That's the reality that anyone saying intimidate must be CHA based that everyone is ignoring
No one in the thread has said this
They've said you need to justify it being something other than CHA, sure, and that it's important to describe clearly what it is you want to do so the DM can make a better call
They've said simply describing yourself as intimidating to try and skate around a low CHA won't work, yeah
But no one has said anything close to, "Every Intimidation check must use CHA, no exceptions"
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)
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.
Why do I have to roll Athletics with my STR score? Why can't I roll it with Intelligence by being smarter than Brutus Tablecruncher, Smiter of Furniture, and using my muscles better than he does?
Why do I have to roll Insight with Wisdom? Why can't I roll Insight using Charisma, because Charisma is ThE pEoPlEmAnCy StAt and I should be able to do everything People with Charisma? I made a charismatic bard to be good at people with high Charisma, right? Why shouldn't I be able to read people with Charisma?
Why do I have to roll Stealth with Dexterity? Why can't I roll a Strength(Stealth) check to be so swole and frightening that everybody can't wait to forget they saw me? After all, according to this thread, being jacked is the most terrifying possible thing in the world. Able to set entire towns on fire with the power of your mind? Ho hum, who cares. Able to twist and manipulate the minds of men with casual ease? Meeeeh. One dude works out in a world where physical prowess is most people's day job? Holy ****, that one ripped guy is the most morbidly terrifying creature alive. That one guy's abs are worse than an entire nation of ancient dragons. Never mind that this makes zero sense - Jacked = Terror. That's all there is to it.
The answer, Caerwynn, is that you don't get to dump your Charisma score, then substitute Strength for Charisma for every single Charisma check you ever make. Yes, Skills With Other Abilities is RAW. It's DM discretion RAW. The DM gets to decide if the player can substitute one score for another, not the player. And if the barbarian gets to have 3 Charisma and yet never suffer one single time for that deficiency by substituting their Swole score for:
Intimidation ("I'M F@#$ING SWOLE, DO WHAT I SAY!")
Persuasion ("I'M F@#$ING SWOLE, DO WHAT I SAY...PLEASE!")
Deception ("I'M F@#$ING SWOLE, DO THESE MUSCLES LOOK LIKE A LIE TO YOU?!")
Performance ("I'M TOO SWOLE FOR THIS FIGHT, TOO SWOLE FOR THIS FIGHT, SO SWOLE I'M ALL RIIIIGHT!")
Survival ("I FLEX IN THE WOODS AND SWOLE GRUNT UNTIL NATURE GIVES ME WHAT I NEED TO LIVE!")
Investigation ("I FLEX IN THE CRIME SCENE AND SWOLE GRUNT UNTIL FATE GIVES ME WHAT I NEED TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE!")
Sleight of Hand ("I PICK YOUR POCKET BY FLEXING HARD ENOUGH TO BLOW YOUR CLOTHES OFF AND JUST PUT YOUR WHOLE-ASS OUTFIT IN MY PACK!")
Medicine ("I PUNCH YOUR WOUNDS RIGHT OFF YOUR BODY WITH THE POWER OF SWOLE!" )
Religion ("I FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF THE SWOLY BIBLE AND THE HOLY MEN OF THE PILLAR, NO OTHER GOD CAN COMPARE!")
...and so on and so forth? Then my wizard gets to roll everything with her +6 Intelligence modifier because Intelligence, not Strength, is the greatest superpower in the cosmos. Humanity took over the world with the power of intelligence honed to its zenith, not with the power of Biggah Muscles.
At some point one has to accept that they cannot be good at everything (unless they're a multiclassed Lore bard/Scout rogue with proficiency in every-damn-thing) and that if you want to be naturally gifted at something, you'll need to put points into it.
Or, y'know...just run a cartoon where literally everything can be solved with the power of MUSCLE.
Imagine a huge scary character but doesn't talk much. Less talk more action. Just aggressive and even a tense atmosphere around him. Still low intimidation bonus or DMs should make an exception?
This really depends on the DM and table preferences. Others on this thread have mentioned the variant skills rules which could be used to do this. One thing that I think is clear is that it really depends on what you, your DM, and the other players at your table want to do.
