Muscles shouldn't improve intimidate

[Mastikator]

More relevant are :

- his weapons
- his size and reach
- his reputation (or if not known the reputation of ogres in general)
- his friends/allies in the vicinity
- his speed/movement options
- his training
- the place we are in and how that works with obstacles, distances and size
- me and my allies
- other people who could enter a confrontation

And all that is with ignoring the rather nebulous Charisma the ogre might have.
Really, at the point i would consider the impact of the difference between a strong and a weak ogre i am way beyond the detail level i would want in a game.

Ok but none of those things are related to the ogre's charisma more than his strength. Unless the ogre is a hexblade.
His weapon? Empowered by his strength.
His size and reach? Empowered by his strength.
His reputation? Ogres have a reputation for being strong, mean, stupid, violent, smell bad.
His friends/allies in the vicinity? That might be charisma related.

But that puts charisma 4th on the list, strength being 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

[Dr.Samurai]

More relevant are :

- his weapons

The weapons that rely on a Strength score to land and deal damage...

An ogre's strength is roughly 1/3 of his greatclub/javelin damage. Reduce the ogre's strength, and you reduce the threat level of his weapons. Dial this totally meaningless Strength score down to 6, and the ogre has a +0 to attack rolls and deals 2d8-2 on damage, and suddenly that weapon is landing less than a normal human soldier's sword strike, and dealing roughly the same damage.

- his size and reach

I don't know games other than editions of D&D but in D&D size is highly correlated to Strength. If you look through the MM, small and tiny monsters mostly have weak Strength scores, whereas Large and larger monsters have much higher Strength scores. This is a way of admitting that Strength is intimidating, without saying it.

- his reputation (or if not known the reputation of ogres in general)

Reputation = a single ogre strike can kill a human guard in 1 hit

- his friends/allies in the vicinity
- his speed/movement options
- his training
- the place we are in and how that works with obstacles, distances and size
- me and my allies
- other people who could enter a confrontation

All irrelevant to whether an ogre's strength can be intimidating.

And all that is with ignoring the rather nebulous Charisma the ogre might have.
Really, at the point i would consider the impact of the difference between a strong and a weak ogre i am way beyond the detail level i would want in a game.

This is difficult to take at face value because it seems to me that in supporting the position that Strength can't be intimidating, you're actually required to get much more into the weeds than necessary. I mean, look at this list you've just provided. All to prevent Strength from being a consideration.


Since we can't really point to any single game as support, because this is the Roleplaying Games forum, we just have to speak about Strength generally. But when we do, people, as I've already mentioned, just give examples of other things that can be intimidating, and examples of failed intimidation checks. These, in and of themselves, do not discount Strength being intimidating. So we're just left sort of speaking in circles.

[lesser_minion]

Why are so many words being spent on the not-in-dispute position that "strength and size can be intimidating"?

The question is whether changing the key attribute for an intimidate check is an appropriate way of modelling the effect.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm sure that an audit of this thread will demonstrate that, on balance, much of the discussion is in fact due to comments that Strength cannot be intimidating.

And for all of the pages we have gone through covering this, I'm also quite sure that most of the comments to that effect can be answered quite simply and wholly with either of "Yeah, and Strength can do that too" or "Yeah but that also applies to Charisma".

[lesser_minion]

I'm sure that an audit of this thread will demonstrate that, on balance, much of the discussion is in fact due to comments that Strength cannot be intimidating.

After skimming the first eight pages, I don't think I saw even one serious claim that strength isn't intimidating.

[Tanarii]

After skimming the first eight pages, I don't think I saw even one serious claim that strength isn't intimidating.

Strength is not intimidating. I am not intimidated by people that are six inches shorter than me and can thoroughly out bench press, push up, dead lift, and frankly punch harder and faster than me because of their superior muscles. Am am intimidated by those who have demonstrated they can take me down, but that isn't predicted by strength. It's due to training or weight class.

Strength AND Size can be intimidating. But strength is not a size stat.

[Dr.Samurai]

After skimming the first eight pages, I don't think I saw even one serious claim that strength isn't intimidating.

Interesting, because the argument begins literally on page 1 of this thread...

Strength is not intimidating. I am not intimidated by people that are six inches shorter than me and can thoroughly out bench press, push up, dead lift, and frankly punch harder and faster than me because of their superior muscles. Am am intimidated by those who have demonstrated they can take me down, but that isn't predicted by strength. It's due to training or weight class.

