is an Intimidate (Strength) check, not a Strength (Intimidate) check.

(b) What they actually should have written was "when your half-orc barbarian tries to get an enemy to do what they want by threatening them with a display of raw strength".

(c) At which point by the PHB definitions of what attributes govern what, also the designers words, that is clearly a Charisma check, not a Strength check.

------

Edit to add a Coda: "My PC intimidates them" is not an effective Intent for a player to state. As a DM, that's not sufficient to determine outcomes. It's like saying "My PC persuades/deceives them with a show of force". All you've done is stated what skill you want to use, modified by what ability score.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What I said is the equivalent of "the book and the designers are wrong, because a, b, c". It's not my "own word" any more than anything is here, it's a statement of proof based as my entire discussion has been on their own words on what 5e ability checks are. I'll break it down for you.

(a) The book and the designers are wrong in the variant rule with their Strength (Intimidate) example, because what they wrote the equivalent of an incorrect claim there is intent to intimidate, and method show of force. And that is an Intimidate (Strength) check.

(b) What they actually should have written was "when your half-orc barbarian tries to get an enemy to do what they want by threatening them with a display of raw strength".

(c) At which point by the PHB definitions of what attributes govern what, also the designers words, that is clearly a Charisma check, not a Strength check.

It reads very much as pedantry though, we know that the system 5e uses is "ability check" and not "skill check" however the order you reason as far as rationalizing doesn't make much difference. "I want to intimidate then with my raw strength" is not functionally different than "I want to use my raw strength to intimidate them"

I found it more convincing when you argued about the crushing of a helmet being anything but a strength check based on this ability to do so because, barring any good reason, you're correct. Given a plausible reason and circumstance (my crushing of the helmet can be to combat an enemy's Intimidation attempt) then it can be reasonable to use strength (Intimidation). You are certainly not crushing the helmet for superfluous reasons, there's a clear social goal here that is reliant on this characters strength and the scenario at hand leaves no room for debate on your intentions.

[GooeyChewie]

(a) The book and the designers are wrong in the variant rule with their Strength (Intimidate) example, because what they wrote the equivalent of an incorrect claim there is intent to intimidate, and method show of force. And that is an Intimidate (Strength) check.

(b) What they actually should have written was "when your half-orc barbarian tries to get an enemy to do what they want by threatening them with a display of raw strength".

(c) At which point by the PHB definitions of what attributes govern what, also the designers words, that is clearly a Charisma check, not a Strength check.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. Ability checks are determined by what a character does (that is, the method), not based on the character's goal (that is, the intent). If a player says their character wants to flip over a heavy table (or insert your own example of a display of raw strength), the PHB definitions clearly make that action a Strength check - regardless of whether you are doing so to intimidate somebody or to have that table serve as a makeshift barricade for cover. The variant rule doesn't change an Intimidation (Charisma) check into an Intimidation (Strength) check; it allows a DM to take what would be a Strength (none) or Strength (Athletics) check and make it a Strength (Intimidation) check.

It sounds to me like in (a) the PHB is describing a Strength (Intimidation) check, in (b) you are saying they should have written it as though it were an Intimidation (Strength) check and in (c) you are saying that the variant rule doesn't make sense because of what you think they should have written rather than what they actually wrote. As a result, it seems to me that you are arguing that what would be Strength checks under normal circumstances become Charisma checks when you are doing them with the goal of intimidating (or persuading or deceiving) somebody. I don't think that's what you mean to argue, but it is the conclusion I'm drawing from your logic.

