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.
Presuming that this is directed toward me, I'm again not sure exactly what you're wanting. I've answered your yes/no question ("does this mean you make strength based checks") to the best of my ability, with a YES to one situation, and a NO to another.
If you feel that's somehow inadequate, perhaps you can rephrase your question into something more direct?
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 ?
Reminds me too much of the 'death spiral' some games have, where as you take damage, you take penalties, meaning that once you start losing, you're pretty well hosed. Too harsh, not much fun that I can see.
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.
1. This still doesn't make sense though. A threat is only intimidating if you believe that there is an intent to do harm and that it is conveyed believably. That's charisma. The only other way to convince someone you're serious about harming them is by actually demonstrating it. Like if you ripped their buddy's arm off and then asked them again where their hideout was... that might be a strength-intimidate. Because you physically showed them what you're capable of.
2. We're fragile. Really, really fragile. A child can murder you. An infirm old man could. It doesn't take overwhelming physical power to be a very real threat, it takes desire and will. Someone is only scary when you believe that they want to and will hurt you. That could be a child, that could be an old man. Someone's willingness to kill is entirely independent of their physical strength.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
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 ?
Reminds me too much of the 'death spiral' some games have, where as you take damage, you take penalties, meaning that once you start losing, you're pretty well hosed. Too harsh, not much fun that I can see.
It works better if you cram all the penalties towards the end of the HP total. That way you're fine for the most part until you start getting really seriously injured and suffering penalties near 0. It keeps it from being an all or nothing system, and prevents the wack a mole healing word type play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
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.
1. This still doesn't make sense though. A threat is only intimidating if you believe that there is an intent to do harm and that it is conveyed believably. That's charisma. The only other way to convince someone you're serious about harming them is by actually demonstrating it. Like if you ripped their buddy's arm off and then asked them again where their hideout was... that might be a strength-intimidate. Because you physically showed them what you're capable of.
I suspect it doesn't make sense because you're doing the same thing I did for years: overthinking it and rationalizing how the status quo (Intimidation = Charisma) is justified.
Seriously, think about it in everyday situations. It's nighttime on the subway. A group of young men are in one car, along with other passengers. It's dead quiet. Someone walks into the car, and tries to take a seat near one of the young men. The biggest guy, a huge kid with muscles clearly visible, stands up, blocks his path, and shakes his head. The new arrival stops, then decides to sit elsewhere, without a word of protest.
That's Intimidation in action. Not the high-level scheming kind. It's the down-to-earth, base kind. No words were exchanged. There was no display of strength. There didn't need to be one. The size of the man doing the intimidating was enough all on its own.
(Which means, yes, size should arguably be the determining factor, but again, as that's a player-chosen flavor stat, Strength is the most appropriate substitute.)
2. We're fragile. Really, really fragile. A child can murder you. An infirm old man could. It doesn't take overwhelming physical power to be a very real threat, it takes desire and will. Someone is only scary when you believe that they want to and will hurt you. That could be a child, that could be an old man. Someone's willingness to kill is entirely independent of their physical strength.
And I'm telling you something that's obvious to anyone you ask on the street: That doesn't matter.
People react to size, bulk, strength, etc. They just do. I (kinda) get not wanting it to be true. But it is, and it's unreasonable to declare that that's not the case, especially in a game where the concept of people reacting to innate qualities is actually encapsulated in a Charisma stat.
People responding to my houserule seem to keep thinking of the social skills as always requiring words, but I think we should take a step back and reconsider. We KNOW Charisma incorporates things like looks. Force of personality. Attractiveness. Grace and poise. Mannerisms. Little things that don't necessarily require any sort of mental prowess. Someone using Persuasion to get a better discount at a shop doesn't necessarily have to say a single extra word. It could be a little laugh and an extra wink and a smile. Friendly overtures. Simply looking attractive and flashing it. It just doesn't matter that the INT 18 member of the party has a bigger vocabulary and could string together a 15-page poem capable of impressing the shopowner. Unless he's going to try to write his way into getting a discount, his words are useless compared to the high-CHA character's sheer social presence.
That's how it also is for people reacting to size when threats (real or implied, explicit or subtle) are on the table. It simply affects people, in reality, everyday, in lots of little ways, even in our modern society with educated citizens. To say it wouldn't have any effect among peasants in a fantasy world is to expect players to suspend their disbelief indefinitely.