To demonstrate my point... "Yeah but that also applies to Charisma".

I can be equally as dismissive in the other direction. "I am not intimidated by people that can't see over a kitchen countertop without getting on their tippy toes, even though they have more presence or force of personality than I do. A 3ft halfling trying to intimidate me will make me laugh uncontrollably before cowing me with their most menacing glare and threat."

The argument against Strength is tautological. It's just Strength doesn't matter because Strength doesn't matter. The assumption here is that ANY NPC in the game world will simply not be persuaded by physical violence or hostile actions. I can neither be intimidated by a big strong brute, nor can I laugh at a tiny halfling no taller than a baseball bat, because someone's size and strength simply do not matter for completely arbitrary reasons.

Strength AND Size can be intimidating. But strength is not a size stat.

What is intimidating about size that isn't based on Strength?

[Psyren]

The reason I think Intimidation defaults to Cha rather than Str, is that the former works in all scenarios - including ones where the target can't see you or your muscles. Dark room? Through a door? Through a Sending? Over the phone? Cha works every time, whereas Str is more limited.

The question is whether changing the key attribute for an intimidate check is an appropriate way of modelling the effect.

The answer to this is going to be table-dependent. It works fine for mine (and clearly for the 5e design team) but it may not for others, and that's okay.

[animorte]

What is intimidating about size that isn't based on Strength?

I don’t really know if this counts as a good enough answer, but I’m quite taller than average. I’ve been informed several times that I come across as intimidating even though I have a swimmer physique. Maybe it’s just my intense face? I’m not entirely sure, but none of that is relevant to strength (and my obvious lack there-of).

[Dr.Samurai]

I don’t really know if this counts as a good enough answer, but I’m quite taller than average. I’ve been informed several times that I come across as intimidating even though I have a swimmer physique. Maybe it’s just my intense face? I’m not entirely sure, but none of that is relevant to strength (and my obvious lack there-of).

It's hard to say, unless people directly tell you that it's because you're tall. Which would be pretty normal. Height is one trait that people use to judge others, consciously and subconsciously.

The thing that we're never going to find in these threads is a definitive reason why people can't be intimidated by Strength. Because it doesn't exist. Anyone could, as someone did earlier, list a bunch of stuff that they think is more intimidating than Strength. I can agree with all of those. But I also think Strength can be intimidating.

Just think of yourself for a moment. Whether it's your height, or your intense face, or a combination of both, I would put money down that if we packed on a bunch of muscles on you, the intimidation effect would be even more pronounced.

Conversely, let's shrink you down to the size of a halfling, so 3ft tall, and let's reduce your strength to below average, so 8, it's a dump stat. Will people find you passively intimidating still? I highly doubt it.

But in the game, we simply accept as normal, that this toddler-sized rogue with 8 Strength is going to threaten a guard twice his size AND twice as Strong as him (16 Str) because he used magic charisma beams to say something scary. It's total nonsense.

But somehow, a big strong barbarian with a big axe intimidating someone is beyond the pale for some reason .

[animorte]

Anyone could, as someone did earlier, list a bunch of stuff that they think is more intimidating than Strength. I can agree with all of those. But I also think Strength can be intimidating.

Absolutely agreed. I think it’s fair to say that many people are of their specific perception on a great many things. Those same people can be extremely open in a number of any other topics.

[Mastikator]

Strength is not intimidating. I am not intimidated by people that are six inches shorter than me and can thoroughly out bench press, push up, dead lift, and frankly punch harder and faster than me because of their superior muscles. Am am intimidated by those who have demonstrated they can take me down, but that isn't predicted by strength. It's due to training or weight class.

Strength AND Size can be intimidating. But strength is not a size stat.

So a goliath with a big axe is allowed to use strength for intimidate, but a gnome barbarian with a hand axe is not?

I'm... actually OK with that. Makes a decent amount of sense from a verisimilitude point of view.

[Kane0]

The reason I think Intimidation defaults to Cha rather than Str, is that the former works in all scenarios - including ones where the target can't see you or your muscles. Dark room? Through a door? Through a Sending? Over the phone? Cha works every time, whereas Str is more limited.

Good point.

Edit: the inverse can also happen too, someone using their imposing might to cow and instill fear without speaking or even acknowleding the existence of any one particular onlooker. I suppose a glare to accompany that would still default to charisma though.