[KorvinStarmast]

. There is nothing compelling about Inigo's delivery of "Fezzik, tear his arms off". It is very casual and matter of fact (which I'm sure you will all argue is the genius delivery of a superb charisma), and the guard doesn't even have to think about it for a split second, he immediately hands the key over at the slightest chance that Fezzik might put hands on him.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Inigo's charisma. The castle guard is clearly, obviously, 100% intimidated by Fezzik's size and strength. If you replace Fezzik with Vizzini, Inigo's charisma check doesn't convince the guard that Vizzini is going to tear his arms off. Charisma is not mind control/auto-win/god stat/etc. ad nauseum. Disagree.
Yes, it does have to do with Inigo's charisma; his presence, and his posture of calm lethality with a sword in his hand. Inigo gets the help (Chapter 7, Wroking together) from Fezzik, due to his size and strength and his (apparent) willingness to do what Inigo asks him to do with a matter of fact approach.

I suspect that in 3.5e there might be an element of bluff in that interaction, but am not sure as I have modest 3.5e play experience and most of it was combat focused.

[Tanarii]

It reads very much as pedantry though, we know that the system 5e uses is "ability check" and not "skill check" however the order you reason as far as rationalizing doesn't make much difference. "I want to intimidate then with my raw strength" is not functionally different than "I want to use my raw strength to intimidate them"If you think it's pedantry, you have a basic misunderstanding of the core resolution system of the game.

Also posting a late edit I made to my other post since I had the window open and never hit post, and it's relevant:

"My PC intimidates them" is not an effective Intent for a player to state. As a DM, that's not sufficient to determine outcomes. It's like saying "My PC persuades/deceives them with a show of force". All you've done is stated what skill you want to use, modified by what ability score.

(Note that it's also back to front, a secondary point.)


I'm not sure I follow your logic. Ability checks are determined by what a character does (that is, the method), not based on the character's goal (that is, the intent). If a player says their character wants to flip over a heavy table (or insert your own example of a display of raw strength), the PHB definitions clearly make that action a Strength check - regardless of whether you are doing so to intimidate somebody or to have that table serve as a makeshift barricade for cover. The variant rule doesn't change an Intimidation (Charisma) check into an Intimidation (Strength) check; it allows a DM to take what would be a Strength (none) or Strength (Athletics) check and make it a Strength (Intimidation) check.If that were the case, any player could say: my PC tries to [skill name] by [ability score]. That's clearly not the case. As the writers of this example, you're mixing up the Intent and Approach.

[Dr.Samurai]

Disagree.
Yes, it does have to do with Inigo's charisma; his presence, and his posture of calm lethality with a sword in his hand. Inigo gets the help (Chapter 7, Wroking together) from Fezzik, due to his size and strength and his (apparent) willingness to do what Inigo asks him to do with a matter of fact approach.
Unfortunately it seems you're all re-imagining this scene. Inigo does not have a sword in his hand, he is carrying Wesley on one shoulder and securing his arm with his other hand. The guy with a sword in his hand is the guard. He doesn't know who Inigo or Wesley are, and I suspect if there wasn't a giant that just lifted the portcullis up looming over him, he likely would have attacked the guy that can't stand and the other guy burdened beneath his weight, neither of which have a weapon drawn.

We can argue about whether his nonchalant approach is "calm lethality" (and I would strenuously roll my eyes), but no one has to convince the guard that Fezzik is under command of Inigo. Wesley literally shouts to Fezzik about the gate and he sees Fezzik hurry to the portcullis and lift that sucker back up with his bare strength. So it's clear Fezzik is following orders.

Inigo is not pulling some mental jujitsu on this guy to make him understand that Fezzik will do as he's told and can tear his arms off. The guy can literally see for himself with his own eyeballs that Fezzik is doing as he's told and can tear his arms off (lift the portcullis).

The number one reason the guard complied in this scene is very clearly, painfully obvious, the giant with the massive muscles. And it's unfortunate that this has to be taken away from him to remain in line with the silly D&D notion that all influences must occur through charisma, no matter the context or what is occurring.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If you think it's pedantry, you have a basic misunderstanding of the core resolution system of the game.

