Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

[Inevitability]

There's a sentiment that I've seen on these boards, and in D&D groups in general, which can be summarized as:


It's kind of silly how Intimidate is a Charisma-based skill. I mean, my half-orc barbarian dumped Charisma, so he has only +1 to intimidate, while the halfling bard has +8! Kind of silly, right? To close that gap, I'm going to let characters use their strength modifier on Intimidate rolls instead of charisma: it's the only thing that makes sense!

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the intimidate skill.

Intimidate is not an objective measure of scariness, it's a scariness enhancer. If a musclebound barbarian ambushes a lone CR 1/4 goblin, brandishes an enormous greatsword, and roars a challenge, we're past the point where rolls matter: that goblin is going to run away, and adding a chance of failure (a whole 40% if you set the DC at 10, 15% if you set it at 5, or 5% if you set it at 0) implies some strange things about goblin psychology.

Now if the halfling bard from the aforementioned example does it? Maybe an Intimidate check would be in place! It's plausible enough that the goblin sees someone its own size and considers its odds good enough. The halfling might need to put in effort to convince this goblin she could threaten him, and that effort is best represented with a skill check.

This isn't weird or unprecedented: sufficiently favorable circumstances should always remove the need for a check (you don't roll Persuasion to ask your spouse to pass the salt, or Nature to remember how many legs cows have). If the fighter or barbarian seems 'not scary', the issue isn't that this-or-that number on the sheet is too low: the issue is that the fighter has to roll for things that shouldn't require rolls. Similarly, in situations where rolls are necessary, the barbarian should usually be rolling against lower DCs than the bard, all based on how much of an obvious threat either character poses before any rolls are made at all.

Intimidate, the skill, is nothing but a way to convincingly add to the threat you already pose: your ability to turn that into frightening people depends on factors beyond acting skill.

(And note that I don't mean to imply that halfling bards should never be scary: I can imagine a number of monsters that the bard would find easier to intimidate than the barbarian. A werewolf is going to be more afraid of the obvious caster than some guy with an unsilvered weapon)

Thoughts?

[Thrudd]

So, if it's agreed that there is some objective measure of scariness based on physical size and strength or other factors, how do the rules represent that? Why does the scariness of the low charisma barbarian depend entirely on the DM's subjective opinion about who should be scared and who shouldn't, but the bard's ability to intimidate someone gets a mechanic and a roll?

I'd say, maybe you could take the difference in size/strength scores as a modifier to the intimidate DC, or as a guide for whether to give advantage/disadvantage when the attempt is based partly or wholly on looking big and scary and not on making threatening statements.
A 18 strength barbarian trying to scare a 8 strength goblin gets +10 to the check or the DC is -10. Perhaps reduce that modifier based on each ally present for the target of the scare attempt. ten goblins might not be intimidated as easily by one guy as would one or two alone. Two people of equal strength are a straight roll (assuming no intimidate skill proficiency).

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem is that every NPC is much more tough/brave/hard-headed than they realistically should be when facing a large muscled scarred veteran warrior. I agree with the OP that big muscled guys should be naturally menacing/intimidating. But I think a lot of DMs aren't comfortable with giving players more than what's on their sheet, so to speak. To Thrudd's point, nothing on the character sheet implies the suggestion in the OP.

[Mastikator]

That's putting the cart before the horse.

FIRST the player describes what they do and what they want to accomplish, THEN the DM asks for a dice roll with the skills and ability modifiers they decide is appropriate.

If the player says "I want to say: 'I'll break you spine like I break this steel rod if you don't stand down' and then my character uses their steel-bendy-ability to bend the sleep with their bare hands" I'd definitely say OK roll intimidation + strength to bend the steel and scare them.

A player should not ask "can I make a strength intimidation check", they should roleplay. No, you can not just make any kind of roll and expect a result, please tell me what your character is doing.

[Reversefigure4]

Intimidate is often rolled in different situations to what you've mentioned, though.

The party have a cultist tied to a chair, interrogating him about the cult's plans. Both the Barbarian and the Halfling Bard are perfectly capable of slitting his throat or breaking his fingers with a hammer. There shouldn't even be rolls required to achieve this at that point.

The GM is always going to have to do some sort of adjudication here. "You have him at your mercy, so the DC is only 10." "As a cultist of Ytherg, he's been tortured many times as part of the initiations, so it's a DC25, but you get a +2 circumstance bonus because he can't fight back, and it goes up to a +5 if you know enough to threaten him with contaminating his body with salt, Ytherg's bane." Or "This works automatically." Or "This will work automatically, but torturing him will switch your alignment to evil, and a DC15 Intimidate check allows you to achieve this with just threats instead of torture".

If you're going to repeatedly alter the DC - the Barbarian is scary inherently because of his muscles and the Halfling Bard isn't, so higher DCs for the Halfling - it's much the same effect as just allowing the Barbarian to use his Str mod instead of Charisma anyway, but with the added bonus it doesn't invalidate the halfling's points spent on Intimidate.

I'm a fan of 'charisma intimidates, you can use Strength instead as a relatively cheap option you can buy' (a feat, a trait, an alternate class feature), so if somebody wants to make Trogdor the Terrifying Barbarian they can, while still making the Joker Bard scary without requiring him to invest heavily in Strength.

[animorte]

I read somewhere not too long ago (paraphrased, of course): “Intimidation is not convincing someone that you can break them in half. It’s convincing them that you will.”

Something of that nature. Essentially that your charisma allows you to seek out and utilize somebody’s nature or reaction against them. Find their fears and their weaknesses.

I personally have always been more concerned with the way people talk and act than what they look like. Not judging a book by its cover, you know.

I do believe that one’s size can certainly contribute to intimidation though.

[P. G. Macer]

Building on animorte’s point, I agree that intimidation≠being scary. The take I’ve seen and like the best is Intimidation is using fear to get what you want. If (using 5e here, as that’s the system I’m most familiar with) the hulking barbarian with a –2 Charisma modifier and a +3 proficiency bonus to intimidation (for a total skill modifier of +1) says to the bartender “Gimme your money or I’ll smash you into a pancake” and rolls low, the bartender is definitely scared, it’s just that rather than giving the brute his money, he flees in terror to summon the city guards.

Meanwhile, the 3-foot-tall Halfling bard with a total of +17 to Intimidation checks says to the bartender, “give me your money or (insert Westley’s “To the Pain” speech from The Princess Bride here)”, rolls a natural 6 for a total of 23, the bartender ponies his savings over, for though physically unintimidating, the bard applies just enough charisma to their threats to get their desired outcome.

[Psyren]

Thoughts?

You didn't specify what game you're playing, but:

- The 5e designers specifically call out "Strength (Intimidation)" as a plausible example of a skill being assigned to a different ability score (PHB 175).
- The PF1 designers created a feat for this (like they do almost everything else): Intimidating Prowess (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/intimidating-prowess-combat/). This feat also resurfaced in Pathfinder 2e (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=797) in a different form.


That's putting the cart before the horse.

FIRST the player describes what they do and what they want to accomplish, THEN the DM asks for a dice roll with the skills and ability modifiers they decide is appropriate.

If the player says "I want to say: 'I'll break you spine like I break this steel rod if you don't stand down' and then my character uses their steel-bendy-ability to bend the sleep with their bare hands" I'd definitely say OK roll intimidation + strength to bend the steel and scare them.

A player should not ask "can I make a strength intimidation check", they should roleplay. No, you can not just make any kind of roll and expect a result, please tell me what your character is doing.

This, this, this.

[Anymage]

There are two major flaws in the "barbarians should have beefy intimidation bonuses because they're big and scary" argument.

First, in our world the barbarian would be scary because being huge, ripped, and armed are all very good ways to signal that you can make good on threats of violence. The reedy dweeb who's covered in bat poop doesn't have quite the same capacity. In your average D&D world that reedy dweeb can put out a lot more hurt than the barbarian, so rational threat assessments would take that into account.

Second, the idea that someone who's scared will do exactly what the intimidator wants in order to avoid discomfort. This is only true in the simplest case like a mugging where the action is clear and immediate, and even then it's only mostly true. Scared people can do surprising things, and that becomes much more likely as soon as they're out of your presence. The huge, scary barbarian will suck at selling a protection racket. And if they try to scare someone into coming along with them, the person might well believe that they'll have better odds if they kick up a fuss here than going along with you.

The big, scary barbarian should absolutely be able to play up being scary when the time is right. Scaring off opponents is totally in his bag. (Except insofar as using a resource-free skill to have an opponent quit the field of battle can be questionably balanced in encounters, but that's about balance instead of thematics.) And scaring bad guys into talking should be an option, even if it isn't necessarily ideal. Having mechanical ways to represent all this is totally cool. The issues are that there's a lot more behind proper intimidation than just making the other guy mess his pants, and that the creepy death cleric should also be able to play into similar scariness despite not having a high Str mod.

[Duff]

I'd suggest those who feel the need for strength based intimidate have (or are) GMs who are relatively reluctant to give big circumstance bonuses.
Some GMs are more willing to make decisions than others.
Some need more things written down than others.

[Liquor Box]

. The reedy dweeb who's covered in bat poop doesn't have quite the same capacity. In your average D&D world that reedy dweeb can put out a lot more hurt than the barbarian, so rational threat assessments would take that into account.

Maybe, if they have some sort of magical ability. But the person being threatened doesn't know that. In most worlds only a small proportion of the population is a wizard. Where there are obvious visual queues that the obviously big an well musceled character is dangerous to your average townsperson.

So not that far removed from the real world. In the real world the reedy dweeb might be carrying a gun that can hurt more than the tough guy giving you a clip round the ears. But it's not visible, depending where you are most people don't carry guns, and so people are much more likely to take the chance.

[Duff]

Maybe, if they have some sort of magical ability. But the person being threatened doesn't know that. In most worlds only a small proportion of the population is a wizard. Where there are obvious visual queues that the obviously big an well musceled character is dangerous to your average townsperson.

So not that far removed from the real world. In the real world the reedy dweeb might be carrying a gun that can hurt more than the tough guy giving you a clip round the ears. But it's not visible, depending where you are most people don't carry guns, and so people are much more likely to take the chance.

This. Once the guano hits the mana, its a different story

[Dr.Samurai]

There's a fatal flaw in the "muscles shouldn't improve Intimidation" argument, and that is the conflation of proficiency in Intimidation with the Charisma ability score. Invariably these arguments will talk about how the barbarian "doesn't know" how to use his muscles properly to scare someone else into doing something because they dumped Charisma, and this of course ignores the fact that the barbarian in fact has a *focus* in intimidation and therefore is actually quite familiar with how to scare people into doing what they want.

If we assume a barbarian (or other strong person) with Proficiency in Intimidation, all talks about "doesn't know how" should be thrown out the window. If the barbarian does something to demonstrate their strength, a Str(Intimidation) check is absolutely appropriate. If the person the barbarian is intimidating might be averse to violence or unable to defend themselves against a towering muscled warrior, then no demonstration is probably needed but for the very visual appearance of the barbarian's giant muscles and frame.

If it's a seasoned guard or something, sure, make a demonstration to see if Strength will intimidate someone used to violence. But for many applications, a strong person proficient in Intimidation should just be able to use Strength.

[Tanarii]

For some reason in these discussions the defenders of Str = scariness always have the go-to example be a Half-Orc barbarian with a great axe / sword. In other words, Strength = scary size.

What if it's a Str 20 3ft 1in 32lb female Gnomish Ranger in a breastplate? Sure, she's heavily muscled for her race, and she's dual wielding War Picks. But she's not a 6'6" 380 lb Half Orc. Why are they both getting +5 to intimidate from Str again?

Especially when both of them have no ability to project presence in a way that gets others to do what they want, Cha 8 with a -1 penalty.

Keeping in mind that Intimidate isn't used to scare folks. It's getting them to do what you what you want.

That said, I allow variant ability scores for checks specifically for Str (Intimidate)? Why? Because most players expect it to work, and it's not worth the table arguments.

[Thrudd]

For some reason in these discussions the defenders of Str = scariness always have the go-to example be a Half-Orc barbarian with a great axe / sword. In other words, Strength = scary size.

What if it's a Str 20 3ft 1in 32lb female Gnomish Ranger in a breastplate? Sure, she's heavily muscled for her race, and she's dual wielding War Picks. But she's not a 6'6" 380 lb Half Orc. Why are they both getting +5 to intimidate from Str again?

Especially when both of them have no ability to project presence in a way that gets others to do what they want, Cha 8 with a -1 penalty.

Keeping in mind that Intimidate isn't used to scare folks. It's getting them to do what you what you want.

That said, I allow variant ability scores for checks specifically for Str (Intimidate)? Why? Because most players expect it to work, and it's not worth the table arguments.

It's used to get them to do what you want by scaring them. Also, a 20 Str gnome is equally, mechanically as strong as a 6'8" goliath with 20 str, not just in relation to the rest of her race (as ridiculous as that is, even for a fantasy world). She isn't just the strongest of gnomes, she's the strongest of all PC races. So she might be short, but she'd have ridiculous huge muscles, like the kid in "Kung Fu Hustle" who Stephen Chow doesn't want to fight lol. So I'd say, yeah, if she's trying to threaten someone with her muscles, she gets the same +5 as a large character. Unless we make a rule that incorporates the character size into the attempt as well- like being small gives you disadvantage on physical intimidation attempts against larger targets, or you only get half your strength score applied, or something. Also, you don't need an ability to project your presence when you're built like young Arnie. You don't even need to intend to threaten anyone for people to be threatened, sometimes. But that's the point of this whole discussion - since there isn't a rule (in 5e D&D, which we're clearly talking about), every DM just decides whatever they want, and players have no way to reliably know whether or how physical presence will account into their intimidation attempts.
A definite rule/mechanic wouldn't be to help DMs who don't want to make their own rulings- it's to give the players reliable expectations about how their character's physical presence, as defined by their physical stats, can affect social interactions.

[King of Nowhere]

I'd suggest those who feel the need for strength based intimidate have (or are) GMs who are relatively reluctant to give big circumstance bonuses.
Some GMs are more willing to make decisions than others.
Some need more things written down than others.

so, you mean that instead of letting you add your STR modifier to intimidate when the situation calls for it, the DM should instead give you a circumstance bonus roughly equal to your STR modifier.
it's basically the same thing, isn't it?

[Duff]

so, you mean that instead of letting you add your STR modifier to intimidate when the situation calls for it, the DM should instead give you a circumstance bonus roughly equal to your STR modifier.
it's basically the same thing, isn't it?

I wouldn't say should so much as could

And then the difference is a matter of taste/comfort. Do you, as a GM, like giving circumstance bonuses liberally and generously or do you need a compelling case to give a +1 bonus that isn't written in the rules

[Tanarii]

It's used to get them to do what you want by scaring them. Also, a 20 Str gnome is equally, mechanically as strong as a 6'8" goliath with 20 str, not just in relation to the rest of her race (as ridiculous as that is, even for a fantasy world). She isn't just the strongest of gnomes, she's the strongest of all PC races. So she might be short, but she'd have ridiculous huge muscles, like the kid in "Kung Fu Hustle" who Stephen Chow doesn't want to fight lol.
Does she? Maybe gnome and halfling and possibly even elf muscles don't bulge to give them their strength. They'd almost have to have something else going on, since one with Str 10 and 1/5 the weight of a human has normally proportioned muscles for their height, yet is just as strong. So one with Str 20 should be at most just as muscular, or even less muscular, than a human with the same strength. Not more.

This leaves aside the real counter argument to the idea of Strength (Intimidation): if you're just standing there showing muscles, you aren't using the application of physical force. Which is what a Strength check is used for. So it can't be a strength check.

[Dr.Samurai]

For some reason in these discussions the defenders of Str = scariness always have the go-to example be a Half-Orc barbarian with a great axe / sword. In other words, Strength = scary size.
Yes, because that's how that works.

What if it's a Str 20 3ft 1in 32lb female Gnomish Ranger in a breastplate? Sure, she's heavily muscled for her race, and she's dual wielding War Picks. But she's not a 6'6" 380 lb Half Orc. Why are they both getting +5 to intimidate from Str again?
But the PHB says that a demonstration is in order. So if the gnome ranger crushes a helmet or bends a sword blade... would that not be intimidating if they're trying to intimidate you?

Especially when both of them have no ability to project presence in a way that gets others to do what they want, Cha 8 with a -1 penalty.
Oh, there's that fatal flaw again. Don't forget the proficiency in Intimidation.

Keeping in mind that Intimidate isn't used to scare folks. It's getting them to do what you what you want.
Yes, by intimidating them lol.

That said, I allow variant ability scores for checks specifically for Str (Intimidate)? Why? Because most players expect it to work, and it's not worth the table arguments.
Yeah, it's the same reason bars hire big muscly guys as bouncers and not small scrappy jiujitsu masters, even though the latter may be much more likely to inflict harm and defend the bar than the former. If you deny how reality works at your table I can imagine the arguments get lengthy indeed.

[Dienekes]

For some reason in these discussions the defenders of Str = scariness always have the go-to example be a Half-Orc barbarian with a great axe / sword. In other words, Strength = scary size.

What if it's a Str 20 3ft 1in 32lb female Gnomish Ranger in a breastplate? Sure, she's heavily muscled for her race, and she's dual wielding War Picks. But she's not a 6'6" 380 lb Half Orc. Why are they both getting +5 to intimidate from Str again?

Especially when both of them have no ability to project presence in a way that gets others to do what they want, Cha 8 with a -1 penalty.

Keeping in mind that Intimidate isn't used to scare folks. It's getting them to do what you what you want.

That said, I allow variant ability scores for checks specifically for Str (Intimidate)? Why? Because most players expect it to work, and it's not worth the table arguments.

If you want to help me design a game where the 32 lb gnome couldn't dream of ever becoming 20 strength, I'd be down. Always seemed ridiculous to me. Leverage doesn't work that way.

Don't think it goes with most games (such as 5e's) streamlined design though. So, yeah. In a game with less granular rules, I'm fine with letting some of these weird edge cases pass to make the system work.

Also, a 3 foot tall person who can literally bend steel in their hands does sound pretty scary when they have their hands on me. Provided of course I've seen them bend steel with their hands.

[Quertus]

As a strong CaW player, I generally approve of the notion in the OP, that a sufficiently telegraphed threat should obviate the need for a roll in certain circumstances. From a CaW perspective, I think that this has the right of it:

The party have a cultist tied to a chair, interrogating him about the cult's plans. Both the Barbarian and the Halfling Bard are perfectly capable of slitting his throat or breaking his fingers with a hammer. There shouldn't even be rolls required to achieve this at that point.

The GM is always going to have to do some sort of adjudication here. "You have him at your mercy, so the DC is only 10." "As a cultist of Ytherg, he's been tortured many times as part of the initiations, so it's a DC25, but you get a +2 circumstance bonus because he can't fight back, and it goes up to a +5 if you know enough to threaten him with contaminating his body with salt, Ytherg's bane." Or "This works automatically." Or "This will work automatically, but torturing him will switch your alignment to evil, and a DC15 Intimidate check allows you to achieve this with just threats instead of torture".

And I seem to have lost the supporting quote on this one, but I also agree that the results of the roll isn’t how scary you are, but how well you leverage fear to get what you want.


That's putting the cart before the horse.

FIRST the player describes what they do and what they want to accomplish, THEN the DM asks for a dice roll with the skills and ability modifiers they decide is appropriate.

If the player says "I want to say: 'I'll break you spine like I break this steel rod if you don't stand down' and then my character uses their steel-bendy-ability to bend the sleep with their bare hands" I'd definitely say OK roll intimidation + strength to bend the steel and scare them.

A player should not ask "can I make a strength intimidation check", they should roleplay. No, you can not just make any kind of roll and expect a result, please tell me what your character is doing.

So, first, making the choice to use intimidation is roleplaying - the roleplaying is in making the choice. What you’re describing is more “acting”. Don’t get me wrong, acting (especially good acting) adds to an RPG, but it shouldn’t be seen as so obviously, intrinsically mandatory as roleplaying. They’re not called AGs, after all.

Second, even bad acting adds to the game, because it adds more color and more details, yes, but it also detracts by obfuscating the correct path at times. For example, if the highly skilled intimidator’s PC uses

Westley’s “To the Pain” speech from The Princess Bride that’s one thing. However, what if the player is so inept, they instead use

Uh, betray us, and I will fong you, until your insides are out, your outsides are in, your entrails will become your extrails I will w-rip... all the p... ung. Pain, lots of pain. what then?

My answer is, it doesn’t matter what they say, a 30 on the roll is a 30 on the roll. Period.

However

It matters what they say. Saying that they’ll… checking… threaten to contaminate a cultist of Ytherg with salt gives a circumstance bonus, for example. Whereas threatening the cultist with physical pain (which is what both Westley and Wat did) gives a penalty / sets the DC high.

Point is, the details matter, not the delivery.

[Phhase]

I actually made a thread about this topic a while ago, and gave some examples (quoting my OP below) about how any skill could be applied to Intimidate...and how the difference between success and failure (despite nonetheless being an impressive demonstration of the skill in use) could be chalked up to, well, Charisma.


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.

That said, I think in the vein of 3.5, effective RP based of the synergizing skill ought to allow one to roll a skill check with it to potentially allow a +2 to the intimidate roll.

[GeoffWatson]

Intimidate isn't just scaring someone. It's scaring them in a way so they do what you want them to do.

Sure, the OP muscled barbarian can scare a goblin. But what does the scared goblin do?
Getting the goblin to run away would be easy.
But what if the barbarian wanted the goblin to surrender quietly? A failed Intimidate could have the goblin running away while screaming loudly.
What if the barbarian wanted the goblin to tell him some secrets? A failed Intimidate could have the goblin crying and babbling incoherently.

[Phhase]

Intimidate isn't just scaring someone. It's scaring them in a way so they do what you want them to do.

Sure, the OP muscled barbarian can scare a goblin. But what does the scared goblin do?
Getting the goblin to run away would be easy.
But what if the barbarian wanted the goblin to surrender quietly? A failed Intimidate could have the goblin running away while screaming loudly.
What if the barbarian wanted the goblin to tell him some secrets? A failed Intimidate could have the goblin crying and babbling incoherently.

Of course. These are just examples, not meant to be comprehensive. edit: (ah, sorry, was a bit quick on the draw. I now see this was probably directed at the OP).

[Thrudd]

Does she? Maybe gnome and halfling and possibly even elf muscles don't bulge to give them their strength. They'd almost have to have something else going on, since one with Str 10 and 1/5 the weight of a human has normally proportioned muscles for their height, yet is just as strong. So one with Str 20 should be at most just as muscular, or even less muscular, than a human with the same strength. Not more.

This leaves aside the real counter argument to the idea of Strength (Intimidation): if you're just standing there showing muscles, you aren't using the application of physical force. Which is what a Strength check is used for. So it can't be a strength check.

Sure...so how do you represent the effect of physical stature and presence on social situations where it's relevant? Just standing there showing your muscles also wouldn't make sense as a charisma check. It makes more sense to use the strength attribute for that than anything else, since at least that is related in some way to your physique and stature. Maybe having a certain amount of strength in excess of your target and/or being a size larger grants advantage on checks, being a size smaller and having less relative strength grants disadvantage? It's still a charisma check to represent how good you are at "selling" the accentuation of your menacing physique or choosing the proper stance/facial expression to cause intimidation?

Whatever one comes up with, I don't see any way around passive physical features being decisive or at least very influential in attempts at physical intimidation.

[False God]

Intimidation isn't always about being scary. But what qualifies as being scary depends on the listener, and what a person believes is scary is more dependent on them than the intimidator.

One of older game designs biggest flaws was tying specific ability scores to specific stats, implying that whatever this skill is, it is always (or 99% of the time) based off this stat, which just isn't a good representation of reality and doesn't provide good variety for the game.

This problem has a solution: decouple stats from skills. It doesn't matter what you think is intimidating. It doesn't matter what I think is intimidating. It matters how the player wants to go about being intimidating and how the NPC reacts to it.

[Abracadangit]

My rationale for allowing Intimidation checks to be made with Strength is that without making allowances like this (at least in 5e, I can't speak for other systems), virtually everything in the social pillar is gated behind Charisma. Combat's got a lot of neat cross-ability play going on -- Dex adds to AC, Con adds to HP, Int/Wis/Cha are spellcasting stats for various classes, etc. But if you're just going off the abilities suggested on the character sheet for social, it's Cha skills all the way down. Add in the fact that Cha is the go-to dump stat for a lot of martials, and you've effectively boxed those characters out of being effective in most social situations/encounters, which bothers some people.

My one issue with the "bending the steel bar to Intimidate" example is what's stopping said character from carrying a steel bar with them everywhere they go, so they can proc Strength (Intimidation) whenever they want, right. At that stage, let's just make social mini-feats for everyone that work like Samurai's Elegant Courtier (add your Wis bonus on top of Cha whenever you roll Persuasion) plus one or two fun ribbons, and then people can play the character the way they'd like to play without worrying about being locked out of the whole social pillar. There can be a Strength (Performance) for people who want to play showy wrestler/carnival strongman types, an Intelligence (Deception) for manipulative spymasters, a Wisdom (Persuasion) for monks and druids with a calming zen presence, and so on.

Of course I know that's never gonna happen -- it's a bridge too far for their hands-off approach to social stuff -- but players in my games have enjoyed the homebrew options. In conclusion, I don't allow Strength (Intimidation) specifically because I think big muscles correlate to being intimidating, but I do it because a) Intimidation thematically meshes well with buff warrior types, as opposed to Deception for tricky types and Persuasion for spiritual/scholarly types, and b) I want everyone to feel capable of contributing to social situations in a meaningful way.

[Tanarii]

Yes, because that's how that works.Except it isn't, as my gnome example demonstrates.


Yeah, it's the same reason bars hire big muscly guys as bouncers and not small scrappy jiujitsu masters, even though the latter may be much more likely to inflict harm and defend the bar than the former. If you deny how reality works at your table I can imagine the arguments get lengthy indeed.You claim reality, after immediately using the same flawed argument that high Str score = scary size.

[Pex]

The point of using Strength to intimidate is not roaring or flexing. It's breaking something or otherwise physically altering such as bending a metal bar. Strength is used for combat, so showing off strength implies the ability to harm - the intimidation. It's non-verbal.

[Anymage]

I'm curious how we can go the other way here and give people what they want.

Someone playing your archetypal barbarian wants their character to be scary, to be able to get other people to back down in a confrontation and maybe be able to do things like interrogate enemies through cowing them. All viable things for a character to do, and a limited subset of the things that full intimidation proficiency can do. The charismatic mob boss is better at directing how fear manifests and has a better chance of making the fear persist over long term behaviors, but that's likely not what the barbarian's player is looking for.

How would you give the barbarian their time to shine and a chance to engage in socialization in a specific niche, without necessarily letting that spill over into other categories. For bonus points, how would you let the death cultist cleric or another scary character have a similar shtick if they can't fall back on a high STR mod to do the heavy lifting?

[icefractal]

One issue with Strength improving Intimidate is that it doesn't help resist intimidation.

So giants are all scared ****less of each-other? "Oh ****, that guy just snapped a steel bar in half! I mean, I could do the same thing, so could even a child, but for some reason it terrifies me!"

As for being bigger, being a larger size gives +4 to Intimidate in PF1, and so +2 for being the same category but significantly more brawny seems about right.

Even if we said "the modifier is the delta between Strength bonuses", that's still failing the case where someone is less strong but much more powerful. Is a low-level human with Strength 18 supposed to be scary to a demon with DR 15/good, vorpal claws, and a bunch of deadly SLAs? "I don't give a **** you bent that bar, because my skin is much tougher than iron"

A bonus to Intimidate for being obviously more powerful makes sense, but that's a lot different than just "add Strength bonus"

[Mastikator]

So, first, making the choice to use intimidation is roleplaying - the roleplaying is in making the choice. What you’re describing is more “acting”. Don’t get me wrong, acting (especially good acting) adds to an RPG, but it shouldn’t be seen as so obviously, intrinsically mandatory as roleplaying. They’re not called AGs, after all.

Second, even bad acting adds to the game, because it adds more color and more details, yes, but it also detracts by obfuscating the correct path at times. For example, if the highly skilled intimidator’s PC uses
that’s one thing. However, what if the player is so inept, they instead use
what then?

What exactly in my scenario is the acting that is also decidedly not roleplaying?
Is it the line, because that can be narrated rather than acted and changes nothing about my point. Feel free to pretend I narrated it rather than acted it, my point stands firm.
Is it the part about displaying steel bending as a form of intimidation because that was narrating.
Is it the choice to scare them? Because the choice to use strength score and intimidation skill is the DM's choice, it does not belong to the player. The player can not choose to make a dice roll. The player chooses what their character does.

[Telok]

Pfft. This is what taking prisoners and the speak with dead spell is for. Ask a few corpses questions, ask a prisoner, kill the prisoner, ask the corpse, next prisoner in line starts spewing info.

As for intimidate... depends on the system. For d&d the big issue is making exactly one socal stat to rule everything and then warping the system math to require min/max builds that either dump mental & social abilities to survive combat or max mental & social abilities as a side effect of surviving combat.