Seriously, think about it in everyday situations. It's nighttime on the subway. A group of young men are in one car, along with other passengers. It's dead quiet. Someone walks into the car, and tries to take a seat near one of the young men. The biggest guy, a huge kid with muscles clearly visible, stands up, blocks his path, and shakes his head. The new arrival stops, then decides to sit elsewhere, without a word of protest.
That's Intimidation in action. Not the high-level scheming kind. It's the down-to-earth, base kind. No words were exchanged. There was no display of strength. There didn't need to be one. The size of the man doing the intimidating was enough all on its own.
So you are taking a large kid with strong enough confidence to know that he can pull off that sort of maneuver. While he has a high Strength, I'd argue he has a better than average Charisma as well. If he had a low Charisma, he'd not have gotten up to try and Intimidate him to begin with. As such, while his Strength may give him an Advantage on the Check, the driving force would be his Charisma.
For example, you have Ferdinand, a huge fellow, very strong, but he has always avoided conflicts. He's there on the subway and a bunch of guys come on, none of them as big as him. They start causing a commotion on the train, but even though he's strong he doesn't have the force of personality to stand up to them. However also on the train is Tony. Now Tony is not physically imposing, but he has a force of will. He gets up and tells them to sit down and shut up. The leader of the group, who while not as physically imposing as Ferdinand is more so than Tony, goes up and towers over Tony. Tony doesn't back down and just stares him in the eyes, his force of personality overwhelming his less Charismatic opponent causing him to back down instead.
Seriously, think about it in everyday situations. It's nighttime on the subway. A group of young men are in one car, along with other passengers. It's dead quiet. Someone walks into the car, and tries to take a seat near one of the young men. The biggest guy, a huge kid with muscles clearly visible, stands up, blocks his path, and shakes his head. The new arrival stops, then decides to sit elsewhere, without a word of protest.
That's Intimidation in action. Not the high-level scheming kind. It's the down-to-earth, base kind. No words were exchanged. There was no display of strength. There didn't need to be one. The size of the man doing the intimidating was enough all on its own.
So you are taking a large kid with strong enough confidence to know that he can pull off that sort of maneuver. While he has a high Strength, I'd argue he has a better than average Charisma as well. If he had a low Charisma, he'd not have gotten up to try and Intimidate him to begin with. As such, while his Strength may give him an Advantage on the Check, the driving force would be his Charisma.
But you're missing the point that had these been skinny, waifish old men in "biker" outfits with the same amount of chutzpah, the interaction would have likely turned out quite differently. At the very least, I can't imagine no protest being made, no challenge. This suggests that the driving force would be physique.
Then consider... what if it wasn't even his idea? What if one of the other kids had just said, "Jimmy, I know you don't want to, but if someone tries to sit down, don't let them." I never mentioned anything about a swagger (although I imagine many people added that in themselves.) Just a move and a shake of the head. That's all. Yes, Charisma may have been involved, but I think it's more than a bit unreasonable to say that the encounter, as described, was anything other than a physical confrontation. Mind games weren't needed beyond "hmm, he looks big, and he doesn't want me to sit here."
For example, you have Ferdinand, a huge fellow, very strong, but he has always avoided conflicts. He's there on the subway and a bunch of guys come on, none of them as big as him. They start causing a commotion on the train, but even though he's strong he doesn't have the force of personality to stand up to them. However also on the train is Tony. Now Tony is not physically imposing, but he has a force of will. He gets up and tells them to sit down and shut up. The leader of the group, who while not as physically imposing as Ferdinand is more so than Tony, goes up and towers over Tony. Tony doesn't back down and just stares him in the eyes, his force of personality overwhelming his less Charismatic opponent causing him to back down instead.
Well, I would agree that the deal with Tony (not Ferdinand though, keep reading) is a more ambiguous situation.
