Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

[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.

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 .

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. 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 . 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.

[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.