Personally I like Pendragon where you can use different virtues & vices for this stuff. Is it still "intimidate" if your famed tourney winning skill with a sword and high honor score cow the opposition into accepting terms of surrender, even while your muscles and looks are only average?

[Satinavian]

My rationale for allowing Intimidation checks to be made with Strength is that without making allowances like this (at least in 5e, I can't speak for other systems), virtually everything in the social pillar is gated behind Charisma. Combat's got a lot of neat cross-ability play going on -- Dex adds to AC, Con adds to HP, Int/Wis/Cha are spellcasting stats for various classes, etc. But if you're just going off the abilities suggested on the character sheet for social, it's Cha skills all the way down. Add in the fact that Cha is the go-to dump stat for a lot of martials, and you've effectively boxed those characters out of being effective in most social situations/encounters, which bothers some people.

My one issue with the "bending the steel bar to Intimidate" example is what's stopping said character from carrying a steel bar with them everywhere they go, so they can proc Strength (Intimidation) whenever they want, right. At that stage, let's just make social mini-feats for everyone that work like Samurai's Elegant Courtier (add your Wis bonus on top of Cha whenever you roll Persuasion) plus one or two fun ribbons, and then people can play the character the way they'd like to play without worrying about being locked out of the whole social pillar. There can be a Strength (Performance) for people who want to play showy wrestler/carnival strongman types, an Intelligence (Deception) for manipulative spymasters, a Wisdom (Persuasion) for monks and druids with a calming zen presence, and so on.

Of course I know that's never gonna happen -- it's a bridge too far for their hands-off approach to social stuff -- but players in my games have enjoyed the homebrew options. In conclusion, I don't allow Strength (Intimidation) specifically because I think big muscles correlate to being intimidating, but I do it because a) Intimidation thematically meshes well with buff warrior types, as opposed to Deception for tricky types and Persuasion for spiritual/scholarly types, and b) I want everyone to feel capable of contributing to social situations in a meaningful way.
As this is obviously about D&D of certain kinds, Charisma has indeed the problem of being utterly useless outside of some skills and specific class features. Which means, if you are not a class relying on it, it is tempting to dump it.

But for me that is all the more reason to not take one of those few uses away from it. People dumping a stat should always pay something for it. If it doesn't hurt somewhere, the system doesn't work as intended. So far for balancing.

As for rationalisation : Charisma is the stat for influencing others. You not being able to be menacing when you completely lack it is reasonable. Also situational modifiers for social skills have existed for over 2 decades now. If you want those, use them.

[Dr.Samurai]

Except it isn't, as my gnome example demonstrates.
Are you saying that if Strength is allowed without a demonstration of strength (as in the case of a big clearly muscled strong warrior) then it must be allowed in this way all the time even if it doesn't make sense (as in the case of a small gnome warrior)?

I don't know what your example is demonstrating. I mentioned in my post that a demonstration might be needed depending on circumstances.

You claim reality, after immediately using the same flawed argument that high Str score = scary size.
But you're arguing that a small gnome warrior wouldn't be scary? Why are you arguing that? And how do you argue that without then understanding that a large half-orc warrior might be scary?

Why is small not scary, but large is also not scary?

[animorte]

So giants are all scared ****less of each-other? "Oh ****, that guy just snapped a steel bar in half! I mean, I could do the same thing, so could even a child, but for some reason it terrifies me!"

“He’s got a sword!l”
…
“Idiot, we’ve all got swords!”

[Dienekes]

Except it isn't, as my gnome example demonstrates.
.

Does it?

Again 32 lbs nothing that just crushed stone with their tiny hands now with their hands on my throat sounds terrifying.

[Thrudd]

The OP's contention, as I'm reading it, is that the only situation in which physical stature should affect an intimidation attempt is when the result will be so obvious that it's a foregone conclusion and requires no roll - like a giant vs a goblin - and any time there is any doubt about the results on an NPC, charisma would be the deciding factor and not one's physical appearance. I don't think that's reasonable - it's completely plausible to me that physique could be the determining factor when one human is attempting to threaten another human of nearly the same size. If the strength attribute isn't the one which indicates the status of one's physique and muscles, what is?
This isn't to say that we need to treat it in a simplistic fashion and allow physical (or any sort of) intimidation to equally affect all targets regardless of their own size and other factors. The point is, physique has an effect when someone is trying to be physically threatening, and it makes sense for that to be given a definitive mechanical effect of some sort. There's no reason to arbitrarily decide that physical stature's effect on NPC's should always be subjectively decided by the GM, but threatening arguments or performances require an unbiased mechanical resolution to decide the NPC's reaction, especially if players had to choose between investing in their character's physique (strength) vs investing in their ability to influence and perform (charisma). I suppose the counter argument is, that characters who want to influence people should suffer in physical abilities, and physical ability should detract from ability to influence, in all situations - since the game is not meant to be so detailed as to account for these factors I'm bringing up.

[Vahnavoi]

The actual issue is that when d20 made Intimidate (as well as Diplomacy etc.) into a skill, it folded a bunch of other rules into them that it really shouldn't have. Namely, reaction rolls and morale.

The big difference was that reaction rolls and morale were primarily on the game master's side, not the player's. So the game master could calibrate how friendly, hostile, cowardly or courageous monsters were based on their nature. This was largely independent from ability scores (which most monsters strictly speaking didn't even have) or level, so you could have big, strong monsters that'd flee at first opportunity, as well as tiny, weak monsters that were utterly fearless.

Morale was checked based on what was done to a monster - examples included being injured or losing 50% of group strength. Results varies from surrender to fleeing etc..

This meant a big, strong fighter didn't need to do or have anything extra to intimidate their opponents - applying sword to face would cause them to check morale sooner or later anyway.

That's what's missing from later mechanics. Now, a reasonable game master will account for nature of characters and demonstrations of strength anyway, but nothing explicitly tells them they should. This is how you end up with characters who can kill others in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. As well as characters who keep fighting even after its obvious they've lost.

Best solution: reinstate morale and reaction rolls, do away with social skill checks, or at least handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.

[animorte]

handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.

Test Your Might!
*cue mortal kombat music*

[Dr.Samurai]

Test Your Might!
*cue mortal kombat music*
This made me laugh out loud :smallbiggrin:


But seriously folks, the image for Intimidate in the PHB is a big ol' barbarian looming over a guard and grabbing him by his helmet. To suggest that size and strength are completely divorced from this and it's all magic invisible charisma beams is ignoring reality, and even the suggestion in the PHB itself that Strength can apply.

Another way to look at it is that Charisma based checks allow for anyone to be able to Intimidate someone. Strength characters are an exception that can still Intimidate people in a different way.

[Thrudd]

The actual issue is that when d20 made Intimidate (as well as Diplomacy etc.) into a skill, it folded a bunch of other rules into them that it really shouldn't have. Namely, reaction rolls and morale.

The big difference was that reaction rolls and morale were primarily on the game master's side, not the player's. So the game master could calibrate how friendly, hostile, cowardly or courageous monsters were based on their nature. This was largely independent from ability scores (which most monsters strictly speaking didn't even have) or level, so you could have big, strong monsters that'd flee at first opportunity, as well as tiny, weak monsters that were utterly fearless.

Morale was checked based on what was done to a monster - examples included being injured or losing 50% of group strength. Results varies from surrender to fleeing etc..

This meant a big, strong fighter didn't need to do or have anything extra to intimidate their opponents - applying sword to face would cause them to check morale sooner or later anyway.

That's what's missing from later mechanics. Now, a reasonable game master will account for nature of characters and demonstrations of strength anyway, but nothing explicitly tells them they should. This is how you end up with characters who can kill others in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. As well as characters who keep fighting even after its obvious they've lost.

Best solution: reinstate morale and reaction rolls, do away with social skill checks, or at least handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.

I was thinking that, as well. The 5e DMG optional morale rule is ridiculously anemic. Relying on the reasonableness of individual DMs, without giving much or any guidance for new players to learn how to become a reasonable DM is a problem I have with this sort of system. I generally advocate for D&D using more robust morale rules and reaction rules rather than predetermining enemies' willingness to fight and always playing combat to the death (or basing the decision completely on GM fiat/narrative reasons).

[Telok]

Also situational modifiers for social skills have existed for over 2 decades now. If you want those, use them.

They've been around a lot longer than that, people just used different words and several non-d&d games were more explicit.

[Quertus]

I actually made a thread about this topic a while ago, and gave some examples (quoting my OP below) about how any skill could be applied to Intimidate...and how the difference between success and failure (despite nonetheless being an impressive demonstration of the skill in use) could be chalked up to, well, Charisma.

That said, I think in the vein of 3.5, effective RP based of the synergizing skill ought to allow one to roll a skill check with it to potentially allow a +2 to the intimidate roll.

When and where did you make that thread? How did I miss it? Great stuff!


The point of using Strength to intimidate is not roaring or flexing. It's breaking something or otherwise physically altering such as bending a metal bar. Strength is used for combat, so showing off strength implies the ability to harm - the intimidation. It's non-verbal.

It may be nonverbal, but that doesn’t make it “antisocial” / not Charisma. If you’re a health nut, and spend 15 minutes stretching and warming up and properly hydrating before bending the bar, it might not be as intimidating as you pictured in your head. If your line is, “see that? That’s your big toe.”, it might not be as intimidating as you pictured in your head.


I'm curious how we can go the other way here and give people what they want.

Someone playing your archetypal barbarian wants their character to be scary, to be able to get other people to back down in a confrontation and maybe be able to do things like interrogate enemies through cowing them. All viable things for a character to do, and a limited subset of the things that full intimidation proficiency can do. The charismatic mob boss is better at directing how fear manifests and has a better chance of making the fear persist over long term behaviors, but that's likely not what the barbarian's player is looking for.

How would you give the barbarian their time to shine and a chance to engage in socialization in a specific niche, without necessarily letting that spill over into other categories. For bonus points, how would you let the death cultist cleric or another scary character have a similar shtick if they can't fall back on a high STR mod to do the heavy lifting?

Just like we don’t “roll combat”, focus on it being a tactical minigame, where finding out how to intimidate the target matters.

So, say I get Isekai’d, and join a party. And someone decides to intimidate me - by hurting one of my allies. Let’s say the party is the Konasuba party.

Aqua? The result of the intimidate check is used to determine the DC to overcome the confusion effect I’m under from evaluating that scenario.

Darkness? Really high DC. You’ve gotta really sell me on the idea that she’ll hate this, that this isn’t the best stalling tactic ever.

Kazuma? The important roll here is Sense Motive, to beat my bluff that I care.

Megumin? You’ve just threatened a child. It may be a low DC, but if I live through this, you can bet I’ll be working to find a way to do far worse to the torturer than they threatened to do to her.

(EDIT: wait - how old is Kazuma?)

Probably more effective to threaten a random civilian in this scenario, actually.


One issue with Strength improving Intimidate is that it doesn't help resist intimidation.

So giants are all scared ****less of each-other? "Oh ****, that guy just snapped a steel bar in half! I mean, I could do the same thing, so could even a child, but for some reason it terrifies me!"

Yeah, a proper Intimidate tactical minigame is nontrivial to write up.


What exactly in my scenario is the acting that is also decidedly not roleplaying?
Is it the line, because that can be narrated rather than acted and changes nothing about my point. Feel free to pretend I narrated it rather than acted it, my point stands firm.
Is it the part about displaying steel bending as a form of intimidation because that was narrating.
Is it the choice to scare them? Because the choice to use strength score and intimidation skill is the DM's choice, it does not belong to the player. The player can not choose to make a dice roll. The player chooses what their character does.

Ah, I think there’s been a miscommunication here. Let’s see is I can fix it without quotes.

Saying (effectively) “you can’t just say you want to intimidate them, you have to actually roleplay and speak the lines” translates to “you can’t just <roleplay>, you have to roleplay, and <act>”.

Roleplaying isn’t “talky bits”, is making decisions for the character, as the character. The player in your example has already passed the bar for roleplaying by choosing what action to take (“intimidate them for information” or whatever).

That said, other than your specific word use, I agreed that it’s important for the player to give you enough details to know if they’re threatening to, say, salt the cultist, hurt them, or expose them, as each path has a different DC. I have similar rules in place at my tables for just that reason. I just word them differently.


“He’s got a sword!l”
…
“Idiot, we’ve all got swords!”

Thanks for the laugh! (Even if I remember the lines differently)
(“Still I think he’s rather tasty”)


Test Your Might!
*cue mortal kombat music*

Again, thanks! (Changing genre, but no, I don’t have 6 fingers on my left hand)


The actual issue is that when d20 made Intimidate (as well as Diplomacy etc.) into a skill, it folded a bunch of other rules into them that it really shouldn't have. Namely, reaction rolls and morale.

The big difference was that reaction rolls and morale were primarily on the game master's side, not the player's. So the game master could calibrate how friendly, hostile, cowardly or courageous monsters were based on their nature. This was largely independent from ability scores (which most monsters strictly speaking didn't even have) or level, so you could have big, strong monsters that'd flee at first opportunity, as well as tiny, weak monsters that were utterly fearless.

Morale was checked based on what was done to a monster - examples included being injured or losing 50% of group strength. Results varies from surrender to fleeing etc..

This meant a big, strong fighter didn't need to do or have anything extra to intimidate their opponents - applying sword to face would cause them to check morale sooner or later anyway.

That's what's missing from later mechanics. Now, a reasonable game master will account for nature of characters and demonstrations of strength anyway, but nothing explicitly tells them they should. This is how you end up with characters who can kill others in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. As well as characters who keep fighting even after its obvious they've lost.

Best solution: reinstate morale and reaction rolls, do away with social skill checks, or at least handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills.

While I won’t deny that that would be a step in the right direction, I’m concerned that it might make it harder to build the kind of social tactical minigame we’ve been discussing. Am I off base with my fears?

[Psyren]

I'm curious how we can go the other way here and give people what they want.

Someone playing your archetypal barbarian wants their character to be scary, to be able to get other people to back down in a confrontation and maybe be able to do things like interrogate enemies through cowing them. All viable things for a character to do, and a limited subset of the things that full intimidation proficiency can do. The charismatic mob boss is better at directing how fear manifests and has a better chance of making the fear persist over long term behaviors, but that's likely not what the barbarian's player is looking for.

How would you give the barbarian their time to shine and a chance to engage in socialization in a specific niche, without necessarily letting that spill over into other categories. For bonus points, how would you let the death cultist cleric or another scary character have a similar shtick if they can't fall back on a high STR mod to do the heavy lifting?

5e has a lot of ways to do this. First, it's bounded accuracy, so Intimidate proficiency even if you leave Intimidate keyed off dumped Charisma only still gets you a solid bonus relative to the things you should be capable of scaring. Second, there's the explicit guidance I linked earlier that Strength (Intimidation) is fully intended to be okay by the devs. Third, Intimidate is not an opposed check, so you are free to make the DC lower if the player describes how they're using their muscles to intimidate someone - intimidating an official in a dark alley and intimidating him in bright daylight in his office surrounded by guards are different tasks and so should have different difficulties. Fourth and final, you can always just let the Barbarian's player take the Skill Expert feat for Expertise if they truly want to be great at it without having high Charisma. You can even give them the feat as a boon or other story reward if you want.

As for the non-strength scary character - theirs straightforwardly comes from Cha. Or you can even base it on Int. As Mastikator rightly said, the key is to first know what the player is trying to do and how, then you adjudicate it.

[KorvinStarmast]

This isn't weird or unprecedented: sufficiently favorable circumstances should always remove the need for a check While I tend to agree, opinions are like navels, everybody has one.

So, if it's agreed that there is some objective measure That's the problem, right there: objective.

I read somewhere not too long ago (paraphrased, of course): “Intimidation is not convincing someone that you can break them in half. It’s convincing them that you will.” Something of that nature. Credible threat.

I'd suggest those who feel the need for strength based intimidate have (or are) GMs who are relatively reluctant to give big circumstance bonuses.
Some GMs are more willing to make decisions than others.
Some need more things written down than others. Good point on where the variation comes from.

The actual issue is that when d20 made Intimidate (as well as Diplomacy etc.) into a skill, it folded a bunch of other rules into them that it really shouldn't have. Namely, reaction rolls and morale.

The big difference was that reaction rolls and morale were primarily on the game master's side, not the player's. So the game master could calibrate how friendly, hostile, cowardly or courageous monsters were based on their nature. This was largely independent from ability scores (which most monsters strictly speaking didn't even have) or level, so you could have big, strong monsters that'd flee at first opportunity, as well as tiny, weak monsters that were utterly fearless.

Morale was checked based on what was done to a monster - examples included being injured or losing 50% of group strength. Results varies from surrender to fleeing etc..

This meant a big, strong fighter didn't need to do or have anything extra to intimidate their opponents - applying sword to face would cause them to check morale sooner or later anyway.

That's what's missing from later mechanics. Now, a reasonable game master will account for nature of characters and demonstrations of strength anyway, but nothing explicitly tells them they should. This is how you end up with characters who can kill others in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. As well as characters who keep fighting even after its obvious they've lost.

Best solution: reinstate morale and reaction rolls, do away with social skill checks, or at least handle demonstrations of strength separately from social skills. This is also how you end up with players who can kill {NPC/Monsters} in seven different way in just as many seconds, but cannot talk their way out of a paper bag. Exercising the role playing and dialogue muscle develops it; not exercising it leads to atrophy.

[Pex]

One issue with Strength improving Intimidate is that it doesn't help resist intimidation.

So giants are all scared ****less of each-other? "Oh ****, that guy just snapped a steel bar in half! I mean, I could do the same thing, so could even a child, but for some reason it terrifies me!"

As for being bigger, being a larger size gives +4 to Intimidate in PF1, and so +2 for being the same category but significantly more brawny seems about right.

Even if we said "the modifier is the delta between Strength bonuses", that's still failing the case where someone is less strong but much more powerful. Is a low-level human with Strength 18 supposed to be scary to a demon with DR 15/good, vorpal claws, and a bunch of deadly SLAs? "I don't give a **** you bent that bar, because my skin is much tougher than iron"

A bonus to Intimidate for being obviously more powerful makes sense, but that's a lot different than just "add Strength bonus"

Bending a metal bar, no. Twisting the head off an underling giant to threaten the others, yes. Still, giants of the same species tend to have the same strength with each other so intimidation by strength won't mean anything. Humanoids have varying strength, so a feat of great strength means more.

[Easy e]

As others have said, size and strength do not matter when using intimidation, it is the target's belief in your intent to follow through on any implied threat.

Worse case, the GM can just give you a bonus of set a low Target Number for success based on what/how the player intends to intimidate someone with their character.

[Pex]

It may be nonverbal, but that doesn’t make it “antisocial” / not Charisma. If you’re a health nut, and spend 15 minutes stretching and warming up and properly hydrating before bending the bar, it might not be as intimidating as you pictured in your head. If your line is, “see that? That’s your big toe.”, it might not be as intimidating as you pictured in your head.




If it's not intimidating it only means you rolled low/failed the check. You still got to use Strength for the check instead of Charisma. The idea is to allow Strength for the check, not guarantee the intimidation.

[Mastikator]

Ah, I think there’s been a miscommunication here. Let’s see is I can fix it without quotes.

Saying (effectively) “you can’t just say you want to intimidate them, you have to actually roleplay and speak the lines” translates to “you can’t just <roleplay>, you have to roleplay, and <act>”.

Roleplaying isn’t “talky bits”, is making decisions for the character, as the character. The player in your example has already passed the bar for roleplaying by choosing what action to take (“intimidate them for information” or whatever).

That said, other than your specific word use, I agreed that it’s important for the player to give you enough details to know if they’re threatening to, say, salt the cultist, hurt them, or expose them, as each path has a different DC. I have similar rules in place at my tables for just that reason. I just word them differently.

Well yeah, if the player wants to question someone for information and gives no direction on how their character does it, then I have to take the wheel on their character and I'll go with what the book says. If the player was hoping for a strength check rather than a charisma check then the onus of justifying strength is on them.

"I want to question him for information"

"He refuses to talk"

"I want to threaten him if he refuses"

"Ok roll an intimidation check"

"Can I use strength instead of charisma" <---- the player needs to <act> this or he's not getting strength. A little bit of trying goes a long way.

[Psyren]

I'd suggest those who feel the need for strength based intimidate have (or are) GMs who are relatively reluctant to give big circumstance bonuses.

D&D (the current edition anyway, though the OP didn't specify) doesn't have "big circumstance bonuses." Bounded Accuracy and all that.


Well yeah, if the player wants to question someone for information and gives no direction on how their character does it, then I have to take the wheel on their character and I'll go with what the book says. If the player was hoping for a strength check rather than a charisma check then the onus of justifying strength is on them.

"I want to question him for information"

"He refuses to talk"

"I want to threaten him if he refuses"

"Ok roll an intimidation check"

"Can I use strength instead of charisma" <---- the player needs to <act> this or he's not getting strength. A little bit of trying goes a long way.

While I agree with this, depending on who "He" is I might be pretty forgiving or even help them. For instance, this guy (https://anthonyzuri.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/9_rep.png) would be pretty easy to intimidate through strength, so it wouldn't take much to convince me of the swap.

[Liquor Box]

I think a person being physically imposing is a well established aspect of intimidation, probably much more so than any aspect of their personality. I think people have an unconscious bias to assume larger people are more intimidating even in situations where there is no real threat of physical harm. There is lots of research on the difference in success between tall men and short men (the pay gap relating to height is greater than the pay gap relating to gender), and although this can not necessarily be attributed to intimidation it does demonstrate how people of different physiques are perceived (in circumstances where violence is usually not a threat).

I recall Tony Vlachos (probably the most succesful Survivor player of all time) talking about how he would always try to chat to people on slope, and stand upslope or downslope from them depending on whether he wanted them to be perceived as non threatening or not, despite physical intimidation not being part of the game.

[Thrudd]

I think a person being physically imposing is a well established aspect of intimidation, probably much more so than any aspect of their personality. I think people have an unconscious bias to assume larger people are more intimidating even in situations where there is no real threat of physical harm. There is lots of research on the difference in success between tall men and short men (the pay gap relating to height is greater than the pay gap relating to gender), and although this can not necessarily be attributed to intimidation it does demonstrate how people of different physiques are perceived (in circumstances where violence is usually not a threat).

I recall Tony Vlachos (probably the most succesful Survivor player of all time) talking about how he would always try to chat to people on slope, and stand upslope or downslope from them depending on whether he wanted them to be perceived as non threatening or not, despite physical intimidation not being part of the game.

Anyone who's ever been in the presence of someone a foot and a half taller than them, and a foot wider at the shoulders, can confirm - it's pretty darn intimidating. lol I'm not sure if the people who think it has no effect are just large people who have never met someone bigger? I'm from a short family, and was almost always the smallest boy in my class. When I was 5'0" and 100 lbs, I knew some football players who were 6'5" and 300+ lbs. It wasn't their personality or anything they said that convinced me to get out of the way when they came barreling down the hallway lol. It was the fact that if they accidentally bumped into me, I'd be knocked off my feet. I knew how to fight, but if I thought there was a chance they wanted to bump into me? I wouldn't argue. lol

[Tanarii]

Be that as it may, strength stat isn't an imposing size stat in D&D.

If you want that, make it a Imposing Size (Intimidate) ability check instead of a Charisma (Intimidate) ability check. :smallamused:

[Alcore]

Ya know this reminds me of a problem with skyrim.


So there you are running around in *demon* armor, with a huscarl (also encased in armor), a literal *elemental* of a various types and... perhaps... a dog.

And you get stopped by some lone figure who goes "your valuables or your life!". His is armed with two puny daggers and, perhaps, mid range armor.


No amount of talking gets him to stand down. Unless your charisma skill is high enough. It comes to blows; usually this is me sighing behind my shield that the theif is pointless hammering on while my companions give him a once over. He is so weak they only need one.

[Willie the Duck]

I doubt much that that many people fundamentally misunderstanding the intimidate skill. They understand, they don't care (they want it to be something different).

Instead, I think there are a couple of fundamental issues going on...

One is that charisma -- a stat originally designed to represent how many followers you could have and how loyal they were got converted over time into a generalized social ability score. That first and foremost puts the best leader, the best seducer, the best salesman, the best intimidator and the best liar all in the same bucket of 'character you want with a high Cha score' and I think a lot of people just don't like that. If all you want your beefy barbarian character* to do well is intimidate, and RP they actually aren't supposed to be good dinner company, needing to invest in Cha just for that one thing (and have good defaults for other social actions carried with) seems... I'll just say 'wrong, somehow,' for want of a better term. Secondarily, just the term 'Charisma' evokes the idea of a strong leader or glad-handing salesperson or the like. Hero System uses the term Presence for their social attribute (one more explicitly dedicated to how well you can cow or control people -- to the point where you can make a Presence Attack -- and I think that works better for Intimidation style social skills.
*or on the DM side they want the PCs to run into the half-ghoul/half-troll barbarian leader Baby-Eater Maggotface, living embodiment of unnerving behavior, and the idea that this entity should have a positive charisma score just reads wrong.

Another issue is the movement towards arrayed stats. Originally, the best way to build a Conan-esque character (someone who is generally good at next to everything, in particular can fight, sneak, lead, deceive, convince, seduce, intimidate, and discern) is to roll really well on most all your attributes. That has some unfortunate incentivization structures (dump stats, deliberately killing off poor-roll-characters, or of course all the alternate attribute generation methods both individual tables and the game itself started using), and people have been moving more towards making a game where you can make something someone would want to play from the average results of the basic attribute determining system. Once that comes into effect, having a character intimidating fighter character who can have a good Str, Dex, Con and Cha becomes rather hard to do.

Third is skills in general -- they came in in mid-late 1e and by 2e and the BECMI add-ons/RC were definitively attribute based. Once you have a skill system, you probably are going to include social skills because those seem as reasonable a thing to be/not-be skilled in as fire starting, reading, or horse riding. If your system is attribute-based, well then of course you are going to choose Charisma. And this was done without really rethinking the base system under it at all and deciding if that made sense. Personally, I would have enjoyed a skill system which maybe included attributes, but only minorly* (maybe +/-1-3 while character level and level of investment were 5-6 each of similar). That would make someone who isn't naturally universally charismatic but really good at one social skill much more feasible.
*or my other oft-mentioned idea: make skills the only/main thing attributes did, and then you could have a charisma-focused fighter if you wanted. But that's a discussion for another day.

Finally, I think that there's a lot of churn and disagreement (between people and probably within individuals) on what the D&D game us supposed to be with regards to social rules -- is there supposed to be a strategic social mini game? Are social skills supposed to be simple or complex? Realistic or cinematic/epic? Does any or all of this take away from social interactions (for some or all the players)? Etc.

[Mastikator]

Ya know this reminds me of a problem with skyrim.


So there you are running around in *demon* armor, with a huscarl (also encased in armor), a literal *elemental* of a various types and... perhaps... a dog.

And you get stopped by some lone figure who goes "your valuables or your life!". His is armed with two puny daggers and, perhaps, mid range armor.


No amount of talking gets him to stand down. Unless your charisma skill is high enough. It comes to blows; usually this is me sighing behind my shield that the theif is pointless hammering on while my companions give him a once over. He is so weak they only need one.

Yeah sometimes the DM should just say "yeah you look very scary and have a reputation for killing dragons, bandits are just automatically afraid of you, you don't have to roll anything".

[icefractal]

I
If all you want your beefy barbarian character* to do well is intimidate, and RP they actually aren't supposed to be good dinner company, needing to invest in Cha just for that one thing (and have good defaults for other social actions carried with) seems... I'll just say 'wrong, somehow,' for want of a better term. A legit problem, but not limited to Intimidate. The solution I use (since we're talking house rules anyway), is that I buffed Skill Focus and Skill Affinity (replacement for all the +2/+2 skill feats), which included this:

Skill Focus: treat the associated stat as 16 if lower, for purposes of the skill bonus.
Skill Affinity: ditto, but 14

Solves not only "abrasive and a bad speaker but very scary" but also "slow and very non-agile, but has excellent manual dexterity" and "not at all smart in general, but a savant on this one subject".

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

As noted by icefractal, 3e and PF have modifiers for relative size, so that strong gnome really is significantly less intimidating than a strong orc. 3e even allows the relative size modifier to scale, so a large creature has a +8 against a small creature and so on.

With this in mind, strength need not factor in directly as a general rule. It's more about the target's perceived threat, and that is highly circumstantial. When it's really about pure physical intimidation (e.g., the heat of battle), then yeah, a raging orc barbarian should get a bonus, but that bonus should be based the circumstances and how he looks rather than a strength score. In a more formal social setting, maybe the spoony bard is the one getting a circumstance bonus for delivering a veiled threat to the baroness in the middle of a (perfectly-executed) ballroom dance.

I agree that it's too bad that the slobbering orc who wants to be good at intimidating must invest in Charisma - in 5e. But in 3e/PF, you don't really need the underlying ability to be pretty good at a skill. That's the benefit of a more granular skill system which puts more emphasis on proficiency instead of ability.

[Tanarii]

Personally, I would have enjoyed a skill system which maybe included attributes, but only minorly* (maybe +/-1-3 while character level and level of investment were 5-6 each of similar). That would make someone who isn't naturally universally charismatic but really good at one social skill much more feasible.
This is a fairly common issue in attribute for skills based systems.