That being said, if I wanted to create a character like this and be really sure that the concept would work, I would just give the character a high charisma score. Charisma doesn’t have to mean that the character is eloquent and talkative. To me, the separate intimidation, persuasion, and deception skills are an invitation for roleplay distinction, as they are all used for getting what you want. A bard may use their charisma for persuasion, because they have a kind, friendly outlook that makes others willing to trust and help them. A rogue may use their charisma for deception because they are ridiculously good at lying, since they do it so frequently. A barbarian may use their charisma for intimidation because they have a terrifying aura and strong weapons. Or, you could go against class expectations and have your bard, for example, use their charisma for intimidation because they radiate magical power and have a quick temper.
I am not saying that using strength for an intimidation check is wrong, or that its not within the rules. But if I wanted to avoid a potential conflict with my DM and ensure that my concept would work, I would make charisma a priority and have it expressed through 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.)
If this was true, then no combat scenes in movies or plays would ever be believable, since the punches are always pulled, to avoid actually injuring the actors.
And bash shield and spear together? First of all, the enemy's first impression, if they think about it, would be that you think you hit things with the flat of your spear, not the point. Second, if you are hitting your shield full force with any actual effective force, i.e. an act of strength, you are hitting yourself! Even through your shield, wouldn't that hurt you?? Or risk breaking your spear?? I suppose you might be proving how tough your shield is, if they know how strong you are, but really you are just making noise, something it does not take massive strength to do.
It really is not a strength based maneuver. A strength based intimidation would be breaking a rock or something, but that is not so easily done. Bashing through a reinforced door, perhaps, but that requires such a door to be handy. Now if you can match Beowulf's strength, you could rip the arms off an opponent (an ogre, in his case), but you would have to have enough brawling damage to one shot an ogre for that to be plausible... and even then it would likely require a crit. Not something that could likely be relied on for any D&D character.
Then you don't have to do it as a Strength (intimidation) check, but if someone is making a maneuver that relies on a different ability score, then as a a good DM, you should at least do something to reflect that. The bonus doesn't have to be big, but their are many ways someone can try to intimidate someone in real life, and their should be that in D&D as well.
PS- Just because that one maneuver doesn't make sense to you as a strength based intimidation check, as you mentioned, their are ones that are based off strength, and to say that all of them require a crit to work simply doesn't make sense.
Skills With Different Abilities is a variant rule. Not a default rule. The DM is enabled to ignore it even more than they're enabled to ignore any other rules. Which is weird, because they were already 100% able to ignore any other rules. So I guess this is 110% ability. We'll get back to this.
Check out this text from the Basic Rules. "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." What's that? Physical violence? Even the kind you'd inflict using Strength or Dexterity? Yeah, even that kind. Still Charisma. Use whatever axe or spear you want, break whatever tables you think will help you -- this is a Charisma check, RAW. Unless the DM rules otherwise.
And this: "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect." Intimidation is an aspect of Charisma. Not Strength. Is that an accurate reflection of real life? It doesn't matter. That's how the game works. Unless. The DM. Rules. Otherwise.
I'm a big fan of the variant rule. I think of it the same way as changing the saving throw on Tidal Wave to STR. It just makes sense. But I'd also just cut the Intimidation skill out of my game entirely, next time I DM. I'm a person with opinions that don't always match up with the rules. When I DM, I exercise my power to change the rules. And that brings us back to the DM thing. Ultimately, nobody can have the final say here because your DM makes the call. We don't know them and we can't read their mind.
And you know this. That's not the thrust of your question. You're asking what happens if the DM sticks to the rules. Well, now you know. I think we're done here.
PS- Just because that one maneuver doesn't make sense to you as a strength based intimidation check, as you mentioned, their are ones that are based off strength, and to say that all of them require a crit to work simply doesn't make sense.
The thing is that basically all of your examples are demonstrations of power -- i.e. proving that you're capable of hurting them -- but that's not intimidation. Intimidation is what you do after you've convinced people you can hurt them.
I'm definitely in the camp that charisma should be the main rule but other abilities, in certain circumstances chosen by the DM, could be used.