[Tanarii]

So a goliath with a big axe is allowed to use strength for intimidate, but a gnome barbarian with a hand axe is not?

I'm... actually OK with that. Makes a decent amount of sense from a verisimilitude point of view.

I'm not. Because strength isn't the tool being used. Weight class compared to the target is. And the axe of course, because weapons are usually viewed as dangerous, although even that might not hold particularly true to a magic using individual. Now if you want to argue for a Size (Intimidation) check, that's a different discussion.

But what's really the deciding factor is having the capability to convince the other person that the tool at hand is a threat to them. Doesn't matter if it's weight class, a weapon, a threat to their family or livelihood, or demonstrated magic. The tool may even only be reputation, such as a famous warrior, being known as a gang boss by name, or being a known magician.

Regardless of the tool, it's capability to convince the other person to do what you want (Charisma) by using threats (Intimidation). A Strength (Intimidate) check is used for resolving a question of if you can apply brute force (Strength) by using threats (Intimidation).

[Mastikator]

I'm not. Because strength isn't the tool being used. Weight class compared to the target is. And the axe of course, because weapons are usually viewed as dangerous, although even that might not hold particularly true to a magic using individual. Now if you want to argue for a Size (Intimidarion) check, that's a different discussion,

But what's really the deciding factor is having the capability to convince the other person that the tool at hand is a threat to them. Doesn't matter if it's weight class, a weapon, a threat to their family or livelihood, or demonstrated magic. The tool may even only be reputation, such as a famous warrior, being known as a gang boss by name, or being a known magician.

Regardless of the tool, it's capability to convince the other person to do what you want (Charisma) by using threats (Intimidation). A Strength (Intimidate) check is used for resolving a question of if you can apply brute force (Strength) by using threats (Intimidation).

I'm confused, can be strength AND size intimidating or not?

[lesser_minion]

Interesting, because the argument begins literally on page 1 of this thread...

The argument began by explicitly pointing out that your intimidate skill modifier is not a statement of how scary you are.

[Satinavian]

I'm confused, can be strength AND size intimidating or not?

If you really wanted to, you could give a +4 size bonus to the Charisma check to intimidate by threatening physical violence for huge creatures and a -4 size malus for small ones. And even extend this from tiny to gargantuan. But that would both destroy bounded accuracy and be counter to the D&D5 design philosophy (most other systems already do have modifiers for scariness in place) so it might be better to just leave the Charisma checks as they are.

[lesser_minion]

If you really wanted to, you could give a +4 size bonus to the Charisma check to intimidate by threatening physical violence for huge creatures and a -4 size malus for small ones. And even extend this from tiny to gargantuan. But that would both destroy bounded accuracy and be counter to the D&D5 design philosophy (most other systems already do have modifiers for scariness in place) so it might be better to just leave the Charisma checks as they are.

One of the most famous intimidate check failures in history involved the target witnessing the total destruction of what was later revealed to be two planets. The amount of force you can bring to bear isn't meaningless, but it only counts for so much, regardless of game system or edition.

This also goes the other way, as was discussed earlier in the thread. Grabbing someone by the neck and lifting them off the ground attracts a huge bonus, but if the target is an average human male, it only displays a strength score of 13 (a +1 modifier). Strength is certainly a factor, but this example reduces to "you engaged the target in combat and utterly trounced them" (grabbing and lifting someone being a special case of grappling and 'pinning' them). And that should probably count for far more than the difference between +1 and your charisma modifier, especially since utterly trouncing someone in combat should probably still be beneficial even if done with 13/12/12/12/12/12.

[Mastikator]

If you really wanted to, you could give a +4 size bonus to the Charisma check to intimidate by threatening physical violence for huge creatures and a -4 size malus for small ones. And even extend this from tiny to gargantuan. But that would both destroy bounded accuracy and be counter to the D&D5 design philosophy (most other systems already do have modifiers for scariness in place) so it might be better to just leave the Charisma checks as they are.

Oh I already outlined how I play * in the 3rd post. Roleplay first- player describes what they want to do, how they do it, and what the goal is, then decide if a check is needed and what ability score and skill is appropriate.

* (and solved this thread's entire problem, seriously I /thread'd it right there)

[lesser_minion]

Oh I already outlined how I play * in the 3rd post. Roleplay first- player describes what they want to do, how they do it, and what the goal is, then decide if a check is needed and what ability score and skill is appropriate.

