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.
That is completely unnecessary. DMs already have plenty of tools at their disposal to "factor in other elements". If you want to smash a table and hulk out as part of your intimidation attempt, they might give you advantage on a normal check, or reduce the DC, or let you make a Strength (Intimidation) check instead of a Charisma (Intimidation) check.
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)
I feel like strength intimidation as an optional rule solves a lot of this.
I tend to think of cha based intimidation as selling the threat through words and body language. It may not even be you threatening to hurt them yourself, but calling on a local crime lord who owes you a favor or something. Even with big strong characters who don't talk much, cha can still be applicable because it's a sort of two step process. Making them under that you CAN do something unpleasant directly or indirectly, and convine them that you WILL follow through with it. A big burly half orc might be able to smash a table to bits but can they convince the guard that they'll actually go through with pounding their head into jelly if they stand in their way?
Where it makes sense I'll allow for str intimidation but not as a catch all for every situation you might want to roll for intimidation. The acts of physical violence thing I interpret as like, grabbing the collar of someone's shirt and pushing them back against the wall or using the THREAT of physical violence etc As if you were outright attacking them, it would just be an attack roll etc. It's largely case by case for me. Similar to people trying to use acrobatics and athletics interchangeably. Sure there is some overlap between the two, but if you want your character to be all around physically proficient you're not going to want to make either a dump stat in my games. SImilarly, if you want your character to be good at intimidation, you should probably not make cha a complete dump stat.
That said if your big half orc barbarian is rolling intimidation in the first place it's going to be against someone who isn't easily shaken. The evil lord's elite guards will be hard to intimidate where as the servants cleaning his mansion less so and might require no roll or have a much lower DC depending on the situation.
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.
While great in theory, it would take a substantial overhaul of the system to work. With the current aim of about 65% success on a roll, a three stage process would only have around 30% chance of success. To make it work, you'd have to either make it quite complicated (that goes against the ethos of 5e), create a substantially different system for this aspect (which again goes against the ethos of 5e) or really mess around with the numbers so it balances out.
I'm not sure it would ever happen. They'd have to redo the system from the ground up so you can do something similar with most skill checks.
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.
That exists. Mechanically speaking, what's happening is that the character is making an athletics check to smash the table, and based on the result gains either advantage or disadvantage on the actual intimidation check.
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.
That exists. Mechanically speaking, what's happening is that the character is making an athletics check to smash the table, and based on the result gains either advantage or disadvantage on the actual intimidation check.
For that I personally just simplify it to a Strength (Intimidation) check, but I can understand why someone would do it the long way.
A very good DMing rule I've run across and strongly support is to never force a character to make multiple checks to resolve a single action.
The action is "smashing the table". The intent of the action is "get the NPC to do what I want". The DM's job is to decide if the declared action (smashing the table) can accomplish the given goal (get the NPC to do what the PC wants) and if so what the odds are/how hard it'd be. Then the DM decides which ability score best fits the action, and whether or not a skill proficiency applies. Training in Intimidation certainly applies to an attempt to bully someone into doing something for you, so the question becomes "which ability score best fits the action?" For many, many checks, there will be multiple perfectly valid ability scores one could use. The key is to try and figure out what the lynchpin ability is - the bit that causes everything else to fail if it underperforms.
Some DMs will decide that the lynchpin ability score for "Smash table to get what I want" is Strength - that the keystone of the action is the character's imposing physique, and that Charisma is secondary to having the Mighty Mountainous Man Muscles required to back the implied threat of (further) violence.
Some DMs will decide that the lynchpin ability score for "Smash table to get what I want" is Charisma - that no amount of physical brawn is going to sway hearts and minds if the character doesn't have the force of presence to overawe whoever they're flexing on and get them to comply.
And some DMs will decide that the stated action (smashing the table, clashing their weapon on their shield, and growling like a wildman) has no chance of achieving the stated objective (getting the NPC to do what the PC wants). There will be no roll at all and Intimidation won't come into play; depending on the NPC involved a range of different things happen, but none of them are free drinks. Frankly, in the taverns of many larger cities, my barkeeps would simply look at the player, sigh softly, and say "You're paying for that table, then you're leaving my inn." A barkeep that doesn't learn how to deal with unruly adventurers is a barkeep not long for owning a profitable business. 'The barkeep is a retired high-level adventurer' is a trope/meme for a reason.
A very good DMing rule I've run across and strongly support is to never force a character to make multiple checks to resolve a single action.
I significantly disagree. The number of rolls should be proportionate to the importance of the event being resolved.
Now, I probably wouldn't ever have the 'random yokels harass the PC in a bar' scene in the first place, unless the PC was specifically making an effort to blend in, because "dude with armor and multiple weapons" isn't the kind of person you randomly harass, but if I did, I would assume the 'yokels' have already evaluated the threat posed by the character and decided they don't care, in which case smashing the table is in line with expectations and doesn't directly move the needle at all, though it may change the flavor of harassment (succeed and you're confirming what everyone knows about mindless brutes, fail and you get mocked for weakness).
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.
That exists. Mechanically speaking, what's happening is that the character is making an athletics check to smash the table, and based on the result gains either advantage or disadvantage on the actual intimidation check.
That's not Athletics, that's just Strength. I mean unless your setting has competitive table smashing as a sport.
Edit: In fact, it's not Athletics even then. Athletics is for movement challenges.
Got to say that I would consider the table-smashing a strength check which is intended to give advantage on the intimidation, which is still charisma. The DC for the intimidation will depend on what you want to achieve - making them afraid of you and then telling them to run away is going to be easier than making them afraid of you and then trying to intimidate them into joining your ship as crewmen.
I've convinced myself firmly into the camp of smashing a table may be intimidation (strength) but it's not going to do anything but make them frightened. Intimidation proper is the art of manipulating what someone else is doing - and that's all charisma.
Scenario 1: yokel spills barbarians drink, barbarian smashes a table in a strength-intimidation check, yokel runs away.
Scenario 2: Yokel spills barbarians drink, and barbarian smashes table, and then says "you owe me a drink", for an intimidation check.
Heck, realistcally you're looking at the barbarian thumping the table, and then rollng a strength check to see if they smash it to gain advantage, and then making the intimidation. The DM would only offer them the chance for advantage if they're strong enough to realistically break the table. A scrawny rogue slamming a knife onto the table and rolling intimidation would not necessarily get that option, though if they do so between the yokels fingers on the table, then a dex check to see how well they pull that off, and maybe get adantage as well.
It's about rewarding roleplaying your character, rather than bypassing the rules so you can dump charisma and still be intimidating.
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.
I just thought of something.
Would this move work against your PC's? And if so why not role an intimidation check against the PC's at the start of every encounter?
But as for this scenario. Why would a yokel pick a fight with the biggest guy in the bar? That doesn't sound smart unless they are the same size and think that no matter what the big guy says or does they could take him out.
No they would pick the fight against the small guy. The gnome. Now imagine the gnome jumping up and smashing that same table. Now that would be impressive. Because the game has removed so much of what made the different races different that its now possible for a gnome to be just as strong as a half-orc.The only difference is size.
I miss the days of limitations. If you didn't like it find a way to work around it as best as possible but don't just change the rules to make someone happy.
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.
I just thought of something.
Would this move work against your PC's? And if so why not role an intimidation check against the PC's at the start of every encounter?
Invalid question, charisma checks don't determine the actions of PCs in the first place. If an NPC somehow got an Intimidate check result of 40, it still wouldn't require the PCs to act in any specific way.
But as for this scenario. Why would a yokel pick a fight with the biggest guy in the bar? That doesn't sound smart unless they are the same size and think that no matter what the big guy says or does they could take him out.
No they would pick the fight against the small guy. The gnome. Now imagine the gnome jumping up and smashing that same table. Now that would be impressive. Because the game has removed so much of what made the different races different that its now possible for a gnome to be just as strong as a half-orc.The only difference is size.
I miss the days of limitations. If you didn't like it find a way to work around it as best as possible but don't just change the rules to make someone happy.
First of all, you obviously haven't payed much attention to racists if you think that they'd act smart when it comes to their racism. Especially not if there's a group of them and they've had a few drinks and started egging each other on. Common scenario: they want to prove how tough they are by picking a fight with that big, dangerous looking dude. You may have heard of Andre the Giant? Pro wrestler back in the 70s and 80s. He got his name because he was 7'4" and weighed 500 lbs. He had people that voluntarily tried to pick fights with him outside of the wrestling ring by making fun of his size. Including one incident where he chased four people out of a bar, then after they locked themselves in their car to try and get away from him he flipped the car upside down. That's in the real world. So yes, it's entirely plausible that people in the D&D world will be stupid enough to pick fights with the half-orc who's 7' tall and 500 lbs.
Nobody here is asking to change any rules because the rule already exists that the GM can change the ability score tied to a skill check if they feel that it is justified by the situation. Would I let someone just use Strength instead of Charisma for Intimidate checks automatically all the time? No. But I'm perfectly willing to let a PC use Strength instead of Charisma for an Intimidate roll if they can give me a good reason for the situation. D&D is not and never has been a game where you were expected to rigidly adhere to every rule 100% of the time and if a player can demonstrate some good outside-the-box thinking and roleplaying, I think they should be rewarded rather than punished.
Invalid question, charisma checks don't determine the actions of PCs in the first place. If an NPC somehow got an Intimidate check result of 40, it still wouldn't require the PCs to act in any specific way.
Citation needed. I have heard this claimed a lot but where in the skill descriptions does it say they do not affect PC's? Not even deception? PC's get to see through all lies simply because they are PC's? Or stealth? PC's do not need perception skill because NPC stealth checks do not affect them?
There's a difference between the DM saying "You feel a palpable aura of menace and vicious intent from this person; your senses are all screaming at you to get away, to flee or to appease this person however you have to. Their suggestion that you pay for the table you broke and leave is speaking directly to your lizard brain" and the DM saying "The barkeep looks at you, and your knees go weak and watery. You're frightened out of your mind, and you reach down and pull two hundred gold from your bag and put it on the bar with a stammered apology before fleeing from the bar."
Persuasion, Intimidation, and any other social skill cannot be employed to brain-control PCs, because if a DM does that the entire game is broken. What reason do the players have to bother showing up, if the DM is going to decide what their characters do just by throwing dice? The DM can inform players of what theyir characters' senses are telling them, such as the aforementioned case of "this guy is hella intimidating and your instincts are not happy with it", but they cannot demand their player do or play a certain way. A good player will roll with it when the DM tells them they've been intimidated, but in many cases it's going to be very difficult for average yokels to intimidate a seasoned adventurer with a three-digit kill count.
Persuasion, Intimidation, and any other social skill cannot be employed to brain-control PCs, because if a DM does that the entire game is broken.
Of course, RAW doesn't actually say it can be used that way against NPCs either. The PBH doesn't do more than say that a charisma roll might do something. The DMG has slightly more to say but hardly translates as mind control, and in any case obviously don't apply to PCs because they don't even make sense for PCs.
Andre the Giant was a very passive person in real life. Will liked and loved in his French village. He in no way ever intimidated anyone. His character in The Princes Bride was actually pretty close to his actual personality.
He was also in huge amounts of pain from his giantism. So much so he quit wrestling. His days were spent sitting in his favorite French bistro and drinking his nights away. Sometimes falling asleep in his chair.
I figure that the use of Charisma for intimidation is because the check is not about how strong you are, it is about whether or not you convince the target you are willing to follow through on your threat. That is all about force of personality, strength of will, and purpose, all of which are covered by CHA.
If a big strong warrior with low CHA fails an intimidation attempt, it is not because they aren't big and strong and scary, it is because the other person didn't believe the warrior would actually do the things they threatened to do.
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.
While great in theory, it would take a substantial overhaul of the system to work. With the current aim of about 65% success on a roll, a three stage process would only have around 30% chance of success. To make it work, you'd have to either make it quite complicated (that goes against the ethos of 5e), create a substantially different system for this aspect (which again goes against the ethos of 5e) or really mess around with the numbers so it balances out.
I'm not sure it would ever happen. They'd have to redo the system from the ground up so you can do something similar with most skill checks.
I was mostly thinking that the DM says "If you pass this many checks you succeed," tailoring the DC to the person they're trying to intimidate and how hard it is to scare them.
I wasn't thinking that you have to succeed on all the checks, but just a number equal to what the DM chooses.
PS-If a system like this doesn't work, I just think multiple different ability scores should/could be involved in some intimidation checks/processes.
Invalid question, charisma checks don't determine the actions of PCs in the first place. If an NPC somehow got an Intimidate check result of 40, it still wouldn't require the PCs to act in any specific way.
Citation needed. I have heard this claimed a lot but where in the skill descriptions does it say they do not affect PC's? Not even deception? PC's get to see through all lies simply because they are PC's? Or stealth? PC's do not need perception skill because NPC stealth checks do not affect them?
Why would persuasion or intimidation have no affect on PC's, exactly?
First of all, you obviously haven't payed much attention to racists if you think that they'd act smart when it comes to their racism. Especially not if there's a group of them and they've had a few drinks and started egging each other on. Common scenario: they want to prove how tough they are by picking a fight with that big, dangerous looking dude. You may have heard of Andre the Giant? Pro wrestler back in the 70s and 80s. He got his name because he was 7'4" and weighed 500 lbs. He had people that voluntarily tried to pick fights with him outside of the wrestling ring by making fun of his size. Including one incident where he chased four people out of a bar, then after they locked themselves in their car to try and get away from him he flipped the car upside down. That's in the real world. So yes, it's entirely plausible that people in the D&D world will be stupid enough to pick fights with the half-orc who's 7' tall and 500 lbs.
So racists have no survival instinct? Citation needed. Individual incidents do happen, but those people picking on Andre the Giant were picking fights with a professional wrestler, who was not known for actually hurting anyone in the ring. "I'll take you on!" to a professional fighter is not the same as "We're gonna lynch ya!"
Yeah, people tend to think that professional wrestlers are all show and no substance and that's why wannabe tough guys pick fights with them. Not every wrestler is as nice as Andre was, and people getting badly hurt in some cases because they decided to try fighting against someone didn't hold back. If you really want stories, all you need to do is a simple internet search for racists trying to pick fights with boxers or MMA champions and getting beaten up. It actually happens a lot.
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.
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...
*Waves* Hi!
I've done exactly that, on more than one occasion.
I've also allowed on (I think) one occasion an Intelligence (Performance) check.
I'm not sure it would ever happen. They'd have to redo the system from the ground up so you can do something similar with most skill checks.
A bunch of people have made efforts to port skill challenges from 4e into 5e. Which as played in 4e amounted to "you need X successes before Y failures and you can use whatever skills you can sell the DM on", though in theory the DM was supposed to come up with a list of appropriate or required skills and limit how much you could do with off-the-wall checks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That is completely unnecessary. DMs already have plenty of tools at their disposal to "factor in other elements". If you want to smash a table and hulk out as part of your intimidation attempt, they might give you advantage on a normal check, or reduce the DC, or let you make a Strength (Intimidation) check instead of a Charisma (Intimidation) check.
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)
I feel like strength intimidation as an optional rule solves a lot of this.
I tend to think of cha based intimidation as selling the threat through words and body language. It may not even be you threatening to hurt them yourself, but calling on a local crime lord who owes you a favor or something. Even with big strong characters who don't talk much, cha can still be applicable because it's a sort of two step process. Making them under that you CAN do something unpleasant directly or indirectly, and convine them that you WILL follow through with it. A big burly half orc might be able to smash a table to bits but can they convince the guard that they'll actually go through with pounding their head into jelly if they stand in their way?
Where it makes sense I'll allow for str intimidation but not as a catch all for every situation you might want to roll for intimidation. The acts of physical violence thing I interpret as like, grabbing the collar of someone's shirt and pushing them back against the wall or using the THREAT of physical violence etc As if you were outright attacking them, it would just be an attack roll etc. It's largely case by case for me. Similar to people trying to use acrobatics and athletics interchangeably. Sure there is some overlap between the two, but if you want your character to be all around physically proficient you're not going to want to make either a dump stat in my games. SImilarly, if you want your character to be good at intimidation, you should probably not make cha a complete dump stat.
That said if your big half orc barbarian is rolling intimidation in the first place it's going to be against someone who isn't easily shaken. The evil lord's elite guards will be hard to intimidate where as the servants cleaning his mansion less so and might require no roll or have a much lower DC depending on the situation.
While great in theory, it would take a substantial overhaul of the system to work. With the current aim of about 65% success on a roll, a three stage process would only have around 30% chance of success. To make it work, you'd have to either make it quite complicated (that goes against the ethos of 5e), create a substantially different system for this aspect (which again goes against the ethos of 5e) or really mess around with the numbers so it balances out.
I'm not sure it would ever happen. They'd have to redo the system from the ground up so you can do something similar with most skill checks.
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.
That exists. Mechanically speaking, what's happening is that the character is making an athletics check to smash the table, and based on the result gains either advantage or disadvantage on the actual intimidation check.
For that I personally just simplify it to a Strength (Intimidation) check, but I can understand why someone would do it the long way.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A very good DMing rule I've run across and strongly support is to never force a character to make multiple checks to resolve a single action.