The opposite problem for independently/directly invested skill based systems is often not enough points to invest relative to the number of skills available. Or insufficiently scaling cost to get very good at a skill if you provide sufficient points, so that folks can become far too good at a narrow range of things.

3e and 4e D&D had the worst of both worlds. Stats were overly important at low levels for basic functionality in too many things. But there weren't enough points to keep on the treadmill required to be passable at enough things at high levels.

[lesser_minion]

There's a fatal flaw in the "muscles shouldn't improve Intimidation" argument, and that is the conflation of proficiency in Intimidation with the Charisma ability score. Invariably these arguments will talk about how the barbarian "doesn't know" how to use his muscles properly to scare someone else into doing something because they dumped Charisma, and this of course ignores the fact that the barbarian in fact has a *focus* in intimidation and therefore is actually quite familiar with how to scare people into doing what they want.

More aptitude (higher charisma) + equal effort spent learning (equal ranks/proficiency bonus) = more knowledge. Your alleged "fatal flaw" does not exist.

[Mastikator]

There are many ways to intimidate someone, and many possible desired outcomes someone may want for intimidating someone. It's a broad skill. The ability score should depend on what you're doing and how you're doing it, it should not depend on "uh my barbarian dumped charisma" nor should it depend on "the PHB lists charisma as the default".


Trying to interrogate someone - probably charisma, may also be intelligence, wisdom or even dexterity (if you use "enhanced" techniques)
Trying to bait an enemy into attacking you by insulting them, charisma or intelligence are fine choices
Trying to make an enemy NOT attack your party, strength is more appropriate than charisma
Trying to make an enemy attack not you, charisma and strength both makes sense, even constitution would work here TBH
Telling a scary story, charisma definitely, but wisdom and intelligence may apply
Forcing/coercing someone to accept terms or do specific tasks, charisma and strength are both viable, dex and int and wisdom too depending on details of the situation
Someone will probably complain that this is a very short list, it is intentionally not exhaustive because I don't have the energy to write every possible intimidation. Just examples to show how different situations calls for different ability scores.
But the point is that a big scary roar should use strength or con, and not charisma, and that an insult to bait an attack should use charisma or intelligence, and not strength!

[Tanarii]

A big scary roar isn't a Strength or Constitution ability check
The first is used for the direct application of physical force and the second for enduring something.
Physical ability score checks are used when you do something physical. Not to influence others.

Bending a bar is a Strength check.
Getting a specific emotional response leading to a specific action you desire from someone else is a Charisma check. That's the ability score for influencing others.

If the approach is "big scary roar" or "bend a bar" that might inform the modifying proficiency or the target DC or even automatic success or failure depending on the target and approach chosen. But the intent and approach are still at their root: influence another to get what you want. That's a Charisma check.

Is it too broad what they're bundling under Charisma?
Is it annoying that several caster archetypes automatically are good at influencing others and most other archetypes are fairly bad at it?
Yeah, it probably is for many people. :smallamused:

[Dr.Samurai]

More aptitude (higher charisma) + equal effort spent learning (equal ranks/proficiency bonus) = more knowledge. Your alleged "fatal flaw" does not exist.
PHB: "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect."

So Intimidation is a specific aspect of Charisma checks. Specifically, it's attempting to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence.

If my barbarian has Proficiency in Intimidation, they have a FOCUS on influencing someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence.

The Charisma score in this case is irrelevant. The proficiency tells us that the barbarian has a focus on influencing others in these ways. When someone says "the strong person wouldn't know how to convince someone..." they are ignoring the proficiency in Intimidation. They are saying that CHARISMA is how you know how to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence. The skill of Intimidation is eradicated to make a point that isn't real.

Notice also that two of the three examples given for what how you might Intimidate someone can be covered by STRENGTH; hostile actions and physical violence.

Also from the PHB under the Variant paragraph: "... 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."

A display of raw strength can easily be a hostile action or physical violence, which is exactly what an Intimidation check can be, which is exactly what my barbarian has a focus in through Proficiency.

To say that someone proficient in Intimidation wouldn't know how to intimidate someone is an incredibly weak argument.

[Tanarii]

So Intimidation is a specific aspect of Charisma checks. Specifically, it's attempting to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence.

If my barbarian has Proficiency in Intimidation, they have a FOCUS on influencing someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence.

The Charisma score in this case is irrelevant.
It's completely relevant. Because the rules you just quoted are clear: Intimidation is a subset of Charisma.
What does that mean? If you threaten someone, take hostile action towards them, or use physical violence with an intent of influencing them, it's a Charisma ability check.

Now, if your DM uses the Variant rule to allow Intimidation focus to apply to a different ability score, the question remains: what are you trying to resolve?
Is it a question of if you succeed in "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force"? Strength.
Or is it a question of if you succeed in "ability to interact effectively with others"? Charisma.
Thus, it is still Charisma base check, modified by some focus. Not a Strength (something) check. If you bend a bar, you make a strength check to see if it bends. If you try to threaten someone, that's a Charisma check. At most, it might be a Charisma (Athletics) check if you bend a bar to threaten them.

Basically, you're trying to rule it an Intimidation (Strength) check, which isn't a 5e thing. Ability check is determined first based on Intent and Approach, not Skill proficiency.

It questionably could be in 3e though, where it's a Skill (Ability) check, not an Ability (Skill) check.

[lesser_minion]

To say that someone proficient in Intimidation wouldn't know how to intimidate someone is an incredibly weak argument.

The idea is that two characters with ranks in intimidate both know something about how to intimidate. The higher charisma character just knows more. Your whole argument is attacking a strawman.

[Mastikator]

A big scary roar isn't a Strength or Constitution ability check
The first is used for the direct application of physical force and the second for enduring something.
Physical ability score checks are used when you do something physical. Not to influence others.

Bending a bar is a Strength check.
Getting a specific emotional response leading to a specific action you desire from someone else is a Charisma check. That's the ability score for influencing others.

If the approach is "big scary roar" or "bend a bar" that might inform the modifying proficiency or the target DC or even automatic success or failure depending on the target and approach chosen. But the intent and approach are still at their root: influence another to get what you want. That's a Charisma check.

Is it too broad what they're bundling under Charisma?
Is it annoying that several caster archetypes automatically are good at influencing others and most other archetypes are fairly bad at it?
Yeah, it probably is for many people. :smallamused:

A big scary roar isn't a strength check? Says who? When I DM I ask for strength (intimidation) check for big scary roars. Sure you can use charisma in that situation, but if you can't give a strong compelling reason why strength isn't a viable choice then I'm not convinced by your declaration.

I'm not sure what this "physical vs influence others" dichotomy is. Influence others is an outcome, not a task. It's a goal of a task, not the task itself. Bending a steel bar is a task, the desired outcome depends on the situation. Maybe you're trying to escape jail, maybe you're intimidating people, maybe you need the bar bent at a specific angle to help the artificer in his latest invention.
Talking to someone is a task, for that charisma should certainly be the premier ability score if you want to convince someone of something, lie or threaten. But talking is but one of many options when you have the goal of influencing someone.

Intimidation is IMO not too broad for game time, but it is too broad to say it definitely singularly belongs to one and only one ability. I'd say the same goes for most skills. I think this thread has a huge problem, which is that we speak too broadly about intimidation, this thread is full of posts so vague I can barely tell what points people are trying to make!. The devil lies in the details and they are being completely ignored. The details are where the roleplaying happens, if you sit at the table and declare "I intimidate the NPC to do X" then I'm sorry to say but that's shallow and boring roleplay, you're basically skipping an entire pillar of the game. I mean, imagine if combat was adjudicated with a single d20 test every time, of course combat would be boring too.

[lesser_minion]

A big scary roar isn't a strength check? Says who? When I DM I ask for strength (intimidation) check for big scary roars. Sure you can use charisma in that situation, but if you can't give a strong compelling reason why strength isn't a viable choice then I'm not convinced by your declaration.

I'm not sure what this "physical vs influence others" dichotomy is. Influence others is an outcome, not a task. It's a goal of a task, not the task itself. Bending a steel bar is a task, the desired outcome depends on the situation. Maybe you're trying to escape jail, maybe you're intimidating people, maybe you need the bar bent at a specific angle to help the artificer in his latest invention.
Talking to someone is a task, for that charisma should certainly be the premier ability score if you want to convince someone of something, lie or threaten. But talking is but one of many options when you have the goal of influencing someone.

Intimidation is IMO not too broad for game time, but it is too broad to say it definitely singularly belongs to one and only one ability. I'd say the same goes for most skills. I think this thread has a huge problem, which is that we speak too broadly about intimidation, this thread is full of posts so vague I can barely tell what points people are trying to make!. The devil lies in the details and they are being completely ignored. The details are where the roleplaying happens, if you sit at the table and declare "I intimidate the NPC to do X" then I'm sorry to say but that's shallow and boring roleplay, you're basically skipping an entire pillar of the game. I mean, imagine if combat was adjudicated with a single d20 test every time, of course combat would be boring too.

Some people break things and come across like terrifying badasses. Others break things and come across like petulant children. Deciding between the two is either a charisma check or a charisma-based skill check.

[Mastikator]

Some people break things and come across like terrifying badasses. Others break things and come across like petulant children. Deciding between the two is either a charisma check or a charisma-based skill check.

An ogre with a negative charisma modifier breaks things, certainly a moron, probably not a badass, but definitely terrifying to a low level PC or commoner. There is a broad multidimensional spectrum between "terrifying badass" and "petulant child". Badass and terrfying are different axis.

Again. Intimidation is broad, don't leave out specifics.

Oh and petulant children can definitely be terrifying.
https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/village-of-the-damned-1960.jpg

[Vahnavoi]

Finally, I think that there's a lot of churn and disagreement (between people and probably within individuals) on what the D&D game us supposed to be with regards to social rules -- is there supposed to be a strategic social mini game? Are social skills supposed to be simple or complex? Realistic or cinematic/epic? Does any or all of this take away from social interactions (for some or all the players)? Etc.

There's already a strategic social game whenever the game master and a player are acting out roles of their characters. One of the biggest unasked questions is "should social skills follow the same model as all the other skills?"

A lot of 3rd edition's flaws exist chiefly because it ties the main uses of social skills to same few basic formats as everything else. For that reason, some consultants during 5th edition's design cycle adviced WotC to drop social skills entirely. WotC didn't do it, but the simple fact it was suggested should tell "roll d20, add modifiers" isn't universally accepted as a great model for social interactions.

[Quertus]

Thanks to this thread, I’m now picturing a BDF covering his teddy bear’s eyes before wincing while bending a metal bar as a critical failure on an unskilled intimidate check.

[lesser_minion]

An ogre with a negative charisma modifier breaks things, certainly a moron, probably not a badass, but definitely terrifying to a low level PC or commoner. There is a broad multidimensional spectrum between "terrifying badass" and "petulant child". Badass and terrfying are different axis.

Do you make people roll height checks to see how tall they look? People who see a big strong ogre are generally well aware that they're looking at a big strong ogre. What is the ogre actually hoping to achieve with its display?

There are plenty of possible outcomes here -- "The commoner faints"; "The commoner readies his arms and steps forward with a look of grim resignation"; "The commoner runs screaming, urine flowing down his legs and creating a trail behind him as he runs"; "The commoner takes off at a brisk pace, heading directly towards the nearest shelter"; "The commoner throws a magicked signalling stone at the ogre, alerting a patrol of gnomish warmechs, then starts running". Depending on setting and campaign tone, any one of them might be a completely valid response to any strength-based (or height-based) check the ogre might make in this scenario. The check to get the most favourable one still seems charisma-based to me.

[Dr.Samurai]

The idea is that two characters with ranks in intimidate both know something about how to intimidate. The higher charisma character just knows more. Your whole argument is attacking a strawman.
Projection projection projection.

If the idea were that a higher charisma character "knows more" as you are trying desperately to assert here, then the conclusion would be the higher charisma character has a better chance of succeeding. But that's not what people are saying. They're saying Strength CAN'T Intimidate. Not only that, but people just give examples of failures on low rolls as if the roll couldn't actually be a success and an example of strength succeeding.

Some examples, from this thread, of Intimidation proficiency not providing a knowledge of how to Intimidate someone and being irrelevant in the explanation of how Intimidation works:


There are two major flaws in the "barbarians should have beefy intimidation bonuses because they're big and scary" argument.

........

Second, the idea that someone who's scared will do exactly what the intimidator wants in order to avoid discomfort. This is only true in the simplest case like a mugging where the action is clear and immediate, and even then it's only mostly true. Scared people can do surprising things, and that becomes much more likely as soon as they're out of your presence. The huge, scary barbarian will suck at selling a protection racket. And if they try to scare someone into coming along with them, the person might well believe that they'll have better odds if they kick up a fuss here than going along with you.

I actually made a thread about this topic a while ago, and gave some examples (quoting my OP below) about how any skill could be applied to Intimidate...and how the difference between success and failure (despite nonetheless being an impressive demonstration of the skill in use) could be chalked up to, well, Charisma.

Intimidate isn't just scaring someone. It's scaring them in a way so they do what you want them to do.

Sure, the OP muscled barbarian can scare a goblin. But what does the scared goblin do?
Getting the goblin to run away would be easy.
But what if the barbarian wanted the goblin to surrender quietly? A failed Intimidate could have the goblin running away while screaming loudly.
What if the barbarian wanted the goblin to tell him some secrets? A failed Intimidate could have the goblin crying and babbling incoherently.

As for rationalisation : Charisma is the stat for influencing others. You not being able to be menacing when you completely lack it is reasonable.

So just think about this. No other stat is treated this way. I have an 8 Strength, but I have proficiency in Athletics and a total modifier of +3. Can I make an Athletics check to swim? This is how people would respond "No, Athletics isn't just about moving physically, it's about moving physically and getting where you want to go. Sure, a person with Athletics might know how to move their arms around and kick their legs, but if you lack Strength you won't know how to do that in such a way as to propel your body through the water." What people don't understand, and this is the fatal flaw, as I mentioned, is that the arguments they make are arguments that without Charisma you can't succeed. We all know this is not true.

A half-orc rogue with 8 charisma and Expertise in Intimidate might have a +7 modifier to Intimidation. If I roll a Cha(Intimidation) check, the arguments being used assert that I can't actually Intimidate anything because I "completely lack" Charisma or "don't know" how to Intimidate. This is false.

Some people break things and come across like terrifying badasses. Others break things and come across like petulant children. Deciding between the two is either a charisma check or a charisma-based skill check.
Unless you use an application of Physical Force (Strength) to influence someone through Hostile Actions or Physical Violence (Intimidation). You don't get to say one auto fails and the other succeeds. That's what the die roll is for.

Do you make people roll height checks to see how tall they look? People who see a big strong ogre are generally well aware that they're looking at a big strong ogre. What is the ogre actually hoping to achieve with its display?

There are plenty of possible outcomes here -- "The commoner faints"; "The commoner readies his arms and steps forward with a look of grim resignation"; "The commoner runs screaming, urine flowing down his legs and creating a trail behind him as he runs"; "The commoner takes off at a brisk pace, heading directly towards the nearest shelter"; "The commoner throws a magicked signalling stone at the ogre, alerting a patrol of gnomish warmechs, then starts running". Depending on setting and campaign tone, any one of them might be a completely valid response to any strength-based (or height-based) check the ogre might make in this scenario. The check to get the most favourable one still seems charisma-based to me.
The commoner could do any of these with a Charisma check as well; you're just listing various failures. Are you suggesting that a charisma check can't fail?

It's completely relevant.
It's irrelevant to the idea that you know how to Intimidate people, because you're proficient in Intimidation. It's irrelevant to the reality that you can succeed at Intimidation checks despite not having a positive Charisma modifier. Remember, I'm speaking to the flawed arguments being made here. The game doesn't check to make sure you have sufficient Charisma before it allows you to roll Intimidation checks. It just lets you roll and is only concerned about the total roll you achieve. The way people speak about Charisma in these threads is that you can't succeed without it, and the game shows us that this is so obviously not true.

[Mastikator]

Do you make people roll height checks to see how tall they look? People who see a big strong ogre are generally well aware that they're looking at a big strong ogre. What is the ogre actually hoping to achieve with its display?

There are plenty of possible outcomes here -- "The commoner faints"; "The commoner readies his arms and steps forward with a look of grim resignation"; "The commoner runs screaming, urine flowing down his legs and creating a trail behind him as he runs"; "The commoner takes off at a brisk pace, heading directly towards the nearest shelter"; "The commoner throws a magicked signalling stone at the ogre, alerting a patrol of gnomish warmechs, then starts running". Depending on setting and campaign tone, any one of them might be a completely valid response to any strength-based (or height-based) check the ogre might make in this scenario. The check to get the most favourable one still seems charisma-based to me.

If the ogre wants a commoner to pee his pants then charisma is the right choice for intimidation. If the ogre wants to scare a commoner into fleeing then strength is the right choice. Should the commoner just automatically flee? That depends on the situation, the situation makes the difference. If it's just a commoner alone in the wilds vs an ogre there's no need for a check, the commoner just flees and hides. If the ogre is attacking a defended village- defended by commoners hiding behind barricade with spears and the ogre wants to scare the commoner to abandon their station and flee, THEN I'd make it roll a strength intimidation check.

Always look at the specifics of the situation, use logic. The variant ability check rule exists for this exact reason, it's actually RAW to use different ability scores depending on the situation, what someone is trying to do and how they're doing it.

--

Edit- Don't think of "scary" as some sort of YES/NO binary switch, it's a spectrum from "completely unscary" to "maximum scary". And that scale will have different creatures finding each other different level of scary by default, plus the situation, plus (if you make an intimidation attempt) the result of their dice.
Which means an ogre is automatically scary to commoners, and an intimidation check can amplify that scaryness level. Again, the same ogre would also be very unscary to a big red dragon, an intimidation check would at best make the ogre seem less unscary, but the big red dragon isn't going to be afraid of the ogre no matter what. It just doesn't make sense that it would. Why would you turn these situations into some weird video game? Just do what actually makes sense if it was a real situation.

[False God]

The idea is that two characters with ranks in intimidate both know something about how to intimidate. The higher charisma character just knows more. Your whole argument is attacking a strawman.

This is the primary flaw in attaching skills to stats and only having skills with fixed numbers rather than point-based.

The idea that a character with higher charisma knows more about intimidate is silly and it's what gets a lot of people into trouble at tables telling other players what they "ought to be doing" with their character. Skills should tell you how much you know on a subject, but the system no longer delineates how much skill someone has in a subject. It's just a binary switch. Either it's "on" and you know some things, or its "off" and you don't.

A person with 5 charisma does not inherently "know" more about Intimidate than a person with +4 proficiency in Intimidate. Stats by themselves don't convey skill or knowledge. They convey ability. A person with +5 charisma may be more effective in Intimidate, but they don't have an inherent understanding of how to intimidate just because they've got a high charisma score. The same is true for every score. Having a high int score doesn't grant you knowledge, it just makes you quick witted. Having a high strength doesn't mean you know how to tie down a sail thats blown loose in the wind, only more capable of doing so.

[animorte]

Stats by themselves don't convey skill or knowledge. They convey ability.

I though about this for a long moment and it was very nicely put. Some people naturally are capable of certain things while others actually have training or experience in that that specifically. Your proficiency in a specific area represents the ins and outs of how to do that thing because you've had the history of trial-and-error, therefore they get additional bonuses. One would also assume that they have some proficiency in that area (like a Wizard that's proficient in Perception because it's the best skill, but they only have a 12-14 because Int/Con were more important), but it isn't necessary.

This is a prime example of, just because you're not a straight-A student doesn't mean you can't be a doctor some day. You may have to work hard and acquire the training/experience/proficiency required to get there.

[Thrudd]

Do you make people roll height checks to see how tall they look? People who see a big strong ogre are generally well aware that they're looking at a big strong ogre. What is the ogre actually hoping to achieve with its display?

There are plenty of possible outcomes here -- "The commoner faints"; "The commoner readies his arms and steps forward with a look of grim resignation"; "The commoner runs screaming, urine flowing down his legs and creating a trail behind him as he runs"; "The commoner takes off at a brisk pace, heading directly towards the nearest shelter"; "The commoner throws a magicked signalling stone at the ogre, alerting a patrol of gnomish warmechs, then starts running". Depending on setting and campaign tone, any one of them might be a completely valid response to any strength-based (or height-based) check the ogre might make in this scenario. The check to get the most favourable one still seems charisma-based to me.

The roll is not just about what the ogre is doing, but to decide how the person responds to the ogre. No, the ogre isn't rolling to see how tall and strong they look, you'd be rolling and adding their strength to it to see whether the person is scared enough of them to run or pee their pants when the ogre wants to scare them, and it makes sense to add something representing the ogre's inherent physical scariness to that roll. How likely the GM thinks the target is to do those things will dictate what DC they set. If they are a hardened soldier who is armed and is confident in their combat ability, it'll likely be a high DC or even no roll allowed. If they are a commoner with no weapons, not so high.

If the principle of the system is that a roll and all its modifiers always and only represents something the roller is doing actively and with intention, then perhaps characters should have a DC value assigned to them for how scary they look based on their size and physique and overall appearance, and the GM can roll a will save or wisdom or something similar to see what the DC for an intimidation check would be, or whether the NPC will just run away at first sight of the creature without any action on the ogre's part at all. (AKA, a reaction roll to decide an NPC's stance toward the character when they first encounter them).
Of course, this philosophy would also impact other abilities, like perception. You don't actively control how good your sight and hearing are, so deciding whether a character sees or hears something shouldn't be a roll, right? The default would be passive perception value, compared to a DC or a stealth roll representing how hard something is to detect. They'd have to say exactly how and where they are looking and listening in order to get a roll that uses a mental stat, just like you need to say exactly how you're trying to intimidate someone before you get to roll intimidation.

[lesser_minion]

A person with 5 charisma does not inherently "know" more about Intimidate than a person with +4 proficiency in Intimidate. Stats by themselves don't convey skill or knowledge. They convey ability. A person with +5 charisma may be more effective in Intimidate, but they don't have an inherent understanding of how to intimidate just because they've got a high charisma score. The same is true for every score. Having a high int score doesn't grant you knowledge, it just makes you quick witted. Having a high strength doesn't mean you know how to tie down a sail thats blown loose in the wind, only more capable of doing so.

They convey aptitude. Talent. A person who naturally has what it takes to intimidate others picks it up more easily and gains more from a given amount of effort spent studying. This translates to a larger bonus that's resistant to arguments of the form "actually, what I'm doing is clearly strength-based". If that wasn't the case, varying the ability modifier would be explicitly the default, not a variant rule.

A person who doesn't naturally have what it takes to intimidate people can absolutely use training to mitigate that, but they will need to work harder to be as good. And in the context of a forum thread, they can't do that. If the 8 charisma barbarian is proficient in intimidate, so is the 20 charisma bard. If the 8 charisma barbarian has expertise in intimidate, so does the 20 charisma bard. If the 8 charisma barbarian fails while the 20 charisma bard succeeds, the difference between the check results is exactly 6.

Ultimately, your reasoning for wanting to change an ability score needs to be far more solid than "I don't want this check to be dependent on my dump stat" or even "the specific action I'm taking involves a different ability score". Music is clearly dex- or con-based (for instruments and voice respectively), but no one ever complains about charisma being the key ability score for performing music before an audience. Or even thinks about changing it to Dex when the check is purely about technical proficiency (e.g., reproducing a tune that you've realised is the password for a door) rather than impressing an audience.

[Tanarii]

The, you'd be rolling and adding their strength to it to see whether the person is scared enough of them to run or pee their pants when the ogre wants to scare them, and it makes sense to add something representing the ogre's inherent physical scariness to that roll.
... which isn't Strength mod. Because in no edition of WotC D&D (the ones with Intimidate) does Strength represent inherent physical scariness. Using it gives a big bonus to small creatures that are strong in ways that wouldn't be particularly scary.

It also completely ignores that in D&D-landia, there are a bunch of things that could be far more scary than size-based scariness. For starters, magical and flashy weapon based scariness, so like ... any of the attributes, or even an attack roll. And yet somehow it always comes down to folks crawling out of the woodwork to argue that somehow using Strength-as-size-substitute is somehow just logical.

[Thrudd]

... which isn't Strength mod. Because in no edition of WotC D&D (the ones with Intimidate) does Strength represent inherent physical scariness. Using it gives a big bonus to small creatures that are strong in ways that wouldn't be particularly scary.

It also completely ignores that in D&D-landia, there are a bunch of things that could be far more scary than size-based scariness. For starters, magical and flashy weapon based scariness, so like ... any of the attributes, or even an attack roll. And yet somehow it always comes down to folks crawling out of the woodwork to argue that somehow using Strength-as-size-substitute is somehow just logical.

Just because there are other things that are also scary does not mean size and strength aren't. I'd accept that a halfling's strength won't add to their intimidation except maybe when applied to other small creatures. I'd accept that being a size factor larger than a target would be as or more important than a strength score. But I also think, if there's anything on the character sheet that indicates the size and appearance of one's muscles, it would be strength, and it's justified to include that as a consideration in some way to how the character is perceived. Whether it's getting advantage in certain circumstances, or applying a modifier only against certain targets that are smaller and weaker, or whatever. There needn't be a universal rule, it certainly shouldn't be a case where players get to choose to apply their strength to intimidation whenever they want to, regardless of the situation.
You can say that high strength doesn't always mean you look a certain way, especially with different races, but I don't think you could ever say that you look big and strong unless you have some amount of strength. So, a character who is bigger and stronger than most, like a goliath, wants to intimidate an average sized NPC- you don't give any consideration to their physical stature or the fact that they have 20 strength? It's only charisma? How exactly one takes it into account is debatable...reduce the DC, give advantage, add a flat modifier...but it surely isn't unreasonable to say that your character's strength score can indicate they have big muscles, especially if they are human or orc or goliath or something similar, and that big muscles can help in intimidating weaker and smaller characters. I think a universal rule that strength never matters is just as flawed as saying that it would always apply.

[Mastikator]

... which isn't Strength mod. Because in no edition of WotC D&D (the ones with Intimidate) does Strength represent inherent physical scariness. Using it gives a big bonus to small creatures that are strong in ways that wouldn't be particularly scary.

It also completely ignores that in D&D-landia, there are a bunch of things that could be far more scary than size-based scariness. For starters, magical and flashy weapon based scariness, so like ... any of the attributes, or even an attack roll. And yet somehow it always comes down to folks crawling out of the woodwork to argue that somehow using Strength-as-size-substitute is somehow just logical.

Are you arguing that since magical flashy weapons don't contribute to scaryness by RAW therefore strength shouldn't either? Because the way I see it all those examples you give and can think of should also have a chance to contribute to scaryness. A hobgoblin warlord with a plate of invulnerability, vorpal sword would be incredibly scary. (even to a player)

I just don't see why strength, or any other attribute, depending on the circumstance can't be the ability score? The 5e PHB agrees with me here, it gives examples of when the DM might call for non-default ability scores with any skill. Any skill and any ability score if (and only IF) the how and when justifies it.

[Tanarii]

So, a character who is bigger and stronger than most, like a goliath, wants to intimidate an average sized NPC- you don't give any consideration to their physical stature or the fact that they have 20 strength? It's only charisma? How exactly one takes it into account is debatable...reduce the DC, give advantage, add a flat modifier...but it surely isn't unreasonable to say that your character's strength score can indicate they have big muscles, especially if they are human or orc or goliath or something similar, and that big muscles can help in intimidating weaker and smaller characters. I think a universal rule that strength never matters is just as flawed as saying that it would always apply.Given that a Goliath or Half Orc or even human can be tall and heavy with human normal strength, adding Str isn't the best system route to go.

Advantage for being much bigger than the target and using it, or any other significant display that should increase odds of success, is totally reasonable.

Of course and as a side note, intimidating by different techniques may often have a different long term consequence, even of the immediate outcome is the same. That's the link in the intent, approach, outcome, consequences cycle. Approach matters not just for determining how to resolve mechanically, but also both immediate outcome and long term consequences.

[Pex]

Ultimately, your reasoning for wanting to change an ability score needs to be far more solid than "I don't want this check to be dependent on my dump stat" or even "the specific action I'm taking involves a different ability score". Music is clearly dex- or con-based (for instruments and voice respectively), but no one ever complains about charisma being the key ability score for performing music before an audience. Or even thinks about changing it to Dex when the check is purely about technical proficiency (e.g., reproducing a tune that you've realised is the password for a door) rather than impressing an audience.

In Dungeon of the Mad Mage there is a room with a harpsichord and a piece of music carved on the wall. It's an Intelligence (Performance) check to play it correctly to unlock a hidden compartment to get the treasure.

As was mentioned, the rules already offer the idea of changing the ability score applied. Technically you never make a skill check. It's always an ability check but proficiency in a skill can allow you to add your proficiency bonus. Wanting to break a table to scare threaten someone is allowed to be a ST (Intimidate) check.

[Tanarii]

Wanting to break a table to scare threaten someone is allowed to be a ST (Intimidate) check.
... because knowing how to threaten the table makes you more likely to break the table successfully.:smallamused:

[lesser_minion]

In Dungeon of the Mad Mage there is a room with a harpsichord and a piece of music carved on the wall. It's an Intelligence (Performance) check to play it correctly to unlock a hidden compartment to get the treasure.

