Here is the reality - the OP is not asking for anyone to pontificate on why Intimidate is a CHA check, they are merely asking what can be done about it, since, objectively, the game de facto forces you to take CHA as a stat, even if it does not make sense for your character. That is bad game design and the OP wants to know what alternatives there are.
Just as Strength is the ability score the game uses to move heavy things, Charisma is the the ability score the game uses to move people. I would absolutely let a player convince me to let them roll Intelligence (Athletics) to use geometry and angles and leverage to lift above their weight class, but let's not pretend it's bad game design for the game to say "if you want to lift things, invest in Strength." It doesn't really matter what the OP is asking. If what they're asking assumes a premise that many people disagree with, it's neither fair nor reasonable to complain about "pontificating" when people dispute that premise.
Thanks. I feel like I'm losing my mind on these forums sometimes. The six ability scores are six different scores for a reason. Some of them are low and some are high for your character, and that determines what they're good at. If it was gonna be "use whatever is best for you," why have six? Just have one, and tell players to flavor it however they want to.
Everybody would benefit from being able to shoot a crossbow with extreme accuracy. Should I be locked out of that just because I dumped Dexterity? YES.
By the way, the "dumped STR for INT" method of lifting things is the block and tackle. Costs a single gold piece and leverages scientific principles to dramatically increase the weight you can lift.
If you want to have strict rules binding skills to one ability, that's fine. You can do that, and you're not the only DM who runs their game like that. But as cited many many times in this thread, the actual rules do give the DM the option to float skills to other abilities. This isn't a right or wrong argument, this is a playstyle argument. As Caerwyn has spent a few posts trying to explain to you, this thread started out with the OP looking for help and options with in the game to give them the flexibility float skills to other abilities (as the rules actually present). And the OP has been presented not with any sort of D&D heterodoxy but actual guidance presented with the rules. You're saying it can't be done, or is somehow rule breaking, when the fact of the matter is you simply don't like it.
Combat rolls are different from skills, which is why they have a whole set of rules discussed in a chapter called "combat" separate from where skill checks are discussed. Introducing combat as a way to justify your tightly bond skills ruling is fine to articulate your preference, but again, skills are specifically pointed out as a space where DMs can run fuzzy. There are other ways you can make combat fuzzy too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Here is the reality - the OP is not asking for anyone to pontificate on why Intimidate is a CHA check, they are merely asking what can be done about it, since, objectively, the game de facto forces you to take CHA as a stat, even if it does not make sense for your character. That is bad game design and the OP wants to know what alternatives there are.
(Snip)
(Snip)
If you want to have strict rules binding skills to one ability, that's fine. You can do that, and you're not the only DM who runs their game like that. But as cited many many times in this thread, the actual rules do give the DM the option to float skills to other abilities. This isn't a right or wrong argument, this is a playstyle argument. As Caerwyn has spent a few posts trying to explain to you, this thread started out with the OP looking for help and options with in the game to give them the flexibility float skills to other abilities (as the rules actually present). And the OP has been presented not with any sort of D&D heterodoxy but actual guidance presented with the rules. You're saying it can't be done, or is somehow rule breaking, when the fact of the matter is you simply don't like it.
No, the reason I'm not repeating what everyone else has already cited is that it would be pointless to do so. What I'm attempting to do is demonstrate that OP shouldn't expect to get *more* than what they've already been told.
There's an instinct to say, "well, this is a small concession, but it isn't doing enough," or, "this sets a precedent, so I ought to be able to do more." But in this case, it would be inappropriate, in my opinion. I'm trying to show why.
I could've been more clear about that, I suppose.
(Nice use of "heterodoxy," I don't think I've ever heard that before. I'm stealing it.)
I'm blanking on how it works, but Cyberpunk Red has a pretty nifty "facedown" mechanic. I think the games COOL ability was key there.
I think part of the problem is that CHR is a stat that does a mix of unrelated things. It's the "charming socialite" stat requisite for Bards, but it's also the sheer willpower stat in place of a WILL stat requisite for Sorces and Warlocks. Yes, some willful people are quite charismatic in the conventional sense, but many are not. Intimidation, basically bullying, as an act of conventionally understood out of game charisma can be a bit of stretch. But it's where the skill default lands. The only instance I can really think of it working well as a CHR skill is if it's partnered with another character with high persuasion an they're doing respective good cop bad cop roles and rolls during interrogation.
This isn't a right or wrong argument, this is a playstyle argument. As Caerwyn has spent a few posts trying to explain to you, this thread started out with the OP looking for help and options with in the game to give them the flexibility float skills to other abilities (as the rules actually present).
It may have become a "playstyle argument", but OP's premise still seemed flawed to me. The character they described would not have a low CHA -- or rather, if the character they made had a low CHA and thus a low bonus on basic Intimidation checks, simply saying there's a 'tense atmosphere around him' wouldn't automatically grant a bigger bonus
Even if your DM gives you the option of making an Intimidation (Strength) check, you still have to explain why that would be more appropriate in a particular situation than an Intimidation (Charisma) check. It's not going to be the default
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This isn't a right or wrong argument, this is a playstyle argument. As Caerwyn has spent a few posts trying to explain to you, this thread started out with the OP looking for help and options with in the game to give them the flexibility float skills to other abilities (as the rules actually present).
It may have become a "playstyle argument", but OP's premise still seemed flawed to me. The character they described would not have a low CHA -- or rather, if the character they made had a low CHA and thus a low bonus on basic Intimidation checks, simply saying there's a 'tense atmosphere around him' wouldn't automatically grant a bigger bonus
Even if your DM gives you the option of making an Intimidation (Strength) check, you still have to explain why that would be more appropriate in a particular situation than an Intimidation (Charisma) check. It's not going to be the default
Not neccesarily, when I DM, I usually have it be a Strength (Intimidation) check and you have to justify it if you want to use charisma.
Otherwise, the main answer to why strength would be more appropriate in most situations is this: Shouldn't how intimidating you are be reflected off how big, strong and scary you are? Yes, their are certain times when it makes more sense to use a different ability score. I don't think it's reasonable for the norm to be that how intimidating you are is based off how charismatic you are, so in my opinion at least, Strength (Intimidation) should be the default.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Otherwise, the main answer to why strength would be more appropriate in most situations is this: Shouldn't how intimidating you are be reflected off how big, strong and scary you are?
