id rather be a mountain master then a dungeon master because sure a dungeon master could build the dungeons inside the mountains but he wouldn't be able to say that all mountains were builid by him because he put dungeons in some of them so I think its more realistic for my homebrew game to call a mountain master because theres more outer world lands than dungeons in my game.
so I just have to put a dragon inside of one dungeon and im all set?
so if I as a mountain master drop a mountain on top of a dragon and hes stuck in side there can I call it dungeons and dragons without being a dungeon master?
I don't feel threatened if a muscle-bound, charisma-less thug threatens my reputation. That's Charisma (Intimidation).
I agree.
I think the Player's Handbook does a great job of offering DMs the ability to swap an ability's core skill to fit the situation-- But I don't think flat-out swapping Intimidation from Charisma to Strength is accurate. I let the player describe what they're doing, if they're trying to threaten someone with their physique and power, absolutely Strength (Intimidation) makes sense. But that's not all Intimidation is.
I agree that that's not all that Intimidation is. Which is why, similarly to how the RAW allow for using Strength situationally, I would allow Charisma situationally. The only difference is, I'm swapping the default ability behind it.
EDIT: I wouldn't have even contemplated this change if the RAW didn't already allow for using different Abilities with a skill as appropriate. If you were normally only allowed to use one Ability, all the time, for a given skill, I would have felt that completely switching abilities would be too drastic of a change, despite how wrong the pairing seemed. But if you can already change things up depending on the situation, then I really don't expect most CHA-based characters should suffer much of a mechanical impact, if any, given how they normally apply the skill. The real advantage is to STR-based characters who SHOULD be intimidating NPCs much more easily than they normally can, simply because the typical expectation to "do something suitably physical" in order to apply Strength seems completely out-of-touch with how physical intimidation actually works.
I think the Player's Handbook does a great job of offering DMs the ability to swap an ability's core skill to fit the situation-- But I don't think flat-out swapping Intimidation from Charisma to Strength is accurate. I let the player describe what they're doing, if they're trying to threaten someone with their physique and power, absolutely Strength (Intimidation) makes sense. But that's not all Intimidation is.
I agree that that's not all that Intimidation is. Which is why, similarly to how the RAW allow for using Strength situationally, I would allow Charisma situationally. The only difference is, I'm swapping the default ability behind it.
Interesting-- I did not consider this before, but I think it comes down to our experiences as DMs! I have players who delve more into subterfuge and social situations, so while they've used Strength (Intimidation) before, I still see the majority of uses for Charisma. I actually find that pretty neat, and another reason to love that rule suggestion.
Interesting-- I did not consider this before, but I think it comes down to our experiences as DMs! I have players who delve more into subterfuge and social situations, so while they've used Strength (Intimidation) before, I still see the majority of uses for Charisma. I actually find that pretty neat, and another reason to love that rule suggestion.
I suspect the same. I do setup mysteries for my players on occasion, but they often find subterfuge... messy. On the other hand, when our massive orc barbarian tries to intimidate the kid who's throwing rocks at the party to run away, and fails because his Intimidation bonus is -1 and there's nothing nearby to smash to "display his strength," then the fact that HE has to justify the stat change-up becomes a bit much to accept.
I'm actually glad that 5e has the rule allowance that lets different abilities apply to skills--it's given me a better perspective on their use in general. And as far as our games go, it's the small acts of Intimidation that crop up far more often than the crafty, noble-coercing schemes, so the change makes even more sense for us. Still, I understand those who would reject such a houserule. But I'm interested in seeing if it actually improves our experiences, as I expect it will.
@rodthebard what you are suggesting is that a wizard puts no fear inside any of your npc because he doesnt look imposing at all with his strenght of 3. But the fact he can desintegrate you should.
You are what we call, stereotyping !
Which is that intimidation in the purest sense is always a bully which society always classified as the muscle no brain football player. But that is not what intimidation is. Just like inquisitive described it. The goal is to put fear inside your opponent. Make it change his mindset. Thats all there is to it. I could even go as far as saying that putting a blade on your neck is persuasion still. So are you gonna let that fighter or barbarian use his strenght to persuade a king to lend him an army ? Thats the kind of tought you should have.