* (and solved this thread's entire problem, seriously I /thread'd it right there)

How does this address the question posed by the thread?

[Mastikator]

How does this address the question posed by the thread?

The OP, and everyone arguing whether intimidate should be charisma or strength, are putting the cart before the horse. The intimidation skill is an abstraction and a category. Not a task or action or behavior. You start with the actual task, action or behavior and only then decide what roll is called for, what ability score and skill to use.

Nobody should ever be saying "I want to make an intimidation check". Don't ask for skill checks. Tell the DM what you want to do and what you want to achieve. I've seen many new players do this mistake, I always tell them to stop a second and just describe what they are doing.

Declaring that the abstract skill category of intimidation always uses charisma (or strength for that matter, not that anybody in this thread has argued for that) is treating the tabletop game like a video game. This whole problem evaporates if you just roleplay. Literally just roleplay and there is no problem, the premise of the thread is backwards.

Edit-

I feel like I can't stress this enough. "Literally just roleplay" really is a silver bullet. It solves every problem presented in this thread. It is a flawless solution. You will never go wrong if you just roleplay first and pick ability score and skill second. It's the perfect way to run the game.

Every problem, every objection, every weird outcome presented in this thread are all results of doing things backwards. It's always weird if you pick a skill and ability score before roleplaying, or try to shoe horn an ability score and skill into every tangential scenario. Always always always pick the ability score and skill AFTER you have described your action and desired outcome. There are no problems with this way of playing, it is literally perfect. Just roleplay.

[icefractal]

But in the game, we simply accept as normal, that this toddler-sized rogue with 8 Strength is going to threaten a guard twice his size AND twice as Strong as him (16 Str) because he used magic charisma beams to say something scary. It's total nonsense.

I mean, is this happening in 5E? Because in that case Dexterity is literally just as deadly as Strength. If the halfling has 18 Dex to the guard's 16 Str, he's strictly better in a fight - and that's before even factoring in class abilities or anything. If toddlers could kick your ass IRL, then yeah people would get intimidated by them.

Like, I get the logic for Strength-intimidate, I just think it applies equally to Dex and arguably to Int/Wis with the right demonstration. And that some non-stat things have just as good a case as well.

Edit: Oh - another example of "size/strength is not the only factor" - which do you find more threatening? A hand-sized scorpion, or an average sheep? The sheep is considerably larger and stronger than the scorpion, after all.

[KorvinStarmast]

The assertion disguised as a question is framed badly.

Strength and physical presence may help in an attempt to intimidate, but it depends on the situation. This digital on/off approach is the problem, and it's an own goal. If you want to play digital on/off games, the computer and the console are right over there ====> === there are some wonderful games to play on them. (I spent time addicted to Starcraft, Myst, and Diablo at various times of my life)

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean, is this happening in 5E? Because in that case Dexterity is literally just as deadly as Strength. If the halfling has 18 Dex to the guard's 16 Str, he's strictly better in a fight - and that's before even factoring in class abilities or anything.

Sure but I'm not arguing that a display of hostile/lethal dexterity wouldn't be intimidating, so that was not the point.

The point is that it is ridiculous to assume that the default assumption (Cha) would just naturally be Intimidating universally given the example I provided. If Dexterity is getting in the way, take a halfling lore bard with 8 Strength and 16 Charisma instead, no melee capabilities.

The idea that a trained warrior twice as big and twice as strong will definitely be cowed by the words of a child sized person is ridiculous. But we accept it. In the same vein, we should accept big strong warriors substituting Strength in when appropriate.

If toddlers could kick your ass IRL, then yeah people would get intimidated by them.

Sure, and big strong barbarians can kick your behind IRL as well so I agree people should be intimidated by them as well.

Like, I get the logic for Strength-intimidate, I just think it applies equally to Dex and arguably to Int/Wis with the right demonstration. And that some non-stat things have just as good a case as well.

I agree that with a proper application of roleplaying any number of things can be used or can influence the roll. The difference is that some people seem to agree with that... and then make a singular exception for Strength.

And some of us could (and have, though it's not necessary) make the argument that Strength is visibly and obviously present, and someone can size up another person and make that comparison immediately upon seeing them. Whereas something like Dexterity might not be obvious until a display occurs.