And as a DM, I'd rule that it might be one where Charisma is involved... if Tony had done something other than glare, like make a threatening statement, or if the player had given me something else to go on. One can just presume that force of personality will get equal or better results than a massive physique, but at the end of the day, if it's Intimidation, you've got to be invoking fear. With a huge physique, the nature of the fear is obvious. With someone trying to get into a battle of wills through a staredown, the fear is... of what exactly? That the charismatic guy will beat up the leader? Maybe; if Tony was bigger, that would definitely help. But the question then is, why would the leader have anything to fear from Tony, especially with backup around him, if he doesn't look like he could easily cause harm? ("Is this just a bluff? Pfft, yeah, look at him, of course it's a bluff.")
Even if you've not witnessed this situation in real life, I think we all have seen it portrayed in popular media, where someone who appears ordinary stands up to bullies, glaring hard at them, then a fight ensues and the bullies get beaten up, precisely because they saw no reason to react to someone who didn't look dangerous. That's an Intimidation roll that FAILS. The trope works because we all know that that's how many people actually view things, especially if they're not bothering to think things through. And if Tony's actually smaller than average? That's just going to make it worse for him. In that case, if he actually wants to be successful with his Intimidation, he should probably need to have actually learned how to do that staredown pretty darn well (i.e., he's proficient in the skill) otherwise he's probably going to have to fight them anyhow, because they'd be more likely to laugh than actually be Intimidated.
So, yeah... average-physique, high-Charisma is a gamble in that situation. Might work, might not. IMO, it should come down to whether or not Tony is proficient in Intimidation more than anything else.
As far as Ferdinand goes? I think saying he wouldn't even get into the situation because he's not charismatic enough isn't just putting too much into Charisma, it's cheating the question. Because the question is, if he DOES stand up to the bullies--if the player DID choose to try that Intimidation roll--THEN how successful would he be at it? I'd say he should have a fairly high chance of being successful, regardless of Charisma; that's exactly why I made the houserule.
There is a difference, however, between being Intimidating and actually Intimidating someone. If Ferdinand does stand up to the bullies, because of his low Charisma, he's looking down at the ground, muttering his words, being apologetic, because he doesn't have the Charisma to effectively Intimidate him. At first when he stands up, the guys may take a second look at his size, but once he starts trying to Intimidate them, they don't fall for it.
If it just based off of Strength and Physical Size, where is the skill? A large man standing in an alley is Intimidating, but isn't necessarily trying to be Intimidating. There are actions which need to happen just like any other skill. Flexing the muscles is an action that has to do with the appearance of Strength, but not necessarily a utilization of Strength. It is less about actually having Strength and more utilizing the knowledge of how to use that Strength to achieve your goals.
I think of Charisma (Intimidation) as a Godfather “I’m going to make you an offer you can’t refuse” situation.
Intimidation in combat is a little different and I’m not sure how I would handle it but I think charisma still figures into it.
Against low intelligence creatures, being big is going to be a deterrent to being attacked. That’s why you should raise your arms above your head to look as big as possible when facing a wild animal. Is this Intimidation or should it be handled in a different way? They say animals can sense fear, fear effects are usually a wisdom save. Animal Handling is a wisdom skill so it makes sense to me that against animal intelligence creatures, Animal Handling would be more effective than Intimidation.
Against more intelligent creatures, big may still be important but looking threatening can mean a lot of different things. Is that a wizard who can throw Fireballs? That would scare me as much as or more than a strong fighter. Halfling monk with a quarterstaff? I might just laugh until I realize that she is a tiny whirlwind of death.
I would never use Intimidation in combat against the party and force them to do something they don’t want to do. If the party uses Intimidation in combat, I would factor that in to how the enemy reacts. I don’t like the idea of every enemy fighting to the death anyway.
There is a difference, however, between being Intimidating and actually Intimidating someone. If Ferdinand does stand up to the bullies, because of his low Charisma, he's looking down at the ground, muttering his words, being apologetic, because he doesn't have the Charisma to effectively Intimidate him. At first when he stands up, the guys may take a second look at his size, but once he starts trying to Intimidate them, they don't fall for it.
I think, again, you're putting too much into Charisma. Charisma COULD include stuttering and stammering, but it doesn't NECESSARILY include that. A character might have low Charisma just because they have horrible facial burn scars, and peasants tend to react poorly because of it (and in such a case, you could argument that, like The Mountain, such a person might actually have it easier trying to intimidate someone... which again suggests that linking Charisma to Intimidation by default is... suspect at best.)
If it just based off of Strength and Physical Size, where is the skill?