Great. Glad someone else thought of that, then.


As was mentioned, the rules already offer the idea of changing the ability score applied. Technically you never make a skill check. It's always an ability check but proficiency in a skill can allow you to add your proficiency bonus. Wanting to break a table to scare threaten someone is allowed to be a ST (Intimidate) check.

Variant rules are not the rules and aren't intended to be used without good reason. Which "I want to be able to dump charisma without consequence" isn't. And yet again, doing a thing is not the same thing as getting people to respond well to you doing a thing.

[Dr.Samurai]

"Variant rules are not intended to be used without good reason and I consider any reason given to be a cynical ploy to avoid a charisma dump stat, instead of an opportunity to roleplay a character and a very common and universal trope."

"Also, doing something doesn't mean you succeed at doing something, and I get to make that determination without a die roll because... I just do."

Brilliant arguments there :smallamused:.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Using alternate ability scores for things is not a Variant option in 5e. Variant Option has a specific meaning and is always called out as such in a header. Using other abilities with specific proficiencies is just something that situationally happens. Just like adding proficiency at all to an ability check. Or getting advantage. Or, in fact, having to make a check at all. Checks themselves are situational and entirely determined by the DM. Both what the DC is and what ability is used and what proficiency (or proficiencies), if any, can be applied. 5e is not 3e.

The relevant text:



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.


That's one paragraph out of several. No "variant" involved. That's stock RAW--although proficiency is usually applied to a single ability score, it doesn't have to be. That's just the most common default.

Here, the relevant proficiency is Intimidation. And the task is one involving brute force and physical power. So a Strength (Intimidation) check is not an aberration. In fact, it's what's suggested. Skills are not tied exclusively to abilities. Any tie is just a default, a "most usual case". They're separate things. And the ability score is tied to how you're doing it, while the proficiency is tied to what you're doing.

[Tanarii]

Using alternate ability scores for things is not a Variant option in 5e.
5e PHB p175
Variant: Skills With Different Abilities


And the task is one involving brute force and physical power.
No, it isn't. You're (typically) not applying brute force or physical power to the person you're trying to Intimidate. It's not a question of if you successfully apply brute force or physical power to them, which would be a Strength check. It's a question of it it persuades them to do what you want.

You break a table, unstick a door, bend a bar, or crush a helmet? Roll Strength to see if you succeed.
You try to get someone to do what you want? Roll Charisma to see if you succeed.

After that, what skill modifies the chance of success:
You know the weak spot in this type of helmet due to its historical use? Strength (History)
You're a strongman who know how to use that to impress someone with your strength? Charisma (Athletics) or Charisma (Performance) or just Charisma (Intimidation) might all apply

Strength (Intimidation) is a check to see if you successfully break or force something by scaring it. Not a check to see if you successfully scare someone into doing what you want by threatening them physically.

[lesser_minion]

"Variant rules are not intended to be used without good reason and I consider any reason given to be a cynical ploy to avoid a charisma dump stat, instead of an opportunity to roleplay a character and a very common and universal trope."

Again, you're arguing against things that weren't said. I said that the reason needs to be better than "I don't want to deal with the consequences of dumping charisma". On no planet does that give you license to read "any reason given will be read as an attempt to not deal with the consequences of dumping charisma".


"Also, doing something doesn't mean you succeed at doing something, and I get to make that determination without a die roll because... I just do."

Again, this has nothing to do with what I said. Breaking something means that the thing is broken. It doesn't mean that anyone was intimidated as a result. This should be obvious, because the DC to intimidate someone depends on how strong-willed they are, and the DC to break an iron bar depends on the thickness and quality of the bar. Objects don't mysteriously become incredibly fragile in the presence of weak-willed NPCs, and NPCs don't mysteriously become incredibly weak-willed in the presence of shoddy craftsmanship.

[Pex]

... because knowing how to threaten the table makes you more likely to break the table successfully.:smallamused:

A table is a hard solid object. Being able to break it shows how easily you can break the soft tissue person you're trying to intimidate.


Great. Glad someone else thought of that, then.



Variant rules are not the rules and aren't intended to be used without good reason. Which "I want to be able to dump charisma without consequence" isn't. And yet again, doing a thing is not the same thing as getting people to respond well to you doing a thing.

Variant rules means the game designers did think about it and offer it as an option. Therefore, the game does not say you are doing it wrong when you allow ST to apply to Intimidate instead of CH. Allowing for ST does not mean only using ST. The PC wanting to use ST has to do something to warrant it, i.e. show off some physical exertion. Breaking something, bending a hard to bend object, lift and throw a known heavy object, something that in itself requires strength. It's not flexing your muscles, though flexing could be used for a Strength (Performance) check.

[Tanarii]

A table is a hard solid object. Being able to break it shows how easily you can break the soft tissue person you're trying to intimidate.
Strength (Intimidation) is a check to see if you successfully break or force something, with an increased chance of success because you're good at scaring it.

[GeoffWatson]

Making Intimidate a Strength skill makes it much less useful for the criminal gang types - a threat like "I know where your kids go to school. Shame if something happened" would not suit Strength at all, but that's what been argued.
Intimidate is not just "do what I say or I'll punch you".

[Quertus]

In Dungeon of the Mad Mage there is a room with a harpsichord and a piece of music carved on the wall. It's an Intelligence (Performance) check to play it correctly to unlock a hidden compartment to get the treasure.

As was mentioned, the rules already offer the idea of changing the ability score applied. Technically you never make a skill check. It's always an ability check but proficiency in a skill can allow you to add your proficiency bonus. Wanting to break a table to scare threaten someone is allowed to be a ST (Intimidate) check.


... because knowing how to threaten the table makes you more likely to break the table successfully.:smallamused:


Strength (Intimidation) is a check to see if you successfully break or force something, with an increased chance of success because you're good at scaring it.

The key to being a great Mage is Obfuscation, to hide the things you want to do (“break the table”) inside the most likely to be objected to wording (“Strength (Intimidation)”), so that people are so caught up on debating the latter, they just implicitly accept the former.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Making Intimidate a Strength skill makes it much less useful for the criminal gang types - a threat like "I know where your kids go to school. Shame if something happened" would not suit Strength at all, but that's what been argued.
Intimidate is not just "do what I say or I'll punch you".

It's not *only* a strength skill, and I'm fairly sure no one here is claiming that it should be. But in 5e at least, proficiencies (including but not limited to skills) are associated by default with an ability. But not limited to that ability.

[icefractal]

Heck, even fantasy settings aside, it's not even a given that stronger = more intimidating IRL.

For one thing, physical appearance doesn't correlate directly to strength. A bodybuilder is going to look more much muscular than a chubby power-lifter, even though the latter is actually stronger. And this in a fantasy world with different species and magical strength enhancement, that's even more true.

But for another thing, consider a simple use of Intimidate - mugging someone. Which of these two muggers is more likely to get your wallet?

Mugger A: Whips out a gun and points it at you steadily, then calmly says to put your wallet on the ground and step away from it. Looks fairly normal.

Mugger B: Is a big dude, disheveled looking, with a deranged expression on his face. He yells "Waaaaallet!!" and starts running toward you.

I mean, I'm willing to give Mugger B the wallet, but I don't want to take the extra few seconds to grab it from my pocket - I need to run away now! Mugger A, on the other hand, is definitely getting it, because he convinced me both that bad things would happen if I didn't - and crucially - that bad things wouldn't happen if I did. Mugger B didn't do the latter.

Now if literally all that you want is for someone to run away? That should be - in most cases - easier than intimidating them to do something in particular. And quite possibly automatic if you obviously outclass them and they don't have a very strong reason to stand their ground.

[Liquor Box]

Heck, even fantasy settings aside, it's not even a given that stronger = more intimidating IRL.

For one thing, physical appearance doesn't correlate directly to strength. A bodybuilder is going to look more much muscular than a chubby power-lifter, even though the latter is actually stronger. And this in a fantasy world with different species and magical strength enhancement, that's even more true.

It does correlate. A correlation doesn't mean that the two will always track in parallel, it just means that looking strong makes you more likely to be strong. Size undoubtedly does correlate with strength, which also correlates with ability to harm you.


But for another thing, consider a simple use of Intimidate - mugging someone. Which of these two muggers is more likely to get your wallet?

Mugger A: Whips out a gun and points it at you steadily, then calmly says to put your wallet on the ground and step away from it. Looks fairly normal.

Mugger B: Is a big dude, disheveled looking, with a deranged expression on his face. He yells "Waaaaallet!!" and starts running toward you.

I mean, I'm willing to give Mugger B the wallet, but I don't want to take the extra few seconds to grab it from my pocket - I need to run away now! Mugger A, on the other hand, is definitely getting it, because he convinced me both that bad things would happen if I didn't - and crucially - that bad things wouldn't happen if I did. Mugger B didn't do the latter.

Now if literally all that you want is for someone to run away? That should be - in most cases - easier than intimidating them to do something in particular. And quite possibly automatic if you obviously outclass them and they don't have a very strong reason to stand their ground.

I don't think it's so clear. If mugger A is close enough to get a guaranteed hit, then Mugger B is probably close enough that you wont be able to run before he's on you. Mugger A may decide not to shoot and risk a murder charge if you run (he may be bluffing), Mugger B (looking deranged) may be more desperate and hurt you if you run.

But some people may find mugger A with the gun more intimidating. But it is the gun that is intimating, not his charisma. Without the gun, mugger A is not intimidating at all. In DnD terms, Mugger B should get a str bonus to his intimidation check. Mugger A should get a circumstance bonus from displaying an overwhelmingly powerful weapon. In neither case does charisma play a part, and IMO Mugger A's calmer demeanor makes him less intimidating if anything.

[lesser_minion]

You can absolutely make a strength check as part of an attempt to intimidate someone, but that doesn't mean just taking the intimidate skill and replacing the key ability. It means you can make a show of strength to try and get a bonus on your next -- or previous -- Intimidate check.

If you miss a check by a small amount, you can break something dramatically or off one of your enemies. If the cowardly prince brushes off your threats by saying that you can't even stand, you can prove him wrong for a few moments. But your training in how to intimidate people doesn't make it easier to cause property damage, commit murder, or overcome a debilitating condition.

As for brandishing a gun at someone, they aren't scary because they're holding a gun. They're scary because they seem like they're prepared to use it. Getting people to see you the way you want to be seen or think about what you want them to think about? That's almost always charisma.

[Quertus]

IMO Mugger A's calmer demeanor makes him less intimidating if anything.

… cherish your innocence, that you can believe that? I’ll not try and disabuse you of this notion, with tales of how it feels to stare down the barrel of a gun held by a killer, who you know is already figuring out what to do with your corpse if you don’t comply.


Getting people to see you the way you want to be seen or think about what you want them to think about? That's almost always charisma.

+1 this. (Stupid “my player”, thinking Charisma was a good dump stat :smallannoyed:)

[False God]

They convey aptitude. Talent. A person who naturally has what it takes to intimidate others picks it up more easily and gains more from a given amount of effort spent studying. This translates to a larger bonus that's resistant to arguments of the form "actually, what I'm doing is clearly strength-based". If that wasn't the case, varying the ability modifier would be explicitly the default, not a variant rule.
And I think its fine to suggest that someone with better charisma may become more proficient with the use of Intimidate quicker, provided we have a system that allows more graded skill improvment. 5E's binary "you're proficient or you're not" does not convey this well. But by the same token, there are a number of abilities that could apply to making one more proficient in intimidate, both in specific circumstances and learning to intimidate in general.

Which goes back to my original point: Most skills shouldn't be X or Y stat. The player should describe their approach and the GM should determine the appropriate skill & stat combo to best convey that. Players will always try to game for their advantage and favor their good scores and not their bad ones, and in a fixed stat system, that means players are just going to plain not bother with certain checks. Which is a form of not playing the game and anything that encourages a player to not play should be reevaluated.


Ultimately, your reasoning for wanting to change an ability score needs to be far more solid than "I don't want this check to be dependent on my dump stat" or even "the specific action I'm taking involves a different ability score". Music is clearly dex- or con-based (for instruments and voice respectively), but no one ever complains about charisma being the key ability score for performing music before an audience. Or even thinks about changing it to Dex when the check is purely about technical proficiency (e.g., reproducing a tune that you've realised is the password for a door) rather than impressing an audience.
Well, we can certainly start a new thread on that, but my opinion remains the same, the answer to all these problems is just to decouple specific stats from specific skills. The game can certainly continue to say "Intimidate is usually based on the charismatic ability to convince someone of your intentions." but add the caveat that "Sometimes other methods can get through to different individuals."

[Mastikator]

Has anybody argued that a player should be allowed to use strength for any intimidation check just automatically if they ask for it?

[Dr.Samurai]

Using alternate ability scores for things is not a Variant option in 5e. Variant Option has a specific meaning and is always called out as such in a header. Using other abilities with specific proficiencies is just something that situationally happens. Just like adding proficiency at all to an ability check. Or getting advantage. Or, in fact, having to make a check at all. Checks themselves are situational and entirely determined by the DM. Both what the DC is and what ability is used and what proficiency (or proficiencies), if any, can be applied. 5e is not 3e.

The relevant text:



That's one paragraph out of several. No "variant" involved. That's stock RAW--although proficiency is usually applied to a single ability score, it doesn't have to be. That's just the most common default.

Here, the relevant proficiency is Intimidation. And the task is one involving brute force and physical power. So a Strength (Intimidation) check is not an aberration. In fact, it's what's suggested. Skills are not tied exclusively to abilities. Any tie is just a default, a "most usual case". They're separate things. And the ability score is tied to how you're doing it, while the proficiency is tied to what you're doing.
Thank you for pointing this out PhoenixPhyre, as I was not aware this is actually in the rules for DMs under Running the Game. So it's not a variant but actually guidance for the DMs to use.

It even goes on to say:

Often, players ask whether they can apply a 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.

Notice that "training and aptitude" are lumped into proficiency here, and you are applying that training/aptitude/proficiency to the ability check. This is exactly my point that arguments that characters with low charisma "don't know how" to Intimidate others is absolute nonsense. The training and aptitude is represented by the Proficiency bonus.

Player: I'd like to Intimidate the two remaining henchmen.

DM: Okay, roll a Charisma(Intimidation) check.

Player: Can I roll Strength instead and apply Intimidation proficiency? My barbarian is going to say "I hope you two will be useful and tell us what we need to know, because we don't need useless things" and then I'll crush the helmet I picked up, the one from one of the henchmen we killed. So I'm crushing the helmet, with the intent of intimidating them.

DM: Ok, roll a Strength check but apply your Intimidation proficiency because you're trying to do it menacingly to Intimidate them.

Player: *rolls a 17 total*

DM: Yeah, their eyes go wide when you crush the helmet and they spill the beans on the secret entrance to the lair.

This is perfectly in line with the rules, perfectly in line with literature and fiction tropes, and perfectly in line with player expectations. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply saying no because they want to say no.

Has anybody argued that a player should be allowed to use strength for any intimidation check just automatically if they ask for it?
No, but a lot of Strawmen have been animated in this thread.

[jayem]

I'm struggling to think of a case where Charisma isn't for want of a better phrasing rescuing an otherwise inability to intimidate. However this is useful in many aspects.

And in real life, I'd say I've come across more cases where Charisma is required to prevent accidental intimidation.

1) What is the threat?
We'll need to come back to this later, but for the moment "I'll make you f***ing hurt" is a threat that requires no charisma to invent.

2) Can the threat be carried out?
If followed through, this only requires charisma if your threat is to socially embarrass them. A threat on a helpless prisoner (e.g. on a rack) needs no skill to carry out. A threat with a gadget is dependent on the gadget. A "and my army" threat is dependent on the army. a physical threat with fists on strength, etc...
Where Charisma is extremely helpful here is making it appear you can carry out something that you otherwise can't or to a higher level (in which case it's basically a special case of Bluff), or something you can do but isn't obvious.

3) Will the threat be carried out?
There are two basic options here. Either the intimidator is perfectly fine carrying out the threat. In this case charisma is irrelevant, or the intimidator is bluffing (in which case charisma is very relevant)

4) Can I comply?
This has some similarity with 3, except in a lot of cases the cases will be reversed

1 reprise) Fear of violence, though simple isn't always successful threat. Charisma (or Wisdom or Intelligence) could be of use to find a particular weak spot. Combined with point 2, Charisma could make a completely unfounded threat scary and plausible.


Case 1: An actual psychopathic demon child
In this case everything pretty much depends on their paranormal powers and nature. Charisma has nothing to do with it.
Case 2: A creepy normal child giving a scary speech
This on the other hand is pure charisma intimidation. It should be noted that I don't think I would be intimidated unless I was in the 'unknown' (and even then my primary worry would be that I'd hurt them).
Case 3: "good cop, bad cop" or "offer you can't refuse"
This of course uses everything well, there's a reason it's a trope. The potential clash between 3/4 is easily resolved by the good cop dealing with 4 and the bad cop with 3. The bad cop can provide the simple threat while the good cop can amplify the threat. The other nice thing about this is it has teamwork
Case 4 in combat
Charisma skills would support the effect from the demonstrated/visible threat.

TLDR
Charisma should be a key option in part of a multi stage intimation model or the openings of combat. But it should also be possible to intimidate by just being fundamentally scary.

[Pex]

Heck, even fantasy settings aside, it's not even a given that stronger = more intimidating IRL.

For one thing, physical appearance doesn't correlate directly to strength. A bodybuilder is going to look more much muscular than a chubby power-lifter, even though the latter is actually stronger. And this in a fantasy world with different species and magical strength enhancement, that's even more true.

But for another thing, consider a simple use of Intimidate - mugging someone. Which of these two muggers is more likely to get your wallet?

Mugger A: Whips out a gun and points it at you steadily, then calmly says to put your wallet on the ground and step away from it. Looks fairly normal.

Mugger B: Is a big dude, disheveled looking, with a deranged expression on his face. He yells "Waaaaallet!!" and starts running toward you.

I mean, I'm willing to give Mugger B the wallet, but I don't want to take the extra few seconds to grab it from my pocket - I need to run away now! Mugger A, on the other hand, is definitely getting it, because he convinced me both that bad things would happen if I didn't - and crucially - that bad things wouldn't happen if I did. Mugger B didn't do the latter.

Now if literally all that you want is for someone to run away? That should be - in most cases - easier than intimidating them to do something in particular. And quite possibly automatic if you obviously outclass them and they don't have a very strong reason to stand their ground.

You're inferring that wanting ST for intimidate is to mean autosuccess. That is not and was not ever asked for nor implied. A PC using ST for intimidate can still fail the check. It took more than one hit to break the table. You grimaced bending the metal bar. It's the same thing as using CH but failing the check as the person you try to intimidate is not impressed by your words.

A DM cannot make the PC act in any way. As a PC I could very well run away from the smooth talker who threatened but give the wallet to the big guy. If the roles were reversed the DM can have it be that way. That's being arbitrary. If the intent is to get the wallet from the NPC, then no matter if by ST or CH you get the wallet on a successful roll. On a failed roll the DM determines the result, which could include the NPC running away not from fear just not wanting to give you his wallet.

[Tanarii]

It's not *only* a strength skill, and I'm fairly sure no one here is claiming that it should be. But in 5e at least, proficiencies (including but not limited to skills) are associated by default with an ability. But not limited to that ability.
They are limited to the ability, unless your DM chooses to implement a (specifically called out as) variant rule. Not particularly germane to if Strength (Intimidate) makes any sense as a check, or if it should be used sometimes even if it doesn't make sense. But let's be clear here , it's a variant rule.

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not a variant, as already described. Page 239 of the DMG simply empowers the DM to assign different ability score checks to different skill proficiencies as part of the normal rules for running the game and using ability scores and proficiencies.

[Tanarii]

It's not a variant, as already described. Page 239 of the DMG simply empowers the DM to assign different ability score checks to different skill proficiencies as part of the normal rules for running the game and using ability scores and proficiencies.
It very clearly is a variant rule.

5e PHB p175
Variant: Skills With Different Abilities

[PhoenixPhyre]

It very clearly is a variant rule.

DMG was published afterwards and upgraded it to a regular thing. Or, another way of looking at it is that it's a variant for a player to ask for that different ability score, but it's not a variant of the DM does it.

[Tanarii]

DMG was published afterwards and upgraded it to a regular thing. Or, another way of looking at it is that it's a variant for a player to ask for that different ability score, but it's not a variant of the DM does it.
Try telling that to posters who claim Custom Backgrounds are always a player choice per the PHB, despite the DMG saying they're a DM choice. :smallamused:

[Reversefigure4]

But some people may find mugger A with the gun more intimidating. But it is the gun that is intimating, not his charisma. Without the gun, mugger A is not intimidating at all.

Although in your classic DnD-verse, everyone's got a gun equivalent. The Barbarian can crack the table with his bare hands (Str), but the Wizard can set it on fire, the Rogue can swiftly crave his name into it,many adventurers can pull out a head of a dragon they've killed. "Able to hurt you" is a trivial bar for DnD adventurers to clear, in dozens of different ways.

At that point decoupling skills from attributes becomes more of an issue broadly, with intimidate merely being an obvious example. Can I Climb agiley rather than using brute force (Dex Athletics)? Can I distract him while I pick his pocket (Cha Sleight of Hand)? Can I sneak into the library to read up about dragons (Dex Arcana)? Some examples are easy to adjudicate, some silly, some hard. How far down the rabbit hole does the GM want to go?

[False God]

At that point decoupling skills from attributes becomes more of an issue broadly, with intimidate merely being an obvious example. Can I Climb agiley rather than using brute force (Dex Athletics)? Can I distract him while I pick his pocket (Cha Sleight of Hand)? Can I sneak into the library to read up about dragons (Dex Arcana)? Some examples are easy to adjudicate, some silly, some hard. How far down the rabbit hole does the GM want to go?

Its only a problem for people who have only ever played D&D.

Creative problem solving is somewhat innate to the human condition.

CAN you climb an alley with agility rather than strength? By parkor-ing off two nearby walls till you hit the top? By scampering up a narrow ledge rather than lugging yourself up from the bottom? I don't know if you can do those things, make a Dex+Athletics check!

The point is providing multiple ways to overcome an obstacle, rather than saying "This is the only way to do this." And it's pretty common in many games that aren't based on the D&D model.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Try telling that to posters who claim Custom Backgrounds are always a player choice per the PHB, despite the DMG saying they're a DM choice. :smallamused:

Despite being blue, I'm going to push back here. The DMG does no such thing. The DMG gives guidance on creating more background features and on creating more pre-made backgrounds. The first is not part of the Custom Background idea at all (it says to use the provided ones) and the second doesn't rule out custom backgrounds at all. It's entirely separate.

Whereas it specifically says that DMs can (and even should!) call for ability checks using proficiencies with different abilities in various circumstances.

A better take is that the PHB variant rule is for replacing ability scores--making it so all (formerly) Charisma (Intimidation) checks are now Strength (Intimidation) checks. And yes, that's variant. And one I don't think I've ever seen used.

What the DMG option is saying is that as a DM, you're not bound by the player-side framework. You can call for ability checks using whatever ability/proficiency combination you feel appropriate. Which fits with the rest of the pattern, which is that players, not DMs have binding rules. DMs have suggestions, not rules. Defaults, not "thou shalts."


In fact, DMs are explicitly allowed to fudge dice!



What about you, the DM? Do you make your rolls in the open or hide them behind a DM screen? Consider the following:

* If you roll dice where the players can see, they know you’re playing impartially and not fudging rolls.
* Rolling behind a screen keeps the players guessing about the strength of their opposition. When a monster hits all the time, is it of a much higher level than the characters, or are you rolling high numbers?
* Rolling behind a screen lets you fudge the results if you want to. If two critical hits in a row would kill a character, you could change the second critical hit into a normal hit, or even a miss. Don’t distort die rolls too often, though, and don’t let on that you’re doing it. Otherwise, your players might think they don’t face any real risks — or worse, that you’re playing favorites.


Being impartial is on an equal footing with fudging rolls. Both have advantages, both have disadvantages. And the rest goes on to talk about some of them. Rule 0 isn't some alien, rule 0 is the game. The game cannot constrain (definitionally) the one who is empowered to alter the rules at any point and is not required (by the rules) to maintain even a semblance of consistency. An individual table may decide differently, but that's not a system-level constraint. The system assumes that the DM will take an active hand in deciding how things happen, using dice when and if they're convenient and give results the DM likes.

[Satinavian]

It's not *only* a strength skill, and I'm fairly sure no one here is claiming that it should be. But in 5e at least, proficiencies (including but not limited to skills) are associated by default with an ability. But not limited to that ability.
First, this is the general roleplaying forum. And while the question still only makes sense in systems that are very D&D-like, it is not that relevant what specifically D&D5 does per RAW.

I still say it should be Charisma only. Because Charisma has basically no uses aside from a couple of skill. Taking the skills away so it is easier to dump it does make the system worse.If you would do that, it would be better to eliminate Charisma altogether.

Aside from that, i don't see strength as particularly relevant for intimidation. Sure, intimidation needs some kind of threat and physical violence is one option. But even here, the kind of weapons you have, the number of allies you have, how violent you are known to be are far far more relevant than your strength. And when we go to other kinds of threats, things like the connections and influence you have, your knowledge of the enemies secrets, your spells and other powers etc. become relevant as well. Overall, strength brings such a minor contribution to your arsenal of threats that it should never be the stat most relevant to the skill use.

[PhoenixPhyre]

First, this is the general roleplaying forum. And while the question still only makes sense in systems that are very D&D-like, it is not that relevant what specifically D&D5 does per RAW.

I still say it should be Charisma only. Because Charisma has basically no uses aside from a couple of skill. Taking the skills away so it is easier to dump it does make the system worse.If you would do that, it would be better to eliminate Charisma altogether.

Aside from that, i don't see strength as particularly relevant for intimidation. Sure, intimidation needs some kind of threat and physical violence is one option. But even here, the kind of weapons you have, the number of allies you have, how violent you are known to be are far far more relevant than your strength. And when we go to other kinds of threats, things like the connections and influence you have, your knowledge of the enemies secrets, your spells and other powers etc. become relevant as well. Overall, strength brings such a minor contribution to your arsenal of threats that it should never be the stat most relevant to the skill use.

I was replying to people who were speaking about the 5e-specific context (all the talk about variant rules, etc). Hence my comments. And Charisma is already incredibly useful for a lot of things. And no one's saying take it away from Charisma. Merely situationally, when appropriate allow other things as well. Hard niche protection just makes the party act like a multi-headed hydra, swapping in the specialist for each particular thing. Oh, it's the talky time? Swap in the face. No one else gets to play. Oh, it's the puzzle time? Swap in the smart guy. Oh, it's the killing time? oh wait, the face and smart guy are just as good at that too, because fighting is the one niche we can never protect.. Which may work in some games, but it's not a style I happen to like.

[Mastikator]

First, this is the general roleplaying forum. And while the question still only makes sense in systems that are very D&D-like, it is not that relevant what specifically D&D5 does per RAW.

I still say it should be Charisma only. Because Charisma has basically no uses aside from a couple of skill. Taking the skills away so it is easier to dump it does make the system worse.If you would do that, it would be better to eliminate Charisma altogether.

Aside from that, i don't see strength as particularly relevant for intimidation. Sure, intimidation needs some kind of threat and physical violence is one option. But even here, the kind of weapons you have, the number of allies you have, how violent you are known to be are far far more relevant than your strength. And when we go to other kinds of threats, things like the connections and influence you have, your knowledge of the enemies secrets, your spells and other powers etc. become relevant as well. Overall, strength brings such a minor contribution to your arsenal of threats that it should never be the stat most relevant to the skill use.

Then, if you remove charisma or just play a different RPG that doesn't have charisma, what ability would you use with intimidation?

[Reversefigure4]

Its only a problem for people who have only ever played D&D.

Creative problem solving is somewhat innate to the human condition.

CAN you climb an alley with agility rather than strength? By parkor-ing off two nearby walls till you hit the top? By scampering up a narrow ledge rather than lugging yourself up from the bottom? I don't know if you can do those things, make a Dex+Athletics check!

The point is providing multiple ways to overcome an obstacle, rather than saying "This is the only way to do this." And it's pretty common in many games that aren't based on the D&D model.

Although it's equally common to not. Here's World of Darkness, a good example of this in action:

Your character can intimidate someone with a show of brute force (Strength + Intimidation Skill), through more subtle means such as verbal threats (Manipulation + Intimidation Skill), or simply through menacing body language (Presence + Intimidation Skill).

And for a not, Savage Worlds, which decouples Attributes from Skills in it's own way. It's more expensive to buy your Climb higher than your Strength - which you might well do for an agile catburglar - but there's no link between your Agility and your Climb.

Fate (some flavours), on the other hand, has no atrributes at all. Might (Strength) is a skill, as is Intimidate. If you want to Intimidate because you're strong, you need to either put the ranks in Intimidate, or take a special Stunt/Feat that lets you use Might instead of Intimidate. But you'll have to pay for it. Being scarier than Intimidation Man isn't an inherent power from being tall and strong.