Edit: Oh - another example of "size/strength is not the only factor" - which do you find more threatening? A hand-sized scorpion, or an average sheep? The sheep is considerably larger and stronger than the scorpion, after all.

Sure but... you can step on a scorpion, you can kick a scorpion away, you can brush it away with a broom, you can step over it or around it, etc etc etc. Alternatively, I'm sure there's a number of hilarious videos on YouTube of people being chased by sheep and rams that are trying to headbutt them. But I don't think this is the right comparison anyways. Take the scorpion in one scenario, and imagine how you might bypass it or avoid it and still get what you want. Then take that scorpion and double it in size, and the double it again, and again. And see if you get to a size and damage die where suddenly it will stop you from attempting what you want to do. I'm quite sure that once this thing was the size of even a small or medium sized dog people will look at it completely differently.

ALL THAT SAID... remember we're talking about PC adventurers. So this size and strength is equipped with a brain that has proficiency in combat and Intimidation. Again, there's a mind here for doling out pain/harm and leveraging that to Intimidate people. And that mind is on a 6'4 frame packed with heavy muscles. If I know the toddler can hurt me, I should also be able to deduce that the barbarian can hurt me.

[lesser_minion]

The intimidation skill is an abstraction and a category. Not a task or action or behavior. You start with the actual task, action or behavior and only then decide what roll is called for, what ability score and skill to use.

Nobody should ever be saying "I want to make an intimidation check". Don't ask for skill checks. Tell the DM what you want to do and what you want to achieve. I've seen many new players do this mistake, I always tell them to stop a second and just describe what they are doing.

Declaring that the abstract skill category of intimidation always uses charisma (or strength for that matter, not that anybody in this thread has argued for that) is treating the tabletop game like a video game. This whole problem evaporates if you just roleplay. Literally just roleplay and there is no problem, the premise of the thread is backwards.

You're trying to put forward these principles as if they're not widely followed by the people you're disagreeing with, but the OP itself repeatedly invokes them, and multiple arguments within this thread have been about how very specific cases ought to be handled.

The fact that this isn't a computer game is actually a good reason not to model different situations by changing the ability modifier for skill checks on the fly. A real DM can use their knowledge of the situation and the character's declared intent and approach to come up with a circumstance bonus that will do the same thing far better, and in a far more robust manner.

[Easy e]

I don’t really know if this counts as a good enough answer, but I’m quite taller than average. I’ve been informed several times that I come across as intimidating even though I have a swimmer physique. Maybe it’s just my intense face? I’m not entirely sure, but none of that is relevant to strength (and my obvious lack there-of).

Yes, and I am short, pudgy, balding and wear glasses and people have told me that I come across as intimidating because of my intensity, willingness to act, social status, and other factors. My appearance is not intimidating, but my persona and status is.

Hence, the main driver of intimidation should be Charisma.

Now, that does not mean that there are never times strength and size play a part in intimidation, which is why the GM can rule on the attribute check, appropriate modifiers, and the DC. The beauty of TTRPGS is that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules and how to apply them.

[Pex]

I mean, is this happening in 5E? Because in that case Dexterity is literally just as deadly as Strength. If the halfling has 18 Dex to the guard's 16 Str, he's strictly better in a fight - and that's before even factoring in class abilities or anything. If toddlers could kick your ass IRL, then yeah people would get intimidated by them.

Like, I get the logic for Strength-intimidate, I just think it applies equally to Dex and arguably to Int/Wis with the right demonstration. And that some non-stat things have just as good a case as well.

Edit: Oh - another example of "size/strength is not the only factor" - which do you find more threatening? A hand-sized scorpion, or an average sheep? The sheep is considerably larger and stronger than the scorpion, after all.

It makes sense for the guard not to be intimidated by the short weak halfling. Happens a lot in general stories for the small and meek to get laughed at trying to be tough. Intimidation failed, the halfling attacks and through his dexterity outfights the guard. Also a common occurrence against those who did the laughing by the small and meek.

[Mastikator]

You're trying to put forward these principles as if they're not widely followed by the people you're disagreeing with, but the OP itself repeatedly invokes them, and multiple arguments within this thread have been about how very specific cases ought to be handled.

The fact that this isn't a computer game is actually a good reason not to model different situations by changing the ability modifier for skill checks on the fly. A real DM can use their knowledge of the situation and the character's declared intent and approach to come up with a circumstance bonus that will do the same thing far better, and in a far more robust manner.