Well, please bear in mind, I'm not saying Charisma is NEVER appropriate for Intimidation, just that Strength makes a better default.
A large man standing in an alley is Intimidating, but isn't necessarily trying to be Intimidating. There are actions which need to happen just like any other skill.
Usually, yes, although if it's something that can happen by accident, it clearly doesn't necessarily require much to achieve. The action could be as simple as making known what you want, or even just moving in someone's direction, depending on the situation, and what you're trying to accomplish. Frankly, I'd have no problem with, say, making a "Passive Intimidation" roll behind the screen on a player's behalf if, say, they were keeping guard of a cave entrance, and a would-be assailant accidentally runs into them, thinking the entire party was in the cave. If the assailant actually gets so startled he runs off, I'd then have the guard roll Perception to even notice the assailant was even there.
Flexing the muscles is an action that has to do with the appearance of Strength, but not necessarily a utilization of Strength. It is less about actually having Strength and more utilizing the knowledge of how to use that Strength to achieve your goals.
I agree that a proficiency in the skill should allow one to be more effective, but as I point out above... it sometimes (often, even) CAN be just about having the strength.
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
Strength
Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.
The reason Charisma works better as a default is that Bodily Power, Athletic Training, and Raw Physical Force are not necessary to Intimidate someone, but being able to Interact Effectively with Others is. Can being Physically Strong be an Advantage...absolutely. But so could having a high Dex by twirling a dagger around your fingers. Or a high Constitution by holding your hand still over an open flame. Or a high Intelligence where you use hidden knowledge about their family to threaten. Or a high Wisdom where you read their bodily language and uncanninly know when they are lying. Take Joe Pesci in Goodfellas...he's not tall, he's not strong, he's not exceptionally smart, he's not particularly good looking (which is why Charisma is no longer about physical appearance as it used to be). But he's able to threaten and intimidate people by force of will. If you have a character with a long scar that runs down its cheek and gives a frightening look, that could add an Advantage to your Intimidation roll.
Having said all this, it's your game. You want it to be based on Strength, go for it. I'm just attempting to show why CHA is used for it instead.
Having said all this, it's your game. You want it to be based on Strength, go for it. I'm just attempting to show why CHA is used for it instead.
Understood. I actually appreciate the challenge, as I want to be certain that my position makes sense, and honestly, the counterarguments are simply convincing me of that more and more.
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
Strength
Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.
Two things. First, keep in mind that Strength is merely a substitute for a more ideal "Physique" trait for the skill. And simple observation shows that one's physique can make quite a difference when attempting to intimidate someone.
Second, that definition of Charisma is indeed the one used in the PHB, but it's actually the root of the problem. That definition has been tweaked just enough to be able to justify Intimidation having been under Charisma since the start of D&D. But it's not the definition in common use, which is why it constantly confuses new players, and why they typically have to "have it explained to them" (read: be given a bunch of rationalizations) why Intimidation should be accepted as a Charisma skill.
These are the common definitions for the word:
Google's definition: Charisma - compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others Merriam-Webster.com's definition: Charisma - (1) a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (such as a political leader) - (2) a special magnetic charm or appeal Oxford English Dictionarydefinition: Charisma - Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others
Note that none of these common definitions has it making much sense to consider charisma the base attribute for intimidating others. Yet the game designers of D&D have decided to actually change the definition of the word as used in the game, rather than put Intimidation under a more appropriate ability, or resolve the apparent mismatch in some other fashion. While I understand the decision, and don't think it'll change any time soon, I can no longer agree with it, especially when such a simple change appears to have minimal impact on the system, and actually makes charisma operate according to the common definition, so that (most) players I've encountered understand both the skill and the ability better. That's why from now on, Intimidation will be based on Strength in my games, unless actual game feedback determines that the change is a mistake.
@rodthebard considering everyone is trying literally to tell you thatcharisma makes more sense then strenght yet you always dissmiss what we say as "bigger people are better at it" it seems to me like you are stubborn and just refuse to think that maybe your vision is false. The other possibility would be that you do not understand charisma at all which i highly encourage you to watch some youtube vids about it. Youd see why strenght doesnt make much sense to begin with.
