New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 374
  1. - Top - End - #241
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  2. - Top - End - #242
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauly View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  3. - Top - End - #243
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  4. - Top - End - #244
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    5a Violista's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Next to the Mandolinist

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    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.
    Favorite sports:
    Fencing
    Football (Soccer)
    Figure Skating
    (and basically everything else that starts with 'f')
    ALSO! Come roleplay FFRPG in the Nexus!
    Nexus Characters.

  5. - Top - End - #245
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by 5a Violista View Post
    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 (if good) or The Dragon (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.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2022-10-16 at 10:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  6. - Top - End - #246
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    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. 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.

  7. - Top - End - #247
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    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.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-17 at 03:13 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #248
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Dr.Samurai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ICU, under a cherry tree.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    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.

  9. - Top - End - #249
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2020

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    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.
    Last edited by Vahnavoi; 2022-10-17 at 04:36 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #250
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Pex; 2022-10-17 at 04:37 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  11. - Top - End - #251
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    So are you talking about a second check before the actual Intimidate check, or ... ?

    But no, to put it in perspective, if I see a really scrawny looking guy, like emaciated, manage to pick up a weight (that I could lift myself with moderate effort) - I might be surprised, but not intimidated. Like, ok, he's stronger than he looks, but that's a very low bar.

    All the examples of "You'd be scared of a big brawny guy, right?" are cases where the big guy is stronger than me, not "stronger than a mouse".


    But as regards Cha-Intimidate also having issues in that situation - yes, that's why I think there should be a leverage bonus/penalty. In this case the rando thug has a pretty big penalty unless they do something to prove (or successfully fake) that you should take them seriously.

    And I do think that Cha-Intimidate represents an element of ... maybe not outright deception, but at least manipulation. Just showing someone the facts of the situation ("You're surrounded and we have your friends in custody already") doesn't even need a check. The Intimidate check is to sway their decision toward surrender/flee/cooperate in situations where pure logic wouldn't necessarily give that result.

    Same with other Charisma skills. You don't generally need a Diplomacy check for "sell me this sword at full price" or "don't attack our group which you have no reason to attack". You need it when you're trying to push someone from "how they'd treat a stranger" to "how they'd treat a close friend" when you are a stranger.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-17 at 05:16 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #252
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    If a random thug has a threat level of 1 then a thug with higher strength (or charisma) would have maybe 15%(?) more threat. 15% of 1 is still 1.15.

    I don't really see a problem.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  13. - Top - End - #253
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Depends on the system, but in 5E that +3 is considered "pretty big" because of bounded accuracy. It's the difference between a 1st-level character and a 13th-level character, skill-wise. Ofc that's one reason I don't like bounded accuracy - the fact that raw talent overshadows experience to such an extent.

    Now in 3.5E, sure, adding Strength wouldn't be that big a deal. But in that case, it'd be in addition to Charisma (someone who's both powerful and has a commanding presence is going to do better than one with only one of those things), and other stats (like Dex) would also be eligible for this. And conversely, people resisting Intimidate could add other stats too (if being strong makes you more intimidating, then being tough should make you resistant to intimidate).

    Or, what I'd actually do is the leverage factor I mentioned earlier, since that incorporates all forms of power and more cleanly.


    Edit: Incidentally, I do understand the plight of Barbarians who dumped Charisma. I just think that the real enemy here is the way stats are determined, not how Charisma works. Because they're not the only victims of it! Consider all the Bards and Rogues who're described as "expert acrobats" but dumped Strength. Well that makes no sense - most acrobats are well above average strength, and it's obvious when you think about it - how would someone weak not only lift another entire person above their head, but do it smoothly? How would someone weak support their entire body weight on one arm, at an awkward angle? And for that matter, strength and speed are linked IRL (muscles are what let you move faster), longbows require significant strength to use, etc, etc ... the relatively-common D&D-ism of Str 8/Dex 18 is something that would be a weird outlier in reality.