No. A demonstration of "I'm really scary" can be useful, but there's nothing specific to strength there, every class in D&D has plenty of potential for horrific violence.
For better or worse, Charisma is a stat in the game. It's poorly explained, people tend to consider it the "Peoplemancy" stat, but it is also generally held to be a person's presence, intensity, and force of personality. Choosing to dump Charisma because you don't see your character as being a Good Speaker and a peoplemancer means your character has a tendency to come off as mild, unimpressive, or ignorable. You do not have "an air of tension" about you, because that is directly a function of one's force of presence. Perhaps, despite your mass and muscular bulk, you simply look funny and tend to provoke "awwh, he's so cute" reactions. Or, as Pantagruel has stated, you can be frightening without being compelling. Rather than seeing your attempts at threats as a goad/incentive to do as you like, they see you as a rabid animal they need to get away from.
That, in fact, very much fits the whole "raised by wolves, barely able to understand language, super low Charisma Barbles McAxefacer" archetype - they're bad at getting what they want with Intimidation because whenever they try they Cause A Scene instead. As one example, the whole "I quietly threaten to slit somebody's throat if they don't replace the drink they spilled" thing is a Charisma (Intimidation) check because the player is attempting to overmatch their target's force of presence. They are attempting to cow the target and compel obedience with a quiet but deeply heartfelt promise of violence.
The character that smashes a chair on their forehead, draws their weapon and arms their shield, and begins smashing the former into the latter while glaring at the NPC that spilled their drink? They're not going to get a new drink, and they're not going to get a Strength (Intimidation) check, because at my table they've just started a bar fight and/or riot. That reaction is wildly disproportionate to the offense given and a character who undertakes it is likely to be treated as a brutal savage that needs to be contained or expelled rather than accomodated. "Keep that brute out of my tavern!", rather than "oh gosh I'm sorry, here have a fresh drink!"
Savagery is not intimidation. Brutality is not intimidation. Intimidation is being able to convince someone with your words or actions that they have two choices - do what you want or suffer harm. A low-Charisma barbarian wrecking furniture and screaming his rage is going to convince someone with their words/actions that they have two choices - be elsewhere or get caught in the splash zone. Those are not equivalent actions, nor equivalent results.
It is the DM that can choose to substitute these skills, not the player.
We're all looking at the idea of a huge, muscle-bound brute trying to use their strength to intimidate someone, but it's important to note that intimidating someone as a charisma skill is different to intimidating them as a strength skill - it depends on your desired result.
For example:
Brutey mcangerface the barbarian kills a goblin, and now wants to intimidate the last one to show them the way out of the caves. They can do the folowing:
1: Brutey McAngerface clashes his weapon to his shield and bellows a warcry to intimidate the goblin using Strength, resulting in the goblin dropping his weapons and running as fast as possible away from him. This did not achieve what he wanted, despite the check succeeding.
2: Brutey McAngerface turns to look at the goblin, not moving to avoid startling him, and whispers into the silence that followed the first goblins death; "If you run, I will kill you. Show us the way out, and you live". A successful Intimidation (Charisma) check will result in just that - the goblin will comply, and show them the way out.
3: Sparkly McMagichat, who's Brutey's adventuring buddy, instead steps in using an illusion spell to make the corridor behind the goblin appear closed. He tells the goblin to throw down his weapons, using another spell to make himself appear larger and more intimidating, with swirling magic fire and what have you. An Intimidation(Intelligence) check would allow him to convince the goblin with his magic.
Further to this, we are considering the idea of this large muscular adventurer being notably so - a Str 18 adventurer in an ogre mining town might be weaker than your average joe, so saying "I'm big and strong" might not get you anything except a round of laughter. The linked picture, for example, might elicit ridicule instead - "Why's he wearing the bag on his head, is he realy ugly?", rather than "oh, this guy is scary".
Finally, some people don't see big and strong as a threat. Try to intimidate the skinny guy with mad knife skills by being bigger than him. Terrify the small waif at the bar who's also a master poisoner by showing how large of a target you are for a poisoned dart. Flash your muscles to the guy in the suit who happens to be the leader of the thieves guild in this city. There are limited applications for "show off how stong I am" as a substitute for proper intimidation.
For better or worse, Charisma is a stat in the game. It's poorly explained, people tend to consider it the "Peoplemancy" stat, but it is also generally held to be a person's presence, intensity, and force of personality. Choosing to dump Charisma because you don't see your character as being a Good Speaker and a peoplemancer means your character has a tendency to come off as mild, unimpressive, or ignorable. You do not have "an air of tension" about you, because that is directly a function of one's force of presence. Perhaps, despite your mass and muscular bulk, you simply look funny and tend to provoke "awwh, he's so cute" reactions. Or, as Pantagruel has stated, you can be frightening without being compelling. Rather than seeing your attempts at threats as a goad/incentive to do as you like, they see you as a rabid animal they need to get away from.
That, in fact, very much fits the whole "raised by wolves, barely able to understand language, super low Charisma Barbles McAxefacer" archetype - they're bad at getting what they want with Intimidation because whenever they try they Cause A Scene instead. As one example, the whole "I quietly threaten to slit somebody's throat if they don't replace the drink they spilled" thing is a Charisma (Intimidation) check because the player is attempting to overmatch their target's force of presence. They are attempting to cow the target and compel obedience with a quiet but deeply heartfelt promise of violence.
The character that smashes a chair on their forehead, draws their weapon and arms their shield, and begins smashing the former into the latter while glaring at the NPC that spilled their drink? They're not going to get a new drink, and they're not going to get a Strength (Intimidation) check, because at my table they've just started a bar fight and/or riot. That reaction is wildly disproportionate to the offense given and a character who undertakes it is likely to be treated as a brutal savage that needs to be contained or expelled rather than accomodated. "Keep that brute out of my tavern!", rather than "oh gosh I'm sorry, here have a fresh drink!"
Savagery is not intimidation. Brutality is not intimidation. Intimidation is being able to convince someone with your words or actions that they have two choices - do what you want or suffer harm. A low-Charisma barbarian wrecking furniture and screaming his rage is going to convince someone with their words/actions that they have two choices - be elsewhere or get caught in the splash zone. Those are not equivalent actions, nor equivalent results.
But strength factors into that, if the character doing the convincing looks weak and scrawny, and like their not going to be able to actually stop whoever their intimidating from running away, the [un]intimidated will just run away.
