Unpopular Opinion: Intimidation is fine as a Cha skill

[Veldrenor]

And because I've missed this:


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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

This.

[GooeyChewie]

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

If the guard is at all combat competent, they probably have a higher than average DC against Intimidation. Failing the intimidation check probably precipitates an initiative roll regardless of whether you used Strength or Charisma.

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

That seems like an awfully big assumption, especially since officially published modules often use variant ability scores for various checks. If WotC intended for DMs not to allow players to use alternate ability scores, I think it would have been a lot simpler for them to just say that the skills are always tied to certain ability scores, rather than to give examples of how to play the game "wrong."

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

To me, any time a player says "I would like to try to intimidate this NPC by showing them how strong I am" is a situation where calling for a Strength (Intimidation) check "makes sense." I do enjoy it when a player goes into further detail of how they would like to accomplish this goal, but not every player is equally apt to come up with such descriptions.

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

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

[Kvess]

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

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

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

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

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

[ProsecutorGodot]

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

That's fine too.

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

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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

This is wishful thinking... that the writers of the book included this variant rule not because it can make sense and there is legitimate reason to, but because people are just too thick-headed to figure it out.

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

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

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

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

Correct. And if it is intent based as Tanarii is saying, then he can say "oh, you're intent is to influence someone, therefore default to Charisma". If it isn't intent based, as JackPhoneix and you are questioning, then we don't have to default to Charisma. We can say "I'm going to knock him on his butt and step on his chest to pin him to the ground". Ok, make a Strength check and apply Intimidation.

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

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

If the guard is at all combat competent, they probably have a higher than average DC against Intimidation. Failing the intimidation check probably precipitates an initiative roll regardless of whether you used Strength or Charisma.

This is exactly the point. Charisma gets conflated with Knowledge of Intimidation and with Success, and in some cases Memory Wipe, where the guard forgets he doesn't feel threatened all of a sudden.

[Anymage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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

Correct.

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

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

A Strength(Intimidation) check leaves the victim scared of your strength, not of your threats. They are not worried about your threat to track them down, they might not even believe you would bother to track them down. They are worried about being caught by your arms, even if they comply with your wishes.

This lends itself to another point I made about the Strength check, which is that demonstrating your power can make the character decide it's not worth not complying. They have experienced your brute power and whether or not you will actually hurt them, it isn't worth the risk to call your bluff. So they comply. If I think that not complying will result in you and me tussling but I'm going to push you off me and escape the encounter, I'm not intimidated. But if I think that if you make good on your threat I can easily wind up with broken ribs or a dislocated jaw or worse, I won't think it is worth pushing you on the matter and I will comply; I'm intimidated.

@Psyren: Understood and agreed.

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

[JackPhoenix]

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

I am thinking of it that way. It's people that want to allow it that are thinking of it in reverse as Intimidation (Strength)

- I can think of trying to push your way through a crowd while being large and scary enough to encourage people to scatter out of your way as well. Thinking of it as applied stat first instead of applied skill first does make a lot of alternate stat intimidation rolls fall flat, though.

Thank you. That is a good example of a Strength check that is helped by a focus in being threatening, minus the "big" part. The primary action is the pushing through the crowd, not getting someone to cooperate with what you want. Kudos!

[KorvinStarmast]

I feel like you're stuck on the 3e idea that skills checks are something in and of themselves, and that skill proficiencies are something separate from the base ability score. They aren't.

Took me almost a year to convince my brother of that. Conceptually, he spent a lot of time as a 3.xe refugee playing in 5e.

Charisma checks absolutely *are* mind control, to a certain extent.

I beg to differ, but I like what you did there.
"It is absolutely this, sort of."

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

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

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

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

But he's still using a Charisma check on the roll. The rules on situational disadvantage and advantage are worth reading, yet again. again.
I will appeal to all DM's to think through how to apply this to the situation at hand in any given scenario where you call for an ability check. The better DMs I've played with in this edition apply that - adv disadv - based on the situation with some frequency.

You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. Inspiration can also give a character advantage (as explained in chapter 4, “Personality and Background”). The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.

Over the past year, I think I've tended to more often apply advantage, but sometimes I apply disadvantage based on the circumstance.

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[Dienekes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Sorry, I don't think you quite caught what I was after. That isn't what I said. It makes sense in some situations, and in others would make no sense at all. That's the whole thing about the rules in Chapter 7 that I cited.
I am not recommending yet another "win button." I am advocating for the DM to apply the in context situation to, on an occasion that fits, advantage or disadvantage to any check. It's all a matter of context in the scene that's going on. Any ability check is still going to follow the situation, intent, approach scheme in order to see if a roll is even appropriate.

I also dislike "just grant advantage"

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

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

As of now, arbitrating the actions of my players and rewarding quick thinking by letting them use a better stat that makes sense with what they’re trying to accomplish works fine for me.

And that works out fine too; seen that done also in this edition.
The DM was originally called The Referee.

[Dr.Samurai]

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

Exactly. Whenever someone says "Well that wouldn't work because someone might not be impressed by the size", it implies that a charisma-based character can succeed at any check no matter the context. But this isn't true. I fully agree with Dienekes' point here; in the same way a veteran guard might not be impressed with a big strong warrior, some NPCs won't be deterred by a menacing threat, no matter how mean the PC looks.

Re: Advantage

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

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

[Willowhelm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jas61292]

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

I think if you grant that a big strong guy grants Advantage on the check,

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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

Hi Korvin, my argument has always been "based on the situation", so I didn't mean to reduce your point. But if you allow it under some circumstances, then I would make the case that it is evidence that Strength(Intimidation) can be appropriate depending on the given scene.

EDIT:

The core issue that I, and others, have with Strength (Intimidation) checks is that it feels like people want to take something that is a Charisma (Intimidation) check and just sub out Strength for Charisma, as if the way the game works is that there are skill checks and you decide on a relevant skill first and then an appropriate ability.

Rather, some people think not necessarily that the game works that way, but that real life works that way, and so they don't mind making the game a little flexible to accommodate it.

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

For me, this is getting lost in the weeds.

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kvess]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Abracadangit]

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

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

2) Use Strength to Convince an NPC of something.

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The example you gave was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well it has to be adjudicated by the DM, so presumably we're not allowing cheating. I've never said this should always be the case to use Strength. I'm just trying to get people to meet me somewhere along this spectrum and they're all "never ever" about it. In any event, ignore knocking prone and just use some other less invasive example that's been given in the thread.

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

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

Yes but see my earlier point about "non-compliance being not worth it". Strength(Intimidation) doesn't have to, and maybe shouldn't, work the same as Charisma(Intimidation). Charisma is convincing someone they will come to harm if they don't comply. Strength is showing them the harm if they don't comply. Now you may think "well, if they aren't 100% convinced that you will harm them, they will remain defiant", but that's not the only way people make decisions. It could also be "I'm not sure if he's bluffing, but one swing of that axe will cleave me in two, better to just do what he says and not risk it". You would get that from a demonstration of power.

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

Yes correct. And the skill Intimidation specifically says "hostile actions or physical harm" so this is perfectly in line with that.

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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