    TL;DR - D&D stat distribution is dumb if you're trying to assume characters are highly competent. It works fine for the original "here are some maladjusted weirdos who have no better prospects than repeatedly risking horrible death in exchange for the small possibility of great fortune", but other things not so much.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-17 at 05:45 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #254
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    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.
    First of all, Intimidation doesn't work on PCs in any edition*, PCs don't have Attitudes. The Veteran Warrior's player gets to roleplay however they would like.

    Assuming your hypothetical is about three 5e NPCs intimidating each other however, and you're trying to resolve that via dice rolls for some odd reason, your issue here is with how Intimidate is resisted. Having X strength does not make an NPC immune to threats from everyone weaker than X, any more than having X Charisma would make them immune to threats from everyone less charismatic than X. You should instead be factoring those odds into the difficulty of the check. And if it ever doesn't make sense for one of those people to succeed or fail, don't roll for them.

    *Well maybe back in 1e/2e, but that had weird stuff like Paladins being turnable. Might as well drop in the caveat given the subforum I'm in.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2022-10-17 at 06:03 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  15. - Top - End - #255
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    So are you talking about a second check before the actual Intimidate check, or ... ?

    But no, to put it in perspective, if I see a really scrawny looking guy, like emaciated, manage to pick up a weight (that I could lift myself with moderate effort) - I might be surprised, but not intimidated. Like, ok, he's stronger than he looks, but that's a very low bar.

    All the examples of "You'd be scared of a big brawny guy, right?" are cases where the big guy is stronger than me, not "stronger than a mouse".


    But as regards Cha-Intimidate also having issues in that situation - yes, that's why I think there should be a leverage bonus/penalty. In this case the rando thug has a pretty big penalty unless they do something to prove (or successfully fake) that you should take them seriously.

    And I do think that Cha-Intimidate represents an element of ... maybe not outright deception, but at least manipulation. Just showing someone the facts of the situation ("You're surrounded and we have your friends in custody already") doesn't even need a check. The Intimidate check is to sway their decision toward surrender/flee/cooperate in situations where pure logic wouldn't necessarily give that result.

    Same with other Charisma skills. You don't generally need a Diplomacy check for "sell me this sword at full price" or "don't attack our group which you have no reason to attack". You need it when you're trying to push someone from "how they'd treat a stranger" to "how they'd treat a close friend" when you are a stranger.
    Changing the goal posts. What's "really scrawny"? That's certainly not 16 ST. A true really scrawny person wouldn't have high ST and wouldn't be wanting to make ST Intimidation checks. If he actually could lift heavy things then he's not really scrawny even if he looks it. Surprise is one way to react, but if the only looks scrawny person succeeds on the roll then yes the ST 20 guy is intimidated because it's obvious to him the really scrawny looking person is not actually so scrawny so what else is he hiding than just his appearance.
    Last edited by Pex; 2022-10-17 at 09:29 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  16. - Top - End - #256
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    It's not changing the goal posts, it's putting it in context.

    I'm of about average strength, thus in D&D terms probably 10-11. So someone who's as far below me as the Str 16 guy is from the Str 20 guy would be ... Str 6, which I think most people would consider scrawny.

    "Scary to an average RL person" is not the same as "scary to a badass warrior who can punch bears into submission" much less "scary to a 20' tall demon".

  17. - Top - End - #257
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    It's not changing the goal posts, it's putting it in context.

    I'm of about average strength, thus in D&D terms probably 10-11. So someone who's as far below me as the Str 16 guy is from the Str 20 guy would be ... Str 6, which I think most people would consider scrawny.

    "Scary to an average RL person" is not the same as "scary to a badass warrior who can punch bears into submission" much less "scary to a 20' tall demon".
    Does the same apply to Charisma? Sure I know they "say" they can convince their friend to break my bones. However I doubt they could be nearly as convincing as I am. They are toothless and thus not intimidating.

    On the other hand intimidate really should be an opposed check with the defense varying based on the threat and the persuasion. Maybe the Str 20 guy's Str assists in resisting the intimidation.