If you're not gonna make it a Strength (intimidation) check, then at least factor strength into the equation. If the player doing the intimidating doesn't like they actually are strong enough to do what they say they can, then at least give them disadvantage. Even if you have the character make a Charisma (intimidation) check, at least factor in the way they do it. (For example, bashing you shield and spear together and flexing as a show of force, might help enforce the narrative that whoever you're intimidating is out matched and doesn't have a choice but to do what you want.)
But strength factors into that, if the character doing the convincing looks weak and scrawny, and like their not going to be able to actually stop whoever their intimidating from running away, the [un]intimidated will just run away.
Intimidation requires a credible threat, but every class in D&D can offer that, and most aren't going to do it with strength.
But strength factors into that, if the character doing the convincing looks weak and scrawny, and like their not going to be able to actually stop whoever their intimidating from running away, the [un]intimidated will just run away.
If you're not gonna make it a Strength (intimidation) check, then at least factor strength into the equation. If the player doing the intimidating doesn't like they actually are strong enough to do what they say they can, then at least give them disadvantage. Even if you have the character make a Charisma (intimidation) check, at least factor in the way they do it. (For example, bashing you shield and spear together and flexing as a show of force, might help enforce the narrative that whoever you're intimidating is out matched and doesn't have a choice but to do what you want.)
You're making the mistake of assuming that the player gets to decide what they roll. They do not. The DM decides what a player rolls; the player decides what they're doing.
Incorrect: "Can I break a bunch of stuff to try and make a Strength (Intimidation) check to get the barkeep to give me free drinks?" Correct: "I walk up to the barkeep, draw my mace, and crunch it down on the stool next to me to bust it up. Then I say 'I can keep going, or you can occupy my attention with some ale. On the house'." Also Correct, if less fun: "I break the barstool next to me, hoping to intimidate the barkeep into giving me free drinks."
The player declares actions, and depending on table also declares the intent of the action. At no point is the question mark ever involved, unless the player is requesting information/clarification from the DM or unless part of the character's declared action is asking a question. The player declares actions; the DM resolves them, and one of the tools DMs use for action resolution is die rolls.
In this case, it's also a little skeevy because the player in question (generic 'player' here, not specifically the thread starter) is attempting to bypass a weakness they engineered into their character. They chose to abandon their Charisma score, but they would still like to be able to easily sway NPCs to their will. They don't want to have to suffer the drawbacks of having a low Charisma score and instead want to substitute the big beefy Strength number, instead.
Query: How would you feel about someone substituing Charisma for Strength and making a Charisma (Athletics) check? They psyche themselves up properly, give a stirring, blood-pumping speech to bolster themselves, and use their charismatic presence and force of presence to bust down a door. Perfectly valid, right? Totally legit? Or is it an absolute crock of piss and any DM who allows it needs to be put through remedial DMing lessons?
Strength is not Charisma. Athletics is not Intimidation. Athletics is also not Acrobatics and everybody who keeps allowing people to dump Strength and then ignore that penalty in favor of being acrobatic is doing themselves and their tables a disservice. One can absolutely unhook skills from ability scores. I will never be okay with the fact that no DM in the history of 5e has ever allowed someone to make an Intelligence (Persuasion) to try and win someone over with reason, logic, researched facts, and professional expertise rather than with amiability and charismatic pull...but when I'm playing, I don't get to make that call. I don't get to try and hornswoggle a DM into ignoring my tabaxi wizard's meh Charisma in favor of her superhuman Intelligence just because I like the IQ number better than the CH one.
Nor does someone else get to try and turn every Charisma check they make into a Strength check just because they like being the Big Guy and decided they didn't want to bother with being Nice while they went about it.
I will never be okay with the fact that no DM in the history of 5e has ever allowed someone to make an Intelligence (Persuasion) to try and win someone over with reason, logic, researched facts, and professional expertise rather than with amiability and charismatic pull
The ultimate fantasy in a fantasy RPG -- a world that acts the way it ought to, rather than the way it actually does
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But strength factors into that, if the character doing the convincing looks weak and scrawny, and like their not going to be able to actually stop whoever their intimidating from running away, the [un]intimidated will just run away.
Intimidation requires a credible threat, but every class in D&D can offer that, and most aren't going to do it with strength.
You keep saying this like it is an actual argument to support your “what if I want to keep offering unhelpful posts trying to convince the OP that the rules are wrong and modified skill checks shouldn’t be used (despite them being RAW).”
It was a bad argument when you first made it - and when you made it on subsequent times - for three reasons: (1) it goes against RAW; (2) it does not actually answer the OP and shows you care more about your incorrect interpretation of RAW than actually helping the OP; and (3) doesn’t actually make sense in the context of the real world.
Take two people, both of similar large builds, both who could obviously beat you up. One of them convincingly says “I want to beat you up” (CHA intimidate); the other says nothing, but glares at you and smashes a table (STR Intimidate… OR Athletics check + advantage on CHA intimidate for effectiveness of the glare). RAW allows the DM to come up with multiple options because Wizards realises that sycophantic dedication to Intimidate (CHA) cannot reflect reality.
As for the argument I keep seeing people make that you need Charisma to convince others that you will use force, which is why it has to be a CHA check (again, despite RAW) it is hard to assume anything other than those individuals have not actually interacted with many people who utilise intimidation for criminal ends/to abuse their family/etc. The simple reality is that there are plenty of folks with rather low charisma who are still capable of intimidating others by using other mechanisms at their disposal - which is why RAW allows such.
But, since it is clear neither RAW nor a common sense view of reality has convinced those still thinking it is appropriate to proselytise rather than help the OP, I will leave it with this: OP, if you are still following this thread, the folks who keep telling you that you cannot do this are simply wrong. The Rules specifically allow the DM to take other factors into account to do something like (1) make a STR + Intimidate modifier check (usually with a roleplaying element to justify the modified check), (2) do an an athletics check to get advantage on your CHA intimidate check, (3) use an athletics check to reduce the DC of the check, or (4) do an athletics check to assist an ally who is doing a CHA Intimidate check.
The rules as written allow you to make this kind of character - even if there are detractors on this thread who feel the need to lecture you incorrectly about what the rules allow. You should ignore all of those people (they are the same people who do this on every thread, lecturing them OP on how they think the game should be, rather than actually offering helpful and responsive advice) and talk to your DM. This is a situation DMs are given lots of leeway under the rules, so the ONLY way to fully answer your question is to present the DM with the four options I listed above and ask your DM how you want to handle it.
Here’s hoping this thread didn’t discourage you from asking for help either - most folks here actually are helpful, but there’s a very vocal minority who are convinced their way to play a game with intentionally flexible rules is the only right way to play, and they try to make it known as loudly and as often as possible, often at the expense of newer players or players just trying to get some help.
But strength factors into that, if the character doing the convincing looks weak and scrawny, and like their not going to be able to actually stop whoever their intimidating from running away, the [un]intimidated will just run away.
If you're not gonna make it a Strength (intimidation) check, then at least factor strength into the equation. If the player doing the intimidating doesn't like they actually are strong enough to do what they say they can, then at least give them disadvantage. Even if you have the character make a Charisma (intimidation) check, at least factor in the way they do it. (For example, bashing you shield and spear together and flexing as a show of force, might help enforce the narrative that whoever you're intimidating is out matched and doesn't have a choice but to do what you want.)
You're making the mistake of assuming that the player gets to decide what they roll. They do not. The DM decides what a player rolls; the player decides what they're doing.
Incorrect: "Can I break a bunch of stuff to try and make a Strength (Intimidation) check to get the barkeep to give me free drinks?" Correct: "I walk up to the barkeep, draw my mace, and crunch it down on the stool next to me to bust it up. Then I say 'I can keep going, or you can occupy my attention with some ale. On the house'." Also Correct, if less fun: "I break the barstool next to me, hoping to intimidate the barkeep into giving me free drinks."
The player declares actions, and depending on table also declares the intent of the action. At no point is the question mark ever involved, unless the player is requesting information/clarification from the DM or unless part of the character's declared action is asking a question. The player declares actions; the DM resolves them, and one of the tools DMs use for action resolution is die rolls.
In this case, it's also a little skeevy because the player in question (generic 'player' here, not specifically the thread starter) is attempting to bypass a weakness they engineered into their character. They chose to abandon their Charisma score, but they would still like to be able to easily sway NPCs to their will. They don't want to have to suffer the drawbacks of having a low Charisma score and instead want to substitute the big beefy Strength number, instead.
I will never be okay with the fact that no DM in the history of 5e has ever allowed someone to make an Intelligence (Persuasion) to try and win someone over with reason, logic, researched facts, and professional expertise rather than with amiability and charismatic pull...but when I'm playing, I don't get to make that call. I don't get to try and hornswoggle a DM into ignoring my tabaxi wizard's meh Charisma in favor of her superhuman Intelligence just because I like the IQ number better than the CH one.
Nor does someone else get to try and turn every Charisma check they make into a Strength check just because they like being the Big Guy and decided they didn't want to bother with being Nice while they went about it.
Yes, the DM does resolve the characters actions. However, if you want to intimidate someone, and you do it in a way that relies on another ability score as well, (I gave an example of this in my previous post,) then a good DM should at least reflect that somewhat into the equation. It doesn't have to be by switching the ability score the intimidation check is based off, it could just be giving your player a smaller bonus to reflect that they're playing to their strengths. But an intimidation check where someone (this is probably not a very good example, but it's one I thought of from off the top of my head) pounds their chest and roars "GIVE ME INFORMATION OR DIE" (along with other things) should probably be modified at least somewhat to reflect the persons use of physical prowess, as opposed to a way that seems to fit more with their charisma score. An intimidation check should be made in many different ways, and a good DM should account for that when telling their players what to roll for.
But strength factors into that, if the character doing the convincing looks weak and scrawny, and like their not going to be able to actually stop whoever their intimidating from running away, the [un]intimidated will just run away.
If you're not gonna make it a Strength (intimidation) check, then at least factor strength into the equation. If the player doing the intimidating doesn't like they actually are strong enough to do what they say they can, then at least give them disadvantage. Even if you have the character make a Charisma (intimidation) check, at least factor in the way they do it. (For example, bashing you shield and spear together and flexing as a show of force, might help enforce the narrative that whoever you're intimidating is out matched and doesn't have a choice but to do what you want.)
Query: How would you feel about someone substituing Charisma for Strength and making a Charisma (Athletics) check? They psyche themselves up properly, give a stirring, blood-pumping speech to bolster themselves, and use their charismatic presence and force of presence to bust down a door. Perfectly valid, right? Totally legit? Or is it an absolute crock of piss and any DM who allows it needs to be put through remedial DMing lessons?
Strength is not Charisma. Athletics is not Intimidation. Athletics is also not Acrobatics and everybody who keeps allowing people to dump Strength and then ignore that penalty in favor of being acrobatic is doing themselves and their tables a disservice.
As a DM, if you could give me a good reason why it makes sense to use charisma instead of strength for an athletics check, then I'd let you. However, giving yourself a "stirring blood-pumping speech" doesn't work and I think it's pretty obvious how a speech impacts your physical exertion a lot less than how "You have two choices and here's why," being alternated with "YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES AND HERE'S WHY!" (Cue shows of force and demonstrations.)
As for the argument I keep seeing people make that you need Charisma to convince others that you will use force
The problem with that isn't that you need a charisma check to convince others that you will use force. The problem is that what you're describing isn't intimidation. Intimidation isn't the ability to make threats, it's the ability to influence people with threats. Which is to say, they're overall more helpful than they would have been otherwise. If all you're after is making people run away, you don't need intimidation, cutting someone's head off (or a wizard setting someone on fire, or whatever) will do the job just fine.
Fundamentally, there's three parts to intimidation
The people you're targeting have to believe you're a threat.
The people you're targeting have to believe that giving you what you want is the best way to avert the threat.
No-one sends the police or a lynch mob after you.
The first of those doesn't require charisma, but it's also really easy (often, no roll required) for any D&D character, because D&D characters have a quite terrifying capacity for violence. The second is easy if your goal is to get people to run away and/or lock doors to keep you out, but if your goal is something more useful, that becomes Charisma. The third is always charisma, unless you're so dangerous that everyone just hides and hopes you go away.
As for the argument I keep seeing people make that you need Charisma to convince others that you will use force
The problem with that isn't that you need a charisma check to convince others that you will use force. The problem is that what you're describing isn't intimidation. Intimidation isn't the ability to make threats, it's the ability to influence people with threats. Which is to say, they're overall more helpful than they would have been otherwise. If all you're after is making people run away, you don't need intimidation, cutting someone's head off (or a wizard setting someone on fire, or whatever) will do the job just fine.