Also... Of course your high strength players wont complain. But of course your high charisma players will talk. If i was a fighter without charisma and you give me strength for it. I wouldnt say no. But if i was a high charisma bard with proficiency in intimidation and a strength of 5. Id be much more inclined to tell you im the one who pays the price of that fighters change. Just because you want him to be a one trick pony.
So since many thinks exaustion is too strong... You have to realise that hp does it as well. Exemple of wildshaped druids who. Falls from a thousand feet yet lives with barely a scratch.
Something must be done to make things a tad harder. The ruling about massive damage in 5e is too dumb. 50% of your max hit points in one round... At later levels it makes no sense. So basically you have not much choice to make the game more challenging.
Option 1. You make monsters twice stronger.
Option 2. You remove the long rest full healing and leave only hit dices for healing.
Option 3. You make good use of exaustion which is great to simulate anything.
The problem with any of these options is that they make the game much harder for low levels. And are made for higher powered characters. The only way to make it great would be to use percentiles. But it makes the maths much more present. Something 5e is trying to avoid.
I have another option still...
Change the threshold of massive damage to something like 30 hp. At low level it happens not much but at higher levels it makes the game better. But what i like is the fact that you have penalties that actually matters with exaustion.
The chances of your party continuing the fight once they reach the third levels of exaustion are pretty slim. And i like that players do not fight till death on all fight just because heroes.
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)
Seriously, think about it in everyday situations. It's nighttime on the subway. A group of young men are in one car, along with other passengers. It's dead quiet. Someone walks into the car, and tries to take a seat near one of the young men. The biggest guy, a huge kid with muscles clearly visible, stands up, blocks his path, and shakes his head. The new arrival stops, then decides to sit elsewhere, without a word of protest.
That's Intimidation in action. Not the high-level scheming kind. It's the down-to-earth, base kind. No words were exchanged. There was no display of strength. There didn't need to be one. The size of the man doing the intimidating was enough all on its own.
So you are taking a large kid with strong enough confidence to know that he can pull off that sort of maneuver. While he has a high Strength, I'd argue he has a better than average Charisma as well. If he had a low Charisma, he'd not have gotten up to try and Intimidate him to begin with. As such, while his Strength may give him an Advantage on the Check, the driving force would be his Charisma.
For example, you have Ferdinand, a huge fellow, very strong, but he has always avoided conflicts. He's there on the subway and a bunch of guys come on, none of them as big as him. They start causing a commotion on the train, but even though he's strong he doesn't have the force of personality to stand up to them. However also on the train is Tony. Now Tony is not physically imposing, but he has a force of will. He gets up and tells them to sit down and shut up. The leader of the group, who while not as physically imposing as Ferdinand is more so than Tony, goes up and towers over Tony. Tony doesn't back down and just stares him in the eyes, his force of personality overwhelming his less Charismatic opponent causing him to back down instead.
This is why I allow you to substitute abilities under the right circumstances, but only if you're proficient in the skill. In your example, it sounds like Ferdinand simply isn't adept in using his size to his advantage (i.e., he's not proficient in intimidation); nor does he have the force of personality to intimidate people. If Ferdinand were proficient, I would assume that he had some knowledge of how to use his size to his advantage and let him use strength in the right circumstances.
1. This still doesn't make sense though. A threat is only intimidating if you believe that there is an intent to do harm and that it is conveyed believably. That's charisma. The only other way to convince someone you're serious about harming them is by actually demonstrating it. Like if you ripped their buddy's arm off and then asked them again where their hideout was... that might be a strength-intimidate. Because you physically showed them what you're capable of.
I suspect it doesn't make sense because you're doing the same thing I did for years: overthinking it and rationalizing how the status quo (Intimidation = Charisma) is justified.
Seriously, think about it in everyday situations. It's nighttime on the subway. A group of young men are in one car, along with other passengers. It's dead quiet. Someone walks into the car, and tries to take a seat near one of the young men. The biggest guy, a huge kid with muscles clearly visible, stands up, blocks his path, and shakes his head. The new arrival stops, then decides to sit elsewhere, without a word of protest.
That's Intimidation in action. Not the high-level scheming kind. It's the down-to-earth, base kind. No words were exchanged. There was no display of strength. There didn't need to be one. The size of the man doing the intimidating was enough all on its own.