    Oh, and don't forget if something is impossible, the intimidation might auto fail. "Victim": Oh you are threatening to have your friend break my bones? Your dead friend? Nice try. (auto fail).
    Last edited by OldTrees1; 2022-10-18 at 01:31 AM.

  18. - Top - End - #258
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    It's not changing the goal posts, it's putting it in context.

    I'm of about average strength, thus in D&D terms probably 10-11. So someone who's as far below me as the Str 16 guy is from the Str 20 guy would be ... Str 6, which I think most people would consider scrawny.

    "Scary to an average RL person" is not the same as "scary to a badass warrior who can punch bears into submission" much less "scary to a 20' tall demon".
    The lower in ST you go the lower your modifier the more likely using ST for intimidation will fail. That's just math, not an invalidation of the idea of using ST to intimidate. Only those who are actually strong would consider it.

    What of the 8 ST not proficient character who rolls a Natural 20 for a total of 19 succeeding on the intimidation check? That falls into the quirk of the d20 and the skill system of the same vein as 8 IN not proficient in Arcana succeeding the Arcana check DC. The 20 ST proficient in Intimidation character who rolls a 2 and fails the check likewise does not invalidate using ST. It just means he failed the check. The DM or player can flavor text that failure as they see fit - took too long to break the table, you grimaced bending the metal bar, that particular person just happens not to be impressed by size and muscle mass, or whatever reason. Using ST is just a check, not a guarantee and was never claimed to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  19. - Top - End - #259
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Successful intimidation does not inflict the frightened condition. The DM may rule that it does, but only should if the intimidator is wildly more powerful than the intimidatee. A successful intimidation check means that the intimidator is some percentage more scary than it was a round ago. More scary than it was can still be "not as scary as the intimidatee".

    A 16 str thug being 15% more scary than a 10 str thug is not a problem.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  20. - Top - End - #260
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    The lower in ST you go the lower your modifier the more likely using ST for intimidation will fail. That's just math, not an invalidation of the idea of using ST to intimidate. Only those who are actually strong would consider it.
    My point is that there is no such thing as "actually strong" - strength is relative.

    Str 10 is average for a human. It's extremely low for a giant. A mouse usually has Strength 1, so a mouse with Strength 3 is like Hercules among other mice ... but still not impressive to a mid-sized dog.

    Don't only imagine cases of "trying to intimidate a normal town guard". There are many types of creatures in D&D, and Intimidate works against most of them.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2022-10-18 at 04:49 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #261
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    My point is that there is no such thing as "actually strong" - strength is relative.

    Str 10 is average for a human. It's extremely low for a giant. A mouse usually has Strength 1, so a mouse with Strength 3 is like Hercules among other mice ... but still not impressive to a mid-sized dog.

    Don't only imagine cases of "trying to intimidate a normal town guard". There are many types of creatures in D&D, and Intimidate works against most of them.
    All of these problems apply to charisma as well. A Charisma 10 thug vs a charisma 16 thug tries to intimidate a charisma 20 high level sorcerer who also dumped wisdom. Is the sorcerer just auto-magically scared of the thug who is less charismatic and weaker than the sorcerer?

    This is not a strength problem, this is an intimidation problem, your intimidation problem. The problem is that you are trying to use intimidation, scariness and fear as a binary when they should be as relative as the ability scores are.

    I have no such problem with intimidation using any ability score and any creature, because intimidation isn't mind control or fear spell, it amplifies your scariness level (or potentially reduces, if you roll really poorly)

    Edit-
    To give an example. A CR 1/2 thug tries to intimidate a level 13 sorcerer, the thug has 16 charisma and proficiency with intimidation. The sorcerer dumped wisdom and is not proficient with intimidation, but his charisma is 20, so their intimidation rolls should be the same.
    The thug rolls a natural 20.

    Is the sorcerer AFRAID of the thug?
    No.