Also posting a late edit I made to my other post since I had the window open and never hit post:

"My PC intimidates them" is not an effective Intent for a player to state. As a DM, that's not sufficient to determine outcomes. It's like saying "My PC persuades/deceives them with a show of force". All you've done is stated what skill you want to use, modified by what ability score.

It is absolutely pedantry, if your player says "I want to intimidate them with a show of force" and your response is "actually you can't, you have to make a show of force that I deem intimidating" you're not making any meaningful distinction, both phrases reach the intent of "make them do what I want with strength".

Are you really going to draw such lines? There are no hard guidelines on how the player communicates their intent, it's how the DM resolves them that relies on guidelines. How you resolve this is up to you l, how the player attempts to communicate their intent it's not something you can "correct" because it's not wrong.

Or in your own words, you have a basic misunderstanding of the core resolution system of the game. Let me show you.

Dungeon Master (DM): OK, one at a time. Phillip, you’re looking at the gargoyles?

Phillip: Yeah. Is there any hint they might be creatures and not decorations?

DM: Make an Intelligence check.

Phillip: Does my Investigation skill apply?

DM: Sure!

Phillip (rolling a d20): Ugh. Seven.

DM: They look like decorations to you. And Amy, Riva is checking out the drawbridge?

The player communicates intent, the DM determines a check, the player has opportunity to ask for bonuses to that check. We can create our own scenario to demonstrate that this, first of all, doesn't have to be strictly identical every time. Communication is key and everyone's goal here is to have fun and second of all that as the DM, you can simply say no if you don't find the argument compelling.
DM- The guard blocks your path saying that a crime scene is being investigated and you cannot pass
P1- I'd like to intimidate the guard into letting me pass
DM- can you explain how you attempt to intimidate them? (Notice we've circled right back to intent here)
P1- Well I'm not good at talking, I want to scare him with my strength so he feels afraid to stop me. I'll pull a silver piece out of my pocket and make a show of trying to bribe him but as I have him the coin I want to crush it into as small of a lump as I can manage.

The DM, at this point, has a ton of information about exactly what the player wants to do and can resolve the action in whichever way they find most appropriate. For some, this is an appropriate Strength (Intimidation) check, for others it might be Charisma (Intimidation) with advantage based on inspiration from the clever storytelling. Others still might skip a check altogether, this guard is a coward and a weakling and crumbles at this feat of strength, which they felt you didn't even have to roll for because you've powdered skulls with your bare hands, a simple coin is no obstacle. It could even start combat after the guard attempts to detain you for bribing and threatening an official.

To say that the players requested intent is wrong is the wrong way of approaching this, the way it's resolved is what's in question. If your fault with the request is in phrasing and you refuse to ask for elaboration and simply disallow it, that's pedantry.


If that were the case, any player could say: my PC tries to [skill name] by [ability score]. That's clearly not the case. As the writers of this example, you're mixing up the Intent and Approach.

That's a pretty reductionist way of looking at it, it's absolutely not what I'm saying either. I don't believe it's the intent of the designers when they wrote the example either.

[GooeyChewie]

No, no, and no. If that were the case, any player could say: my PC tries to [skill name] by [ability score]. That's clearly not the case. As the writers of this example, you're mixing up the Intent and Approach.

What do you mean, "no"? Are you saying that flipping a table is not a Strength check? Or that flipping a table becomes a Charisma check just because the player has a certain Intent?

As best as I can tell, you are the one allowing players to say "my PC tries to [skill name] by [ability score]." Need to move a giant boulder? No problem, my high-Charisma low-Strength Bard will just try to "intimidate" the closest person by hurling it away! A DM should look at that situation and say "yeah, no, hurling a boulder is Strength regardless of why you're trying to do it."

[JackPhoenix]

Whew, too many posts to respond to everything, and most of it is just the same people repeating the same thing again and again, so here's something more interesing:


That's why I liked the pushing through the crowd example. The primary goal is to move people out of your way to move faster (or at all), the approach is to shove people out of your way while growling threateningly about what you'll do to their momma. That's definitely Strength, and has potential for interpreting that Intimidation makes people back off slightly making them easier to shove.

And that is Intimidation enhancing a Strength check, which is what Strength (Intimidation) is supposed to be.

I agree, and retract my previous statement that there's no situation in which I'd find Str (Intimidation) appropriate. I was thinking in terms of usual forcing/threatening someone to do something for you, the crowd pushing example is great, and not something that came up in any game I've ran. Though, I would still let a player pick either Athletics or Intimidation.

[Dr.Samurai]

LMAO

Arbitrary opinions are arbitrary.

Player: DM, can I use Strength(Intimidation) to get the people to move out of my way? I want to use my size and strength to push through them and get them to clear out and part in front of me.
DM: *enter any Tanarii or JackPhoenix argument here saying this can't work*
Player: Oh, I see. Can I use Strength(Intimidation) to move faster through the crowd? I want to use my size and strength to push through them and get them to clear out and part in front of me.
DM: Of course! There is a substantive and meaningful difference here that required this extra dialogue between us to make this sit right with the universe, thank you for playing my D&D sub-game, Word Games.

[Kvess]

LMAO

Arbitrary opinions are arbitrary.

Player: DM, can I use Strength(Intimidation) to get the people to move out of my way? I want to use my size and strength to push through them and get them to clear out and part in front of me.
DM: *enter any Tanarii or JackPhoenix argument here saying this can't work*
Player: Oh, I see. Can I use Strength(Intimidation) to move faster through the crowd? I want to use my size and strength to push through them and get them to clear out and part in front of me.
DM: Of course! There is a substantive and meaningful difference here that required this extra dialogue between us to make this sit right with the universe, thank you for playing my D&D sub-game, Word Games.
This is not far from conversations I have with my players all the time. They will suggest a course of action and an ability they want to use, and I will suggest how that may or may not work in the narrative we're working through. Maybe I'll ask a clarifying question or two to help me understand their intent. I'm under the impression that this is D&D: A lot of little conversations and negotiations that are occasionally interrupted by rolling dice.

Player: DM, can I push people past the crowd and get them to move out of my way?

Me: Sure, you can either roll a Strength (Athletics) check to physically push through the crowd or a Charisma (Intimidation) check to scare the crowd into giving you more space.

Player: Can I flex and use my strength to look imposing, in order to convince the crowd to give me more space?

Me: Sure, if you are just trying to look scary to get the crowd to give you a wide birth, let's make it a Strength (Intimidation) check.

If you want to make a skill check, especially using an optional rule for making skill checks with alternate ability scores, you need to get the DM's buy-in on how that works in a particular situation. There's no way around that.

[Dr.Samurai]

Kvess, I agree with you. I have cited several examples just like yours to show how the conversation with the DM occurs.

I'm just poking fun that after all the arguing about how strength being intimidating doesn't make sense and the developers are just throwing a bone to the bewildered D&D players to save them from arguing at the table, Tanarii just needed the syntax to line up to allow the check to occur.

The truth is that this "works" if you are concerned about the language flow of Ability Score-->Skill, but it still doesn't work if you think strength can't intimidate people. If your position is that influence cannot arise from physicality (strength), then you can't look at this "pushing the crowd" example and say "oh right, that works".

Because all of the other arguments that have been made still apply to this example. That's why it's an arbitrary concession.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's funny, because I think I agree with Tanarii here.

As a DM, I'm willing to allow a player to make skill checks with non-standard abilities, on a case-by-case basis, if I can see how it could work or if they are able to sell me on it. And it is, in a sense, totally arbitrary. Part of a DM's job is arbitration.

I've said before that a possible failure state of intimidation doesn't always lead to the target being unafraid: Maybe they're afraid in a way that isn't useful. Maybe being huge and pants-soilingly dangerous isn't always a constructive way to make someone comply with a more subtle request, and they instead run away and call the guards.
That's funny because I'm in complete agreement with this...