[Liquor Box]

As for brandishing a gun at someone, they aren't scary because they're holding a gun. They're scary because they seem like they're prepared to use it. Getting people to see you the way you want to be seen or think about what you want them to think about? That's almost always charisma.

I don't agree. If an unimposing figure was armed with a baguette and is prepared to use it, most people would not find them scary at all. It is the fact that they visibly have the ability to cause you serious harm that is intimidating (having a gun, or a superior physique).

As I noted in a previous post, even where there is very little rational threat that someone would attack you physically, there is reason to believe that people subconsciously find larger people more intimidating.


… cherish your innocence, that you can believe that? I’ll not try and disabuse you of this notion, with tales of how it feels to stare down the barrel of a gun held by a killer, who you know is already figuring out what to do with your corpse if you don’t comply.
Hmmm. You say you wont disabuse my innocence, then go on to try and disabuse it anyway by implying my innocence is misplaced. It's almost as if you used the excuse of not disabusing my innocence to avoid having to provide any reasons or evidence (or even anecdotes) to back up your assertion.

Anyway, in your haste to assert your experience in dangerous situations you missed the point. I didn't say that having a gun is pointed at you is not scary. What I said is that a person may interpret the gun as more scary in the hands of the deranged person than the calm one. Feel free to disabuse my innocence on this point by providing something to back up any assertions that you make.


Although in your classic DnD-verse, everyone's got a gun equivalent. The Barbarian can crack the table with his bare hands (Str), but the Wizard can set it on fire, the Rogue can swiftly crave his name into it,many adventurers can pull out a head of a dragon they've killed. "Able to hurt you" is a trivial bar for DnD adventurers to clear, in dozens of different ways.

Have they? My experience is mostly 3e, and in that edition the default is that only a small proportion of the population has a PC class. My guess would be that an ordinary human in DnD is no more likely to be a capable wizard, than the ordinary human in the real world is to have a gun in their pocket.


At that point decoupling skills from attributes becomes more of an issue broadly, with intimidate merely being an obvious example. Can I Climb agiley rather than using brute force (Dex Athletics)? Can I distract him while I pick his pocket (Cha Sleight of Hand)? Can I sneak into the library to read up about dragons (Dex Arcana)? Some examples are easy to adjudicate, some silly, some hard. How far down the rabbit hole does the GM want to go?
I don't think that climbing, distracting or reading (the three skills you mention) are as inherently intimidating as the ability to pound you to dust, so I'm not sure I follow your point here. It would only be very niche circumstances where dexterity is intimidating, but imposing physical size (and the strength that implies) is intimidating in a wide range of scenarios.

[Dr.Samurai]

As I noted in a previous post, even where there is very little rational threat that someone would attack you physically, there is reason to believe that people subconsciously find larger people more intimidating.
A physical display also does something else... it shows the person exactly what is in store for them if the person follows through with their threat. There's no guesswork here. Someone using charisma might have their target thinking "I better do what they say because they seem earnest that they will hurt me".

Someone using strength might have their target thinking "I better do what they say because it's not worth the risk; if they get their hands around me there's nothing I can do".

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a note, the classic "nice place you've got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it." type of intimidation only works because the speaker has (or is) imposing, thuggish individuals who are ready to do brute physical harm/set fire to things and you can't stop them. In the real world, most intimidation does rely on threats of physical violence and a demonstrated willingness to perform said violence. A weak-but-charismatic guy (say a used car salesman) can certainly make those threats, but unless he's backed up by goons it's not going to work.

So yes, I'd say Strength (or having friends with Strength) is absolutely key to a lot of real-world intimidation techniques. And being strong and mean covers for a lot of lack-of-smooth-talking.

------

As for taking stuff away from Charisma--Intimidation is the highest-risk, most fault-prone of the 3 social skills. Use Persuasion (5e term) successfully and they're likely to actually be willing to help. Use it unsuccessfully and they'll just be unwilling to help unless you insulted their mother while doing so. But you can only persuade someone to do something already within the Zone of Negotiable Agreement. Deception is riskier, but can get things that Persuasion can't -- no, you can't persuade a dutiful guard to let you into that restricted area. But you might be able to trick him into thinking that you already have authorization to do so. But if it fails (or even succeeds and they find out later), you've burned a bridge. Intimidation burns bridges even when it does succeed a lot of the time. People you scare into helping you are likely going to be looking for ways to stab you in the back later (if they think they can get away with it). They're obeying out of fear, and that's dangerous. On the flip side, you can get things out of people you wouldn't be able to with persuasion or deception.

[Tanarii]

First, this is the general roleplaying forum. And while the question still only makes sense in systems that are very D&D-like, it is not that relevant what specifically D&D5 does per RAW.
I was replying to people who were speaking about the 5e-specific context (all the talk about variant rules, etc).Agreed. It's a general forum, but that was a tangent specifically for 5e D&D.


Aside3 from that, i don't see strength as particularly relevant for intimidation.Especially in any game system where checks based on physical strength (whatever it's called) attribute are checks to see if physical force is directly applied successfully. Because firstly intimidating by strength is rarely directly applied in attempts to intimidate. And secondly even then, it's not a question of if you successfully apply the physical force, it's a question of if you persuade the person/creature to react in a specific way to it.

In a system that has resolution chance modified by strength attribute for "anything tangentially involving the concept of personal physical force" it'd be a different matter. As opposed to actually using it, and only to see if the task of actually using it is successful.

---------

5e specific:
How many folks here would allow Intelligence (Sleight of hand) to pick a lock because you recall a piece of lore about this lock? Shouldn't it be Dexterity (History)?

Or more humorously, would you allow Charisma (Athletics) to climb something successfully because you first talked to the rock face and told it how much you respected it? Shouldn't it, at best, be Strength (Persuasion)?
obviously this isn't comparable, it was going to be my first example but I spotted the flaw. As a climber, I still find it funny tho.

[GeoffWatson]

As a note, the classic "nice place you've got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it." type of intimidation only works because the speaker has (or is) imposing, thuggish individuals who are ready to do brute physical harm/set fire to things and you can't stop them. In the real world, most intimidation does rely on threats of physical violence and a demonstrated willingness to perform said violence. A weak-but-charismatic guy (say a used car salesman) can certainly make those threats, but unless he's backed up by goons it's not going to work.

So yes, I'd say Strength (or having friends with Strength) is absolutely key to a lot of real-world intimidation techniques. And being strong and mean covers for a lot of lack-of-smooth-talking.


So Strength is the only way to be intimidating? They need Thugs right there to scare you? Guns don't scare you unless the guy holding them has muscles?

[Pex]

5e specific:
How many folks here would allow Intelligence (Sleight of hand) to pick a lock because you recall a piece of lore about this lock? Shouldn't it be Dexterity (History)?

Or more humorously, would you allow Charisma (Athletics) to climb something successfully because you first talked to the rock face and told it how much you respected it? Shouldn't it, at best, be Strength (Persuasion)?
obviously this isn't comparable, it was going to be my first example but I spotted the flaw. As a climber, I still find it funny tho.

If the PC knew the mountain was really a stone giant, yes.

[Satinavian]

Then, if you remove charisma or just play a different RPG that doesn't have charisma, what ability would you use with intimidation?If you didn't have Charisma, you could use INT for your knowledge about the targets and/or about torture methods, you could use WIS to understand what the target really fears and yes, you could also use strength. It is really not that difficult to find other stats and reasons.

But as long as Charisma is a stat, it should be the relevant stat.


As a note, the classic "nice place you've got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it." type of intimidation only works because the speaker has (or is) imposing, thuggish individuals who are ready to do brute physical harm/set fire to things and you can't stop them. In the real world, most intimidation does rely on threats of physical violence and a demonstrated willingness to perform said violence. A weak-but-charismatic guy (say a used car salesman) can certainly make those threats, but unless he's backed up by goons it's not going to work.
If you have goons (or party members), your personal strength does not really matter, even for physical threats.

And even a car salesman who is both weak and alone would be far more threatening if he had a weapon than if he only had muscles.

[Mastikator]

If you didn't have Charisma, you could use INT for your knowledge about the targets and/or about torture methods, you could use WIS to understand what the target really fears and yes, you could also use strength. It is really not that difficult to find other stats and reasons.

But as long as Charisma is a stat, it should be the relevant stat.


Out of curiosity do you feel the same about other skill + ability combinations, athletics is always strength, medicine is always wisdom, sleight of hand is always dex? The variant skill rule in the PHB should be ignored, the examples in Xanathar's should never be used? intelligence (sleight of hand) to tie a knot is one such example.
Or is it specifically intimidation that should be married to charisma until death (of charisma) does them apart?

[Satinavian]

Out of curiosity do you feel the same about other skill + ability combinations, athletics is always strength, medicine is always wisdom, sleight of hand is always dex? The variant skill rule in the PHB should be ignored, the examples in Xanathar's should never be used? intelligence (sleight of hand) to tie a knot is one such example.
Or is it specifically intimidation that should be married to charisma until death (of charisma) does them apart?I feel similar about the others. But as mentioned, the man reason is that dumping stats should actually hurt. If there are other reasons everyone needs stat X, i am more open to replace stat X in skills. But CHA and INT have nothing at all beyond skills if it is not the main stat of your class, while CON and DEX are needed much more by everyone.

But that is all only in the D&D framework. There are certainly many other skill systems i like far more and where i would give different answers.

[Elves]

Great post

[Dr.Samurai]

I feel similar about the others. But as mentioned, the man reason is that dumping stats should actually hurt. If there are other reasons everyone needs stat X, i am more open to replace stat X in skills. But CHA and INT have nothing at all beyond skills if it is not the main stat of your class, while CON and DEX are needed much more by everyone.
I don't really understand this sentiment honestly.

My current party has a wizard, a ranger, a monk, and my fighter. No one has charisma as a focused stat. I'm not sure how unilaterally deciding that an Intimidation check can never be Strength-based protects Charisma.

Not to mention, when it comes to Charisma vs Strength, charisma is far and away the more useful stat, as it governs the spellcasting modifier for four classes, and four skill proficiencies.

Strength, meanwhile, covers a single skill proficiency, and melee attacks. But in the case of melee attacks it can be replaced by Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, depending on class.

All that said, wanting to protect charisma is an argument that I can at least make heads or tails of, as opposed to the "physical force isn't intimidating" nonsense that others are spouting.

Speaking of what Strength governs...

Intimidation skill - When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check.

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

Threatening someone by squeezing their neck, bending their arm, boxing them in the ears, etc. is Intimidation and can reasonably be applied to a Strength check, as instead of charisma beams magically making the person do what you want, the force of your pressure around their neck or against their ears/temple convinces them they better do what you want because they can't or don't want to withstand your physical power.

[Mastikator]

I feel similar about the others. But as mentioned, the man reason is that dumping stats should actually hurt. If there are other reasons everyone needs stat X, i am more open to replace stat X in skills. But CHA and INT have nothing at all beyond skills if it is not the main stat of your class, while CON and DEX are needed much more by everyone.

But that is all only in the D&D framework. There are certainly many other skill systems i like far more and where i would give different answers.

That's a consistent ruling based on balance reasons, so I respect it. But TBH I'd feel it that was a bit immersion breaking

[Tanarii]

Not to mention, when it comes to Charisma vs Strength, charisma is far and away the more useful stat, as it governs the spellcasting modifier for four classes, and four skill proficiencies.

Strength, meanwhile, covers a single skill proficiency, and melee attacks. But in the case of melee attacks it can be replaced by Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, depending on class.
Yes but jumping especially but even climbing clearly happen far more than talking in a properly designed campaign.

I've actually found Str gets rolled far more often than Cha in both my own campaigns and back when I played in AL. But joking aside, obviously that's hugely YMMV and campaign dependent. :smallamused:

Plus I'm not really interested in niche protection.
Just the best-kind-of-correct technically correct reading of the rules, for the bonus internet points.

[Anymage]

That's a consistent ruling based on balance reasons, so I respect it. But TBH I'd feel it that was a bit immersion breaking

Conversely, I find that strength based intimidation is best justifiable as a kludge for 5e, in that it enables a certain range of social interactions for characters who'd be archetypically good at that band of interactions but not others. All D&D characters lumped together might not value strength highly and indeed it's a common dump stat, but barbarians and hulking fighters tend to like it. (Plus a lot of paladins, but both having a use for Cha and character archetype make them less relevant here.)

The problem I have with strength based intimidation arguments is that they always come down to the idea that a high strength score always makes you huge and jacked (in which case fantasy is full of both deceptively strong characters and shape shifting/disguise effects, which massively complicates the issue), or that high strength is a good way to display your capacity for violence in a world where most PCs and a sizeable chunk of the creatures they encounter can dish out violence quite well and can hint at their capacity quite well. Strong man competitor vs. scrawny teenager who flashes a gun.

[Quertus]

Hmmm. You say you wont disabuse my innocence, then go on to try and disabuse it anyway by implying my innocence is misplaced. It's almost as if you used the excuse of not disabusing my innocence to avoid having to provide any reasons or evidence (or even anecdotes) to back up your assertion.

Anyway, in your haste to assert your experience in dangerous situations you missed the point. I didn't say that having a gun is pointed at you is not scary. What I said is that a person may interpret the gun as more scary in the hands of the deranged person than the calm one. Feel free to disabuse my innocence on this point by providing something to back up any assertions that you make.

Touché? In retrospect, certain cases of both are similarly scary, for similar reasons. I pictured what I was familiar with on both sides, but concede that my perception was skewed. Which does present a problem for me in analyzing how one would evaluate and adjudicate such situations - including the possibility of the target being oblivious, and misinterpreting the scenario they find themselves in. “You can’t intimidate him - he’s too clueless!” (I swear there was a scene like that in a movie…).

[Dr.Samurai]

Touché? In retrospect, certain cases of both are similarly scary, for similar reasons. I pictured what I was familiar with on both sides, but concede that my perception was skewed. Which does present a problem for me in analyzing how one would evaluate and adjudicate such situations - including the possibility of the target being oblivious, and misinterpreting the scenario they find themselves in. “You can’t intimidate him - he’s too clueless!” (I swear there was a scene like that in a movie…).
This is certainly possible, but it shouldn't be assumed that someone with a 10 or 8 charisma will always have this outcome when they intimidate someone. That's what the roll is for.

Somewhat unrelated... I think people treat Intimidation as a Deception check. See below:

Player - "If you don't tell me what I want to know, I'll hurt you!"

DM - Roll Intimidation.

Player - I rolled a 12.

DM - Ok, the thug laughs in your face, "Yeah right, you don't have the guts!".

This is wrong. It's not a deception check. You are threatening someone. If you don't intend to carry out on that threat, then you're bluffing. That's a deception check. A better response would be:

DM - Ok, the thug regards you for a moment before saying, "I can take it." He refuses to say any more.

This is to say that the argument that a Str(Intimidation) can't telegraph whether you are sincere or not is misplaced because this isn't a question of truth. That's the province of Deception. Intimidation is about whether the threat that you're promising is enough to pry information or items or some other compliance from the person you're Intimidating. The check is not to convince them that you're going to do it, it's to convince them to comply because of what you will do to them. With this understanding, it's easier to see how physical force or violence can get someone to comply.

[awa]

For my part I only care that those archetypes that are supposed to be good at intimidation such as barbarians are good at intimidation. Anything that reinforces the idea that fighters/barbarians should sit in the corner until a fight starts and not engage in any of the games other pillars is in my mind bad.

The game should be able to model a very scary guy/monster who is not good at deception or diplomacy. How it does this would very from system to system but it is a serious design flaw if it cant do it at all.

[icefractal]

As a note, the classic "nice place you've got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it." type of intimidation only works because the speaker has (or is) imposing, thuggish individuals who are ready to do brute physical harm/set fire to things and you can't stop them. In the real world, most intimidation does rely on threats of physical violence and a demonstrated willingness to perform said violence. A weak-but-charismatic guy (say a used car salesman) can certainly make those threats, but unless he's backed up by goons it's not going to work.
Yes - physical violence. Not Strength, necessarily. Are you saying the above situation wouldn't be scary if the goons had fire-starting materials and guns/knives, but weren't brawny? I'm gonna call BS on that - danger is danger, whether it comes from muscles, knives, guns, or indirect methods (imagine a corrupt sheriff threatening to plant evidence of horrible crimes in your house).

Hero system takes that into account for Presence attacks (±1d6 roughly equals ±2 in D&D terms):
* Attacker at a disadvantage: -1d6
* Target at a disadvantage: +1d6
* Exhibiting superior abilities: +1d6
* Violent action: +1d6 to +4d6, depending how violent
* Target in partial retreat: +2d6
* Target in full retreat / captured: +4d6
* Use of appropriate supporting skill: +1d6 or +2d6, depending on margin of success
* Reputation: -3d6 to +3d6
* Applicable Psychological Factor: -3d6 to +3d6

So exhibiting great strength could give you several of those bonuses. But not an arbitrarily large amount - once you've already demonstrated that you're strong enough to crush the target, being even more strong doesn't matter much, does it?


Also - "High Charisma only means spoony bard / used car salesman" is just sour grapes by people whose characters don't have high Charisma. :smalltongue: "Bad ass" characters have high Charisma. "Natural leaders" have high Charisma. Most movie protagonists are played by actors with - you guessed it - high Charisma.

Now I do think it's mistake, system-design-wise, to give some classes more mechanical use for Charisma than others. Sorcerers should not be more impressive than warriors as a general thing. And stat generation methods shouldn't be so stingy with the stats either - it should be entirely viable to be a high-Charisma Barbarian - like Conan, who definitely has high Charisma. But that's a problem that should be fixed on the system level, by changing how stats are determined and used, rather than by trying to pretend Charisma doesn't mean what it means.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes - physical violence. Not Strength, necessarily. Are you saying the above situation wouldn't be scary if the goons had fire-starting materials and guns/knives, but weren't brawny? I'm gonna call BS on that - danger is danger, whether it comes from muscles, knives, guns, or indirect methods (imagine a corrupt sheriff threatening to plant evidence of horrible crimes in your house).
The issue I am seeing is that any of us can say "yes, of course, a charismatic person can convince someone of a threat". However, for some reasons, others are refusing to admit that strength and physical violence can also intimidate a person.

We can agree with the examples you give; the examples you give do not invalidate Strength, they can coexist.

You and others, on the other hand, act as if a boorish thug with his giant meaty paws around your neck could never convince you to fork over your wallet because the threat of physical violence without sufficient charisma is completely uncompelling. Forgive me for being skeptical that you would all be stalwart badasses in the face of big strong guys threatening violence. It's a nice fantasy though.

[Anymage]

You and others, on the other hand, act as if a boorish thug with his giant meaty paws around your neck could never convince you to fork over your wallet because the threat of physical violence without sufficient charisma is completely uncompelling. Forgive me for being skeptical that you would all be stalwart badasses in the face of big strong guys threatening violence. It's a nice fantasy though.

First, a scrawny teenager with a gun is at least as scary as the professional bodybuilder. So it's not just about strength score meaning huge meaning the best way of expressing a threat.

Second, you got it right there with the word "fantasy". You or I would probably be spooked for being at gunpoint. Fantasy characters have enough avenues to power and enough powers of their own that simply having an ogre's hand next to your neck doesn't mean anything. D&D characters being fantastical means that a lot of our real world expectations are less relevant.

[Liquor Box]

The problem I have with strength based intimidation arguments is that they always come down to the idea that a high strength score always makes you huge and jacked (in which case fantasy is full of both deceptively strong characters and shape shifting/disguise effects, which massively complicates the issue),

They do not come down to the idea that having a high strength score always makes you huge and jacked at all. Only that people in those worlds would perceive a correlation between being strong looking and being strong (in other words, characters that look strong are more often strong).

In some games the relationship between size and str is baked into the rules. But even where it is not it makes sense for there to be a relationship between the two, and in my experience DMs will question characters who are super strong but are relatively normal looking.


or that high strength is a good way to display your capacity for violence in a world where most PCs and a sizeable chunk of the creatures they encounter can dish out violence quite well and can hint at their capacity quite well. Strong man competitor vs. scrawny teenager who flashes a gun

I agree with your analogy between most RPGs having some people who are lethal without relying on strength (because of magic) and the real world having some people who are lethal without relying on strength (because of guns). In both cases size and strength are a visible indicator of someone's ability to kick your ass, but there's always the possibility that they have a non-visible trump card in their pocket.

But despite that larger, tougher looking people are more intimidating than those who are not in the real world. This is pretty well established. It may be that once someone pulls a gun they are suddenly more intimidating, this is true whether or not they are charismatic. As such I suggest a gun (or an overwhelming display of magical power) is best represented by a circumstance bonus in place of using str as a bonus.


You and others, on the other hand, act as if a boorish thug with his giant meaty paws around your neck could never convince you to fork over your wallet because the threat of physical violence without sufficient charisma is completely uncompelling. Forgive me for being skeptical that you would all be stalwart badasses in the face of big strong guys threatening violence. It's a nice fantasy though.
This is accurate.

Strength certainly isn't the only way to be intimidating, having a gun is too. But charisma being intimidating is niche, is certainly not necessary, and it is far less often applicable to intimidation than str.

If you were going to burgle a home, what would make you rethink. A big mean guard dog barking at you ferociously, or a small but charming poodle barking at you ferociously. Size matters.


Touché? In retrospect, certain cases of both are similarly scary, for similar reasons. I pictured what I was familiar with on both sides, but concede that my perception was skewed. Which does present a problem for me in analyzing how one would evaluate and adjudicate such situations - including the possibility of the target being oblivious, and misinterpreting the scenario they find themselves in. “You can’t intimidate him - he’s too clueless!” (I swear there was a scene like that in a movie…).

I agree. Both are life threatening. Different people might assess one or the other being somewhat more or less life threatening based on the context. But I don't think the assessment of which is more life threatening (and therefore scary) relates to the charisma of the person with the gun. Low charisma people can be just as dangerous (and intimidating) as high charisma people.

[Dr.Samurai]

First, a scrawny teenager with a gun is at least as scary as the professional bodybuilder.
Of course. I've never asserted that something *can't* be intimidating.

What I, at least, recognize is that the gun is scary because it represents physical harm, and a potentially lethal threat. Same with a knife. Same with two no-neck goons flanking the mobster. Same with someone even just alluding to a weapon. Same EVEN with the spooky halfling rogue with the menacing stare, ooooh ooooh so scary. The menacing scare is threatening violence.

So when a big guy cuffs you and demands something, and you feel how hard they just hit you, you may be compelled to comply. Think about how ridiculous the alternative is:

Barbarian - Ok, I want to intimidate him, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard but... he's not really compelled to comply. Even though you're strong, you haven't really conveyed the threat to him to get him to open up.

Barbarian - I literally just smacked the crap out of him.

Rogue - Hold on, let me try, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to tell him "You better give me what I want, or my friend here will hurt you." and I point to the barbarian.

DM - Ok, roll.

Rogue - I got a 17.

DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at the barbarian and the barbarian's giant muscles and huge axe, he gulps, and he says "Ok, I'll tell you want you want to know."

It's patently ridiculous to think this makes sense.

So it's not just about strength score meaning huge meaning the best way of expressing a threat.

I don't think anyone has argued that Strength is the best way of expressing a threat though.

Second, you got it right there with the word "fantasy". You or I would probably be spooked for being at gunpoint. Fantasy characters have enough avenues to power and enough powers of their own that simply having an ogre's hand next to your neck doesn't mean anything. D&D characters being fantastical means that a lot of our real world expectations are less relevant.
Sorry, are we talking about PCs or NPCs? Because PCs, at least in D&D, can't be Intimidated outside of a power or effect that Frightens them or something. Big strong warriors are part of the fantasy, and dismissing them as potentially threatening "because magic" is not fair and STILL doesn't make sense. So because someone somewhere can do magic, the 6ft tall armored warrior with a sword standing right in front of you is no longer threatening? I don't think so.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So because someone somewhere can do magic, the 6ft tall armored warrior with a sword standing right in front of you is no longer threatening? I don't think so.

Especially since, for most people in most D&D-like worlds, "big angry person with muscles" is way more of a real-life threat than some dude who can cast spells. Because just about everyone knows someone in the first category and has a really good idea of what they're capable of. Whereas the second is something that belongs mostly to bards' tales. Sure, you know that your first cousin's sister's cousin's brother-in-law once saw a fireball being cast, but you? Most you've seen is the village priest doing his mumbo jumbo and (possibly) healing someone a bit. Magic's for them posh folks. Heck, I could even see some skepticism. "It's just tricks, right? I mean, sure there's some magic, but really now...". Heck, people in the real world say the same sort of thing about a lot that computers can do, and computers are dead common these days.

Especially in 5e, where one of the Big Assumptions is that while the evidence of magic is common, active magic users are not. Maybe less so in 3e, where high-level casters were a dime a dozen. But remember, most people don't live in big cities. Sure, in Magicopolis, where everyone and their brother can cast spells, it may be different. But most of the world isn't like that. Adventurers get a really warped view of what the average person sees. In most settlements in FR, for instance, they may go generations between seeing even something like an orc band, let alone a high-power caster.

[Tanarii]

So when a big guy cuffs you and demands something, and you feel how hard they just hit you, you may be compelled to comply. Think about how ridiculous the alternative is:

Barbarian - Ok, I want to intimidate him, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard but... he's not really compelled to comply. Even though you're strong, you haven't really conveyed the threat to him to get him to open up.

Barbarian - I literally just smacked the crap out of him.

Rogue - Hold on, let me try, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to tell him "You better give me what I want, or my friend here will hurt you." and I point to the barbarian.

DM - Ok, roll.

Rogue - I got a 17.

DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at the barbarian and the barbarian's giant muscles and huge axe, he gulps, and he says "Ok, I'll tell you want you want to know."

It's patently ridiculous to think this makes sense.
Let's get these little stories straight shall we:

Big Dumb Barbarian - Ok, I want to get him to to not run to the Guards after we leave, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

Big Dumb Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard and ... he, like, totally swears he won't tell the guards you were here once you leave.

Big Dumb Barbarian - That's right. You see what Strength to Intimidate can do? *satisfied look*

Rogue - *sighs* Hold on, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to lean in and tell him "Remember, we know where you live, with that beautiful wife and cute little kids" as I caress my dagger.

DM - Ok, roll.

Rogue - I got a 17.

DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at your dagger, he gulps, and he says "yes yes of course, of course, as I told your friend, I've never seen you."

[Dr.Samurai]

Tanarii, you're missing the point and mixing up something I've already addressed.

The point is to demonstrate how saying "strength isn't intimidating" while also using someone else's strength to intimidate doesn't make any sense. In the first case, the barbarian is doing actual harm and threatening more harm, whereas the rogue is only threatening harm. Everyone is so eager to say "b-b-b-b-ut what about guns?! guns are so scary!". Yes, they are, because they can hurt and kill you. So can a barbarian that can easily manhandle you and is armed to the teeth. No one needs a good charisma score to threaten someone with a gun. And no one has explained why the physical harm from a gun is threatening but the physical harm from a punch/kick/sword/hammer isn't. (I don't expect you to because the argument holds no water, but worth pointing out that nothing has been provided besides 'nuh-uh!'.)

Secondly, unless the rogue is actually going to murder this guard's wife and kids, that would be a deception check, not an intimidation check.

[Liquor Box]

Let's get these little stories straight shall we:

Big Dumb Barbarian - Ok, I want to get him to to not run to the Guards after we leave, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

Big Dumb Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard and ... he, like, totally swears he won't tell the guards you were here once you leave.

Big Dumb Barbarian - That's right. You see what Strength to Intimidate can do? *satisfied look*

Rogue - *sighs* Hold on, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to lean in and tell him "Remember, we know where you live, with that beautiful wife and cute little kids" as I caress my dagger.

DM - Ok, roll.

Rogue - I got a 17.

DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at your dagger, he gulps, and he says "yes yes of course, of course, as I told your friend, I've never seen you."

Three points

First, I think the person would be more likely to go to the guards if someone threatens his family. If I got into a scrape with someone, I probably wouldn't go to the police, but if they hinted that they'd go after my family I might.

Second, knowing where someone's family lives or thinking of saying it has nothing to do with charisma. You could as easily have your strong low charisma character threaten his family - and it would probably be more effective coming from the strong character because you can see how easily they'd physically dominate the family.

Third, just like the other examples with the gun, your rogue is relying on a prop (the knife, and by implication the barbarian too) to make up for the fact that he is not inherently intimidating himself. Displaying a knife against an unarmed person might give a circumstance bonus, but that is the knife doing the work, not charisma.

[Tanarii]

Tanarii, you're missing the point and mixing up something I've already addressed.

The point is to demonstrate how saying "strength isn't intimidating" while also using someone else's strength to intimidate doesn't make any sense. In the first case, the barbarian is doing actual harm and threatening more harm, whereas the rogue is only threatening harm. Everyone is so eager to say "b-b-b-b-ut what about guns?! guns are so scary!". Yes, they are, because they can hurt and kill you. So can a barbarian that can easily manhandle you and is armed to the teeth. No one needs a good charisma score to threaten someone with a gun. And no one has explained why the physical harm from a gun is threatening but the physical harm from a punch/kick/sword/hammer isn't. (I don't expect you to because the argument holds no water, but worth pointing out that nothing has been provided besides 'nuh-uh!'.)No, I am not missing the point. The point is trying to get them to do something you want through threats, and consequences once you are no longer there to enforce it.