    So what does the nat 20 mean, it means the sorcerer now believes this is at least CR 3 thug. He's still not afraid, but the sorcerer takes the thug's threat a bit more seriously. So he uses disintegrate instead of his original plan; magic missile.
    The thug is annihilated for his mistake of trying to mug a sorcerer.
    Last edited by Mastikator; 2022-10-18 at 06:18 AM.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  22. - Top - End - #262
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    I think one issue I have with Strength-Intimidate is that it would apply even when the intimidator is less strong than the target.
    Intimidate with Strength isn't random flexing to demonstrate superior swoleness, it's a demonstration of the capacity to do harm to the person you're trying to intimidate.

    Comparative strength doesn't matter, only how much the target wants to avoid harm and believes that the person making the check can and will inflict it, and that's what the DC and dice roll are for showing.

    That's why I'd say that rolling strength to intimidate requires declaring an aggressive strength based action as part of the intimidate.
    Last edited by GloatingSwine; 2022-10-18 at 06:50 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #263
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by GloatingSwine View Post
    Intimidate with Strength isn't random flexing to demonstrate superior swoleness.
    That's probably exactly how I'd roleplay it when you roll a nat 1.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  24. - Top - End - #264
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    All of these problems apply to charisma as well. A Charisma 10 thug vs a charisma 16 thug tries to intimidate a charisma 20 high level sorcerer who also dumped wisdom. Is the sorcerer just auto-magically scared of the thug who is less charismatic and weaker than the sorcerer?
    Charisma doesn't grant scariness. It's used because the intimidate skill does not test how big a threat you appear to be. It tests whether the threat produces the desired outcome -- a matter of skill, not force. This is why you can fail an intimidate check even when the size of the threat may as well be infinite (e.g., pointing the Death Star's main gun at your captive's home planet), and even when the target is already fully convinced that you are able and willing to carry it out.

  25. - Top - End - #265
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2015

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    As already mentioned, most games do Intimidation with situational modifiers based on how threatening the situation is.

    Yes, D&D 5E can't do this because of bounded accuracy. One may like this or not, but it is a design decision to ignore such fiddly details.


    To still somehow consider the danger level, one could say "Intimidation can only be tried with some credible threat" and still use Charisma for the roll.

  26. - Top - End - #266
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    Charisma doesn't grant scariness. It's used because the intimidate skill does not test how big a threat you appear to be. It tests whether the threat produces the desired outcome -- a matter of skill, not force. This is why you can fail an intimidate check even when the size of the threat may as well be infinite (e.g., pointing the Death Star's main gun at your captive's home planet), and even when the target is already fully convinced that you are able and willing to carry it out.
    Ok here's a scenario.

    A commoner, not proficient in intimidation, charisma 10. Vs An Empyrean, CR 23, godlike power, not immune to frighten, no explicit bravery feature. (lets say that he's out of legendary resistance, but otherwise fully armed and operational)

    The commoner demands: "Give me your gold or I will take it by force", he rolls a nat 20 on his intimidation. The empyrean rolls a nat 1 on his wisdom save (or contested intimidation, whatever you choose, I don't care). The commoner WINS.

    Does the Empyrean give away his gold to the commoner?

    The commoner rolled a total result higher than the Empyrean and the Empyrean has no free immunity, so the Empyrean must give away his gold?
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  27. - Top - End - #267
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
    It tests whether the threat produces the desired outcome -- a matter of skill, not force.
    It tests whether the target believes the threat.

    A DM who isn't being a git should generally cause a success to be something close enough to what the players wanted that they can predict where and when to use their abilities to get results.

  28. - Top - End - #268
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    Ok here's a scenario.

    A commoner, not proficient in intimidation, charisma 10. Vs An Empyrean, CR 23, godlike power, not immune to frighten, no explicit bravery feature. (lets say that he's out of legendary resistance, but otherwise fully armed and operational)

    The commoner demands: "Give me your gold or I will take it by force", he rolls a nat 20 on his intimidation. The empyrean rolls a nat 1 on his wisdom save (or contested intimidation, whatever you choose, I don't care). The commoner WINS.