The same way i do let people perception be intellect based as well. Because visual cue your brain interprets can also be used as perception. But by default intimidation is charisma because it is your will that is trying to get the other.
Sorry but i wouldnt make a single check.
If he bends the iron bar in front of him. Advantage it is. If he decides to use thaumaturgy. Advantage it is. But i will also require a strenght check for thar iron bar. I will ask a sleight of hand check for casting thaumaturgy while speaking. And all these factors will affect the outcome. Because thats the role of the dm to do so.
A single roll is no fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
@rodthebard what you are suggesting is that a wizard puts no fear inside any of your npc because he doesnt look imposing at all with his strenght of 3. But the fact he can desintegrate you should.
You are what we call, stereotyping !
No, what I'm suggesting is that, absent any proficiency in intimidation tactics, when some unknown, scrawny STR 3 wizard walks into a random bar/inn/village, he's going to automatically be considered less intimidating than some unknown, beefy STR 18 barbarian that walks in.
You can call it stereotyping, but it's typically how people actually react, often without even wanting to.
Which is that intimidation in the purest sense is always a bully which society always classified as the muscle no brain football player. But that is not what intimidation is. Just like inquisitive described it. The goal is to put fear inside your opponent. Make it change his mindset. Thats all there is to it.
I agree that intimidation isn't always physical. Often the fear needed to intimidate is elicited by sheer physical presence and bodily threats, but yes, sometimes it can also be elicited by careful wording and a forceful look. But one is innate and primal, almost effortless... the other is usually a learned skill, even if relying on a naturally forceful personality.
Look at it this way. I present to the party a dog that follows them around. They're about to go into battle, and they really don't want the dog to follow and get killed, so they decide to intimidate the dog into running away. No one has a spell to talk to the animal, so there's no higher-level, complex coercion possible. What traits are going to be better suited to simply driving the animal away through fear in this case: physical ones, or mental ones? I think most everyone would agree that its the physical traits, and that it makes more sense for the barbarian to be the one to chase the animal off rather than the bard. That is the core, the root, of intimidation: basic, even instinctual fear of physical harm. Obviously that's not the only way to generate fear in someone. But it's the default.
So are you gonna let that fighter or barbarian use his strenght to persuade a king to lend him an army ? Thats the kind of tought you should have.
A well-protected king would likely be immune to physical-based Intimidation (for anything more serious than causing a flinch,) for obvious reasons, and should probably be approached with Charisma-based tactics if one is going to go that route. I completely agree with that; is that not evident in everything I've posted so far?
A single roll is no fun.
Well, I disagree with that on a philosophical level (not to mention for purposes of speed and simplicity,) but if it works for your table, more power to you.
No, what I'm suggesting is that, absent any proficiency in intimidation tactics, when some unknown, scrawny STR 3 wizard walks into a random bar/inn/village, he's going to automatically be considered less intimidating than some unknown, beefy STR 18 barbarian that walks in.
You're confusing how intimidating someone's appearance is with their capacity to deliver a convincing threat. Again, if a mafia boss threatens your family, it doesn't matter if they're a bedridden old man, because the threat isn't that he's going to physically assault you.
Have you read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck? Lennie Small is very strong and powerful, but he doesn't intimidate anyone. Why? Because he lacks Charisma.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
No, what I'm suggesting is that, absent any proficiency in intimidation tactics, when some unknown, scrawny STR 3 wizard walks into a random bar/inn/village, he's going to automatically be considered less intimidating than some unknown, beefy STR 18 barbarian that walks in.
You're confusing how intimidating someone's appearance is with their capacity to deliver a convincing threat. Again, if a mafia boss threatens your family, it doesn't matter if they're a bedridden old man, because the threat isn't that he's going to physically assault you.
There's no confusion, trust me: as I've repeated numerous times now, Charisma-based intimidation CAN be valid. My decision to make Strength the base stat for the skill, and Charisma a possible conditional stat, is based on a twofold conclusion I've finally accepted:
(1) That there are multiple ways to elicit the fear required to intimidate someone.
(2) That the most straightforward, default way of doing this is to elicit a fear of direct physical harm via one's physical presence.