The action is "smashing the table". The intent of the action is "get the NPC to do what I want". The DM's job is to decide if the declared action (smashing the table) can accomplish the given goal (get the NPC to do what the PC wants) and if so what the odds are/how hard it'd be. Then the DM decides which ability score best fits the action, and whether or not a skill proficiency applies. Training in Intimidation certainly applies to an attempt to bully someone into doing something for you, so the question becomes "which ability score best fits the action?" For many, many checks, there will be multiple perfectly valid ability scores one could use. The key is to try and figure out what the lynchpin ability is - the bit that causes everything else to fail if it underperforms.
Some DMs will decide that the lynchpin ability score for "Smash table to get what I want" is Strength - that the keystone of the action is the character's imposing physique, and that Charisma is secondary to having the Mighty Mountainous Man Muscles required to back the implied threat of (further) violence.
Some DMs will decide that the lynchpin ability score for "Smash table to get what I want" is Charisma - that no amount of physical brawn is going to sway hearts and minds if the character doesn't have the force of presence to overawe whoever they're flexing on and get them to comply.
And some DMs will decide that the stated action (smashing the table, clashing their weapon on their shield, and growling like a wildman) has no chance of achieving the stated objective (getting the NPC to do what the PC wants). There will be no roll at all and Intimidation won't come into play; depending on the NPC involved a range of different things happen, but none of them are free drinks. Frankly, in the taverns of many larger cities, my barkeeps would simply look at the player, sigh softly, and say "You're paying for that table, then you're leaving my inn." A barkeep that doesn't learn how to deal with unruly adventurers is a barkeep not long for owning a profitable business. 'The barkeep is a retired high-level adventurer' is a trope/meme for a reason.
Please do not contact or message me.
I significantly disagree. The number of rolls should be proportionate to the importance of the event being resolved.
Now, I probably wouldn't ever have the 'random yokels harass the PC in a bar' scene in the first place, unless the PC was specifically making an effort to blend in, because "dude with armor and multiple weapons" isn't the kind of person you randomly harass, but if I did, I would assume the 'yokels' have already evaluated the threat posed by the character and decided they don't care, in which case smashing the table is in line with expectations and doesn't directly move the needle at all, though it may change the flavor of harassment (succeed and you're confirming what everyone knows about mindless brutes, fail and you get mocked for weakness).
That's not Athletics, that's just Strength. I mean unless your setting has competitive table smashing as a sport.
Edit: In fact, it's not Athletics even then. Athletics is for movement challenges.
Got to say that I would consider the table-smashing a strength check which is intended to give advantage on the intimidation, which is still charisma. The DC for the intimidation will depend on what you want to achieve - making them afraid of you and then telling them to run away is going to be easier than making them afraid of you and then trying to intimidate them into joining your ship as crewmen.
I've convinced myself firmly into the camp of smashing a table may be intimidation (strength) but it's not going to do anything but make them frightened. Intimidation proper is the art of manipulating what someone else is doing - and that's all charisma.
Scenario 1: yokel spills barbarians drink, barbarian smashes a table in a strength-intimidation check, yokel runs away.
Scenario 2: Yokel spills barbarians drink, and barbarian smashes table, and then says "you owe me a drink", for an intimidation check.
Heck, realistcally you're looking at the barbarian thumping the table, and then rollng a strength check to see if they smash it to gain advantage, and then making the intimidation. The DM would only offer them the chance for advantage if they're strong enough to realistically break the table. A scrawny rogue slamming a knife onto the table and rolling intimidation would not necessarily get that option, though if they do so between the yokels fingers on the table, then a dex check to see how well they pull that off, and maybe get adantage as well.
It's about rewarding roleplaying your character, rather than bypassing the rules so you can dump charisma and still be intimidating.
Key point to take away: Intimidating =/= scary.
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!
And trips, slams, and grappling. Which are about as closely related to movement challenges as smashing tables.
I just thought of something.
Would this move work against your PC's? And if so why not role an intimidation check against the PC's at the start of every encounter?
But as for this scenario. Why would a yokel pick a fight with the biggest guy in the bar? That doesn't sound smart unless they are the same size and think that no matter what the big guy says or does they could take him out.
No they would pick the fight against the small guy. The gnome. Now imagine the gnome jumping up and smashing that same table. Now that would be impressive. Because the game has removed so much of what made the different races different that its now possible for a gnome to be just as strong as a half-orc.The only difference is size.
I miss the days of limitations. If you didn't like it find a way to work around it as best as possible but don't just change the rules to make someone happy.
Invalid question, charisma checks don't determine the actions of PCs in the first place. If an NPC somehow got an Intimidate check result of 40, it still wouldn't require the PCs to act in any specific way.