    Does the Empyrean give away his gold to the commoner?

    The commoner rolled a total result higher than the Empyrean and the Empyrean has no free immunity, so the Empyrean must give away his gold?
    If the DM was silly enough to call for a roll, yes, the Empyrean has to pay up and may address their complaints to the DM.

  29. - Top - End - #269
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Dr.Samurai's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    ICU, under a cherry tree.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.
    Sometimes. You can also do it through hostile actions (flipping something heavy over, crushing something in your hands) or physical violence (actually physically hurting someone). So no, it's not just magical mind control beams.

    And you still haven't explained how someone inflicts physical violence with a charisma check. I know influencing someone with physical violence or a display of hostile action offends you, but how do you do inflict violence with charisma exactly?
    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.
    That's your take on it, sure. The rest of us understanding that the Strength check is being modified by your proficiency in Intimidation. So the strength check is to perform the hostile action or physical violence, and your proficiency in Intimidation is to get the outcome you seek.
    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?
    Why not? If the DM thinks these are appropriate, why not? The DMG specifically recommends you do this. AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, people are ignoring proficiency in skills and putting everything on Charisma. If you don't use Charisma, you suddenly don't know how to Intimidate someone, even when you have proficiency in the skill. It's bonkers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Except that doesn't work. They'll do something in response. You just can't control/manipulate it to get what you want.
    Yes you can, because you have proficiency in the exact skill that governs this; Intimidation.
    Big guys aren't particularly intimidating. Unless they project it right with their body language and words.
    Or they take hostile actions against you or inflict physical violence. Yes. Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.
    {scrubbed} It's literally in the description of the skill...

    Intimidation. When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence...
    It will get a result, but you can't control which one.
    Yes, it's up to the die roll, as with any ability check.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    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.
    Where does this passive aggressive hangup over big intimidating people come from?
    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    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?
    Either or. If you roll Charisma, it's not a guaranteed success. If the DM allows you to roll Strength, it's not a guaranteed failure.

    The doberman or rottweiler barking at you from the other side of the junkyard fence is not hitting you with magic charisma beams, it's performing a hostile action. Those aren't people skills. That's 130lbs of muscle, jaw strength, and teeth. If it was a chihuahua, the effect would be different. Not because the chihuahua has less charisma, but because you could easily punt it into submission once you jump the fence. One might get you to not jump the fence, while the other won't. Similarly, without the hostile action, the size of the dog might not matter either. If the rottweiler is not jumping at the fence and barking, but instead licks your fingers through the chain link fence, you might think it's safe to jump the fence. The combination of the dog's size and strength, plus hostile actions, creates an intimidating presence that deters you from entering.

    This same principle applies with humans. It's not auto-ANYTHING, so don't come at me with "but it might not work". Yes, it's not always appropriate to use Strength, but to argue, as people are doing here, that it can't possibly give you the desired results is just ignoring reality.
    Last edited by Peelee; 2022-10-19 at 01:57 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #270
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    Ok here's a scenario.

    A commoner, not proficient in intimidation, charisma 10. Vs An Empyrean, CR 23, godlike power, not immune to frighten, no explicit bravery feature. (lets say that he's out of legendary resistance, but otherwise fully armed and operational)

    The commoner demands: "Give me your gold or I will take it by force", he rolls a nat 20 on his intimidation. The empyrean rolls a nat 1 on his wisdom save (or contested intimidation, whatever you choose, I don't care). The commoner WINS.

    Does the Empyrean give away his gold to the commoner?

    The commoner rolled a total result higher than the Empyrean and the Empyrean has no free immunity, so the Empyrean must give away his gold?
    Yes, of course he would. If the DM in your scenario agreed with you that that outcome is absurd, they wouldn't have allowed the roll in the first place.

    That said, you can succeed on intimidate checks against people who know themselves to be far stronger than you, provided that your intent is sensible and you could pose at least some threat to something they value.
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2022-10-18 at 10:21 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •