Back in I think 3rd edition Intimidation was based on Str not Chr. Which I always preferred. A big beefy fighter is going to be intimidating way more than a little 90lb bard. Now, the bard could be more persuasive, yes, that makes sense.
So the way I've always seen it:
Fighter: You'll talk or I'll break you like I'm currently crushing this rock in my bare hand. (Str based Inimidation check)
Bard: So, look. I like you. You seem reasonable. You see that big amazon there, crushing a rock with her bare hand? Yeah.. she wants to do that to your skull. Now, now, me? ME? I say you and I talk and I don't let her do that do you? Sound reasonable? You look reasonable. (Chr based persuasion check)
There's nothing stopping you from allowing a player to use a different stat bonus towards a skill roll. The options presented are just sort of the agreed defaults. As long as what is being done makes sense to you and your players, it'll work out just fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
What about the wizard intimidating people by setting stuff on fire, or the cleric intimidating by using thaumaturgy to make his eyes glow and his voice boom like thunder, or the rogue intimidating by suddenly appearing out of the shadows? "I'm capable of horrific acts of violence and I'll use them if if I don't get my way" is something any class can do. What Intimidate is for is
Making people believe that you're as dangerous as you actually are (more dangerous is deceit)
Making people believe that the danger is real
Making people believe that placating you is viable.
All three of those naturally fall under charisma -- but demonstrations of your capacity for violence should provide bonuses to the check.
Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.
I like letting players suggest skills they can use in specific situations, because it allows people to try to do things while still play to their strengths. My cleric might have a low Intelligence, but instead of a history check to know more about a creature they might ask for a medicine check to see if they learned about the way that creature's attacks deal damage and how to heal those injuries.
Also if a player is willing to use an actual ability, like an attack/spell/feature, if it works in the situation that can be fun and interesting as well! As a DM the more reasonable your request sounds for the situation, the more I will let you do!
To justify the original choice more - ALL classes of characters are dangerous. A wizened 5th-level Wizard or a slender 5th-level rogue can !@#$@ you up just as bad as a brawny 5th-level fighter.
The intimidation skill is about using your power - whatever it is - to get your target to do what they want through fear.
This could be a fighter saying "You'll talk or I'll break you like I'm currently crushing this rock in my bare hand. " Or it could be a wizard shooting a small puff of flame out and going "You know, you have two options - talking or being on fire. Magical fire that you can't put out. " Or it could be a rogue going "Last person who didn't talk to me wound up with their throat slit. In broad daylight, and nobody saw who did it! Shame if that were to happen to you."
That's why it's CHA. Because it's not about how powerful you are, it's about how well you're able to manipulate your target with your power.
I always tell my players: Intimidation as a Charisma based ability is like Christopher Walken coming up to you in a dark alley and merely suggesting that you give him your wallet. No threat, no show of force... just that creepy ass vocal tone and those eyes.... oh gawd those eyes!!
But the game does allow for skills to call on different abilities. I ask for Int(Stealth) checks for hiding a dagger on your body, or Int(Survival) or hiding a wagon in the woods, Str(Intimidation) for the barbarian to flex on a guard, etc...
My fighter is trained in intimidation. I usually just use it to aid the high CHA character. I stand there cracking my knuckles, she gets advantage on the roll.
The Charisma check models convincing the target that you are really willing to go through with the threat. If the check fails, then you haven't convinced them you are committed.
Perhaps they think you are bluffing. Perhaps they think you don't have the stones to torture them. Perhaps they think you aren't mean enough or callous enough to follow through. Perhaps they think their endurance is just higher than yours, and they'll outlast you.
In a world of massive hulks, sneaky rogues and scrawny wizards all with similar levels of murder potential, "strength" isn't really all that intimidating. Constitution however, You take a sword to the back and walk around like nothing happened. Now we're intimidating. The opposite of that is someone who cant take a punch or handle their drink. Not intimidating at all.
I had a literature teacher in middle school who was 5-foot-nothing. She was a fantastic teacher, and had a great sense of humor, and always kept the class engaged. She was also terrifying. Never raised her voice (at least not in a threatening way), but she could silence a room of 7th and 8th graders with one ring of a bell. She could part a hallway like the Red Sea. She was liked by most students, but when she entered a room, she was the boss.
Being strong in personality is often more intimidating than being strong in body.
EDIT: That being said, I do see your point, and I am a big fan of changing the ability associated with a skill check.
My take: there’s a big difference between keeping someone cowed when they’re in your strangling range and putting such a dread in them that they won’t think to cross you even when you’re miles away. The later is going to need some charisma.
I agree with what many have stated above. The way I’ve always thought of it was the character using their charisma, or personality to directly intimidate the enemy. If you think about intimidating characters in other forms of media, such as movies, a character doesn’t always have to be the Hulk to be intimidating. Sure, the threat of a barbaric mountain of muscle can be intimidating, but is the threat of a mob boss telling you very calmly about how they will dismember you and nobody will ever find the pieces any less scary? Is John Wick any less intimidating because he’s played by Keanu Reeves who is 6ft tall and 175lbs? It’s not always about physical size, but the threats of violence against you, and their ability to make you believe they are capable and willing to commit that violence that causes intimidation, and that is 100% an affect of some form of charisma. Horror characters are another prime example. Saw is played by a 2ft tall marionette with weird face paint, but he’s still very intimidating. Chucky is a literal children’s doll, and yet he’s terrifying to some.
Thinking this way, I encourage my players to tell me HOW their character would intimidate someone. A rogue might ambush a mark, hold a dagger to their throat from behind, speak in a gravelly voice and level terrifying threats. A warrior might corner an opponent to make them feel trapped, brandish their weapon, strike a pose that clearly telepaths an intent to kill, and slowly and relentlessly advance on them. A wizard might use a terrifying illusion or a particularly nasty spell to intimidate an enemy if the player is creative, such as using shape water to essentially water board and torture an enemy by repeatedly forming a sphere of water around their head…
Any character can intimidate, it just takes a little creativity to think of how any character would best use their talents to accomplish the task.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Main question is in the subject.
Back in I think 3rd edition Intimidation was based on Str not Chr. Which I always preferred. A big beefy fighter is going to be intimidating way more than a little 90lb bard. Now, the bard could be more persuasive, yes, that makes sense.
So the way I've always seen it:
Fighter: You'll talk or I'll break you like I'm currently crushing this rock in my bare hand. (Str based Inimidation check)
Bard: So, look. I like you. You seem reasonable. You see that big amazon there, crushing a rock with her bare hand? Yeah.. she wants to do that to your skull. Now, now, me? ME? I say you and I talk and I don't let her do that do you? Sound reasonable? You look reasonable. (Chr based persuasion check)
Thoughts?
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
There's nothing stopping you from allowing a player to use a different stat bonus towards a skill roll. The options presented are just sort of the agreed defaults. As long as what is being done makes sense to you and your players, it'll work out just fine.
Agreed, there is actually a variant rule that DMs can use that makes Intimidation a Strength check, as opposed to Charisma.
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
What about the wizard intimidating people by setting stuff on fire, or the cleric intimidating by using thaumaturgy to make his eyes glow and his voice boom like thunder, or the rogue intimidating by suddenly appearing out of the shadows? "I'm capable of horrific acts of violence and I'll use them if if I don't get my way" is something any class can do. What Intimidate is for is
All three of those naturally fall under charisma -- but demonstrations of your capacity for violence should provide bonuses to the check.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderAs KafueLechwe pointed out, there's the variant rule in the Player's Handbook to mix and match skills to suit the role play of the moment.
I like letting players suggest skills they can use in specific situations, because it allows people to try to do things while still play to their strengths. My cleric might have a low Intelligence, but instead of a history check to know more about a creature they might ask for a medicine check to see if they learned about the way that creature's attacks deal damage and how to heal those injuries.
Also if a player is willing to use an actual ability, like an attack/spell/feature, if it works in the situation that can be fun and interesting as well! As a DM the more reasonable your request sounds for the situation, the more I will let you do!
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
To justify the original choice more - ALL classes of characters are dangerous. A wizened 5th-level Wizard or a slender 5th-level rogue can !@#$@ you up just as bad as a brawny 5th-level fighter.