I am also definitely not seeing the idea of being big and strong meaning that people are afraid of you. Have you seen no videos of pgym-buffs thinking they're hard only to find they were picking a fight with a wiry or ageing veteran or an MMA fighter? Being strong only intimidates the weak, so yes, as a DM I might give advantage or allow strength to be used if the opponent is weak or I consider the NPC to view strength as scary, but if I am playing an NPC who is not intimidated by strength (IE anyone with an adventuring class, who is themselves strong, or doesn't get intimidated by physical weakness) then either it's making no difference or the DC is going up, and I'm narrating how they look unimpressed by your efforts.
Honestly, the change of a check (or more reasonably, reduction of DC) is down to comparison. If you use Create Flame in front of someone who is terrified of fire to back up your intimidation, then the DC is dropping. If you do so in front of a pyromaniac, then the DC is increases. Show muscle to the veteran streetfighter and the DC goes higher, but show it to the weaselly bookkeeper for the locak races and it might go down.
My preference is in adjusting the DC because of how you use what you have, rather than letting you use the stat - this is largely because how effective it is is going to be based on a comparison to the recepient, not on how strong you are against an arbitrary baseline. Flex your muscles to intimidate a storm giant, see what happens!
Then you don't have to do it as a Strength (intimidation) check, but if someone is making a maneuver that relies on a different ability score, then as a a good DM, you should at least do something to reflect that. The bonus doesn't have to be big, but their are many ways someone can try to intimidate someone in real life, and their should be that in D&D as well.
PS- Just because that one maneuver doesn't make sense to you as a strength based intimidation check, as you mentioned, their are ones that are based off strength, and to say that all of them require a crit to work simply doesn't make sense.
So prove me wrong. Give an example or two. I responded to that poster's specific examples. Someone trying something does not equate to it working the way they think it should work.
This is probably not a very good example, but it's what I could think based off the top of my head: their's someone loyal to their order and believes that if they die faithfully their dead spirit is brought to their god and rewarded in the afterlife. You tell them they don't have to die and that you, the big barbarian has some nice alternatives. Maybe the party also demonstrates a few in some other people the person knows.
Yes, you can argue that charisma plays a roll in this situation, since you're making specifically chosen threats (which I would argue that part as more intelligence focused), and physical threats are mentioned in with the description of charisma (intimidation) checks. However, strength is the main part of this intimidation plan, and it simply doesn't make sense that the DM should not allow strength to play a part in this. (Not necessarily by making it a strength (intimidation) check, but there are other means.).
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.
Sydney Greenstreet failing his Intimidation check in the Maltese Falcon
Sam Spade: If you kill me, how are you going get the bird? And if I know you can't afford to kill me, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?
Kasper Gutman: Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.
Sam Spade: Yes, that's... That's true. But, there're none of them any good unless the threat of death is behind them. You see what I mean? If you start something, I'll make it a matter of your having to kill me or call it off.
Kasper Gutman: That's an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. Because, as you know, sir, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away.
Sam Spade: Then the trick from my angle is to make my play strong enough to tie you up, but not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment.
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)
Sydney Greenstreet failing his Intimidation check in the Maltese Falcon
Sam Spade: If you kill me, how are you going get the bird? And if I know you can't afford to kill me, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?
Kasper Gutman: Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill.
Sam Spade: Yes, that's... That's true. But, there're none of them any good unless the threat of death is behind them. You see what I mean? If you start something, I'll make it a matter of your having to kill me or call it off.
Kasper Gutman: That's an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides. Because, as you know, sir, in the heat of action men are likely to forget where their best interests lie and let their emotions carry them away.
Sam Spade: Then the trick from my angle is to make my play strong enough to tie you up, but not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment.
That could almost be counted an a counter intimidation check. Sams doing a good job of it.
PS- Just because that one maneuver doesn't make sense to you as a strength based intimidation check, as you mentioned, their are ones that are based off strength, and to say that all of them require a crit to work simply doesn't make sense.