Conveniently snipping off the part of the post that says “if you look at real world examples, you can see plenty of folks who are able to influence others via intimidation without being charismatic” does certainly allow you to state the same thing while pretending it was not contradicted. But deciding to ignore a counter argument doesn’t change that you are still advocating for something that flies in the face of RAW and how the real world operates.
As I said - the only “correct” answer on this thread is “talk to your DM.” If you are their DM, they would not be allowed to do this. If they have a more receptive DM, they would. Both are RAW responses to this question - but, by RAW, it is a party-by-party decision, not something that you can force on the OP’s party just because you would not do it.
Take two people, both of similar large builds, both who could obviously beat you up. One of them convincingly says “I want to beat you up” (CHA intimidate); the other says nothing, but glares at you and smashes a table (STR Intimidate… OR Athletics check + advantage on CHA intimidate for effectiveness of the glare). RAW allows the DM to come up with multiple options because Wizards realises that sycophantic dedication to Intimidate (CHA) cannot reflect reality.
Sorry... as a DM, if a character smashes a table and glowers without saying anything, I wouldn't rule that they're making an Intimidation check at all using any ability, because nothing's really being communicated beyond the fact that person doesn't like tables
There has to be a point to an Intimidation check beyond simply being intimidating. Give me something to go on as a DM, even it's just, "I smash the table, raise my eyebrow and cock my head at an angle that says, Do you really want to do this?" If you don't tell me what it is you're trying to accomplish or communicate with your action, then it probably won't communicate what you intended
I don't think anyone's actually quoted the description of the skill from the PHB in this thread (emphasis added) -- it might be helpful here:
Intimidation
When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As for the argument I keep seeing people make that you need Charisma to convince others that you will use force
The problem with that isn't that you need a charisma check to convince others that you will use force. The problem is that what you're describing isn't intimidation. Intimidation isn't the ability to make threats, it's the ability to influence people with threats. Which is to say, they're overall more helpful than they would have been otherwise. If all you're after is making people run away, you don't need intimidation, cutting someone's head off (or a wizard setting someone on fire, or whatever) will do the job just fine.
Conveniently snipping off the part of the post that says “if you look at real world examples, you can see plenty of folks who are able to influence others via intimidation without being charismatic” does certainly allow you to state the same thing while pretending it was not contradicted. But deciding to ignore a counter argument doesn’t change that you are still advocating for something that flies in the face of RAW and how the real world operates.
Fine, lets address that. Here is what you said:
As for the argument I keep seeing people make that you need Charisma to convince others that you will use force, which is why it has to be a CHA check (again, despite RAW) it is hard to assume anything other than those individuals have not actually interacted with many people who utilise intimidation for criminal ends/to abuse their family/etc. The simple reality is that there are plenty of folks with rather low charisma who are still capable of intimidating others by using other mechanisms at their disposal - which is why RAW allows such.
First of all, you seem to be ignoring actual skill at intimidation. This is called proficiency and is taken into account in game. There is even the possibility of expertise in intimidation.
You seem to be conflating that with using other stats besides Charisma.
Second, and arguably more importantly, though, you seem to be assuming low charisma, or that charisma can only result from massive amounts of interaction. A hermit might not be the best educated in court etiquette, but they presumably did have parents at some point. Even characters such as Tarzan or Mowgli, who didn't grow up around humans at all but rather were literally raised by animals, are portrayed as charismatic characters.
Why would a local crime boss send someone who has no social finesse, no persuasiveness, to do the intimidating, if they have a choice? The thugs who really have low charisma would be used either as bodyguards (if high strength), advisers (high int/wis), or just cannon fodder/general labour (no particularly good stats).
Your post fails to actually respond to the issue being discussed - which is whether you can do Intimidate Modifier + Another Skill, with the discussion circling around the “another skill” section. In responding you focus on the intimidation modifier (which is not the topic of the conversation) and presume that it makes sense to be CHA (which, literally no one is saying it can’t be CHA - the discussion is about whether Wizards of the Coast was wrong to allow alternate skill check).
Then you launch into some presumptions about crime bosses that ignores the fact that (a) it’s a wrong assumption about how the real world works (plenty of criminal enterprises send bruisers without charisma for intimidation), (b) ignores the fact that many criminals act alone and might intimidate without being charismatic, and (c) ignores that there exist non-criminal ways one can intimidate others, that also need not be based on CHA. As I said earlier, anyone who thinks only the Charismatic can get their way through intimidation probably has not dealt with many folks who get their way through intimidation.
I invite you to spend some time at a courthouse watching trials - you’ll see plenty of folks who got their way through intimidation, but who, watching them testify, you’ll see clearly rolled low on their Charisma.
Again, RAW and a common sense understanding of how reality works both support Intimidate Modifier + Another Skill. It’s simply silly to double down on it having to be CHA when that flies in the face of both the rules and how the real world works.
With due respect, you again went on a tangent that was not actually what I was saying. At no point was I talking about pro se litigants who think they know the law--merely that there are plenty of folks who have low charisma but are also scary. If you have actually been in a courthouse, you would know that--there are plenty of individuals whose social skills are incredibly low, but who still managed to use physical prowess or threats of violence to get what they wanted. That's the reality that anyone saying intimidate must be CHA based that everyone is ignoring--people can be intimidating in different ways, not all of which require them to be Charismatic (actually one of two realities they are ignoring--the other is the Rules specifically allow for this).
As I said before, too many folks on this forum are too concerned about how they personally play that they often forget to actually help people asking for help. There is a reason I have not said "here is what I do" (which would not be helpful to the OP) and instead provided "here is what your options are under RAW" as well as pointing out for the OP's benefit that anyone saying intimidate and CHA are inexorably linked is (a) not actually how the real world works and (b) (more importantly) an incorrect statement of RAW.
And, since I noticed the OP has been posting other threads and thus is almost certainly ignoring the myriad unhelpful responses this one has elicited, I suppose there really is nothing more to say here. Hopefully they got the useful message that they and their DM are afforded numerous options under RAW to do what the OP wants to do--and did not get the simply wrong message that there is only one right way to perform an intimidate check.