The intimidation skill is about using your power - whatever it is - to get your target to do what they want through fear.
This could be a fighter saying "You'll talk or I'll break you like I'm currently crushing this rock in my bare hand. " Or it could be a wizard shooting a small puff of flame out and going "You know, you have two options - talking or being on fire. Magical fire that you can't put out. " Or it could be a rogue going "Last person who didn't talk to me wound up with their throat slit. In broad daylight, and nobody saw who did it! Shame if that were to happen to you."
That's why it's CHA. Because it's not about how powerful you are, it's about how well you're able to manipulate your target with your power.
I always tell my players:
Intimidation as a Charisma based ability is like Christopher Walken coming up to you in a dark alley and merely suggesting that you give him your wallet.
No threat, no show of force... just that creepy ass vocal tone and those eyes.... oh gawd those eyes!!
But the game does allow for skills to call on different abilities.
I ask for Int(Stealth) checks for hiding a dagger on your body, or Int(Survival) or hiding a wagon in the woods, Str(Intimidation) for the barbarian to flex on a guard, etc...
...cryptographic randomness!
My fighter is trained in intimidation. I usually just use it to aid the high CHA character. I stand there cracking my knuckles, she gets advantage on the roll.
The Charisma check models convincing the target that you are really willing to go through with the threat. If the check fails, then you haven't convinced them you are committed.
Perhaps they think you are bluffing. Perhaps they think you don't have the stones to torture them. Perhaps they think you aren't mean enough or callous enough to follow through. Perhaps they think their endurance is just higher than yours, and they'll outlast you.
In a world of massive hulks, sneaky rogues and scrawny wizards all with similar levels of murder potential, "strength" isn't really all that intimidating.
Constitution however, You take a sword to the back and walk around like nothing happened. Now we're intimidating.
The opposite of that is someone who cant take a punch or handle their drink. Not intimidating at all.
I had a literature teacher in middle school who was 5-foot-nothing. She was a fantastic teacher, and had a great sense of humor, and always kept the class engaged. She was also terrifying. Never raised her voice (at least not in a threatening way), but she could silence a room of 7th and 8th graders with one ring of a bell. She could part a hallway like the Red Sea. She was liked by most students, but when she entered a room, she was the boss.
Being strong in personality is often more intimidating than being strong in body.
EDIT: That being said, I do see your point, and I am a big fan of changing the ability associated with a skill check.
My take: there’s a big difference between keeping someone cowed when they’re in your strangling range and putting such a dread in them that they won’t think to cross you even when you’re miles away. The later is going to need some charisma.
I agree with what many have stated above. The way I’ve always thought of it was the character using their charisma, or personality to directly intimidate the enemy. If you think about intimidating characters in other forms of media, such as movies, a character doesn’t always have to be the Hulk to be intimidating. Sure, the threat of a barbaric mountain of muscle can be intimidating, but is the threat of a mob boss telling you very calmly about how they will dismember you and nobody will ever find the pieces any less scary? Is John Wick any less intimidating because he’s played by Keanu Reeves who is 6ft tall and 175lbs? It’s not always about physical size, but the threats of violence against you, and their ability to make you believe they are capable and willing to commit that violence that causes intimidation, and that is 100% an affect of some form of charisma. Horror characters are another prime example. Saw is played by a 2ft tall marionette with weird face paint, but he’s still very intimidating. Chucky is a literal children’s doll, and yet he’s terrifying to some.
Thinking this way, I encourage my players to tell me HOW their character would intimidate someone. A rogue might ambush a mark, hold a dagger to their throat from behind, speak in a gravelly voice and level terrifying threats. A warrior might corner an opponent to make them feel trapped, brandish their weapon, strike a pose that clearly telepaths an intent to kill, and slowly and relentlessly advance on them. A wizard might use a terrifying illusion or a particularly nasty spell to intimidate an enemy if the player is creative, such as using shape water to essentially water board and torture an enemy by repeatedly forming a sphere of water around their head…
Any character can intimidate, it just takes a little creativity to think of how any character would best use their talents to accomplish the task.