The thing is that basically all of your examples are demonstrations of power -- i.e. proving that you're capable of hurting them -- but that's not intimidation. Intimidation is what you do after you've convinced people you can hurt them.
Or what they do after you've convinced them. If some racist yokels try to pick a fight with the half-orc barbarian only for him to smash the table to kindling with a single blow, they might realize that fighting him is just suicide with delusions of survival and run away instead. That's a successful intimidation.
If he fails to break the table, or they decide not to run away, that's an unsuccessful intimidation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Or what they do after you've convinced them. If some racist yokels try to pick a fight with the half-orc barbarian only for him to smash the table to kindling with a single blow, they might realize that fighting him is just suicide with delusions of survival and run away instead. That's a successful intimidation.
No, that's a successful athletics check. Intimidation is not the 'scare people' skill, nor do you need an intimidation check to scare people.
When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence
That doesn't mean you use an intimidation check to perform physical violence. You perform physical violence with whatever ability you would normally use for that (Athletics in this case) and then make use of the violence to execute the intimidation (which is done with a charisma/intimidation check).
When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence
That doesn't mean you use an intimidation check to perform physical violence. You perform physical violence with whatever ability you would normally use for that (Athletics in this case) and then make use of the violence to execute the intimidation (which is done with a charisma/intimidation check).
You are arguing that the rules don't say what they actually say. Based on your logic, in order to intimidate someone verbally you'd need to make a diplomacy check to use your words effectively in order to make an intimidate check to intimidate them. Wizards explicitly added the optional rule for skill checks to be made with non-standard ability scores if the GM feels that it's appropriate. Like using an intimidate check with Str instead of Cha by performing a feat of strength in order to threaten someone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You are arguing that the rules don't say what they actually say.
If I fireball a bunch of goblins and the rest of the goblins run away, do I use Intimidation to perform the fireball? No, I use my spellcasting ability.
The fundamental process of intimidation is in fact a negotiation: you're trading "not hurting them" for "them doing what I want". Of course, if they don't believe that you can hurt them, they're going to reject that bargain; thus, you do need to prove that you can hurt them. However, the actual intimidation is the trade, not the "prove that you can hurt them".
I think the key thing here is that being scared of someone isn't the same as being intimidated by them.
Being scared is when you apply the Frightened condition to a creature. This is the expected response to someone showing they have hostile thoughts towards you, and is likely the result of a strenght(intimidation) check.
Being intimidated by someone is having the thought of "if I don't do what they want, then bad things will happen". This required that the intimidator conveys to the intimidatee what they want, so that the intimidatee, if intimidated, wil lcomply with it.
In the original example, if the hulking monster in the bar breaks a chair over his face and begins acting hostile, I would have them make an Intimidation (Str) check, which if successful would make the others in the bar frightened of them, probably running away. If they want the person to buy them a drink, making them afraid of them is not enough - they need to convey their request, and then intimidate them to make them comply, and that will involve charisma. I would give advantage if the intimidatee was also frightened of them.
So yes, you can absolutely do a Strength intimidation check, but it will not be able to convey complex requests - largely it would be limited to "run away" or "don't even think about it".
Trying to use alternative base ability for skills lioe Strength (Intimidation) is a valid option, at the discretion of the DM.
However, it should come with consequences. Using Charisma (Intimidation) would be using body language, intonation and careful use of words to scare them into doing what you want. With no actual harm done, there's little to report you to the town guard for, nothing easily proven. Do it too much and you'll develop a rep, but you get a lot of free uses. On the other hand, using Strength (Intimidation) is making the demand, then picking up a nearby chair and smashing it. That chair has an owner, who won't be pleased and will probably be talking with the Town guard, who in turn would rather see the back of you. You'll develop a bad reputation much faster, and other NPCs won't want to have anything to do with you, including those who could otherwise have been your allies. People with quests might, depending on their disposition, be less likely to approach you.
So, yes, players can try to use alternative ability scores as a base for a check. However, they should know that there will be consequences for not investing in the proper way. I
Those consequences should follow naturally from their choice. Using Strength instead of Charisma will get you a bad rep and make things harder for you I the town.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Honestly, I wish intimidation was a multi-step process involving more than one different skills (kind of like an ability challenge to intimidate someone but it maybe could be adjusted for how much people are trying to intimidate someone.) Because the description sounds like it's using both stats.