With due respect, you again went on a tangent that was not actually what I was saying. At no point was I talking about pro se litigants who think they know the law--merely that there are plenty of folks who have low charisma but are also scary. If you have actually been in a courthouse, you would know that--there are plenty of individuals whose social skills are incredibly low, but who still managed to use physical prowess or threats of violence to get what they wanted.
The people who are in the courthouse are the people who succeeded at thuggery but failed their intimidation checks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you want to have strict rules binding skills to one ability, that's fine. You can do that, and you're not the only DM who runs their game like that. But as cited many many times in this thread, the actual rules do give the DM the option to float skills to other abilities. This isn't a right or wrong argument, this is a playstyle argument. As Caerwyn has spent a few posts trying to explain to you, this thread started out with the OP looking for help and options with in the game to give them the flexibility float skills to other abilities (as the rules actually present). And the OP has been presented not with any sort of D&D heterodoxy but actual guidance presented with the rules. You're saying it can't be done, or is somehow rule breaking, when the fact of the matter is you simply don't like it.
Combat rolls are different from skills, which is why they have a whole set of rules discussed in a chapter called "combat" separate from where skill checks are discussed. Introducing combat as a way to justify your tightly bond skills ruling is fine to articulate your preference, but again, skills are specifically pointed out as a space where DMs can run fuzzy. There are other ways you can make combat fuzzy too.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No, the reason I'm not repeating what everyone else has already cited is that it would be pointless to do so. What I'm attempting to do is demonstrate that OP shouldn't expect to get *more* than what they've already been told.
There's an instinct to say, "well, this is a small concession, but it isn't doing enough," or, "this sets a precedent, so I ought to be able to do more." But in this case, it would be inappropriate, in my opinion. I'm trying to show why.
I could've been more clear about that, I suppose.
(Nice use of "heterodoxy," I don't think I've ever heard that before. I'm stealing it.)
I'm blanking on how it works, but Cyberpunk Red has a pretty nifty "facedown" mechanic. I think the games COOL ability was key there.
I think part of the problem is that CHR is a stat that does a mix of unrelated things. It's the "charming socialite" stat requisite for Bards, but it's also the sheer willpower stat in place of a WILL stat requisite for Sorces and Warlocks. Yes, some willful people are quite charismatic in the conventional sense, but many are not. Intimidation, basically bullying, as an act of conventionally understood out of game charisma can be a bit of stretch. But it's where the skill default lands. The only instance I can really think of it working well as a CHR skill is if it's partnered with another character with high persuasion an they're doing respective good cop bad cop roles and rolls during interrogation.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
It may have become a "playstyle argument", but OP's premise still seemed flawed to me. The character they described would not have a low CHA -- or rather, if the character they made had a low CHA and thus a low bonus on basic Intimidation checks, simply saying there's a 'tense atmosphere around him' wouldn't automatically grant a bigger bonus
Even if your DM gives you the option of making an Intimidation (Strength) check, you still have to explain why that would be more appropriate in a particular situation than an Intimidation (Charisma) check. It's not going to be the default
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Not neccesarily, when I DM, I usually have it be a Strength (Intimidation) check and you have to justify it if you want to use charisma.
Otherwise, the main answer to why strength would be more appropriate in most situations is this: Shouldn't how intimidating you are be reflected off how big, strong and scary you are? Yes, their are certain times when it makes more sense to use a different ability score. I don't think it's reasonable for the norm to be that how intimidating you are is based off how charismatic you are, so in my opinion at least, Strength (Intimidation) should be the default.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.No. A demonstration of "I'm really scary" can be useful, but there's nothing specific to strength there, every class in D&D has plenty of potential for horrific violence.
For better or worse, Charisma is a stat in the game. It's poorly explained, people tend to consider it the "Peoplemancy" stat, but it is also generally held to be a person's presence, intensity, and force of personality. Choosing to dump Charisma because you don't see your character as being a Good Speaker and a peoplemancer means your character has a tendency to come off as mild, unimpressive, or ignorable. You do not have "an air of tension" about you, because that is directly a function of one's force of presence. Perhaps, despite your mass and muscular bulk, you simply look funny and tend to provoke "awwh, he's so cute" reactions. Or, as Pantagruel has stated, you can be frightening without being compelling. Rather than seeing your attempts at threats as a goad/incentive to do as you like, they see you as a rabid animal they need to get away from.
That, in fact, very much fits the whole "raised by wolves, barely able to understand language, super low Charisma Barbles McAxefacer" archetype - they're bad at getting what they want with Intimidation because whenever they try they Cause A Scene instead. As one example, the whole "I quietly threaten to slit somebody's throat if they don't replace the drink they spilled" thing is a Charisma (Intimidation) check because the player is attempting to overmatch their target's force of presence. They are attempting to cow the target and compel obedience with a quiet but deeply heartfelt promise of violence.
The character that smashes a chair on their forehead, draws their weapon and arms their shield, and begins smashing the former into the latter while glaring at the NPC that spilled their drink? They're not going to get a new drink, and they're not going to get a Strength (Intimidation) check, because at my table they've just started a bar fight and/or riot. That reaction is wildly disproportionate to the offense given and a character who undertakes it is likely to be treated as a brutal savage that needs to be contained or expelled rather than accomodated. "Keep that brute out of my tavern!", rather than "oh gosh I'm sorry, here have a fresh drink!"
Savagery is not intimidation. Brutality is not intimidation. Intimidation is being able to convince someone with your words or actions that they have two choices - do what you want or suffer harm. A low-Charisma barbarian wrecking furniture and screaming his rage is going to convince someone with their words/actions that they have two choices - be elsewhere or get caught in the splash zone. Those are not equivalent actions, nor equivalent results.
Please do not contact or message me.
I will add to this the following:
It is the DM that can choose to substitute these skills, not the player.
We're all looking at the idea of a huge, muscle-bound brute trying to use their strength to intimidate someone, but it's important to note that intimidating someone as a charisma skill is different to intimidating them as a strength skill - it depends on your desired result.
For example:
Brutey mcangerface the barbarian kills a goblin, and now wants to intimidate the last one to show them the way out of the caves. They can do the folowing:
1: Brutey McAngerface clashes his weapon to his shield and bellows a warcry to intimidate the goblin using Strength, resulting in the goblin dropping his weapons and running as fast as possible away from him. This did not achieve what he wanted, despite the check succeeding.