If all you're doing it torturing someone at your mercy for information, there shouldn't even be a check. Eventually they give you whatever they think you want to hear to make you stop.


Secondly, unless the rogue is actually going to murder this guard's wife and kids, that would be a deception check, not an intimidation check.You're trying to get what you want by threats. That's explicitly Intimidation, not Deception.


Third, just like the other examples with the gun, your rogue is relying on a prop (the knife, and by implication the barbarian too) to make up for the fact that he is not inherently intimidating himself. Displaying a knife against an unarmed person might give a circumstance bonus, but that is the knife doing the work, not charisma.Exactly. The prop doesn't matter. Big muscles, daggers, flashy magic. Being good at influencing someone through threats is what matters. That's a charisma check, with an added bonus if you have a focus in Intimidation.

[Dr.Samurai]

No, I am not missing the point.
1000% you did miss the point of that example.

The point is trying to get them to do something you want through threats, and consequences once you are no longer there to enforce it.
No, you're adding this now to still give yourself space to deny a Strength interaction. But you and I both know that threats do not have to extend into the future. You can threaten immediate violence right then and there and get someone to comply.

If all you're doing it torturing someone at your mercy for information, there shouldn't even be a check.
Ah yes, either physical violence doesn't work, or it works so well it's an auto-success and no check is needed. Brilliant.

Intimidation says you can do it through physical violence. So what's the problem with cuffing someone? Why is that "torture" now?

Eventually they give you whatever they think you want to hear to make you stop.
Perhaps, if you fail the check. If you succeed though, your threat is sufficient and you get what you want. That's how a game with dice rolls works.

You're trying to get what you want by threats. That's explicitly Intimidation, not Deception.
A threat is a statement of intention to do harm. If you don't actually intend to do the harm, that's a lie, which is Deception. Please read the skill proficiencies.

[Quixotic1]

I feel like the trend of modern ttrpgs has been to move away from GM adjudication and towards bulkier and wordier blocks of text that read more like legal documents than a game rule.

What I've found super useful in situations like the ones described here is the concept of intent and approach.
As some others have said, players shouldn't be saying "I use (enter name of skill/trait/ability on their character sheet here)", they should be telling you what they want to achieve and how they go about it.

If you wanted to intimidate someone, you'll probably use the Intimidate skill.
But how you go about it matters, right? If you threaten the jaded mercenary with a koshing, it will probably be less effective than if you, say, called him out on his breach of contract with his current employer or implied that something might happen to his family or whatever.

If someone--anyone--at my table wanted to use a show of force to cow someone, of course I'll call for Str. Or they could use Dex and slice all the buttons off someone's waistcoat in the blink of an eye. Or Con by taking a beer bottle to the face without blinking. Or Int by being crazy-smart, or Wis by being...eerily perceptive? And Cha for being smooth, confident, etc.

Admittedly, this opens up social stuff a lot more than other rolls. Athletics might be based off Dex or Con instead of Str, but very seldom Cha (though you could do Int for a "how much do you know about mountain climbing" deal).

But like...skill based systems are just full of blindspots and overlap like that across the board.
When I run Chronicles of Darkness or even D&D, I'll usually offer X or Y for a skill check, or at least be open to suggestion. And I just can't find a good enough reason to say no, usually.

[Tanarii]

No, you're adding this now to still give yourself space to deny a Strength interaction. But you and I both know that threats do not have to extend into the future. You can threaten immediate violence right then and there and get someone to comply.

Ah yes, either physical violence doesn't work, or it works so well it's an auto-success and no check is needed. Brilliant.
Unfortunately further discuss on this would require real world topics. So I'll have to leave it at the current point in discussion.

[Liquor Box]

Exactly. The prop doesn't matter. Big muscles, daggers, flashy magic. Being good at influencing someone through threats is what matters. That's a charisma check, with an added bonus if you have a focus in Intimidation.

Well your own body is not really a prop. Some people are inherently intimidating because their large size lends them a menacing presence (well represented by a str bonus to intimidate). Those that are not can sometimes achieve the same effects by relying on guns or the like (well represented by a circumstance bonus to intimidate).

You keep pointing out that str isn't the only way to represent the ability to hurt those you are looking to intimidate, but nobody disagrees with that. What you have not yet addressed is why charisma matters. Your example of the high charisma rogue threatening the family had nothing to do with the rogues charisma, and words would have been more effectively uttered by a scary looking character than a charismatic one.

[Tanarii]

Well your own body is not really a prop. Some people are inherently intimidating because their large size lends them a menacing presence (well represented by a str bonus to intimidate). Those that are not can sometimes achieve the same effects by relying on guns or the like (well represented by a circumstance bonus to intimidate).

You keep pointing out that str isn't the only way to represent the ability to hurt those you are looking to intimidate, but nobody disagrees with that. What you have not yet addressed is why charisma matters. Your example of the high charisma rogue threatening the family had nothing to do with the rogues charisma, and words would have been more effectively uttered by a scary looking character than a charismatic one.
Because props and delivery aren't the basis, ability to influence someone else is the basis. Props and delivery are the tools used.

[icefractal]

words would have been more effectively uttered by a scary looking character than a charismatic one.
"Scary" is a form of Charisma!
Charisma is not only "being charming", it's being impressive as well!

And that's another thing - shouldn't the big strong charismatic guy be even better at intimidating people than the big strong unimpressive guy?

If anything, it should be "add Strength in addition to Charisma" - which I would completely support if "add Dexterity" and "add spell level demonstrated" and "add +5 for having a gun" were also possible.

[MaryPoppinsYall]

Nah a giant man threatening you is scary. A small man has to get creative.

[Dr.Samurai]

Nah a giant man threatening you is scary. A small man has to get creative.
That may be true for you and for me. But this thread has attracted the bravest of all people. Those that can't be moved by strong ruffians trying to cajole them. No, these people in this thread have hearts and wills of pure steel. Fearless. Bravehearts, to the last of them.

The only thing that could possibly shake them is... a little tiny halfling man with a mean look.

[GeoffWatson]

It's D&D. Everyone knows the Strength-based classes (Fighter, Barbarian) are the least powerful, so obviously high Strength characters are worthless.

Only casters are truly powerful, so low Strength characters are scary.

[Liquor Box]

Because props and delivery aren't the basis, ability to influence someone else is the basis. Props and delivery are the tools used.

Sure, but charisma is rarely relevant to influencing someone because they fear what you would do to them. Your own example about threatening the family showed that. Strength (or the appearance of it) is often relevant to influencing someone because they fear you hurting them.

We can dance around and give different examples of good roleplaying or poor roleplaying, or having weapons or not. But the problem with you argument still remains - charisma has little to do with it.


"Scary" is a form of Charisma!
Charisma is not only "being charming", it's being impressive as well!

The way I was using 'scary' was to mean looking physically imposing. That is not a firm of charisma.


And that's another thing - shouldn't the big strong charismatic guy be even better at intimidating people than the big strong unimpressive guy?

If anything, it should be "add Strength in addition to Charisma" - which I would completely support if "add Dexterity" and "add spell level demonstrated" and "add +5 for having a gun" were also possible.

No, if two characters were identical except one has high charisma and the other has low charisma, I think they would be equally intimidating in most situations. I don't think someone who is a compelling orator, is attractive, has good leadership skills, is personally magnetic or quick witted is often something that aids intimidation. Being persuasive or having a generally forceful personality might be an aid to intimidation in some circumstances, but less so (and less often) than the presence granted by looking big and tough.

[Anymage]

That may be true for you and for me. But this thread has attracted the bravest of all people. Those that can't be moved by strong ruffians trying to cajole them. No, these people in this thread have hearts and wills of pure steel. Fearless. Bravehearts, to the last of them.

The only thing that could possibly shake them is... a little tiny halfling man with a mean look.

I'm not a trained combatant, under the real life rules engine where a spot of bad luck could easily lead to serious injury or death even for the favored party. My D&D character is a trained combatant in a system where injuries are common but lasting ones are rare. I can't help but think that the rules should be calibrated around PCs and the beings they're most likely to meaningfully interact with, moreso than commoners in either their world or ours.


Sure, but charisma is rarely relevant to influencing someone because they fear what you would do to them. Your own example about threatening the family showed that. Strength (or the appearance of it) is often relevant to influencing someone because they fear you hurting them.

The gun counterargument is that there are plenty of other ways to make people scared of you other than being a shredded mountain of muscle. Since we're making arguments from real life I'd be super spooked if someone's eyes glowed red and the ground trembled when they spoke, but as a D&D player I know that's the effect of a simple cantrip. The ideas that strength score is always easily visible from build, and that displays of strength are more effectively intimidating than displays of other power, are not borne out in D&D. And I say this as someone who accepted that certain forms of Str-intimidation make sense as a kludge for the 5e skill system.

For any form of interaction more finely grained than making someone back off or want to flee, however, people skills are absolutely relevant in knowing just how far to push. Hulk is a lot more likely to make me run away than Captain America. If you want to reduce the risks of having someone collapse into an incomprehensible blubbering ball or deciding that their best chance of making it out requires an all-out attack - both things that scared people have been known to do - Cap is probably the better bet. The idea that a failed intimidation check results in a blase, unscared target is another one of those assumptions that doesn't necessarily pan out. Unproductively scared is very much a possibility.

[icefractal]

That may be true for you and for me. But this thread has attracted the bravest of all people. Those that can't be moved by strong ruffians trying to cajole them. No, these people in this thread have hearts and wills of pure steel. Fearless. Bravehearts, to the last of them.Lol, get off your high horse here. Apparently those in the "only Strength matters" camp would be totally unphased if threatened by a crazy-looking guy waving a knife around, or even a grenade, as long as he was scrawny.

Is anyone even contesting that a big brawny person could be scary? Because I'm not. I just think they're not specially and uniquely scary in a way that someone with a gun or carrying a severed arm or visibly an organized crime boss aren't. Danger is danger. By all means have a modifier for it, but muscles are not the only form.

[Mastikator]

Lol, get off your high horse here. Apparently those in the "only Strength matters" camp would be totally unphased if threatened by a crazy-looking guy waving a knife around, or even a grenade, as long as he was scrawny.

Is anyone even contesting that a big brawny person could be scary? Because I'm not. I just think they're not specially and uniquely scary in a way that someone with a gun or carrying a severed arm or visibly an organized crime boss aren't. Danger is danger. By all means have a modifier for it, but muscles are not the only form.

There's no one in the strength only matters camp. That camp does not exist on this thread.

[icefractal]

So you'd be on board with something like this?

If anything, it should be "add Strength in addition to Charisma" - which I would completely support if "add Dexterity" and "add spell level demonstrated" and "add +5 for having a gun" were also possible.

Because I'm not against that, although I think Charisma should still be in addition. May require changing the DC though, since it'll now be a higher bonus than most skills.

[Mastikator]

So you'd be on board with something like this?


Because I'm not against that, although I think Charisma should still be in addition. May require changing the DC though, since it'll now be a higher bonus than most skills.

No I'm not on board with that, just use one ability score. Which should most of the time be charisma.

How do I put this?

Everyone agrees charisma should be the default for intimidation.
Not everyone agrees the default ability score should always and forever be used for skills.

When you argue that strength shouldn't always be used for every intimidation then you argue against nobody.
When you argue that strength should never be used under any circumstances, then you argue against me (and other people).

These are the two camps:

Always use the same ability score for the same skill, with no exceptions.
Sometimes use a different ability score for the same skill, depending on situation.

The "always use strength" camp is empty.

[icefractal]

Ok, but that alternate ability score could still be Dexterity, or Int/Wis (the level of the spell demonstrated makes more sense IMO, but it could be the ability score to keep the scale consistent), or a flat bonus for weapons, etc?

[Mastikator]

I don't see why not.

[Liquor Box]

The gun counterargument is that there are plenty of other ways to make people scared of you other than being a shredded mountain of muscle. Since we're making arguments from real life I'd be super spooked if someone's eyes glowed red and the ground trembled when they spoke, but as a D&D player I know that's the effect of a simple cantrip. The ideas that strength score is always easily visible from build, and that displays of strength are more effectively intimidating than displays of other power, are not borne out in D&D. And I say this as someone who accepted that certain forms of Str-intimidation make sense as a kludge for the 5e skill system.

I didn't say that looking strong is more effective than other displays of power in DnD or real life. I accepted that in real life a gun might as intimidating or perhaps more so. In DnD other displays of power might be as intimidating or more so (probably depending somewhat on the setting). So looking strong is just one display of power.

So, as I have suggested several times, str should give an intimidate bonus, but a alternative display of power could give a circumstance bonus instead. I've said that a few times, and your points above seem consistent with it,so perhaps we are furiously agreeing? If not, perhaps you could point out where we disagree.


For any form of interaction more finely grained than making someone back off or want to flee, however, people skills are absolutely relevant in knowing just how far to push. Hulk is a lot more likely to make me run away than Captain America. If you want to reduce the risks of having someone collapse into an incomprehensible blubbering ball or deciding that their best chance of making it out requires an all-out attack - both things that scared people have been known to do - Cap is probably the better bet. The idea that a failed intimidation check results in a blase, unscared target is another one of those assumptions that doesn't necessarily pan out. Unproductively scared is very much a possibility.

I don't agree. If we take the example of wanting someone to give you a thing (information or something material), in most cases it only takes sufficient people skills to be able to articulate what it is you want, and articulate or imply that it work our poorly for your target if they refuse. I don't think that this requires any real charisma. And in both cases I think Hulk would be better (I assume he can actually speak?).

You might be able to come up with examples where more nuance is required and higher charisma is more useful than being physically imposing. In those cases charisma is probably worth using. But I don't think that detracts from str being useful in a wide variety (probably most) intimidate scenarios.


Lol, get off your high horse here. Apparently those in the "only Strength matters" camp would be totally unphased if threatened by a crazy-looking guy waving a knife around, or even a grenade, as long as he was scrawny.

I notice that once again, your non-strong character needs a knife or grenade to be intimidating. I think most people here have (or would) agree that having something like a grenade or knife (when your target does not) deserves some sort of intimidate bonus. As I think people have told you lots of times, being strong is not the only way to be intimidating, but it is one effective way.


Is anyone even contesting that a big brawny person could be scary? Because I'm not. I just think they're not specially and uniquely scary in a way that someone with a gun or carrying a severed arm or visibly an organized crime boss aren't. Danger is danger. By all means have a modifier for it, but muscles are not the only form.

Yes, then we are agreed. So you'd agree that str can be used for intim checks by the big brawny person, or some sort of circumstance bonus can be used for the person with the gun or the mob boss etc?


Ok, but that alternate ability score could still be Dexterity, or Int/Wis (the level of the spell demonstrated makes more sense IMO, but it could be the ability score to keep the scale consistent), or a flat bonus for weapons, etc?

It could possibly be dexterity or intelligence in some very particular circumstances I suppose. But those would be much more infrequent and niche than strength.

This is for two reasons. First, desterity and intelligence is much less visible than strength. Second, they are much less inherently intimidating (in that a strong person can usually obviously give you a hiding, but it is much less obvious that the clever or dexterous one can use that ability to harm you).

I think weapons usually only matter where one person has them and the other does not - in this case i think they should give a bonus decided on by the DM but not tied to an ability score. I think that if the character can demonstrate the ability to cast spells that the target perceives as powerful , then they should get a flat bonus for that untied to an ability score, but if they are trying to persuade the target that they might cast a spell on them (not demonstrating it) this is probably charisma.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not a trained combatant, under the real life rules engine where a spot of bad luck could easily lead to serious injury or death even for the favored party. My D&D character is a trained combatant in a system where injuries are common but lasting ones are rare. I can't help but think that the rules should be calibrated around PCs and the beings they're most likely to meaningfully interact with, moreso than commoners in either their world or ours.
Okay but... you're not always going to be trying to Intimidate super powerful beings. I don't know why arguments keep being formulated that don't support the unilateral "Strength can't work" position you are all taking.

If we just killed your cultist pals, and now I want to Intimidate you to betray your zealous loyalty to your high priest and spill the beans, why wouldn't Strength be Intimidating? Now, if you're talking about a giant, that towers over the barbarian and is way stronger than him? Sure, maybe Intimidation through Strength couldn't work. But there's an issue with your argument still, because you, and others, keep scaling everyone up in the D&D world except for the fighters! My fighter, as I mentioned in a thread on the 5E forum, just used Action Surge to kill a hill giant in 1 turn. Why would another hill giant that witnessed that not fear my Strength if I roll an Intimidation check against it? I'm not saying an auto-success here, but why might it not with a successful roll of the die?

The gun counterargument is that there are plenty of other ways to make people scared of you other than being a shredded mountain of muscle. Since we're making arguments from real life I'd be super spooked if someone's eyes glowed red and the ground trembled when they spoke, but as a D&D player I know that's the effect of a simple cantrip. The ideas that strength score is always easily visible from build, and that displays of strength are more effectively intimidating than displays of other power, are not borne out in D&D. And I say this as someone who accepted that certain forms of Str-intimidation make sense as a kludge for the 5e skill system.
Agreed that people can be scared of many things. I don't understand how you can put that forth and then make an exception for Strength. It's truly mind-boggling.

For any form of interaction more finely grained than making someone back off or want to flee, however, people skills are absolutely relevant in knowing just how far to push. Hulk is a lot more likely to make me run away than Captain America. If you want to reduce the risks of having someone collapse into an incomprehensible blubbering ball or deciding that their best chance of making it out requires an all-out attack - both things that scared people have been known to do - Cap is probably the better bet. The idea that a failed intimidation check results in a blase, unscared target is another one of those assumptions that doesn't necessarily pan out. Unproductively scared is very much a possibility.
Hulk is a rage monster that can't speak, so sure, point to you.

But even if you were to provide some special unique niche example of Intimidation that requires precise future-proofing, I disagree that Charisma is some magic ability score that extends mental control into the future.

Lol, get off your high horse here. Apparently those in the "only Strength matters" camp would be totally unphased if threatened by a crazy-looking guy waving a knife around, or even a grenade, as long as he was scrawny.
As has been explained, there is no "only strength matters" camp.

Again I ask, why is a scrawny guy with a knife scary but a big strong guy with a sword not scary?

Is anyone even contesting that a big brawny person could be scary? Because I'm not. I just think they're not specially and uniquely scary in a way that someone with a gun or carrying a severed arm or visibly an organized crime boss aren't. Danger is danger. By all means have a modifier for it, but muscles are not the only form.
Agreed they are not the only form. No one has said that. I have been equating Strength to danger to every example given by your side for several posts now.

No I'm not on board with that, just use one ability score. Which should most of the time be charisma.

How do I put this?

Everyone agrees charisma should be the default for intimidation.
Not everyone agrees the default ability score should always and forever be used for skills.

When you argue that strength shouldn't always be used for every intimidation then you argue against nobody.
When you argue that strength should never be used under any circumstances, then you argue against me (and other people).

These are the two camps:

Always use the same ability score for the same skill, with no exceptions.
Sometimes use a different ability score for the same skill, depending on situation.

The "always use strength" camp is empty.
Adding my +1 to this to clear up any confusion.

[Anymage]

So, as I have suggested several times, str should give an intimidate bonus, but a alternative display of power could give a circumstance bonus instead. I've said that a few times, and your points above seem consistent with it,so perhaps we are furiously agreeing? If not, perhaps you could point out where we disagree.

If we were talking about a system that allowed arbitrary bonus stacking, sure. Although in most such systems I've seen also have intimidation as a skill that the barbarian could invest in separately as opposed to the 5e binary of proficient or not. Which is why I'm okay with strength-intimidate as a 5e kludge for "I'd invest more heavily in this skill if I could, but expertise is excessively costly and the system doesn't allow other options".

I'm just conscious of two systemic pitfalls to be avoided here. The first is that if players read the skill entry and see how to stack bonuses, they're very likely to do just that. Arguing for various situational bonuses and stat replacements is working against the logic of 5e which attempts to keep that stuff dialed down. The second is that when the argument "after I've displayed my ability to cause harm, the target is going to be scared and thus compliant" has come up at tables, it's usually been used to argue that combat skill investment should be able to make up for not investing more than a token amount into intimidation as a skill. If the system gives an option to invest in a skill and you choose not to, I'm going to look askance at your trying to gain the benefits of that skill regardless.


I don't agree. If we take the example of wanting someone to give you a thing (information or something material), in most cases it only takes sufficient people skills to be able to articulate what it is you want, and articulate or imply that it work our poorly for your target if they refuse. I don't think that this requires any real charisma. And in both cases I think Hulk would be better (I assume he can actually speak?).

Here's the other massive issue I have here. If you stick a gun in my face and demand my wallet, I'm going to hand it over. Although again that might change if I'm an action hero running on action hero rules. And if we're talking about D&D and you want a particular item in my possession, that sounds more likely to signal the start of combat simply because D&D combat is more engaging than a simple skill roll. (Unless your play session is mugging random commoners for whatever coppers they happen to have on them. Which strikes me as a very odd and not well supported style of play.)

If your goal is anything more complex than getting me to hand over an object on my person or making me run away, however, simple threat of pain is going to be less effective. If you put a knife to my back and ask me to lead you to the treasury, I might well take a path that runs into a large guard patrol. And in the particular case of keeping a prisoner to intimidate for information, that walks right into the hot button issue of the efficacy of torture. Where the argument in favor is "pain is scary and you'll do whatever it takes to make it stop", and the argument against is mountains of real-world evidence that it regularly fails to produce actionable intelligence.

[LudicSavant]

So, if it's agreed that there is some objective measure of scariness based on physical size and strength or other factors, how do the rules represent that?

There's many ways a system could represent this, and "adding Strength instead of Charisma to Intimidate checks" is one of the weakest takes I've seen, IMHO. (Pun very much intended :smallwink:)

Why? Well, for one thing, it's too damn narrow! Crushing a rock in your meaty fist may be intimidating, but so is demonstrating terrifying magical powers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtzA10Lh-64), and you wouldn't represent that by "adding Int to Intimidate," because not all people of high Int are possessed of deadly magical powers or the like. Moreover, such things are relative -- Mr Universe Arnold Schwarzenegger still looks like a twig to a dragon, why would his size have any bearing whatsoever? And for another thing, I'll find Bruce Lee demonstrating what he can do far more intimidating than an untalented martial artist of similar musculature. This would be even more pronounced in a fantasy universe where the difference between a skilled and unskilled fighter of equal strength can be the difference between basically being a fit commoner and caving in castle walls with your headbutt.

So what should happen instead?

The situation should establish how scary you appear relative to the enemy (using any means of demonstration you like), and then intimidate can upsell that. You don't need an Intimidate skill for people to realize Fireballs Are Scary or You Are Twice Their Size. You need an Intimidate skill to light fire in your hair and pretend you're the devil like Blackbeard, or otherwise use showmanship to make yourself appear scarier than you already are.

You could represent this any number of ways. The situation might affect the DC for the intimidate check (much like pre-existing Attitude sets the DC for Persuasion checks in 5e). Or perhaps it grants circumstance bonuses in other systems. And so on and so forth. So if you do something very scary, you might not be able to upsell how scary that is, but Ainz probably doesn't even need to roll anything to terrify those poor soldiers in the link (or if he does, the DC would be terribly low, or the circumstance bonus would be terribly high).

[Tanarii]

Sure, but charisma is rarely relevant to influencing someone because they fear what you would do to them. Your own example about threatening the family showed that. charisma is entirely relevant to influencing someone else for any reason. It is the entire point of the ability score. And Intimidation, influencing someone else with threat or even with actual physical violence, is explicitly a subset of Charisma.

Charisma is, at least since WotC took over D&D, not just about being charming and funny and endearing. It's about influencing others through both force of personality and general capabilities of being able to interact with others in any way that gets what you want.

Before that it was leadership capabilities and seeing how the encounter went if you said 'Par-lay?'
I do kinda wish they'd bring those days back sometimes. Or at least just scrap all mental ability scores.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, the technical arguments that "how can you influence someone with muscles" seem to forget about "how can you physical violence with charisma". :smallsigh:

[Tanarii]

Yeah, the technical arguments that "how can you influence someone with muscles" seem to forget about "how can you physical violence with charisma". :smallsigh:
Clearly it should be:
Charisma (Athletics) to grapple someone who is Frightened of you.
Charisma (Acrobatics) to balance on a beam you've convinced to be less slippery.
Charisma (Sleight of Hand) to pick a lock you've lied to.
Charisma (Stealth) to hide from an enemy you've gotten all the pub rumors about.

These are the reverse equivalents of using Strength (Intimidation) to threaten someone to get them to do what you want.

[Dr.Samurai]

Clearly it should be:
Charisma (Athletics) to grapple someone who is Frightened of you.
Charisma (Acrobatics) to balance on a beam you've convinced to be less slippery.
Charisma (Sleight of Hand) to pick a lock you've lied to.
Charisma (Stealth) to hide from an enemy you've gotten all the pub rumors about.

These are the reverse equivalents of using Strength (Intimidation) to threaten someone to get them to do what you want.
Sure Tanarii, keep throwing things at the wall and see if they stick.

Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to figure out how charisma governs "physical violence". Must be hitting them with that force of personality. Invisible beams knocking the bad guy around until they do what you want.

[Pex]

Clearly it should be:
Charisma (Athletics) to grapple someone who is Frightened of you.
Charisma (Acrobatics) to balance on a beam you've convinced to be less slippery.

Instead of Charisma (Performance) when doing such things to entertain: Floor exercise, The Vault, ice skating, etc.


Charisma (Sleight of Hand) to pick a lock you've lied to.

"Muggle magic tricks" - Legerdemain, cups and balls, playing cards, disappearing/reappearing coins, etc.


Charisma (Stealth) to hide from an enemy you've gotten all the pub rumors about.

These are the reverse equivalents of using Strength (Intimidation) to threaten someone to get them to do what you want.

Body paint to look like the background or appear like an animal.

[Mastikator]

Clearly it should be:
Charisma (Athletics) to grapple someone who is Frightened of you.
Charisma (Acrobatics) to balance on a beam you've convinced to be less slippery.
Charisma (Sleight of Hand) to pick a lock you've lied to.
Charisma (Stealth) to hide from an enemy you've gotten all the pub rumors about.

These are the reverse equivalents of using Strength (Intimidation) to threaten someone to get them to do what you want.

I probably would use charisma (stealth) for someone to hide in a crowd and try to blend in actually.

Thanks for giving me some advice

[awa]

I probably would use charisma (stealth) for someone to hide in a crowd and try to blend in actually.

Thanks for giving me some advice

That is a pretty good one, trying to be traditionally stealthy in a crowd would make you more noticeable.

I see this as a boon getting the players to think about what their characters are actually doing rather than just waiting for their mechanical lever to come along. Now I seriously want to think about alternative stats for various skills.

Depending on the granularity of the system and the specific task I might suggest keeping a penalty from a low stat.

So obviously cha to slight of hand (bumping in to someone to distract them) it has the down side that they will likely realize you were the one who robbed them but using cha to distract them so you can do the deed fits the fiction real well.

dex to climb feels pretty straight forward, as does con to swim for an endurance task

Performance could be based on strong man feats or juggling/ tumbling so allowing str or dex to be used would not be unreasonable.

[Dr.Samurai]

I probably would use charisma (stealth) for someone to hide in a crowd and try to blend in actually.

Thanks for giving me some advice
This is the gray man concept.

https://www.survivenature.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/hooded-man-300x188.jpg

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like the trend of modern ttrpgs has been to move away from GM adjudication and towards bulkier and wordier blocks of text that read more like legal documents than a game rule.
Which is a fine way to suck the fun out of an RPG. :smallsmile:

[jayem]

Of course. I've never asserted that something *can't* be intimidating.

What I, at least, recognize is that the gun is scary because it represents physical harm, and a potentially lethal threat. Same with a knife. Same with two no-neck goons flanking the mobster. Same with someone even just alluding to a weapon. Same EVEN with the spooky halfling rogue with the menacing stare, ooooh ooooh so scary. The menacing scare is threatening violence.

So when a big guy cuffs you and demands something, and you feel how hard they just hit you, you may be compelled to comply. Think about how ridiculous the alternative is:

Barbarian - Ok, I want to intimidate him, but I want to use Strength. If I cuff him across the face can I use Strength?

DM - *sighs* I mean... if you want to try, sure.

Barbarian - Ok, so I hit him super hard to get the point across and roll... 23!

DM - Yeah I mean, he looks hurt, like wide-eyed because you hit him so hard but... he's not really compelled to comply. Even though you're strong, you haven't really conveyed the threat to him to get him to open up.

Barbarian - I literally just smacked the crap out of him.

Rogue - Hold on, let me try, I have a good charisma score. Ok DM, I'm going to tell him "You better give me what I want, or my friend here will hurt you." and I point to the barbarian.

DM - Ok, roll.

Rogue - I got a 17.

DM - Ok, he looks super concerned. He takes one look at you, one look at the barbarian and the barbarian's giant muscles and huge axe, he gulps, and he says "Ok, I'll tell you want you want to know."

It's patently ridiculous to think this makes sense.

I don't think anyone has argued that Strength is the best way of expressing a threat though.