First of all, you obviously haven't payed much attention to racists if you think that they'd act smart when it comes to their racism. Especially not if there's a group of them and they've had a few drinks and started egging each other on. Common scenario: they want to prove how tough they are by picking a fight with that big, dangerous looking dude. You may have heard of Andre the Giant? Pro wrestler back in the 70s and 80s. He got his name because he was 7'4" and weighed 500 lbs. He had people that voluntarily tried to pick fights with him outside of the wrestling ring by making fun of his size. Including one incident where he chased four people out of a bar, then after they locked themselves in their car to try and get away from him he flipped the car upside down. That's in the real world. So yes, it's entirely plausible that people in the D&D world will be stupid enough to pick fights with the half-orc who's 7' tall and 500 lbs.
Nobody here is asking to change any rules because the rule already exists that the GM can change the ability score tied to a skill check if they feel that it is justified by the situation. Would I let someone just use Strength instead of Charisma for Intimidate checks automatically all the time? No. But I'm perfectly willing to let a PC use Strength instead of Charisma for an Intimidate roll if they can give me a good reason for the situation. D&D is not and never has been a game where you were expected to rigidly adhere to every rule 100% of the time and if a player can demonstrate some good outside-the-box thinking and roleplaying, I think they should be rewarded rather than punished.
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.
There's a difference between the DM saying "You feel a palpable aura of menace and vicious intent from this person; your senses are all screaming at you to get away, to flee or to appease this person however you have to. Their suggestion that you pay for the table you broke and leave is speaking directly to your lizard brain" and the DM saying "The barkeep looks at you, and your knees go weak and watery. You're frightened out of your mind, and you reach down and pull two hundred gold from your bag and put it on the bar with a stammered apology before fleeing from the bar."
Persuasion, Intimidation, and any other social skill cannot be employed to brain-control PCs, because if a DM does that the entire game is broken. What reason do the players have to bother showing up, if the DM is going to decide what their characters do just by throwing dice? The DM can inform players of what theyir characters' senses are telling them, such as the aforementioned case of "this guy is hella intimidating and your instincts are not happy with it", but they cannot demand their player do or play a certain way. A good player will roll with it when the DM tells them they've been intimidated, but in many cases it's going to be very difficult for average yokels to intimidate a seasoned adventurer with a three-digit kill count.
Please do not contact or message me.
Of course, RAW doesn't actually say it can be used that way against NPCs either. The PBH doesn't do more than say that a charisma roll might do something. The DMG has slightly more to say but hardly translates as mind control, and in any case obviously don't apply to PCs because they don't even make sense for PCs.
Andre the Giant was a very passive person in real life. Will liked and loved in his French village. He in no way ever intimidated anyone. His character in The Princes Bride was actually pretty close to his actual personality.
He was also in huge amounts of pain from his giantism. So much so he quit wrestling. His days were spent sitting in his favorite French bistro and drinking his nights away. Sometimes falling asleep in his chair.
Sadly he died a poor alcoholic.
I figure that the use of Charisma for intimidation is because the check is not about how strong you are, it is about whether or not you convince the target you are willing to follow through on your threat. That is all about force of personality, strength of will, and purpose, all of which are covered by CHA.
If a big strong warrior with low CHA fails an intimidation attempt, it is not because they aren't big and strong and scary, it is because the other person didn't believe the warrior would actually do the things they threatened to do.
I was mostly thinking that the DM says "If you pass this many checks you succeed," tailoring the DC to the person they're trying to intimidate and how hard it is to scare them.
I wasn't thinking that you have to succeed on all the checks, but just a number equal to what the DM chooses.
PS-If a system like this doesn't work, I just think multiple different ability scores should/could be involved in some intimidation checks/processes.
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.Yeah, people tend to think that professional wrestlers are all show and no substance and that's why wannabe tough guys pick fights with them. Not every wrestler is as nice as Andre was, and people getting badly hurt in some cases because they decided to try fighting against someone didn't hold back. If you really want stories, all you need to do is a simple internet search for racists trying to pick fights with boxers or MMA champions and getting beaten up. It actually happens a lot.
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.
*Waves* Hi!
I've done exactly that, on more than one occasion.
I've also allowed on (I think) one occasion an Intelligence (Performance) check.
A bunch of people have made efforts to port skill challenges from 4e into 5e. Which as played in 4e amounted to "you need X successes before Y failures and you can use whatever skills you can sell the DM on", though in theory the DM was supposed to come up with a list of appropriate or required skills and limit how much you could do with off-the-wall checks.