2: Brutey McAngerface turns to look at the goblin, not moving to avoid startling him, and whispers into the silence that followed the first goblins death; "If you run, I will kill you. Show us the way out, and you live". A successful Intimidation (Charisma) check will result in just that - the goblin will comply, and show them the way out.
3: Sparkly McMagichat, who's Brutey's adventuring buddy, instead steps in using an illusion spell to make the corridor behind the goblin appear closed. He tells the goblin to throw down his weapons, using another spell to make himself appear larger and more intimidating, with swirling magic fire and what have you. An Intimidation(Intelligence) check would allow him to convince the goblin with his magic.
Further to this, we are considering the idea of this large muscular adventurer being notably so - a Str 18 adventurer in an ogre mining town might be weaker than your average joe, so saying "I'm big and strong" might not get you anything except a round of laughter. The linked picture, for example, might elicit ridicule instead - "Why's he wearing the bag on his head, is he realy ugly?", rather than "oh, this guy is scary".
Finally, some people don't see big and strong as a threat. Try to intimidate the skinny guy with mad knife skills by being bigger than him. Terrify the small waif at the bar who's also a master poisoner by showing how large of a target you are for a poisoned dart. Flash your muscles to the guy in the suit who happens to be the leader of the thieves guild in this city. There are limited applications for "show off how stong I am" as a substitute for proper intimidation.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
But strength factors into that, if the character doing the convincing looks weak and scrawny, and like their not going to be able to actually stop whoever their intimidating from running away, the [un]intimidated will just run away.
If you're not gonna make it a Strength (intimidation) check, then at least factor strength into the equation. If the player doing the intimidating doesn't like they actually are strong enough to do what they say they can, then at least give them disadvantage. Even if you have the character make a Charisma (intimidation) check, at least factor in the way they do it. (For example, bashing you shield and spear together and flexing as a show of force, might help enforce the narrative that whoever you're intimidating is out matched and doesn't have a choice but to do what you want.)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Intimidation requires a credible threat, but every class in D&D can offer that, and most aren't going to do it with strength.
You're making the mistake of assuming that the player gets to decide what they roll. They do not. The DM decides what a player rolls; the player decides what they're doing.
Incorrect: "Can I break a bunch of stuff to try and make a Strength (Intimidation) check to get the barkeep to give me free drinks?"
Correct: "I walk up to the barkeep, draw my mace, and crunch it down on the stool next to me to bust it up. Then I say 'I can keep going, or you can occupy my attention with some ale. On the house'."
Also Correct, if less fun: "I break the barstool next to me, hoping to intimidate the barkeep into giving me free drinks."
The player declares actions, and depending on table also declares the intent of the action. At no point is the question mark ever involved, unless the player is requesting information/clarification from the DM or unless part of the character's declared action is asking a question. The player declares actions; the DM resolves them, and one of the tools DMs use for action resolution is die rolls.
In this case, it's also a little skeevy because the player in question (generic 'player' here, not specifically the thread starter) is attempting to bypass a weakness they engineered into their character. They chose to abandon their Charisma score, but they would still like to be able to easily sway NPCs to their will. They don't want to have to suffer the drawbacks of having a low Charisma score and instead want to substitute the big beefy Strength number, instead.
Query: How would you feel about someone substituing Charisma for Strength and making a Charisma (Athletics) check? They psyche themselves up properly, give a stirring, blood-pumping speech to bolster themselves, and use their charismatic presence and force of presence to bust down a door. Perfectly valid, right? Totally legit? Or is it an absolute crock of piss and any DM who allows it needs to be put through remedial DMing lessons?
Strength is not Charisma. Athletics is not Intimidation. Athletics is also not Acrobatics and everybody who keeps allowing people to dump Strength and then ignore that penalty in favor of being acrobatic is doing themselves and their tables a disservice. One can absolutely unhook skills from ability scores. I will never be okay with the fact that no DM in the history of 5e has ever allowed someone to make an Intelligence (Persuasion) to try and win someone over with reason, logic, researched facts, and professional expertise rather than with amiability and charismatic pull...but when I'm playing, I don't get to make that call. I don't get to try and hornswoggle a DM into ignoring my tabaxi wizard's meh Charisma in favor of her superhuman Intelligence just because I like the IQ number better than the CH one.
Nor does someone else get to try and turn every Charisma check they make into a Strength check just because they like being the Big Guy and decided they didn't want to bother with being Nice while they went about it.
Please do not contact or message me.
The ultimate fantasy in a fantasy RPG -- a world that acts the way it ought to, rather than the way it actually does
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You keep saying this like it is an actual argument to support your “what if I want to keep offering unhelpful posts trying to convince the OP that the rules are wrong and modified skill checks shouldn’t be used (despite them being RAW).”
It was a bad argument when you first made it - and when you made it on subsequent times - for three reasons: (1) it goes against RAW; (2) it does not actually answer the OP and shows you care more about your incorrect interpretation of RAW than actually helping the OP; and (3) doesn’t actually make sense in the context of the real world.
Take two people, both of similar large builds, both who could obviously beat you up. One of them convincingly says “I want to beat you up” (CHA intimidate); the other says nothing, but glares at you and smashes a table (STR Intimidate… OR Athletics check + advantage on CHA intimidate for effectiveness of the glare). RAW allows the DM to come up with multiple options because Wizards realises that sycophantic dedication to Intimidate (CHA) cannot reflect reality.
As for the argument I keep seeing people make that you need Charisma to convince others that you will use force, which is why it has to be a CHA check (again, despite RAW) it is hard to assume anything other than those individuals have not actually interacted with many people who utilise intimidation for criminal ends/to abuse their family/etc. The simple reality is that there are plenty of folks with rather low charisma who are still capable of intimidating others by using other mechanisms at their disposal - which is why RAW allows such.
But, since it is clear neither RAW nor a common sense view of reality has convinced those still thinking it is appropriate to proselytise rather than help the OP, I will leave it with this: OP, if you are still following this thread, the folks who keep telling you that you cannot do this are simply wrong. The Rules specifically allow the DM to take other factors into account to do something like (1) make a STR + Intimidate modifier check (usually with a roleplaying element to justify the modified check), (2) do an an athletics check to get advantage on your CHA intimidate check, (3) use an athletics check to reduce the DC of the check, or (4) do an athletics check to assist an ally who is doing a CHA Intimidate check.