Sorry, are we talking about PCs or NPCs? Because PCs, at least in D&D, can't be Intimidated outside of a power or effect that Frightens them or something. Big strong warriors are part of the fantasy, and dismissing them as potentially threatening "because magic" is not fair and STILL doesn't make sense. So because someone somewhere can do magic, the 6ft tall armored warrior with a sword standing right in front of you is no longer threatening? I don't think so.

To be fair in that example at least (it looks like) the two things are working together. The problem is that it works just as well if you take the barbarian out of the picture entirely. Although even there it is believable that a rogue can bluff with no cards, but it shouldn't be better than actually having the cards.

And thirded for using charisma for social stealth (subject to the character description being compatible)

[Easy e]

One thing I noticed in the 5th edition of Legend of the 5 Rings, is that the player can link the skill they are using to an ability based on how they plan to use the skill.

Therefore, an intimidation check where you are going to break something is a Fire ring test. One where you are going to confuse them is Water. One where you are going to show them how smart you are is Air. Of course, this applies to all skill checks in the game. Your choice of ability also impacts on how you may gain or lose other resources on the test such as advantage and strife.

Is there a reason that skills should be linked to abilities? I know we are discussing D^&D and that is how they do it, but couldn't a GM just decide to "uncouple" them?

[Reversefigure4]

Is there a reason that skills should be linked to abilities?

The big benefit is twofold:

1. It makes a certain kind of logic that Strong Guy is at least a bit good at swimming by virtue of his strength, or that Charisma Guy is better than the average man at Persuading people.
2. It provides a consistent ruling, and avoids the 'Mother May I' problem where the GM has to make calls about when Strength can be applied to Intimidate and when it can't, and players need permission before they roll their Strength Intimidate. And nobody has to remember whether 12 sessions ago fixing the generator was Intelligence+Repair or Dexterity+Repair when it comes up again (consistency).

But it certainly can be done. Plenty of games use Attribute+Skill as a standard roll. Plenty of others use skills totally uncoupled from attributes. Some only use very basic broad attributes (body, mind, spirit) with no skills as the entire game system.

[Liquor Box]

If we were talking about a system that allowed arbitrary bonus stacking, sure. Although in most such systems I've seen also have intimidation as a skill that the barbarian could invest in separately as opposed to the 5e binary of proficient or not. Which is why I'm okay with strength-intimidate as a 5e kludge for "I'd invest more heavily in this skill if I could, but expertise is excessively costly and the system doesn't allow other options".

I'm just conscious of two systemic pitfalls to be avoided here. The first is that if players read the skill entry and see how to stack bonuses, they're very likely to do just that. Arguing for various situational bonuses and stat replacements is working against the logic of 5e which attempts to keep that stuff dialed down. The second is that when the argument "after I've displayed my ability to cause harm, the target is going to be scared and thus compliant" has come up at tables, it's usually been used to argue that combat skill investment should be able to make up for not investing more than a token amount into intimidation as a skill. If the system gives an option to invest in a skill and you choose not to, I'm going to look askance at your trying to gain the benefits of that skill regardless.

I'm not suggesting stacking. I'm suggesting that there are times (quite a few times) when strength should be used as a modifier to intimidate in place of charisma. Not in addition to, but instead of.

I think I kind of agree with your second point, but I don't think that the question of whether str can sometimes be used is relevant to it.


Here's the other massive issue I have here. If you stick a gun in my face and demand my wallet, I'm going to hand it over. Although again that might change if I'm an action hero running on action hero rules. And if we're talking about D&D and you want a particular item in my possession, that sounds more likely to signal the start of combat simply because D&D combat is more engaging than a simple skill roll. (Unless your play session is mugging random commoners for whatever coppers they happen to have on them. Which strikes me as a very odd and not well supported style of play.)


First, I don't think that asking for an item necessarily means robbery - it might mean demanding back something someone had stolen from you.

Putting that aside, I don't think demanding an item (whether robbery or not) is any more a signal of the start of combat than any other time you try to make someone do something they don't want to. If you default to combat every time a party shakes down a commoner, this just mean the commoner dies instead of just being robbed. There's no more reason for robbing someone to signal the start of combat than forcing someone to take you to the treasure room.


If your goal is anything more complex than getting me to hand over an object on my person or making me run away, however, simple threat of pain is going to be less effective. If you put a knife to my back and ask me to lead you to the treasury, I might well take a path that runs into a large guard patrol.

Why do you think the threat of pain will be less effective, and less effective than what? It's not really just the threat of pain either, it's the threat of death.

In your example you may take me to a guard patrol if you were not sufficiently intimidated. But you'd be risking your own life in doing so. I think you'd be less likely to do that if your captor(s) were physically imposing enough (or had somehow else demonstrated their power) to suggest they can snap your neck before the guards can help or defeat the guards. I think that str is just as likely to be useful as charisma in this situaiton.


And in the particular case of keeping a prisoner to intimidate for information, that walks right into the hot button issue of the efficacy of torture. Where the argument in favor is "pain is scary and you'll do whatever it takes to make it stop", and the argument against is mountains of real-world evidence that it regularly fails to produce actionable intelligence.

There is real world evidence that torture is useful for some purposes but not others in the real world. It is probably a bit of an aside to this discussion to get into it though.

But intimidation for information does not necessarily imply torture. There are lots of circumstances where someone might try to extract information without using torture, either because of time constraints, privacy constraints or squeamishness.

I feel like the thrust of your points here are to suggest that cases where intimidation would be assisted by a imposing physique are niche. I don't think that's the case. Even the examples we've discussed (intimidation to make someone run away, give you something, give you info without using torture) are quite frequent potential uses of intimidate


charisma is entirely relevant to influencing someone else for any reason. It is the entire point of the ability score. And Intimidation, influencing someone else with threat or even with actual physical violence, is explicitly a subset of Charisma.

Charisma is, at least since WotC took over D&D, not just about being charming and funny and endearing. It's about influencing others through both force of personality and general capabilities of being able to interact with others in any way that gets what you want.

Before that it was leadership capabilities and seeing how the encounter went if you said 'Par-lay?'
I do kinda wish they'd bring those days back sometimes. Or at least just scrap all mental ability scores.

No one has suggested it's just about being funny or charming. But non charismatic people can be every bit as threatening and scary as charismatic people in some situations. Sure, there are times when you can influence someone due to the force of your personality, but there are certainly other times when entirely uncharismatic person can be just as initmidating as a charismatic one by standing over someone and making a demand.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which is a fine way to suck the fun out of an RPG. :smallsmile:

Agreed. And, like many legal documents, fails to actually provide the promised value.

[Tanarii]

Instead of Charisma (Performance) when doing such things to entertain: Floor exercise, The Vault, ice skating, etc.

"Muggle magic tricks" - Legerdemain, cups and balls, playing cards, disappearing/reappearing coins, etc.

Body paint to look like the background or appear like an animal.Yes exactly. It's fine to use Charisma (physical skill) when the primary goal is to determine if you successfully influence folks. But it's just weird to try to do it when the primary goal is to be physical.

Just as it's fine to use Strength when the goal is to determine if you apply force. But it's just weird to do it when the primary goal is to influence someone.


Sure Tanarii, keep throwing things at the wall and see if they stick.

Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to figure out how charisma governs "physical violence". Must be hitting them with that force of personality. Invisible beams knocking the bad guy around until they do what you want.Meanwhile, we'll keep trying to figure out how Strength governs "influencing someone to get what you want". Must be controlling their mind with your muscles. Using your hands grabbing their limbs and directing them like a puppet?

I mean, go ahead and use Strength (Intimidation) if the goal is to determine if you successful grapple someone you've Frightened. That'd make some kind of sense.

[Dr.Samurai]

Tanarii, your argument can be used against almost any ability score swap. Just say you're against it in principle.

The DMG specifically allows the DM to swap ability scores and proficiencies. This is obviously an exception to the idea that only Charisma can "influence" people. If you can't get over that, you'll never agree with using Strength.

[Satinavian]

If you can't get over that, you'll never agree with using Strength.Is it really a problem if some people would never agree with it ? The DMG leaves it up to the DM. Some DMs will allow it, others won't.

[Dr.Samurai]

Is it really a problem if some people would never agree with it ?
Of course.

But arguing something like "strength is not intimidating" is different to arguing "charisma is the ability score the game has assigned for influencing people, so it doesn't make sense to sub in strength".

The former leaves room to have a conversation, as we have been. The latter is just a refusal to entertain any other point of view, including that of the rules themselves, which explicitly allow for this.

[Satinavian]

The rule makes it explicitly the DMs decision instead of explicitly allowing it.

I still don't see any problem with DMs just saying "no" here.

[Tanarii]

Tanarii, your argument can be used against almost any ability score swap. Just say you're against it in principle.I'm not. It's a variant rule, per the 5e PHB. That means it was less than fully playtested, but it IS something the developers thought people would want so they put a little thought into it and threw it in.

Doesn't mean it makes sense within the context of the base rules as they are explained to us though, that everything in a proficiency is a subset of the primary ability score. Or that it's balanced. (E.g. look at the variant rule for Multiclassing) But that's neither here nor there, if a DM chooses to use the rule good on them. As long as it didn't repeatedly screw my character, I wouldn't even care if I was a player.

But on an Internet forum for the fun of arguing, I'll definitely question it. :smallamused:

Based on that purpose: I'm objecting to is trying to use an ability score for something that doesn't make any sense in the context of the question being resolved, and this still holds true with the variant rule. You don't use Dexterity to get a read on someone's emotions, you don't use Constitution to recall lore, and you don't use Strength to influence someone to get what you want.

Even with the variant ability score rules, the process is the same:
1) determine which ability score makes sense for the question of resolution.
2 (non-variant): determine which proficiency within the ability score is the related to intent or approach
2 (variant): determine if proficiency from any ability score is the related to intent or approach

Step one has to make sense. You're not physically forcing the person to do what you want. You're bullying them to try and influence them to get what you want. You're just doing it using one specific tool/prop out of any number of them, muscle size.

[Dr.Samurai]

I still don't see any problem with DMs just saying "no" here.There isn't a problem :smallconfused:.

The thread is about whether it makes sense for Strength (and size, as we're often talking about tall and broad characters) to benefit Intimidation checks under certain circumstances.

Tanarii's position is essentially "No, because the rules say Charisma governs Intimidation, not Strength". There's nothing to work with there by way of conversation. Tanarii is correct, that is what the rules say. Discussion over.

So it's perfectly fine if they rule it that way at their table. But the point is that the conversation assumes that you're open to making the switch in the first place, and then argues about whether it makes sense to or not. Beating the drum of "you can't make the switch" isn't helpful.

[Tanarii]

Tanarii's position is essentially "No, because the rules say Charisma governs Intimidation, not Strength". There's nothing to work with there by way of conversation. Tanarii is correct, that is what the rules say. Discussion over.Almost everything you wrote is misrepresenting both my position and my purpose in posting. Addressing each sentence order:

(1) Charisma represents influencing others to get what you want. Strength represents application of physical force. After that Intimidation, with the variant rule, can apply to any ability check if the base question being resolved matches what that ability score represents.

(2) The entire point of posting in this thread is to continue the internet argument.

(3) Of course I am correct. it's an internet argument. :smallamused: But it's not "what the rules say", what I'm arguing is based on the definitions of individual ability scores and proficiencies, but how the variant rule impacts that is the entire point of this internet argument.

(4) The entire point of posting in this thread is to continue the internet argument.


So it's perfectly fine if they rule it that way at their table. But the point is that the conversation assumes that you're open to making the switch in the first place, and then argues about whether it makes sense to or not. Beating the drum of "you can't make the switch" isn't helpful.Again, misrepresenting. So let me be clear:
The switch doesn't make sense.

[Dr.Samurai]

Thanks for clarifying. And the only part I agree with is "continuing the internet argument" lol :smallamused:. So to that end:

Your item #1 is the critical error. Swapping proficiencies lets you do exactly that; take your skill and talent in one thing, and do it in a different way. You can't run a marathon without Strength. Even if you're running for 8 hours, it doesn't make sense that it would be a Constitution(Athletics) check, as an example. It's still a function of your bodily power, your muscles, the physical force that you're putting out. But we still understand that we're rolling a Constitution check because there is an element of Endurance that we are prioritizing over the real fact that it's your character's muscles and strength that are propelling them forward.

It's not a perfect system, but we understand what we're trying to go for.

If an officer asks "Why did you give him the key?" and someone replies "He gripped me so hard around the neck, I couldn't breathe, and I couldn't break his hold, he was too strong, so I just did what he wanted" that's Strength, and that's Intimidation through Strength, because it's physical violence that compelled the person to do what they wanted.

[Satinavian]

If an officer asks "Why did you give him the key?" and someone replies "He gripped me so hard around the neck, I couldn't breathe, and I couldn't break his hold, he was too strong, so I just did what he wanted" that's Strength, and that's Intimidation through Strength, because it's physical violence that compelled the person to do what they wanted.Sounds more like unarmed combat and grappling than intimidate. And those rightfully benefit from strength.

[Dr.Samurai]

DM: Ok, the last cultist remains and, seeing that the rest of his allies have been killed and he can't defeat you, he drops his knife and says "Do not try to get anything from me, I will never betray the Dark Lord.

Player: My Barbarian says, "We'll see about that" and he walks over and cuffs him and demands from him "Where is your lair!"

DM: Roll an attack roll.

Barbarian: Oh, I'm just trying to intimidate him.

DM: Well you said you hit him so, that's an attack roll.

Barbarian: Ok, well then I guess I'll just grab him by the neck.

DM: Ok roll for a grapple attempt.

Barbarian: I'm just trying to... okay I'll drag him over to his dead comrades and--

DM: Still grapple.

Barbarian: Ok, can I just Intimidate him then?

DM: Ok, describe how you're going to Intimidate him.

Barbarian: I guess with... just like, plain generic... physical violence?

DM: Perfect, roll Charisma (Intimidation)!

[Cazero]

When it comes to 5e, the rules are pretty clear.
Checks are Ability checks. There are no skill checks. Skills are circumstancial bonuses.
As long as you stick to talking, it's CHA. Unquestionably. Intimidate skill bonus applies if you make threats.
If you start punching, it's STR. Maybe DEX if you punch/squint sideways. Allowing the Intimidate skill to give a bonus is an optional variant rule for some reason when it could trivialy be the norm without making things any more complicated.

[Satinavian]

DM: Perfect, roll Charisma (Intimidation)!
Indeed.

Mind you, most systems would give you circumstance bonuses for having slaughtered all his comrades and them being completely in your hand. D&D5 gave up on these for bounded accuracy, so you don't get them here.
However, the DM is allowed to set the DC lower for having slaughtered all his comrades and being completely in your hand, so that works as well.

But yes, the test is a Charisma test and Strength of the barbarian would not matter in the situation at all. A scrawny wizard would get the same low DC for for having slaughtered all his comrades and them being completely in your hand and couldn't use intelligence, no matter how many cultists he incinerated before.

[Tanarii]

Your item #1 is the critical error. Swapping proficiencies lets you do exactly that; take your skill and talent in one thing, and do it in a different way. You can't run a marathon without Strength. Even if you're running for 8 hours, it doesn't make sense that it would be a Constitution(Athletics) check, as an example. It's still a function of your bodily power, your muscles, the physical force that you're putting out. But we still understand that we're rolling a Constitution check because there is an element of Endurance that we are prioritizing over the real fact that it's your character's muscles and strength that are propelling them forward.No, it's a question of constitution. Because the question to be resolved is about endurance, not brute physical force.



If an officer asks "Why did you give him the key?" and someone replies "He gripped me so hard around the neck, I couldn't breathe, and I couldn't break his hold, he was too strong, so I just did what he wanted" that's Strength, and that's Intimidation through Strength, because it's physical violence that compelled the person to do what they wanted.Edit: as I've already conceded, torture should always work. (Edited to avoid going into real world discussion.)

But the majority of the time the examples being given are more like the OP: flex muscles to try and intimidate. No actual physicality involved.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, we'll disagree on what's considered "torture" and whether or not it should be considered an auto-success (I see this as a way to simply avoid concession).

What do people think the "physical violence" actually represents in the game description of Intimidation? And how does that physical violence actually influence someone to comply?

[Mastikator]

The rule makes it explicitly the DMs decision instead of explicitly allowing it.

I still don't see any problem with DMs just saying "no" here.

It's the same as a DM saying no to feats or multiclassing. It's their call and I respect it, but it's also a less fun call and I don't like it. I've played with an without multiclass, feats and variant ability/skill, it's more fun with.

In a game I DM'd I made a player make a dexterity (religion) check because he was roleplaying how he used thaumaturgy to sneak around. It was fun, the player loved it. He didn't ask to make any kind of roll, he described his actions and desired outcome and I made the call that it was a dexterity (religion) check. Me. The DM.

Encouraging the players to think about the world they engage with as if it was real made the game more immersive. I want my players to roleplay and I encourage that by empowering their actions.

-
Edit- Since torture has come up I feel entitled to share my thoughts on it. It should be either a dex, int or strength (intimidation), contested by the victim's wisdom saving throw. If the target fails they say what they believe will make the torture stop, if not they can act freely. Either case they can make a charisma (deception) check with advantage (I use passive here, so 15 + cha + proficiency if proficient), the torturer can make an insight check to tell if the victim is lying to get out of torture or telling the truth to get out of torture.
The victim can also benefit from any resistance or immunity to fear or pain (damage resistance).

[Satinavian]

Edit- Since torture has come up I feel entitled to share my thoughts on it. It should be either a dex, int or strength (intimidation), contested by the victim's wisdom saving throw. If the target fails they say what they believe will make the torture stop, if not they can act freely. Either case they can make a charisma (deception) check with advantage (I use passive here, so 15 + cha + proficiency if proficient), the torturer can make an insight check to tell if the victim is lying to get out of torture or telling the truth to get out of torture.
The victim can also benefit from any resistance or immunity to fear or pain (damage resistance).
As for torture, most systems i have seen use their equivalent of intimidation and of course charism for it. But I think, considering torture basically always gets the targe to speak up, it might be better handled by insight or whatever equivalent exist, as telling truth from lies is the important part.
I remember also seeing one system where failure at torture did not mean the victim lied or held back, but instead that the victim died before giving useful answers. While that certainl works as a fail condition, the system did not allow to hold back here. If you tortured someone, you would always risk death. That seems a bit too harsh.

[icefractal]

The risk should be getting false information rather than getting no information, and based on existing data it should be a pretty likely risk even for trained interrogators.

Like, a more difficult Insight / Sense Motive check than detecting normal lying would be - which makes sense, given that most normal indicators like stress are already maxed out in that situation.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, we'll disagree on what's considered "torture" and whether or not it should be considered an auto-success (I see this as a way to simply avoid concession).We'll have to, to avoid going in to real world stuff.

Suffice it to say that my view is you'll always get something when you inflict physical violence. But it won't necessarily be the consequences you wanted, even when its the immediate result. And if it's information it could very well be whatever they believe that they also think you want to hear.

And a Strength check isn't going to change any of those things.

[Dr.Samurai]

There's a lot getting twisted here to achieve the desired (erroneous) conclusions.

Firstly, physical violence is very clearly an option for Intimidation. It's spelled out right in the PHB. Suggesting that physical violence is an auto-success contradicts the fact that the PHB specifically says if you try to influence someone through physical violence your DM might have you roll a Charisma (Intimidation) check. It doesn't say "you automatically succeed".

Secondly, I love the blurring (and merger) of success and failure here. On the one hand, you get to hand-wave the idea of Strength by proclaiming "well, physical violence just auto-succeeds". But then on the other hand, you say "well... you succeed in getting the target to speak, but they will not tell the truth, so really it's a failure".

That's not how the skill works. A success doesn't mean "you get the target to appear like they're giving you what you want". A success would be "you get what you want". A failure could be "drats, you got all the way here only to find out that the cultist lied to you". But to call that a success is to play very loose with words.

Thirdly, this applies to the typical menacing glare charisma intimidation as well. Someone could just lie to you just to get you to back off. This isn't unique to getting roughed up or threatened with physical violence.

[Anymage]

There's a lot getting twisted here to achieve the desired (erroneous) conclusions...

That failure states exist where the target is terrified of you but you don't get anything useful out of them is why people skills (read: Charisma) can be handy. Especially if you exclude the cases that are unheroic enough that I'd be uncomfortable at that table. (E.G: If your priority is to get someone to say that they're a witch regardless of the truth of the situation, you and I at the same table is a personality conflict just waiting to happen.)

If your next point is that you need a credible threat as well as people skills in order to make intimidation function, I'll counter that all D&D characters are combat capable enough to be credible threats. If the party spares one cultist to interrogate after having killed the rest of his allies, while the barbarian was walking around like an unstoppable juggernaut of destruction you also had the wizard frying cultists with fire magic, the rogue slipping in and out of shadows to deliver devastating precision strikes, and the cleric commanding the forces of heaven to smite evildoers. They're all scary, and the rogue casually sliding the point of a knife along the bound cultist or the wizard creating and dismissing minor flames should be as scary as the barbarian crushing a helmet. Either ad hoc a whole system about what stat mod should equal what displayed threat for the purpose of replacing charisma (thus the "scrawny teen with a gun" argument, whose threat comes from something extrinsic to their self), or just say that anybody can use whatever stat mod they use most often anyways. And while I don't horribly mind the latter given the limitations of the 5e skill system, it does mean that towering barbarian isn't necessarily any more intimidating than any other PC with intimidation proficiency.

[Dr.Samurai]

The argument that a big towering barbarian could be intimidating is not an argument that the big towering barbarian is more intimidating than others. I don't know why that keeps getting misconstrued.

I am arguing against the following idea --> "Strength can't intimidate a person".

I am not arguing --> "Strength is more intimidating than any other method".

And 5E does have this system in place already because the DMG literally encourages the DM to swap proficiencies to other ability scores to reward player creativity.

[Liquor Box]

(1) Charisma represents influencing others to get what you want. Strength represents application of physical force. After that Intimidation, with the variant rule, can apply to any ability check if the base question being resolved matches what that ability score represents.


You've made this assertion a few times, but I don't think it is necessarily based on any rule descriptions.

First, we are not talking about any particular game systems here, so we can only talk about the concepts of strength and charisma more generally.
Second, to the extent that we are talking about 3ed or 5ed DnD (the two most popular versions nowadays), that it not what the descriptions of strength or charisma say in either of those rule books. There is nothing in either of those rulesets that says that charisma must be used for influencing others.


Charisma (as described by either rule set) is about what you can accomplish with your personality. That will indeed often be relevant to influencing others, but not always.

What some people are suggesting is relevant to intimidate is having a large physcial presence that suggests strength because such people are often quite intimidating because of of their hulking physique. The question becomes whether the charisma score or the str score suggests this hulking physique. I think many people think the strength score does, but you seem to think that charismatic builds are more likely to have a visibly powerful build.

[Pex]

The rule makes it explicitly the DMs decision instead of explicitly allowing it.

I still don't see any problem with DMs just saying "no" here.

The problem is not the DM saying no. The problem is insisting other DMs must say no too how dare they use strength for intimidation.

[Anymage]

The argument that a big towering barbarian could be intimidating is not an argument that the big towering barbarian is more intimidating than others. I don't know why that keeps getting misconstrued.


What some people are suggesting is relevant to intimidate is having a large physcial presence that suggests strength because such people are often quite intimidating because of of their hulking physique. The question becomes whether the charisma score or the str score suggests this hulking physique. I think many people think the strength score does, but you seem to think that charismatic builds are more likely to have a visibly powerful build.

You have some people thinking the argument is that intimidating = hulking build because you have other people openly saying that intimidating = hulking build.

The more general sense of letting people use whatever stat they can justify, I'm more open to that due to the extreme simplicity of the 5e skill system. Especially if the character invests proficiency into a skill. But that in general means that the barbarian is just as scary as anyone else who invests in being scary, not that the huge mountain of a man is somehow especially so.

[Dr.Samurai]

You have some people thinking the argument is that intimidating = hulking build because you have other people openly saying that intimidating = hulking build.

The more general sense of letting people use whatever stat they can justify, I'm more open to that due to the extreme simplicity of the 5e skill system. Especially if the character invests proficiency into a skill. But that in general means that the barbarian is just as scary as anyone else who invests in being scary, not that the huge mountain of a man is somehow especially so.
I'm not really seeing the issue with what you're quoting there, so I think you're making a delineation that I'm not seeing.

I think LiquorBox has said a couple of times now that a big strong imposing physique is likely to be more intimidating than charisma, or more often will be or something along those lines.

I tend to agree with this line of thinking. However, it's not necessary to posit in order to contend with the notion in this thread which is that Strength isn't intimidating.

When we're talking about a PC barbarian or fighter or paladin, etc., and specifically about one that has invested in Strength and has a large imposing physique (my current Rune Knight is over 7ft tall because of his Rune Knight feature and is focused in Strength) the threat is very obvious. It's also very primal. Before there were laws or guns or police or sophisticated language, there was just your Strength. Your bodily power and your ability to exert physical force. Versus someone else's bodily power and their exertion of physical force. That was the threat. EVERYTHING that comes after that, from reach weapons to ranged weaponry to diplomacy to laws and law enforcement is to AVOID exchanging physical force with someone else.

The notion that people are now unfazed by size and strength is preposterous. This is something that won't leave us, ever.

Generally, when I come up against an idea that seems so ridiculous to me, I try hard to understand it from the other perspective. In this case, the following arguments that have been made against my position don't come close to demonstrating that Strength isn't intimidating, and I generally agree with all of them:

1. Your target might also be a capable combatant and not easily swayed by your size and strength. I agree, intimidating through hostile actions and physical violence might not always be appropriate.
2. Your target might lie to you. I agree, this intimidation is subject to failure as all other intimidation checks.
3. Other people are also dangerous and intimidating. I agree, big strong warriors are not the only people others might find intimidating.
4. This world has magic, which is far more dangerous than a strong person. Sure, and our world has nukes, but a mugger twice my size will still give me pause.
5. Only charisma can influence people. This is the only one that I don't agree with, because it just isn't true.

Think of Conan the Barbarian. Did Conan and Valeria agree to save the princess because the King was super persuasive and charismatic? Or was it because the King offered them a buttload of jewels? Money can be persuasive, without charisma. Violence can be persuasive, without charisma. And there are other scenarios and circumstances where charisma won't be the deciding factor in influencing someone. Which is not to say it never is or never should be. Just that it doesn't always have to be.

I think one of the issues is that people treat Intimidation as a mind trick, and that's not what it is. They think it's fake, a lie, a deception to speak someone into complying, and so it has to be gated through Charisma because you're actually bluffing. That's why a fighter's left hook to the ribs is meaningless, but a halfling speaking some elaborate gratuitous macabre threat that he never intends on committing is the ultimate expression of Charisma (Intimidation). Who cares if I just pulverized their liver and cracked their rib? I didn't hit them with mental juju through the spoken word, so it doesn't matter.

[Liquor Box]

You have some people thinking the argument is that intimidating = hulking build because you have other people openly saying that intimidating = hulking build.

I think most people in this discussion are smart enough to form their own opinion, and aren't just thinking that hulking builds are intimidating because someone else said it.


The more general sense of letting people use whatever stat they can justify, I'm more open to that due to the extreme simplicity of the 5e skill system. Especially if the character invests proficiency into a skill. But that in general means that the barbarian is just as scary as anyone else who invests in being scary, not that the huge mountain of a man is somehow especially so.

I agree with people using whatever they can justify, although I think that intelligence or dexterity being justifiable for intimidate will be niche (because it's less visible, and less inherently intimidating), while strength will be frequent (because it is often visible and is inherently intimidating).

[Pex]

If you think Strength (Intimidation) is a problem how about Strength (Persuasion)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFMY99NXOgc

[HumanFighter]

Intimidate has always been a tricky stat for me to handle as a GM.

[KorvinStarmast]

Intimidate has always been a tricky stat for me to handle as a GM. It's not a stat, it's an ability, a skill, or a proficiency depending on the edition. :smallsmile:

[The Insanity]

For me it is simple why Intimidate is based on Charisma and doesn't use Strength (baring special feats, traits or abilities, which exist in some games). You're trying to convince someone not that you CAN hurt them, but that you WILL hurt them in ways they can't even imagine.

[Easy e]

Torture always gets you information..... just not always the right information or the information you need..... plus, there is the matter of how long it takes to get said information.

[Pex]

For me it is simple why Intimidate is based on Charisma and doesn't use Strength (baring special feats, traits or abilities, which exist in some games). You're trying to convince someone not that you CAN hurt them, but that you WILL hurt them in ways they can't even imagine.

You can have that. No one is taking that away. Performing some feat of strength to show you're capable of hurting them is just another way to do it.

[Telok]

So, TLDR is that the move from d&d charisma among rolled stats being leadership & first impressions, to d&d charisma among point buy stats being all social capabilities & aptitudes plus magic, has screwed up & confused a bunch of stuff and kicks the fighters/barbarians in the balls because now being anything but dumb muscle is the same as saying "I want to be less effective in combat than the bard". At least in d&d because almost all other games don't have this issue. That right?

[The Insanity]

You can have that. No one is taking that away. Performing some feat of strength to show you're capable of hurting them is just another way to do it.
Funny how you phrased it. Performance just so happens to be strongly related to Charisma in some games.