(Which means, yes, size should arguably be the determining factor, but again, as that's a player-chosen flavor stat, Strength is the most appropriate substitute.)
I'm not overthinking it. It just makes sense that intimidation is tied to how convincing you are. But almost no one is physically larger than me so maybe my personal experience isn't true to most people. If some big dude rolled up on me I'd just stand up and look down at him. Only if he was convincingly willing to attack would I hesitate, and not just brawl, that's not threatening enough. He'd have to be able to convey he's willing to main or kill. That is entirely charisma.
But that's the thing, a kid could be intimidating if they conveyed that same intent. So could an old person. Willingness to commit harm is what is intimidating. I go back to my example, Terry Crews could never intimidate me. He's just too friendly and kind. He's also massive. According to you he should be super intimidating but the idea of him attacking someone is comical instead.
2. We're fragile. Really, really fragile. A child can murder you. An infirm old man could. It doesn't take overwhelming physical power to be a very real threat, it takes desire and will. Someone is only scary when you believe that they want to and will hurt you. That could be a child, that could be an old man. Someone's willingness to kill is entirely independent of their physical strength.
And I'm telling you something that's obvious to anyone you ask on the street: That doesn't matter.
People react to size, bulk, strength, etc. They just do. I (kinda) get not wanting it to be true. But it is, and it's unreasonable to declare that that's not the case, especially in a game where the concept of people reacting to innate qualities is actually encapsulated in a Charisma stat.
People responding to my houserule seem to keep thinking of the social skills as always requiring words, but I think we should take a step back and reconsider. We KNOW Charisma incorporates things like looks. Force of personality. Attractiveness. Grace and poise. Mannerisms. Little things that don't necessarily require any sort of mental prowess. Someone using Persuasion to get a better discount at a shop doesn't necessarily have to say a single extra word. It could be a little laugh and an extra wink and a smile. Friendly overtures. Simply looking attractive and flashing it. It just doesn't matter that the INT 18 member of the party has a bigger vocabulary and could string together a 15-page poem capable of impressing the shopowner. Unless he's going to try to write his way into getting a discount, his words are useless compared to the high-CHA character's sheer social presence.
That's how it also is for people reacting to size when threats (real or implied, explicit or subtle) are on the table. It simply affects people, in reality, everyday, in lots of little ways, even in our modern society with educated citizens. To say it wouldn't have any effect among peasants in a fantasy world is to expect players to suspend their disbelief indefinitely.
Thinking of Charisma as attractiveness is wrong. You can look at a number of absolutely foul creatures that have high charisma to disprove that notion quick. Unless night hags are your kink, I think we can agree that charisma and attractiveness aren't associated to one another.
Force of personality, yeah. Grace and poise, eh sorta. Mannerisms, a little. It is an abstraction of someone's ability to get their way in when interacting with others.
But I'd disagree about your 18 int example. Everyone has their own motivations, and ignoring that is a mistake. If that's a magical goods shop that shopkeep could very easily be prejudiced when it comes to the intellect of his clientele. Maybe he won't sell certain items to dumb characters or offers a discount to people he feels are capable of using his supplies properly. Presenting a full array of nuanced reactions for NPCs might not be for you, but to say that there is definitively no possible benefit is just wrong.
You're obviously sold on the idea that strength is all that's important when it comes to Intimidation, which is fine. But that's not the default for very good reasons. You can discount them and even ignore people's reasoning who have shared them, but you shouldn't strawman them. Claiming to know what someone is doing in their head isn't going to win you any arguments.
Last little nugget for you to mull over: Intimidation is simply the means of believably conveying a threat of some kind. Physical is one obvious kind of threat but not everyone reacts to that, so Str works here if your target is susceptible to raw size-envy. But to other people you'll need a different source of threat, because they're not scared of that one. Can a big tall strong warrior intimidate the king while he is sitting on the throne in his hall filled with armed guards? Certainly not. If the warrior tries best outcome is the king is feeling merciful and lets him keep his head. But that doesn't mean the king can't be intimated, of course he could be. Just not by something so barbaric as raw strength, especially not in that situation. Similar example, someone like a Goliath Barbarian... think he'd ever be intimidated by some thug's strength based intimidation attempt? The goliath is looking for a fight, why would he be scared by a free offer of his heart's desire? He'd smile. But certainly something could unnerve him.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think part of the problem is that we often think of a high Charisma character as being eloquent, charming etc. We make a strong fighter thinking of the strong, silent type. We think that means we can use Charisma as a dump stat. We think we have created an Str 18, Cha 8 with a steely gaze and large muscles that intimidates everyone he looks at, but we really have a character that has trouble making eye contact and has other mannerisms that tell everyone that sees him that he lacks self confidence.