I just feel like intimidation shouldn't be based completely of charisma without factoring in other elements. I still think intimidation should be based off strength, however, this is the main alternative I can see that would fit with both sides off the argument.
Creating a multi-step system like that for intimidation might be hard and complex (for people using it) though, so I guess that's why one probably hasn't been invented/attempted.
No one in the thread has said this
They've said you need to justify it being something other than CHA, sure, and that it's important to describe clearly what it is you want to do so the DM can make a better call
They've said simply describing yourself as intimidating to try and skate around a low CHA won't work, yeah
But no one has said anything close to, "Every Intimidation check must use CHA, no exceptions"
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)
Why do I have to roll Athletics with my STR score? Why can't I roll it with Intelligence by being smarter than Brutus Tablecruncher, Smiter of Furniture, and using my muscles better than he does?
Why do I have to roll Insight with Wisdom? Why can't I roll Insight using Charisma, because Charisma is ThE pEoPlEmAnCy StAt and I should be able to do everything People with Charisma? I made a charismatic bard to be good at people with high Charisma, right? Why shouldn't I be able to read people with Charisma?
Why do I have to roll Stealth with Dexterity? Why can't I roll a Strength(Stealth) check to be so swole and frightening that everybody can't wait to forget they saw me? After all, according to this thread, being jacked is the most terrifying possible thing in the world. Able to set entire towns on fire with the power of your mind? Ho hum, who cares. Able to twist and manipulate the minds of men with casual ease? Meeeeh. One dude works out in a world where physical prowess is most people's day job? Holy ****, that one ripped guy is the most morbidly terrifying creature alive. That one guy's abs are worse than an entire nation of ancient dragons. Never mind that this makes zero sense - Jacked = Terror. That's all there is to it.
The answer, Caerwynn, is that you don't get to dump your Charisma score, then substitute Strength for Charisma for every single Charisma check you ever make. Yes, Skills With Other Abilities is RAW. It's DM discretion RAW. The DM gets to decide if the player can substitute one score for another, not the player. And if the barbarian gets to have 3 Charisma and yet never suffer one single time for that deficiency by substituting their Swole score for:
...and so on and so forth? Then my wizard gets to roll everything with her +6 Intelligence modifier because Intelligence, not Strength, is the greatest superpower in the cosmos. Humanity took over the world with the power of intelligence honed to its zenith, not with the power of Biggah Muscles.
At some point one has to accept that they cannot be good at everything (unless they're a multiclassed Lore bard/Scout rogue with proficiency in every-damn-thing) and that if you want to be naturally gifted at something, you'll need to put points into it.
Or, y'know...just run a cartoon where literally everything can be solved with the power of MUSCLE.
Please do not contact or message me.
This really depends on the DM and table preferences. Others on this thread have mentioned the variant skills rules which could be used to do this. One thing that I think is clear is that it really depends on what you, your DM, and the other players at your table want to do.
That being said, if I wanted to create a character like this and be really sure that the concept would work, I would just give the character a high charisma score. Charisma doesn’t have to mean that the character is eloquent and talkative. To me, the separate intimidation, persuasion, and deception skills are an invitation for roleplay distinction, as they are all used for getting what you want. A bard may use their charisma for persuasion, because they have a kind, friendly outlook that makes others willing to trust and help them. A rogue may use their charisma for deception because they are ridiculously good at lying, since they do it so frequently. A barbarian may use their charisma for intimidation because they have a terrifying aura and strong weapons. Or, you could go against class expectations and have your bard, for example, use their charisma for intimidation because they radiate magical power and have a quick temper.
I am not saying that using strength for an intimidation check is wrong, or that its not within the rules. But if I wanted to avoid a potential conflict with my DM and ensure that my concept would work, I would make charisma a priority and have it expressed through intimidation.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Then you don't have to do it as a Strength (intimidation) check, but if someone is making a maneuver that relies on a different ability score, then as a a good DM, you should at least do something to reflect that. The bonus doesn't have to be big, but their are many ways someone can try to intimidate someone in real life, and their should be that in D&D as well.