[awa]

So, TLDR is that the move from d&d charisma among rolled stats being leadership & first impressions, to d&d charisma among point buy stats being all social capabilities & aptitudes plus magic, has screwed up & confused a bunch of stuff and kicks the fighters/barbarians in the balls because now being anything but dumb muscle is the same as saying "I want to be less effective in combat than the bard". At least in d&d because almost all other games don't have this issue. That right?

Combined with the fact that stats matter a lot more in wizards of the coast era d&d so a bad/ unexceptional stat means you shouldn't even try and the tendency to solve things by rolling rather than roll playing.

Of course the real reason is because we don't want fighters to be allowed to do anything but swing a sword. I mean if fighters were allowed to actually interact effectively with the game world outside the combat aspect the world would just shatter. No no better for each character to take turns interacting with the game world when its time to talk the barbarian and the fighter get to sit in a corner and keep their mouths shut, let the bard and sorcerer hog the spot light. Then when its time for a fight the barbarian and fighter will get to share the spotlight with the casters well share might be a strong word, they can participate to the best of their limited abilities.

[Anymage]

So, TLDR is that the move from d&d charisma among rolled stats being leadership & first impressions, to d&d charisma among point buy stats being all social capabilities & aptitudes plus magic, has screwed up & confused a bunch of stuff and kicks the fighters/barbarians in the balls because now being anything but dumb muscle is the same as saying "I want to be less effective in combat than the bard". At least in d&d because almost all other games don't have this issue. That right?

D&D skill systems have historically been one sort of mess or another. This is not news.

There's a difference, though, between saying that we'll accept strength-intimidation as a kludge to let strength characters have something to do in social encounters and saying that it's actually sensible. A lot of the pushback is towards the latter claim.

[Satinavian]

So, TLDR is that the move from d&d charisma among rolled stats being leadership & first impressions, to d&d charisma among point buy stats being all social capabilities & aptitudes plus magic, has screwed up & confused a bunch of stuff and kicks the fighters/barbarians in the balls because now being anything but dumb muscle is the same as saying "I want to be less effective in combat than the bard". At least in d&d because almost all other games don't have this issue. That right?

Arguably it was a bad idea to make CHA a magic stat. This pushes some magic classes into the face role.

But the underlying problem of D&D is more in its celebration of SADness. Everyone has this one primary stat and does the stuff associated with it and basically noting else. The bard does the talking, the rogue does the sneaking, the wizard does the knowledge


Most other games don't have the issue because class and stat is less connected and it is generally also less usefull to pump a single stat. Those other games still do use Charisma or whatever equivalent for intimidation, diplomacy and so on. The difference is that you don't gimp yourself if you make a charismatic fighter or rogue or wizard.

[Azuresun]

On a side note, I think this is a pretty good example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHTj7qfnTak) of a failed Strength (Intimidate) check. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

So, TLDR is that the move from d&d charisma among rolled stats being leadership & first impressions, :smallamused:to d&d charisma among point buy stats being all social capabilities & aptitudes plus magic, has screwed up & confused a bunch of stuff and kicks the fighters/barbarians in the balls because now being anything but dumb muscle is the same as saying "I want to be less effective in combat than the bard". At least in d&d because almost all other games don't have this issue. That right?Absolutely. :smallamused:


On a side note, I think this is a pretty good example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHTj7qfnTak) of a failed Strength (Intimidate) check. :smallbiggrin:
Yeah Wrestling rants are a great example of why muscles don't mean squat if you've got the charisma of a wet paper napkin, which is all of their made up personalities, even The Rock. Speaking of which The Rock vs Statham trying to out stare down and out compete each other in the one movie is absolutely hilarious because of that. Two Low Cha lunks who have made a career out of thinking muscles are imposing, trying it on each other and failing was genius writing.

[Pex]

Absolutely. :smallamused:


Yeah Wrestling rants are a great example of why muscles don't mean squat if you've got the charisma of a wet paper napkin, which is all of their made up personalities, even The Rock. Speaking of which The Rock vs Statham trying to out stare down and out compete each other in the one movie is absolutely hilarious because of that. Two Low Cha lunks who have made a career out of thinking muscles are imposing, trying it on each other and failing was genius writing.

High ST low CH PC failing an intimidation check using CH does not invalidate the possibility of using ST to intimidate by other means. It's not an exclusive or.

[Tanarii]

High ST low CH PC failing an intimidation check using CH does not invalidate the possibility of using ST to intimidate by other means. It's not an exclusive or.
Agreed. Strength contributing to intimidating not making any sense is what invalidates it.

Applying force can scare someone. It can elicit a reaction. It just can't control them into doing what you want, which reaction it will be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. Strength contributing to intimidating not making any sense is what invalidates it.

Applying force can scare someone. It can elicit a reaction. It just can't control them into doing what you want, which reaction it will be.

So can talking scary at them, just as much. What you're describing is a failed attempt, not anything special about the attempt. In fact, your second and third sentences are directly in opposition. If applying force (via Strength) can scare someone, it can (not must, not is the only way to, but "is possible for it to") contribute to a successful intimidation attempt. Using force does not guarantee that the person doesn't comply. They may or may not. Just like they may or may not when you take a more charismatic approach to it.

In order for Strength-based intimidation to not make sense, it would both
* never be able to produce a reaction you want.
* always either produce a counter productive response OR produce no response at all.

And that's just not true--it can work. Sometimes. Just like any other means. So it has to make sense in at least some scenarios. Possibly not all, but that's ok. No one's saying it should be the only way to do it. Merely that in some circumstances, it can be used as an additional way.

[Tanarii]

So can talking scary at them, just as much. What you're describing is a failed attempt, not anything special about the attempt. In fact, your second and third sentences are directly in opposition. If applying force (via Strength) can scare someone, it can (not must, not is the only way to, but "is possible for it to") contribute to a successful intimidation attempt. Using force does not guarantee that the person doesn't comply. They may or may not. Just like they may or may not when you take a more charismatic approach to it.
Unless you're physically controlling their limbs into doing exactly what you want, Strength isn't contributing though. You aren't punching their decisions into the one you want. You're just eliciting a general reaction, fear.

Now if that's what someone means by Intimidation, sure. If it's just "elicit fear and the DM decides what they do".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unless you're physically controlling their limbs into doing exactly what you want, Strength isn't contributing though.

No. You're producing fear via physical force. Just like you're producing fear via talking at them (for the Charisma based forms). The fear then does the work (or not, depending on the check and the NPC). Talking at them doesn't control their limbs either. And can fail in all the same ways (and a few extras).

[Tanarii]

No. You're producing fear via physical force. Just like you're producing fear via talking at them (for the Charisma based forms). The fear then does the work (or not, depending on the check and the NPC). Talking at them doesn't control their limbs either. And can fail in all the same ways (and a few extras).
Taking at them directs the reaction to the one you want. Strength cant do that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Taking at them directs the reaction to the one you want. Strength cant do that.

I disagree. Your only reasoning seems to be "I can't imagine it."

And you can have a strength based approach that uses a couple words. It just can't depend for its force on the words chosen. "Wallet," grunted by a thug whose meaty paw is around your neck lifting your effortlessly off the ground directs your reaction just as well as a more suave "we're selling mugging insurance. nice knees you've got, shame if some unscrupulous muggers were to chance along and you not paid your insurance." approach by a smaller, more talky guy.

[Azuresun]

Yeah Wrestling rants are a great example of why muscles don't mean squat if you've got the charisma of a wet paper napkin, which is all of their made up personalities, even The Rock. Speaking of which The Rock vs Statham trying to out stare down and out compete each other in the one movie is absolutely hilarious because of that. Two Low Cha lunks who have made a career out of thinking muscles are imposing, trying it on each other and failing was genius writing.

Sheesh, it was a joke. Opinion noted, processed and properly filed.

[Mastikator]

Yeah Wrestling rants are a great example of why muscles don't mean squat if you've got the charisma of a wet paper napkin, which is all of their made up personalities, even The Rock. Speaking of which The Rock vs Statham trying to out stare down and out compete each other in the one movie is absolutely hilarious because of that. Two Low Cha lunks who have made a career out of thinking muscles are imposing, trying it on each other and failing was genius writing.

Two people did it badly, therefore it is impossible.

[Dr.Samurai]

Taking at them directs the reaction to the one you want. Strength cant do that.
This is why I refer to it as “magical mind control beams”, because people treat Charisma like it “controls” people, as opposed to a method (and perhaps most common method) used to influence them. Here, Tanarii equates Intimidation via Charisma to a strong person physically grabbing someone’s limbs and forcing them to take the action they want. So Tanarii thinks that a charisma check is some sort of mind control that forces the person to do what you want, as opposed to a successful check to influence that person’s actions.

That’s why the only examples we have are of failures masquerading as inevitabilities. Because charisma to some people is just literal mind control, so a success means you get the exact precise outcome you want. Other ability scores are not mind control, therefore cannot work outright.

[Tanarii]

This is why I refer to it as “magical mind control beams”, because people treat Charisma like it “controls” people, as opposed to a method (and perhaps most common method) used to influence them. Here, Tanarii equates Intimidation via Charisma to a strong person physically grabbing someone’s limbs and forcing them to take the action they want. So Tanarii thinks that a charisma check is some sort of mind control that forces the person to do what you want, as opposed to a successful check to influence that person’s actions.
Manipulating someone to get what you want? Sure, let's call that "magical mind control beams" if it makes you happy. But that's what you're doing, through a combination of words and body language.

Doing it with Strength would require physically manipulating their decisions. That's what would make it a Strength check, in order to actually control the reaction.

Let's compare to some other attributes. If you allow Strength (Intimidation) for a display of strength, do you also allow:
Dexterity (Intimidation) by demonstrating dagger or archery skills in close proximity to them? (Or maybe doing a somersault?)
Constitution (Intimidation) by cutting on yourself to show how tough you are?
Intelligence (Intimidation) by demonstrating you know things they don't?
Wisdom (Intimidation) by "reading" their personality flaws?

[Pex]

Manipulating someone to get what you want? Sure, let's call that "magical mind control beams" if it makes you happy. But that's what you're doing, through a combination of words and body language.

Doing it with Strength would require physically manipulating their decisions. That's what would make it a Strength check, in order to actually control the reaction.

Let's compare to some other attributes. If you allow Strength (Intimidation) for a display of strength, do you also allow:
Dexterity (Intimidation) by demonstrating dagger or archery skills in close proximity to them? (Or maybe doing a somersault?)

It's a common trope before a battle in a tv show or movie for the bad guy to juggle his gun, make flashy moves with his sword, display kung fu moves before the battle.


Constitution (Intimidation) by cutting on yourself to show how tough you are?

Often done by the crazy henchman to cut himself before a battle. Maybe even lick the blade.


Intelligence (Intimidation) by demonstrating you know things they don't?

A James Bond type villain or the intellectual Supervillain.


Wisdom (Intimidation) by "reading" their personality flaws?

Magical villains in B-movies, often done to demoralize.

[GloatingSwine]

Doing it with Strength would require physically manipulating their decisions. That's what would make it a Strength check, in order to actually control the reaction.


Ask a question or make a demand, break a finger, tell them they have many more bones.

That's how you control someone with strength.

[Liquor Box]

Unless you're physically controlling their limbs into doing exactly what you want, Strength isn't contributing though. You aren't punching their decisions into the one you want. You're just eliciting a general reaction, fear.

Now if that's what someone means by Intimidation, sure. If it's just "elicit fear and the DM decides what they do".

If someone notes someone looks strong, fears what that strength could do to them and changes their behaviour because of that, then the strength is what influenced them. In real world interactions that is not an uncommon form of intimidation (albeit not the only one). There's no reason for DnD to be different - in both cases there are other threats (guns or magic), but in neither case does that mean big tough guys aren't intimidating.



Dexterity (Intimidation) by demonstrating dagger or archery skills in close proximity to them? (Or maybe doing a somersault?)
Constitution (Intimidation) by cutting on yourself to show how tough you are?
Intelligence (Intimidation) by demonstrating you know things they don't?
Wisdom (Intimidation) by "reading" their personality flaws?

Those sorts of intimidate check would be much less frequent than str checks because str is more visible without a silly demonstration, and because it is more inherently intimidating because people intuitively associate with the ability to inflict violence. Having said that, as others have pointed out, all of those things you mention might be possible in some circumstances.


Taking at them directs the reaction to the one you want. Strength cant do that.

You can intimidate them with your muscles, and still tell them what you want. If someone is intimidated by your hulking physique, and you then tell them to give back the apple they just stole, it doesn't mean charisma is the operative stat just because you opened your mouth. It is still the fact that you look like you could break them in half that makes them more likely to obey.

[Tanarii]

Ask a question or make a demand, break a finger, tell them they have many more bones.

That's how you control someone with strength.
Except that doesn't work. They'll do something in response. You just can't control/manipulate it to get what you want.


If someone notes someone looks strong, fears what that strength could do to them and changes their behaviour because of that, then the strength is what influenced them. In real world interactions that is not an uncommon form of intimidation (albeit not the only one). There's no reason for DnD to be different - in both cases there are other threats (guns or magic), but in neither case does that mean big tough guys aren't intimidating.Big guys aren't particularly intimidating. Unless they project it right with their body language and words.

The prop doesn't matter, it's the intent and approach.
Intent: manipulate them to doing what I want
Approach: use some kind of prop and project it properly

[GloatingSwine]

Except that doesn't work. They'll do something in response. You just can't control/manipulate it to get what you want.


That's the point of using the ability check, to find out if the player gets what they want.

If a player calls out a strength based action as part of their intimidate attempt, then it is absolutely appropriate to let them use their Strength for the check, with a difficulty appropriate to the individual they are trying to intimidate, and have success on that check count as successful intimidation.

[Tanarii]

That's the point of using the ability check, to find out if the player gets what they want.
Doesn't matter. You can't "manipulate" to get what you want through the application via the application of force or other forms of abuse. It will get a result, but you can't control which one.

[Cazero]

Doesn't matter. You can't "manipulate" to get what you want through the application via the application of force or other forms of abuse. It will get a result, but you can't control which one.
Exactly like when making threats with words. They could cooperate, run away, call the cops, punch you in the face, anything. The table got the exact same everything on it than when using brute force, except they can't make an accurate evaluation of your ability to hurt them, so really you should have even less control.

[Tanarii]

Exactly like when making threats with words. They could cooperate, run away, call the cops, punch you in the face, anything. The table got the exact same everything on it than when using brute force, except they can't make an accurate evaluation of your ability to hurt them, so really you should have even less control.
No, it's not exactly like it. Manipulation of another to get what you want through words and body language actually works. Manipulation of another to get what you want through direct force only works in books and movies, where writers who don't know better write it into the plot.

[Anymage]

Exactly like when making threats with words. They could cooperate, run away, call the cops, punch you in the face, anything. The table got the exact same everything on it than when using brute force, except they can't make an accurate evaluation of your ability to hurt them, so really you should have even less control.

We've established that you want a credible threat if you want to intimidate someone (where said threat can include but is not limited to showing off big muscles), and that intimidation threats can leave people scared but reacting in a way other than the way you'd like.

The question is, once you've established that the threat exists, are you more likely to get the scared reaction you want through increasing the threat or through better people skills?

[Cazero]

We've established that you want a credible threat if you want to intimidate someone (where said threat can include but is not limited to showing off big muscles), and that intimidation threats can leave people scared but reacting in a way other than the way you'd like.

The question is, once you've established that the threat exists, are you more likely to get the scared reaction you want through increasing the threat or through better people skills?
If you want to switch to CHA after your STR check failed, go for it.

[Pauly]

Part of the issue with D&D is the skill system, in particular 2 elements of it.
1) Skills scale linearly, and
2) Different classes get different access to skills.
NB my comments are based more on 3.5, which is the last D&D rules I played seriously.

Skills scale linearly.
It costs one skill point to increase a skill by one level. It doesn’t matter if you have +20 in the skill already or are at +0. Once you get into moderately high character levels the difference in proficiency in a skill between a highly skilled character and a moderately skilled character is absurd.
Other games use an exponential cost system where raising high levels of skill higher cost more than raising a low level skill.

Different access to skills.
Martial classes with very few skill points are forced to pick 2 or 3 skills to focus in, and often choose skills related to combat. Skill monkeys lime rogues and bards often have so many skill points that they put points into skills that don’t fit their core character concept simply because they have to out the skills somewhere.

It’s part of the fundamental game design of D&D. The solution according to the mechanics of the system is multi-classing and level dips.

As for STR, or any other attribute you may think useful in a situation, affecting an intimidate check the important factor should be the differential between the characters, nit the raw stat. A STR 18 barbarian is mighty threatening to a STR 8 goblin, a worthy foe to a STR 18 Bugbear champion, but laughably puny to a STR 25 storm giant.

[Liquor Box]

Big guys aren't particularly intimidating. Unless they project it right with their body language and words.

The prop doesn't matter, it's the intent and approach.
Intent: manipulate them to doing what I want
Approach: use some kind of prop and project it properly

I think you are wrong about this. I think that most people do find guys who look big and tough intimidating. I think that in many situations they find the big tough but uncharismatic guy much more intimidating than the weedy little charismatic guy.


No, it's not exactly like it. Manipulation of another to get what you want through words and body language actually works. Manipulation of another to get what you want through direct force only works in books and movies, where writers who don't know better write it into the plot.

Do you have any source or anything to back up your opinion that being big and tough doesn't intimidate people, or is it just your assertion based on how you imagine things might work.

I'm sure I can find plenty of real world quotes where people said they were intimidated by someone's size and physique.

For example, Joe Rogan has spoken about how intimidating he found Mike Tyson (someone who is not very charismatic), specifically because of how tough he looks. In a later interview, Mike Tyson intimidated Joe Rogan into dropping a line of questioning on his podcast
{scrubbed}

There is no doubt that people who are uncharismatic can be intimidating because of their hulking physique and get results out of it. If you doubt that, we can simply ask people participating in this discussion whether they might find someone who is uncharismatic but with an obviously powerful physique intimidating. If none would, then it is not a valid attribute for an intimidate check. If some would then it is valid (a failed role indicating those who are not intimidated by big tough guys). What do you think?

[Psyren]

Tanarii - if Str (Intimidation) is an automatic no/fail at your table, that's fine. For me, the fact that the designers use it as an example is more than enough justification for it being able to work at least some of the time. Neither of us is wrong, it's just a difference in playstyle and that's that.

[Pex]

Part of the issue with D&D is the skill system, in particular 2 elements of it.
1) Skills scale linearly, and
2) Different classes get different access to skills.
NB my comments are based more on 3.5, which is the last D&D rules I played seriously.

Skills scale linearly.
It costs one skill point to increase a skill by one level. It doesn’t matter if you have +20 in the skill already or are at +0. Once you get into moderately high character levels the difference in proficiency in a skill between a highly skilled character and a moderately skilled character is absurd.
Other games use an exponential cost system where raising high levels of skill higher cost more than raising a low level skill.

Different access to skills.
Martial classes with very few skill points are forced to pick 2 or 3 skills to focus in, and often choose skills related to combat. Skill monkeys lime rogues and bards often have so many skill points that they put points into skills that don’t fit their core character concept simply because they have to out the skills somewhere.

It’s part of the fundamental game design of D&D. The solution according to the mechanics of the system is multi-classing and level dips.

As for STR, or any other attribute you may think useful in a situation, affecting an intimidate check the important factor should be the differential between the characters, nit the raw stat. A STR 18 barbarian is mighty threatening to a STR 8 goblin, a worthy foe to a STR 18 Bugbear champion, but laughably puny to a STR 25 storm giant.

This is more a 5E D&D problem than 3E/Pathfinder 1E. Big strong uncharismatic barbarian has Intimidate as a class skill. In Pathfinder that's a +3 bonus right there. Putting in ranks for 3E/Pathfinder quickly compensates the supposed negative modifier in Charisma fast. The reasons for wanting to use ST don't go away, but for game mechanics purposes they aren't so necessary because the barbarian can intimidate by the established rule of CH base anyway. CH is almost irrelevant.

In 5E your ability score plays a more important role in skill use. Having proficiency helps. A barbarian player who wants to intimidate a lot should take it as a proficiency, CH or no CH. It's on the player if he doesn't then complains he can't successfully intimidate often. However, proficiency does not increase fast. The ability modifier significantly contributes in making Bounded Accuracy DCs. ST 18 +4 is a major difference than CH 8 -1, so there is more incentive to wanting to use ST when it can be applicable.

[Psyren]

This is more a 5E D&D problem than 3E/Pathfinder 1E. Big strong uncharismatic barbarian has Intimidate as a class skill. In Pathfinder that's a +3 bonus right there. Putting in ranks for 3E/Pathfinder quickly compensates the supposed negative modifier in Charisma fast. The reasons for wanting to use ST don't go away, but for game mechanics purposes they aren't so necessary because the barbarian can intimidate by the established rule of CH base anyway. CH is almost irrelevant.

In 5E your ability score plays a more important role in skill use. Having proficiency helps. A barbarian player who wants to intimidate a lot should take it as a proficiency, CH or no CH. It's on the player if he doesn't then complains he can't successfully intimidate often. However, proficiency does not increase fast. The ability modifier significantly contributes in making Bounded Accuracy DCs. ST 18 +4 is a major difference than CH 8 -1, so there is more incentive to wanting to use ST when it can be applicable.

While it's true that mathematically, ability modifier makes up a bigger portion of your total check in 5e than it does in prior editions, 5e compensates for this by not having the results of most checks be rigidly codified. In 5e, failing a check can explicitly result in either "no progress" or "progress combined with a setback determined by the DM" (PHB 174). So even if a Barbarian is not "as good" at intimidating as a Bard, you can represent that difference in a much wider variety of ways than simply having the NPC laugh in their face or roll initiative, even if you're forcing the former to use their dump stat.

[5a Violista]

In movies, whenever I've seen a big strong guy using their strength to intimidate (by breaking something, bending something, glowering menacingly....) there's always another person there explaining *why* the threat is a real threat and helping the intimidation victim recognize the connection between the threat (the strength, the things breaking, etc) and what they want the victim to do.

Which really sounds a lot like the feat of strength acting as a circumstance bonus to the intimidation, and not the strong person using the Intimidation skill themselves.

Although, sometimes, you do get the person breaking things or showing off their own strength, but almost always they *also* do the actual threats and explanation themselves, which, again, sounds like a charisma check with a strength-based circumstance bonus.


And, likewise, in real life, I've seen tons of people show off their body type, or break things, or throw things, or showing off their strength. But it didn't really feel like intimidation at all. Usually, it just feels like a temper tantrum, or just like they are mad at the loss of control they have and are lashing out, or doing something unrelated to the situation they're in. It just makes them seem childish, or pitiful, or unhinged, and rarely (in my experience) has actually resulted in them getting what they want; instead, it leads to them getting ignored, or isolated, or getting even more resistance. Of course, if they had the charisma or the experience to back up their threats and actions, then it probably could have gotten them what they wanted. To me, intimidation is all of making threats, convincing someone you can make good on the threat, and connecting between the threat and the desired response.


Plus, there's the fact that showing off your muscles can mean tons of different things depending on the context (are you trying to scare them? or are you flirting with them? Actually, thinking about it, it would be hilarious to have someone swoon in response to a big mean barbarian showing off his muscles)


I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I base Intimidation off my real-life experience, it makes the most sense for the threat of physical violence to set the context to the roll (including bonuses, check requirements, and potential consequences) and then for someone (not necessarily the person making the threat) to do the roll based on both a charisma skill and the appropriate intimidation skill levels.

I mean, if some low-charisma strongman is known for using intimidation, it'd make sense for them to have skill levels in intimidation. And if you've got both a low-Cha strongman with intimidation skills and a high-Cha talky person working together, then obviously you should give them a bonus for working together, since isn't helping others on skill checks literally part of the rules, or something?

And, the reason I think Strength-based intimidation works best as a circumstance bonus is because intimidating someone with your strength is only something that works in appropriate circumstances. Hence, literally circumstance bonus. A bonus for that particular circumstance.

But, I guess I can see game systems having rules for using strength to intimidate. But I think those usually either have different meanings of intimidate, or the rules suggest special training to use the strength. And if you get special training to intimidate specifically using strength, then presumably your character also knows how to use their strength to convince people, as opposed to just showing off.

[Psyren]

In movies, whenever I've seen a big strong guy using their strength to intimidate (by breaking something, bending something, glowering menacingly....) there's always another person there explaining *why* the threat is a real threat and helping the intimidation victim recognize the connection between the threat (the strength, the things breaking, etc) and what they want the victim to do.

Eh, I think that has more to do with the fact that the musclebound guy is very rarely the main protagonist or antagonist, than that strength-based intimidate is somehow impossible or ineffective. They are usually The Big Guy (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBigGuy) (if good) or The Dragon (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDragon) (if evil) and thus rarely operating alone, as the focal point of an influence scene, or even doing the talking.

And even when they are - then of course any feats of physical prowess they display will be accompanied by them explaining {behavior/information they want from the subject}, and thus that can be argued as being an application of traditional Cha-based intimidation too.

[Vahnavoi]

The actual insanity, as far as 3rd edition would be concerned anyway, is that the key ability to effectively portay realistic intimidation would be Wisdom.

Let me explain:

In real life, there is a wide variety of methods for using physical force to get someone to do what you want. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_compliance) But understanding when someone is in pain or how threat of pain and injury would motivate a person to act are domains of Sense Motive skill, and that keys off of Wisdom.

So the prequisite for any succesful Intimidation check ought to be a succesful Sense Motive check - allowing Strength instead of Charisma for the act of twisting someone's arm is an afterthought compared to that.

[icefractal]

I think one issue I have with Strength-Intimidate is that it would apply even when the intimidator is less strong than the target.

Like, say that you're a veteran warrior, Str 20+, tough enough to shrug off a volley of arrows or a boulder dropped on you, slain plenty of demons and giants, etc.

After leaving a bar one night, a random thug (Str 10) demands your money "or else". You laugh, shove him out of the way, and keep walking. Then his brawnier friend (Str 16, but still like 1st level) runs up and threatens you too.

Is the latter meaningfully more scary? I'd say - no. He's not, because he's still weaker than you and someone you could probably take down within seconds at no risk.

What this also brings to mind is that Intimidate should have a significant bonus or penalty depending on leverage or the lack thereof. The difference between "You're surrounded and outgunned, and we've already defeated the rest of your group" and "I'm surrounded and outgunned, but trying to convince you that you're the ones who should be scared" is waaay more than advantage/disadvantage covers.

Like in 3.5E scale, I would say it could be -10 to +10, maybe even more (in 5E, IDK, but since I don't even like bounded accuracy I'm maybe the wrong one to ask). And "demonstrating superior strength" is one of the ways to get that leverage.

[Dr.Samurai]

Typing from phone but jumping off IceFractal’s post.

Take that scenario and replace the strength check with a traditional charisma intimidation check. What changes?

How is the veteran warrior that has slain countless fiends and could survive a volley of arrows and a boulder dropped on him, intimidated by a 1st level thug with charisma 16? And how does this work without testing Intimidation instead as a bluff, where a 1st level guy that can’t realistically defeat our super badass veteran, says that he will hurt him and the veteran believes him and complies?

As I mentioned previously, the arguments against strength in this thread can mostly be made against charisma as well, and this is no exception. Unless the charisma guy is bluffing, which is Deception, then he’ll try to intimidate the veteran and the veteran will swat him down with an open hand.

[Vahnavoi]

That's already accounted for the rules (or at least 3rd edition accounted for it), it's an opposed level check, the experienced warrior is harder to intimidate based on HD and Wisdom.

Your error is presuming that being strong and experienced mean the veteran is resistant to fear and irrationality, when those are covered by entirely different aspects of a character.

[Pex]

I think one issue I have with Strength-Intimidate is that it would apply even when the intimidator is less strong than the target.

Like, say that you're a veteran warrior, Str 20+, tough enough to shrug off a volley of arrows or a boulder dropped on you, slain plenty of demons and giants, etc.

After leaving a bar one night, a random thug (Str 10) demands your money "or else". You laugh, shove him out of the way, and keep walking. Then his brawnier friend (Str 16, but still like 1st level) runs up and threatens you too.

Is the latter meaningfully more scary? I'd say - no. He's not, because he's still weaker than you and someone you could probably take down within seconds at no risk.

What this also brings to mind is that Intimidate should have a significant bonus or penalty depending on leverage or the lack thereof. The difference between "You're surrounded and outgunned, and we've already defeated the rest of your group" and "I'm surrounded and outgunned, but trying to convince you that you're the ones who should be scared" is waaay more than advantage/disadvantage covers.

Like in 3.5E scale, I would say it could be -10 to +10, maybe even more (in 5E, IDK, but since I don't even like bounded accuracy I'm maybe the wrong one to ask). And "demonstrating superior strength" is one of the ways to get that leverage.

Just having the 16 ST isn't intimidating, The friend needs to actually do something to demonstrate his threat, i.e. roll the die and make the check. On a success yes he does intimidate the 18 or 20 ST person because that person just saw this "scrawny" dude do something menacingly in a way to spook him. Mr. Muscles knows he can do some feat of strength, but now he sees this pipsqueak do it too? On a successful roll yes that's intimidating.