[Ugmaro]

If the creepy witch hasn't displayed her power, then sure, Inigo's charisma is needed. Fezzik literally lifts the portcullis on his own to prevent the guard from separating himself from them and keeping them from the gate door. It is Fezzik's strength that gives Inigo's words power, if you want to phrase it that way.

This isn't a hill I need to die on; I've made plenty of other arguments that are much more compelling. I just don't think that Inigo, in this scene, is doing anything particularly charisma-based and I think we're so primed to think that Charisma is the key to all interactions, that even when Fezzik comes towering into the yard on fire and then raises the portcullis with raw physical power, we reflexively say "yep, Inigo's charisma did that, all the way".

There's 2 things I'd like to say here: first off, I didn't read the story/novel/whatever so I didn't know Fezzik lifted the portcullis etc.. If this had happened in my game there would be no roll (apart from the one to lift the portcullis), even the half concious adventurer could say "Key" and the guard wouldn't think half a time, let alone twice. If there had been a need for a roll in some strange universe it'd still be a charisma(intimidation) check if Indigo did it, as he's attempting to scare the guard using Fezzik. Now that I read up a little bit about the story in this thread I see that even if Fezzik just walked closer to the guard he'd pull the key out with a trembling hand since he already knew that's what they wanted, Fezzik wouldn't even need to say a word.

Second, please do not consider charisma to be persuasion, deception or intimidation at all. While it is the most commonly associated stat (or "ability" as the D&D book calls it, which simply sits wrong with me) it's not the same as the skill itself. In my example with the creepy witch it doesn't matter if the guard had seen the witch perform some face melting earlier, it's if he believes she'll do it to him at the call of whoever is making the threat. Because in what you advocated in your first sentance is that his charisma is his ability of convincing the guard she can do it, which is far from what the charisma is supposed to be in this case (or better put, as I understood the case, which I now see was completely wrong).

I do believe that in most cases when you're making an intimidation you need to use at least a few words at the intimidatee just so they know what you want. This does not make the check a charisma check by default, nor should it. If you slam the table and yell out "Silence!" it's not a charisma check by any stretch of the imagination and saying just because words are involved it needs to be charisma is something I will never agree with.

[GooeyChewie]

...first off, I didn't read the story/novel/whatever so I didn't know Fezzik lifted the portcullis etc.. ...

Oh! I picked that example because I figured everybody here would have seen that movie. It's The Princess Bride, and you can find it on Disney+. I highly recommend it; just keep in mind that it was made in the '80s and not everything holds up, production-wise.

Fezzik actually uses his size and strength several times in the movie to intimidate people. He hurls a large rock, smashing it against a boulder right next to The Man in Black's head, intimidating TMiB into agreeing to an unarmed fight rather than a rock v sword fight. He uses the agreed-upon Strength (Intimidation) check to clear out a crowd with one bellow of "EVERYBODY MOVE!". He tries to intimidate The Albino into telling him the location of a secret door (this one fails because he uses too much strength). Right before the "oh you mean this gate key" scene, he scares off all that guy's men... although the method there is really weird and could be some combination of Strength, Charisma, Intimidation and/or Performance. I almost wonder if they just told André the Giant to cut one of his wrestling promos for that scene.

[Dr.Samurai]

There's 2 things I'd like to say here: first off, I didn't read the story/novel/whatever so I didn't know Fezzik lifted the portcullis etc.. If this had happened in my game there would be no roll (apart from the one to lift the portcullis), even the half concious adventurer could say "Key" and the guard wouldn't think half a time, let alone twice. If there had been a need for a roll in some strange universe it'd still be a charisma(intimidation) check if Indigo did it, as he's attempting to scare the guard using Fezzik. Now that I read up a little bit about the story in this thread I see that even if Fezzik just walked closer to the guard he'd pull the key out with a trembling hand since he already knew that's what they wanted, Fezzik wouldn't even need to say a word.
This is sort of circling the common thread in this... well, thread, that displays of power seem to be binary. Either they cannot Intimidate someone, or they circumvent the need for Intimidation and auto-succeed.