The rules as written allow you to make this kind of character - even if there are detractors on this thread who feel the need to lecture you incorrectly about what the rules allow. You should ignore all of those people (they are the same people who do this on every thread, lecturing them OP on how they think the game should be, rather than actually offering helpful and responsive advice) and talk to your DM. This is a situation DMs are given lots of leeway under the rules, so the ONLY way to fully answer your question is to present the DM with the four options I listed above and ask your DM how you want to handle it.
Here’s hoping this thread didn’t discourage you from asking for help either - most folks here actually are helpful, but there’s a very vocal minority who are convinced their way to play a game with intentionally flexible rules is the only right way to play, and they try to make it known as loudly and as often as possible, often at the expense of newer players or players just trying to get some help.
Yes, the DM does resolve the characters actions. However, if you want to intimidate someone, and you do it in a way that relies on another ability score as well, (I gave an example of this in my previous post,) then a good DM should at least reflect that somewhat into the equation. It doesn't have to be by switching the ability score the intimidation check is based off, it could just be giving your player a smaller bonus to reflect that they're playing to their strengths. But an intimidation check where someone (this is probably not a very good example, but it's one I thought of from off the top of my head) pounds their chest and roars "GIVE ME INFORMATION OR DIE" (along with other things) should probably be modified at least somewhat to reflect the persons use of physical prowess, as opposed to a way that seems to fit more with their charisma score. An intimidation check should be made in many different ways, and a good DM should account for that when telling their players what to roll for.
As a DM, if you could give me a good reason why it makes sense to use charisma instead of strength for an athletics check, then I'd let you. However, giving yourself a "stirring blood-pumping speech" doesn't work and I think it's pretty obvious how a speech impacts your physical exertion a lot less than how "You have two choices and here's why," being alternated with "YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES AND HERE'S WHY!" (Cue shows of force and demonstrations.)
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The problem with that isn't that you need a charisma check to convince others that you will use force. The problem is that what you're describing isn't intimidation. Intimidation isn't the ability to make threats, it's the ability to influence people with threats. Which is to say, they're overall more helpful than they would have been otherwise. If all you're after is making people run away, you don't need intimidation, cutting someone's head off (or a wizard setting someone on fire, or whatever) will do the job just fine.
Fundamentally, there's three parts to intimidation
The first of those doesn't require charisma, but it's also really easy (often, no roll required) for any D&D character, because D&D characters have a quite terrifying capacity for violence. The second is easy if your goal is to get people to run away and/or lock doors to keep you out, but if your goal is something more useful, that becomes Charisma. The third is always charisma, unless you're so dangerous that everyone just hides and hopes you go away.
Conveniently snipping off the part of the post that says “if you look at real world examples, you can see plenty of folks who are able to influence others via intimidation without being charismatic” does certainly allow you to state the same thing while pretending it was not contradicted. But deciding to ignore a counter argument doesn’t change that you are still advocating for something that flies in the face of RAW and how the real world operates.
As I said - the only “correct” answer on this thread is “talk to your DM.” If you are their DM, they would not be allowed to do this. If they have a more receptive DM, they would. Both are RAW responses to this question - but, by RAW, it is a party-by-party decision, not something that you can force on the OP’s party just because you would not do it.
Sorry... as a DM, if a character smashes a table and glowers without saying anything, I wouldn't rule that they're making an Intimidation check at all using any ability, because nothing's really being communicated beyond the fact that person doesn't like tables
There has to be a point to an Intimidation check beyond simply being intimidating. Give me something to go on as a DM, even it's just, "I smash the table, raise my eyebrow and cock my head at an angle that says, Do you really want to do this?" If you don't tell me what it is you're trying to accomplish or communicate with your action, then it probably won't communicate what you intended
I don't think anyone's actually quoted the description of the skill from the PHB in this thread (emphasis added) -- it might be helpful here:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Your post fails to actually respond to the issue being discussed - which is whether you can do Intimidate Modifier + Another Skill, with the discussion circling around the “another skill” section. In responding you focus on the intimidation modifier (which is not the topic of the conversation) and presume that it makes sense to be CHA (which, literally no one is saying it can’t be CHA - the discussion is about whether Wizards of the Coast was wrong to allow alternate skill check).
Then you launch into some presumptions about crime bosses that ignores the fact that (a) it’s a wrong assumption about how the real world works (plenty of criminal enterprises send bruisers without charisma for intimidation), (b) ignores the fact that many criminals act alone and might intimidate without being charismatic, and (c) ignores that there exist non-criminal ways one can intimidate others, that also need not be based on CHA. As I said earlier, anyone who thinks only the Charismatic can get their way through intimidation probably has not dealt with many folks who get their way through intimidation.
I invite you to spend some time at a courthouse watching trials - you’ll see plenty of folks who got their way through intimidation, but who, watching them testify, you’ll see clearly rolled low on their Charisma.
Again, RAW and a common sense understanding of how reality works both support Intimidate Modifier + Another Skill. It’s simply silly to double down on it having to be CHA when that flies in the face of both the rules and how the real world works.
With due respect, you again went on a tangent that was not actually what I was saying. At no point was I talking about pro se litigants who think they know the law--merely that there are plenty of folks who have low charisma but are also scary. If you have actually been in a courthouse, you would know that--there are plenty of individuals whose social skills are incredibly low, but who still managed to use physical prowess or threats of violence to get what they wanted. That's the reality that anyone saying intimidate must be CHA based that everyone is ignoring--people can be intimidating in different ways, not all of which require them to be Charismatic (actually one of two realities they are ignoring--the other is the Rules specifically allow for this).
As I said before, too many folks on this forum are too concerned about how they personally play that they often forget to actually help people asking for help. There is a reason I have not said "here is what I do" (which would not be helpful to the OP) and instead provided "here is what your options are under RAW" as well as pointing out for the OP's benefit that anyone saying intimidate and CHA are inexorably linked is (a) not actually how the real world works and (b) (more importantly) an incorrect statement of RAW.
And, since I noticed the OP has been posting other threads and thus is almost certainly ignoring the myriad unhelpful responses this one has elicited, I suppose there really is nothing more to say here. Hopefully they got the useful message that they and their DM are afforded numerous options under RAW to do what the OP wants to do--and did not get the simply wrong message that there is only one right way to perform an intimidate check.
The people who are in the courthouse are the people who succeeded at thuggery but failed their intimidation checks.