Have you read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck? Lennie Small is very strong and powerful, but he doesn't intimidate anyone. Why? Because he lacks Charisma.
But that's not the same as arguing that he's completely *incapable* of intimidation someone. Frankly, bigger guys can sometimes find they've done so on accident. Which suggests it's not some skill proficiency at work, but rather a simple, innate capacity of their physique.
Have you read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck? Lennie Small is very strong and powerful, but he doesn't intimidate anyone. Why? Because he lacks Charisma.
But that's not the same as arguing that he's completely *incapable* of intimidation someone. Frankly, bigger guys can sometimes find they've done so on accident. Which suggests it's not some skill proficiency at work, but rather a simple, innate capacity of their physique.
Or rather its what we call judgement from the perceiver. you seem to thnk people react to others based on their physique. but in reality, it is their perception that pushes them toward ideas that may not be true. aka, that guy looks like ajamaican, so he's probably a smoker and a drug dealer. that gy is wearing a mask and black leather armor, assassin maybe. that is not intimidation at all, but only perception thru years of training, or years of missplaced judgement. those big guiy who intimidate by accident, did nothing to intimidate, it is the perception of the other person that is at work and it has nothing to do with that guy to begin with.
there is a huge difference between maing someone thinks something, and that person thinking it on its own. judgement is always there and you dont need a physique for it to happen.
exemple... A house cat enters the room from a window. the owner of the shop do not make a fuss, its just a cat right ? while that is deception by the druid who wildshaped... it is not the druid who tries to con the guy. its the guy who made a judgement call. intimidation is not that at all. intimidation is a person actively trying to force a view on a victim. doesn't matter what the victim thinks or acts, as long as she is doing what you want her to do. her judgement has no meaning into your intimidation.
as someone who is a little fat guy at school as well as a nerdy ass know it all guy. i was very very much intimidated and i can tell you... it was never the physique that scared me the most. what hurted the most were always the words they used. you say torture is very different, but in reality its not. intimidation is literally torture of the mind. people telling you are nothing and that they can snap you in half. it doesn't matter if its true or not, all that matters is that you (the target) believes it. you are nothing they said, you'll never be anybody, you should suicide now and save everyone time. those are all words that got engraved in my mind for a long time. i never feared or were scared of people being 2 or 3 foot higher then me, i never feared their physique. but their words were getting me deep.
when it comes to intimidation, words are much much much more powerfull because they leave place to imagination and it is that imagination that does it all. all of that happens where ? in the brain... the brain has nothing to do with strength.
so... i'll ask you a question... based on your own assumption of intimidation being all about physique... does this mean you make strength based checks to see if the girl persuade the NPC of going to his room with her ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Have you read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck? Lennie Small is very strong and powerful, but he doesn't intimidate anyone. Why? Because he lacks Charisma.
But that's not the same as arguing that he's completely *incapable* of intimidation someone. Frankly, bigger guys can sometimes find they've done so on accident. Which suggests it's not some skill proficiency at work, but rather a simple, innate capacity of their physique.
Or rather its what we call judgement from the perceiver. you seem to thnk people react to others based on their physique. but in reality, it is their perception that pushes them toward ideas that may not be true. aka, that guy looks like ajamaican, so he's probably a smoker and a drug dealer. that gy is wearing a mask and black leather armor, assassin maybe. that is not intimidation at all, but only perception thru years of training, or years of missplaced judgement. those big guiy who intimidate by accident, did nothing to intimidate, it is the perception of the other person that is at work and it has nothing to do with that guy to begin with.
Yes, there's ample evidence that people tend to react based on physique, especially when implied and/or explicit threats are involved. I didn't really think that was a controversial observation.
And yes, sometimes any fear generated is due to ignorance and/or misunderstanding. That doesn't mean one couldn't take advantage of it; it means if one DID choose to take advantage of it, there wouldn't be any skill involved.
there is a huge difference between maing someone thinks something, and that person thinking it on its own.
There can be, but regardless, you can often achieve the same effect whether you try to intimidate someone, or whether they are intimidated through no action on your part.
judgement is always there and you dont need a physique for it to happen.
exemple... A house cat enters the room from a window. the owner of the shop do not make a fuss, its just a cat right ? while that is deception by the druid who wildshaped... it is not the druid who tries to con the guy. its the guy who made a judgement call. intimidation is not that at all. intimidation is a person actively trying to force a view on a victim. doesn't matter what the victim thinks or acts, as long as she is doing what you want her to do. her judgement has no meaning into your intimidation.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that someone who has wildshaped into a house cat wouldn't be intimidating, and that that has bearing on how every other incident of intimidation necessarily plays out?
as someone who is a little fat guy at school as well as a nerdy ass know it all guy. i was very very much intimidated and i can tell you... it was never the physique that scared me the most. what hurted the most were always the words they used.
That's sad. But I don't see how it disproves the notion that for most people, when physical intimidation is involved, physique definitely plays a major factor--even if other factors can also be involved. Again, I really don't think that's a controversial observation.
when it comes to intimidation, words are much much much more powerfull because they leave place to imagination and it is that imagination that does it all.
I'd say it was relative, and varies from situation to situation. Which is why 5e sensibly allows using different abilities with a skill, as appropriate.
Again, consider any situation in which words aren't used, or even where they CAN'T be used.
all of that happens where ? in the brain... the brain has nothing to do with strength.
so... i'll ask you a question... based on your own assumption of intimidation being all about physique...
*sigh*
Again, I never said "intimidation is all about physique." I've agreed multiple times to numerous situations where Charisma would be a better base stat than Strength. I'm not sure why you're not acknowledging that, when I feel I've presented my position accurately and completely.
does this mean you make strength based checks to see if the girl persuade the NPC of going to his room with her ?
If she's trying to persuade him, then of course not; why would someone ask for a Strength check in that situation?
If she's trying to intimidate him, then unless she's being clever and making indirect threats of some sort, then yes, Strength seems the most appropriate stat to use with the skill.
The article about using exaustion as hit points gave me an idea that makes it more challenging for players.
Instead of making death tracks like he did though. I would include hit points in the mix. I never liked massive damage in 5e. Too hard to actually use.
So how about this instead.
For every 10 points of damage in one attack. You gain a level of exaustion. That way a creature can die way before their hit points are gone. And it simulates internal injuries well. If its too easy to kill you can just add to the hit point threshold. Like every 15 points instead.
At 6 level of exaustion you are gone. No death saves just dead.
What you guys think ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
You are avoiding my question. What she is doing is clearly physical because she is using her physique. Which demonstrate your exemple for intimidation to be weird as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
^ Makes exhaustion seriously scary. Maybe too scary.
@Intimidation, I give someone advantage if they'd be more able to intimidate someone - being strong, or having just shown powerful magic, etc. all hits that category and removes the necessity to worry about changing the stat rolled. :p
Some of my homebrew rules for my campaign:
- I have banned perception checks, using passive perception only. Investigation is much more preferable and encouraged!
- I roll characters insight checks for them, they don't know the roll value just the outcome.
- I'm starting to try out new critical rules - rolling a second d20 after a critical hit. getting 11+ gives an added bonus depending on the damage type, 1-10 sticks as double roll damage.
- For group skill checks I ignore highest and lowest dice rolls and do a quick average of the others to see if they pass (e.g. 8, 10, 13, 16, 20 = 13)
The article about using exaustion as hit points gave me an idea that makes it more challenging for players.
Instead of making death tracks like he did though. I would include hit points in the mix. I never liked massive damage in 5e. Too hard to actually use.
So how about this instead.
For every 10 points of damage in one attack. You gain a level of exaustion. That way a creature can die way before their hit points are gone. And it simulates internal injuries well. If its too easy to kill you can just add to the hit point threshold. Like every 15 points instead.
At 6 level of exaustion you are gone. No death saves just dead.
What you guys think ?
This idea is fine like it is, but I'm wondering if you could make it better by assigning a floor of like 10 damage. Anything below it, no worries. Anything above it would require a CON save with a DC of the damage taken. Fail the safe, get a point of exhaustion. That way, particularly robust characters would be more likely to shrug off the big damage, but at the same time, huge damage would be more and more difficult to escape the effects of.
The potential downside could be slowing down the game since it won't be long before characters and creatures are doing over 10 damage on the regular. Ooh, or what if you did it on critical hits?
@Intimidation, I give someone advantage if they'd be more able to intimidate someone - being strong, or having just shown powerful magic, etc. all hits that category and removes the necessity to worry about changing the stat rolled. :p
I think this is where I'm at as well. Intimidation is still a CHA skill as far as I'm concerned, but if a big strong character wants to use strength in their intimidation, I would be inclined to consider giving them advantage on the attempt.
id rather be a mountain master then a dungeon master because sure a dungeon master could build the dungeons inside the mountains but he wouldn't be able to say that all mountains were builid by him because he put dungeons in some of them so I think its more realistic for my homebrew game to call a mountain master because theres more outer world lands than dungeons in my game.
so I just have to put a dragon inside of one dungeon and im all set?
so if I as a mountain master drop a mountain on top of a dragon and hes stuck in side there can I call it dungeons and dragons without being a dungeon master?
I agree.
I agree that that's not all that Intimidation is. Which is why, similarly to how the RAW allow for using Strength situationally, I would allow Charisma situationally. The only difference is, I'm swapping the default ability behind it.
EDIT: I wouldn't have even contemplated this change if the RAW didn't already allow for using different Abilities with a skill as appropriate. If you were normally only allowed to use one Ability, all the time, for a given skill, I would have felt that completely switching abilities would be too drastic of a change, despite how wrong the pairing seemed. But if you can already change things up depending on the situation, then I really don't expect most CHA-based characters should suffer much of a mechanical impact, if any, given how they normally apply the skill. The real advantage is to STR-based characters who SHOULD be intimidating NPCs much more easily than they normally can, simply because the typical expectation to "do something suitably physical" in order to apply Strength seems completely out-of-touch with how physical intimidation actually works.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Interesting-- I did not consider this before, but I think it comes down to our experiences as DMs! I have players who delve more into subterfuge and social situations, so while they've used Strength (Intimidation) before, I still see the majority of uses for Charisma. I actually find that pretty neat, and another reason to love that rule suggestion.
I suspect the same. I do setup mysteries for my players on occasion, but they often find subterfuge... messy. On the other hand, when our massive orc barbarian tries to intimidate the kid who's throwing rocks at the party to run away, and fails because his Intimidation bonus is -1 and there's nothing nearby to smash to "display his strength," then the fact that HE has to justify the stat change-up becomes a bit much to accept.
I'm actually glad that 5e has the rule allowance that lets different abilities apply to skills--it's given me a better perspective on their use in general. And as far as our games go, it's the small acts of Intimidation that crop up far more often than the crafty, noble-coercing schemes, so the change makes even more sense for us. Still, I understand those who would reject such a houserule. But I'm interested in seeing if it actually improves our experiences, as I expect it will.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
@rodthebard what you are suggesting is that a wizard puts no fear inside any of your npc because he doesnt look imposing at all with his strenght of 3. But the fact he can desintegrate you should.
You are what we call, stereotyping !
Which is that intimidation in the purest sense is always a bully which society always classified as the muscle no brain football player. But that is not what intimidation is. Just like inquisitive described it. The goal is to put fear inside your opponent. Make it change his mindset. Thats all there is to it. I could even go as far as saying that putting a blade on your neck is persuasion still. So are you gonna let that fighter or barbarian use his strenght to persuade a king to lend him an army ? Thats the kind of tought you should have.
The same way i do let people perception be intellect based as well. Because visual cue your brain interprets can also be used as perception. But by default intimidation is charisma because it is your will that is trying to get the other.
Sorry but i wouldnt make a single check.
If he bends the iron bar in front of him. Advantage it is. If he decides to use thaumaturgy. Advantage it is. But i will also require a strenght check for thar iron bar. I will ask a sleight of hand check for casting thaumaturgy while speaking. And all these factors will affect the outcome. Because thats the role of the dm to do so.
A single roll is no fun.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Can you explain this?
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
Check out my Expanded Signature
You have just described a completely different skill called Investigation.
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
Check out my Expanded Signature
Pathfinder had a feat called Intimidating Prowess.
So it isn't without precedent. Maybe you want to make it a homebrew feat or a magic item like a scary muscle shirt or a skull tattoo or some such :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sounds kinky!
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No, what I'm suggesting is that, absent any proficiency in intimidation tactics, when some unknown, scrawny STR 3 wizard walks into a random bar/inn/village, he's going to automatically be considered less intimidating than some unknown, beefy STR 18 barbarian that walks in.
You can call it stereotyping, but it's typically how people actually react, often without even wanting to.
I agree that intimidation isn't always physical. Often the fear needed to intimidate is elicited by sheer physical presence and bodily threats, but yes, sometimes it can also be elicited by careful wording and a forceful look. But one is innate and primal, almost effortless... the other is usually a learned skill, even if relying on a naturally forceful personality.
Look at it this way. I present to the party a dog that follows them around. They're about to go into battle, and they really don't want the dog to follow and get killed, so they decide to intimidate the dog into running away. No one has a spell to talk to the animal, so there's no higher-level, complex coercion possible. What traits are going to be better suited to simply driving the animal away through fear in this case: physical ones, or mental ones? I think most everyone would agree that its the physical traits, and that it makes more sense for the barbarian to be the one to chase the animal off rather than the bard. That is the core, the root, of intimidation: basic, even instinctual fear of physical harm. Obviously that's not the only way to generate fear in someone. But it's the default.
A well-protected king would likely be immune to physical-based Intimidation (for anything more serious than causing a flinch,) for obvious reasons, and should probably be approached with Charisma-based tactics if one is going to go that route. I completely agree with that; is that not evident in everything I've posted so far?
Well, I disagree with that on a philosophical level (not to mention for purposes of speed and simplicity,) but if it works for your table, more power to you.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
You're confusing how intimidating someone's appearance is with their capacity to deliver a convincing threat. Again, if a mafia boss threatens your family, it doesn't matter if they're a bedridden old man, because the threat isn't that he's going to physically assault you.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Have you read Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck? Lennie Small is very strong and powerful, but he doesn't intimidate anyone. Why? Because he lacks Charisma.
"Halt your wagging and wag your halters, for I am mastercryomancer!"
Check out my Expanded Signature
There's no confusion, trust me: as I've repeated numerous times now, Charisma-based intimidation CAN be valid. My decision to make Strength the base stat for the skill, and Charisma a possible conditional stat, is based on a twofold conclusion I've finally accepted:
(1) That there are multiple ways to elicit the fear required to intimidate someone.
(2) That the most straightforward, default way of doing this is to elicit a fear of direct physical harm via one's physical presence.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
But that's not the same as arguing that he's completely *incapable* of intimidation someone. Frankly, bigger guys can sometimes find they've done so on accident. Which suggests it's not some skill proficiency at work, but rather a simple, innate capacity of their physique.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
Or rather its what we call judgement from the perceiver. you seem to thnk people react to others based on their physique. but in reality, it is their perception that pushes them toward ideas that may not be true. aka, that guy looks like ajamaican, so he's probably a smoker and a drug dealer. that gy is wearing a mask and black leather armor, assassin maybe. that is not intimidation at all, but only perception thru years of training, or years of missplaced judgement. those big guiy who intimidate by accident, did nothing to intimidate, it is the perception of the other person that is at work and it has nothing to do with that guy to begin with.
there is a huge difference between maing someone thinks something, and that person thinking it on its own.
judgement is always there and you dont need a physique for it to happen.
exemple...
A house cat enters the room from a window. the owner of the shop do not make a fuss, its just a cat right ?
while that is deception by the druid who wildshaped... it is not the druid who tries to con the guy. its the guy who made a judgement call. intimidation is not that at all.
intimidation is a person actively trying to force a view on a victim. doesn't matter what the victim thinks or acts, as long as she is doing what you want her to do. her judgement has no meaning into your intimidation.
as someone who is a little fat guy at school as well as a nerdy ass know it all guy. i was very very much intimidated and i can tell you... it was never the physique that scared me the most. what hurted the most were always the words they used. you say torture is very different, but in reality its not. intimidation is literally torture of the mind. people telling you are nothing and that they can snap you in half. it doesn't matter if its true or not, all that matters is that you (the target) believes it. you are nothing they said, you'll never be anybody, you should suicide now and save everyone time. those are all words that got engraved in my mind for a long time. i never feared or were scared of people being 2 or 3 foot higher then me, i never feared their physique. but their words were getting me deep.