I find this interesting because implicit in the second case is the reality that strength has compelled someone. Whether a person feels a roll is necessary or not, they have granted that the show of physical strength has changed someone's mind. But the conversations continue to argue against the idea, even though it's granted at other times.

With regards to Fezzik walking closer or anyone having to speak a word, my take is that things don't map perfectly from movies to an actual encounter at a table. My arguments are generally more trying to explain why it could realistically work, and therefore its okay to map that into the game somehow.

For this particular scene, is it Inigo with Advantage from Fezzik? Or Fezzik with Advantage from Inigo? Or Fezzik with Advantage from the Dread Pirate Roberts deception they just pulled? Is there even Advantage or a Roll? I don't know. But these conversations are still helpful I think because, IMO, many of the arguments here against Strength seem reflexive and also apply to every other ability score. The only thing that Charisma has going for it is that the rules make it the one ability that governs interactions like this. But if we can get beyond that, I think it's obvious Strength can influence people as well in the case of Intimidation.


Second, please do not consider charisma to be persuasion, deception or intimidation at all. While it is the most commonly associated stat (or "ability" as the D&D book calls it, which simply sits wrong with me) it's not the same as the skill itself. In my example with the creepy witch it doesn't matter if the guard had seen the witch perform some face melting earlier, it's if he believes she'll do it to him at the call of whoever is making the threat. Because in what you advocated in your first sentance is that his charisma is his ability of convincing the guard she can do it, which is far from what the charisma is supposed to be in this case (or better put, as I understood the case, which I now see was completely wrong).
I try to caution against the same thing all throughout this thread.

The reason I disagreed that "nothing changes" between Fezzik and a creepy witch, is that Fezzik has literally displayed his awesome power right before the castle guard. The difference that I call out, and I'm not sure on this but I think it might be the case, between Strength and Charisma checks, is that with Strength, you're not convincing the person you will harm them, you're convincing them it's not worth their trouble to find out. He sees Fezzik lift the portcullis and knows that Fezzik can tear his arms off. We don't need any more influence; it's up to the guard whether he wants to contend with that Strength or not.

In the case of the creepy witch, you need to convince the guard that she will hurt him, because he has no other information to go on. There's no calculation to make because nothing has happened.

I do believe that in most cases when you're making an intimidation you need to use at least a few words at the intimidatee just so they know what you want. This does not make the check a charisma check by default, nor should it. If you slam the table and yell out "Silence!" it's not a charisma check by any stretch of the imagination and saying just because words are involved it needs to be charisma is something I will never agree with.
Agreed. I think the argument being made on the other side is that the Intimidation "check" is attached and part of the Charisma check. The charisma check comes first, and therefore Intimidation can only be applied to a Charisma check, as per the rules. And the reason it has to be Charisma is because you are trying to influence someone, which is the purview of that ability score.

Fezzik actually uses his size and strength several times in the movie to intimidate people. He hurls a large rock, smashing it against a boulder right next to The Man in Black's head, intimidating TMiB into agreeing to an unarmed fight rather than a rock v sword fight. He uses the agreed-upon Strength (Intimidation) check to clear out a crowd with one bellow of "EVERYBODY MOVE!". He tries to intimidate The Albino into telling him the location of a secret door (this one fails because he uses too much strength). Right before the "oh you mean this gate key" scene, he scares off all that guy's men... although the method there is really weird and could be some combination of Strength, Charisma, Intimidation and/or Performance. I almost wonder if they just told André the Giant to cut one of his wrestling promos for that scene.
I agree that all of these can be adjudicated as Strength checks if the players/DM wanted to go that route. Good examples.