PS- Just because that one maneuver doesn't make sense to you as a strength based intimidation check, as you mentioned, their are ones that are based off strength, and to say that all of them require a crit to work simply doesn't make sense.
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.Skills With Different Abilities is a variant rule. Not a default rule. The DM is enabled to ignore it even more than they're enabled to ignore any other rules. Which is weird, because they were already 100% able to ignore any other rules. So I guess this is 110% ability. We'll get back to this.
Check out this text from the Basic Rules. "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." What's that? Physical violence? Even the kind you'd inflict using Strength or Dexterity? Yeah, even that kind. Still Charisma. Use whatever axe or spear you want, break whatever tables you think will help you -- this is a Charisma check, RAW. Unless the DM rules otherwise.
And this: "A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect." Intimidation is an aspect of Charisma. Not Strength. Is that an accurate reflection of real life? It doesn't matter. That's how the game works. Unless. The DM. Rules. Otherwise.
I'm a big fan of the variant rule. I think of it the same way as changing the saving throw on Tidal Wave to STR. It just makes sense. But I'd also just cut the Intimidation skill out of my game entirely, next time I DM. I'm a person with opinions that don't always match up with the rules. When I DM, I exercise my power to change the rules. And that brings us back to the DM thing. Ultimately, nobody can have the final say here because your DM makes the call. We don't know them and we can't read their mind.
And you know this. That's not the thrust of your question. You're asking what happens if the DM sticks to the rules. Well, now you know. I think we're done here.
The thing is that basically all of your examples are demonstrations of power -- i.e. proving that you're capable of hurting them -- but that's not intimidation. Intimidation is what you do after you've convinced people you can hurt them.
I'm definitely in the camp that charisma should be the main rule but other abilities, in certain circumstances chosen by the DM, could be used.
I am also definitely not seeing the idea of being big and strong meaning that people are afraid of you. Have you seen no videos of pgym-buffs thinking they're hard only to find they were picking a fight with a wiry or ageing veteran or an MMA fighter? Being strong only intimidates the weak, so yes, as a DM I might give advantage or allow strength to be used if the opponent is weak or I consider the NPC to view strength as scary, but if I am playing an NPC who is not intimidated by strength (IE anyone with an adventuring class, who is themselves strong, or doesn't get intimidated by physical weakness) then either it's making no difference or the DC is going up, and I'm narrating how they look unimpressed by your efforts.
Honestly, the change of a check (or more reasonably, reduction of DC) is down to comparison. If you use Create Flame in front of someone who is terrified of fire to back up your intimidation, then the DC is dropping. If you do so in front of a pyromaniac, then the DC is increases. Show muscle to the veteran streetfighter and the DC goes higher, but show it to the weaselly bookkeeper for the locak races and it might go down.
My preference is in adjusting the DC because of how you use what you have, rather than letting you use the stat - this is largely because how effective it is is going to be based on a comparison to the recepient, not on how strong you are against an arbitrary baseline. Flex your muscles to intimidate a storm giant, see what happens!
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!
This is probably not a very good example, but it's what I could think based off the top of my head: their's someone loyal to their order and believes that if they die faithfully their dead spirit is brought to their god and rewarded in the afterlife. You tell them they don't have to die and that you, the big barbarian has some nice alternatives. Maybe the party also demonstrates a few in some other people the person knows.
Yes, you can argue that charisma plays a roll in this situation, since you're making specifically chosen threats (which I would argue that part as more intelligence focused), and physical threats are mentioned in with the description of charisma (intimidation) checks. However, strength is the main part of this intimidation plan, and it simply doesn't make sense that the DM should not allow strength to play a part in this. (Not necessarily by making it a strength (intimidation) check, but there are other means.).
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.I think a lot pf people are mistaking coercion/force with convincing/persuading.
coercion
Sydney Greenstreet failing his Intimidation check in the Maltese Falcon
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)
That could almost be counted an a counter intimidation check. Sams doing a good job of it.