when it comes to intimidation, words are much much much more powerfull because they leave place to imagination and it is that imagination that does it all.
all of that happens where ? in the brain... the brain has nothing to do with strength.
so... i'll ask you a question...
based on your own assumption of intimidation being all about physique...
does this mean you make strength based checks to see if the girl persuade the NPC of going to his room with her ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Yes, there's ample evidence that people tend to react based on physique, especially when implied and/or explicit threats are involved. I didn't really think that was a controversial observation.
And yes, sometimes any fear generated is due to ignorance and/or misunderstanding. That doesn't mean one couldn't take advantage of it; it means if one DID choose to take advantage of it, there wouldn't be any skill involved.
There can be, but regardless, you can often achieve the same effect whether you try to intimidate someone, or whether they are intimidated through no action on your part.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that someone who has wildshaped into a house cat wouldn't be intimidating, and that that has bearing on how every other incident of intimidation necessarily plays out?
That's sad. But I don't see how it disproves the notion that for most people, when physical intimidation is involved, physique definitely plays a major factor--even if other factors can also be involved. Again, I really don't think that's a controversial observation.
I'd say it was relative, and varies from situation to situation. Which is why 5e sensibly allows using different abilities with a skill, as appropriate.
Again, consider any situation in which words aren't used, or even where they CAN'T be used.
*sigh*
Again, I never said "intimidation is all about physique." I've agreed multiple times to numerous situations where Charisma would be a better base stat than Strength. I'm not sure why you're not acknowledging that, when I feel I've presented my position accurately and completely.
If she's trying to persuade him, then of course not; why would someone ask for a Strength check in that situation?
If she's trying to intimidate him, then unless she's being clever and making indirect threats of some sort, then yes, Strength seems the most appropriate stat to use with the skill.
As I've illustrated in several posts now.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
The article about using exaustion as hit points gave me an idea that makes it more challenging for players.
Instead of making death tracks like he did though. I would include hit points in the mix. I never liked massive damage in 5e. Too hard to actually use.
So how about this instead.
For every 10 points of damage in one attack. You gain a level of exaustion. That way a creature can die way before their hit points are gone. And it simulates internal injuries well. If its too easy to kill you can just add to the hit point threshold. Like every 15 points instead.
At 6 level of exaustion you are gone. No death saves just dead.
What you guys think ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
You are avoiding my question. What she is doing is clearly physical because she is using her physique. Which demonstrate your exemple for intimidation to be weird as well.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
^ Makes exhaustion seriously scary. Maybe too scary.
@Intimidation, I give someone advantage if they'd be more able to intimidate someone - being strong, or having just shown powerful magic, etc. all hits that category and removes the necessity to worry about changing the stat rolled. :p
Some of my homebrew rules for my campaign:
- I have banned perception checks, using passive perception only. Investigation is much more preferable and encouraged!
- I roll characters insight checks for them, they don't know the roll value just the outcome.
- I'm starting to try out new critical rules - rolling a second d20 after a critical hit. getting 11+ gives an added bonus depending on the damage type, 1-10 sticks as double roll damage.
- For group skill checks I ignore highest and lowest dice rolls and do a quick average of the others to see if they pass (e.g. 8, 10, 13, 16, 20 = 13)
This idea is fine like it is, but I'm wondering if you could make it better by assigning a floor of like 10 damage. Anything below it, no worries. Anything above it would require a CON save with a DC of the damage taken. Fail the safe, get a point of exhaustion. That way, particularly robust characters would be more likely to shrug off the big damage, but at the same time, huge damage would be more and more difficult to escape the effects of.
The potential downside could be slowing down the game since it won't be long before characters and creatures are doing over 10 damage on the regular. Ooh, or what if you did it on critical hits?
I think this is where I'm at as well. Intimidation is still a CHA skill as far as I'm concerned, but if a big strong character wants to use strength in their intimidation, I would be inclined to consider giving them advantage on the attempt.
"Not all those who wander are lost"