Yes. I am putting these principles as if it's not widely followed, because it isn't. This whole thread is like asking "what is the best color for swords" "well my character has a blue sword" "yeah but my character prefers red swords" "hey aren't swords steel colored". My dudes, it's a banal question. Whether strength or charisma is the best for intimidation is banal. It depends on the situation.

For 12 pages this thread has gone on, people not agreeing on scenarios, not agreeing on details, finding loopholes in each others scenarios of why one ability score is better than another. But no ability score is automatically correct. It depends on what you're doing. There /thread

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes. I am putting these principles as if it's not widely followed, because it isn't. This whole thread is like asking "what is the best color for swords" "well my character has a blue sword" "yeah but my character prefers red swords" "hey aren't swords steel colored". My dudes, it's a banal question. Whether strength or charisma is the best for intimidation is banal. It depends on the situation.

For 12 pages this thread has gone on, people not agreeing on scenarios, not agreeing on details, finding loopholes in each others scenarios of why one ability score is better than another. But no ability score is automatically correct. It depends on what you're doing. There /thread

Indeed.

The OP titled the thread incorrectly. As they think that muscles either determine an auto-success at Intimidation, or a lower DC when a check is called for. Both of these I would interpret as "improving Intimidate".

But yeah, I think people in this thread are mostly united in that most of us think any number of circumstances can influence an Intimidation check. Just some of us include Strength in that.

EDIT: I wanted to add on to a comment someone made about 13 strength and lifting someone up by their neck, but I actually don't see it anymore so not sure if that was another thread. But I think one my the issues I run up against with this debate typically is that a lot is foisted onto a positive or negative charisma score that I think really seems unwarranted. I liken it to arguing that someone can't walk without a positive Strength score. The arguments generally take the form as to suggest that player characters simply have no knowledge of interacting with others in a meaningful way without making a charisma check and having a decent charisma. There's no base level of understanding of interaction and communication. It's just "8 charisma? you deserve to suffer in all interactions because your character would have NO CLUE how to engage with other people". There's this major resistance to the idea that, yeah, this warrior has an 8 charisma, but with his experience literally murdering other people, and having a prime physique and understanding of his own physicality, and being proficient in Intimidation, he can actually be very intimidating under certain circumstances if he tries. Nothing that I just said there matters because ALL understanding of human interaction is gated behind... I don't know what... an average charisma? Positive charisma? Point being, I think it doesn't make sense and I don't think the game intends for each ability score to lock behind it literally every basic skill/trait/understanding of everything in its purview.

[Liquor Box]

Strength AND Size can be intimidating. But strength is not a size stat.

Strength and size closely correlate in real life. Whether they do in RPG systems probably depends which game or system you are using.

So a goliath with a big axe is allowed to use strength for intimidate, but a gnome barbarian with a hand axe is not?

I'm... actually OK with that. Makes a decent amount of sense from a verisimilitude point of view.

I agree, but mostly because I think it breaks verisimilitude for the gnome to be stronger than the goliath in normal circumstances. I know it might be possibly under same game rules, but it is a bit silly.

Yes, and I am short, pudgy, balding and wear glasses and people have told me that I come across as intimidating because of my intensity, willingness to act, social status, and other factors. My appearance is not intimidating, but my persona and status is.

Hence, the main driver of intimidation should be Charisma.

No, this just means that charisma is the main driver of intimidation for you. Everyone, except I think one poster, agrees that either charisma or strength can be intimidating.

This also goes the other way, as was discussed earlier in the thread. Grabbing someone by the neck and lifting them off the ground attracts a huge bonus, but if the target is an average human male, it only displays a strength score of 13 (a +1 modifier). Strength is certainly a factor, but this example reduces to "you engaged the target in combat and utterly trounced them" (grabbing and lifting someone being a special case of grappling and 'pinning' them). And that should probably count for far more than the difference between +1 and your charisma modifier, especially since utterly trouncing someone in combat should probably still be beneficial even if done with 13/12/12/12/12/12.

Which rule system are using for that - because I don't think someone of slightly above average human strength (probably no more than average human strength) can lift a human weight at the neck. A person of normal strength might be able to deadlift their own body weight (and this is perhaps what the lift stat you are thinking of is), but there is much less leverage lifting something at neck height with your arms.