Or what they do after you've convinced them. If some racist yokels try to pick a fight with the half-orc barbarian only for him to smash the table to kindling with a single blow, they might realize that fighting him is just suicide with delusions of survival and run away instead. That's a successful intimidation.
If he fails to break the table, or they decide not to run away, that's an unsuccessful intimidation.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, that's a successful athletics check. Intimidation is not the 'scare people' skill, nor do you need an intimidation check to scare people.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Intimidation
So yeah, the PHB description of Intimidation includes acts of violence. Trying to throw a table across a room would be an Athletics check.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That doesn't mean you use an intimidation check to perform physical violence. You perform physical violence with whatever ability you would normally use for that (Athletics in this case) and then make use of the violence to execute the intimidation (which is done with a charisma/intimidation check).
You are arguing that the rules don't say what they actually say. Based on your logic, in order to intimidate someone verbally you'd need to make a diplomacy check to use your words effectively in order to make an intimidate check to intimidate them. Wizards explicitly added the optional rule for skill checks to be made with non-standard ability scores if the GM feels that it's appropriate. Like using an intimidate check with Str instead of Cha by performing a feat of strength in order to threaten someone.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If I fireball a bunch of goblins and the rest of the goblins run away, do I use Intimidation to perform the fireball? No, I use my spellcasting ability.
The fundamental process of intimidation is in fact a negotiation: you're trading "not hurting them" for "them doing what I want". Of course, if they don't believe that you can hurt them, they're going to reject that bargain; thus, you do need to prove that you can hurt them. However, the actual intimidation is the trade, not the "prove that you can hurt them".
I think the key thing here is that being scared of someone isn't the same as being intimidated by them.
Being scared is when you apply the Frightened condition to a creature. This is the expected response to someone showing they have hostile thoughts towards you, and is likely the result of a strenght(intimidation) check.
Being intimidated by someone is having the thought of "if I don't do what they want, then bad things will happen". This required that the intimidator conveys to the intimidatee what they want, so that the intimidatee, if intimidated, wil lcomply with it.
In the original example, if the hulking monster in the bar breaks a chair over his face and begins acting hostile, I would have them make an Intimidation (Str) check, which if successful would make the others in the bar frightened of them, probably running away. If they want the person to buy them a drink, making them afraid of them is not enough - they need to convey their request, and then intimidate them to make them comply, and that will involve charisma. I would give advantage if the intimidatee was also frightened of them.
So yes, you can absolutely do a Strength intimidation check, but it will not be able to convey complex requests - largely it would be limited to "run away" or "don't even think about it".
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!
Trying to use alternative base ability for skills lioe Strength (Intimidation) is a valid option, at the discretion of the DM.
However, it should come with consequences. Using Charisma (Intimidation) would be using body language, intonation and careful use of words to scare them into doing what you want. With no actual harm done, there's little to report you to the town guard for, nothing easily proven. Do it too much and you'll develop a rep, but you get a lot of free uses. On the other hand, using Strength (Intimidation) is making the demand, then picking up a nearby chair and smashing it. That chair has an owner, who won't be pleased and will probably be talking with the Town guard, who in turn would rather see the back of you. You'll develop a bad reputation much faster, and other NPCs won't want to have anything to do with you, including those who could otherwise have been your allies. People with quests might, depending on their disposition, be less likely to approach you.
So, yes, players can try to use alternative ability scores as a base for a check. However, they should know that there will be consequences for not investing in the proper way. I
Those consequences should follow naturally from their choice. Using Strength instead of Charisma will get you a bad rep and make things harder for you I the town.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Honestly, I wish intimidation was a multi-step process involving more than one different skills (kind of like an ability challenge to intimidate someone but it maybe could be adjusted for how much people are trying to intimidate someone.) Because the description sounds like it's using both stats.
I just feel like intimidation shouldn't be based completely of charisma without factoring in other elements. I still think intimidation should be based off strength, however, this is the main alternative I can see that would fit with both sides off the argument.
Creating a multi-step system like that for intimidation might be hard and complex (for people using it) though, so I guess that's why one probably hasn't been invented/attempted.
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.