So since many thinks exaustion is too strong... You have to realise that hp does it as well. Exemple of wildshaped druids who. Falls from a thousand feet yet lives with barely a scratch.
Something must be done to make things a tad harder. The ruling about massive damage in 5e is too dumb. 50% of your max hit points in one round... At later levels it makes no sense. So basically you have not much choice to make the game more challenging.
Option 1. You make monsters twice stronger.
Option 2. You remove the long rest full healing and leave only hit dices for healing.
Option 3. You make good use of exaustion which is great to simulate anything.
The problem with any of these options is that they make the game much harder for low levels. And are made for higher powered characters. The only way to make it great would be to use percentiles. But it makes the maths much more present. Something 5e is trying to avoid.
I have another option still...
Change the threshold of massive damage to something like 30 hp. At low level it happens not much but at higher levels it makes the game better. But what i like is the fact that you have penalties that actually matters with exaustion.
The chances of your party continuing the fight once they reach the third levels of exaustion are pretty slim. And i like that players do not fight till death on all fight just because heroes.
There are hundred of options here, not just 3 or 4. The question really is exactly what do you want, because the option that is right for you and your game will be based on what you want.
If you want super gritty realism, you can homebrew in called shots, new types of wounded conditions, new or more complex diseases and poisons, reduce the healing rate or even remove healing magic entirely. Most folk aren't looking for that type of IRL simulation in their fantasy game though. But if you did, you could do it.
But finding the easiest fix that is the least disruptive to the rest of the rules is the tricky part... and to do that you'd need to identify exactly what you want. It seems your only goal is: More challenging, especially at later levels. But that's easy to achieve by using higher CR monsters, or more of them. Since the fix for the game not being challenging is self evident, my guess is that isn't your actual goal.
When I brainstormed the HP/Healing homerules for my game, I identified these goals:
Eliminate some of HP abstraction
Add more mundane combat conditions
Add elements of both gritty slow healing and heroic recover simultaneously
Boost low level health slightly, while otherwise maintaining overall total hp ratios
That's what lead to my Health/Stamina split, where health slow heals and stamina is quick to recover. Stamina is deducted first, before health is hit, except for crits remove health directly. Mundane combat Wounded and Bleeding conditions added. Stamina goes up entirely based on level and class, while Health is level and con based plus a small level 0 base health number determined by size. Few other misc. related rules for how all that interacts.
So, brainstorm the exact goals you have and then that makes it much much easier to identify the best way to modify the rules to achieve your goals.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
@rodthebard considering everyone is trying literally to tell you thatcharisma makes more sense then strenght yet you always dissmiss what we say as "bigger people are better at it" it seems to me like you are stubborn and just refuse to think that maybe your vision is false.
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm responding to concerns with salient points. I'd have no problem being shown that my change is a horrible/nonsensical idea, but that's going to take someone actually reading what I'm saying and then giving a counterargument that actually holds water. If you're starting out with "size never makes a difference in physical confrontations," then yes, that's a line that's not going to go anywhere since simple observation disproves it. If that's your tact, you really shouldn't plan on your argument going very far.
The other possibility would be that you do not understand charisma at all which i highly encourage you to watch some youtube vids about it. Youd see why strenght doesnt make much sense to begin with.
Please read my post providing the definitions of charisma further above. I understand what "charisma" represents in the real world. I also understand the "all-social-skills-combined" trait that D&D makes Charisma out to be. My conclusion is that the D&D version of Charisma is off from reality, and it makes no sense (for me) to continue with it as such when a simple change brings it in line with what it should be, while having minimal impact.
Also... Of course your high strength players wont complain. But of course your high charisma players will talk. If i was a fighter without charisma and you give me strength for it. I wouldnt say no. But if i was a high charisma bard with proficiency in intimidation and a strength of 5. Id be much more inclined to tell you im the one who pays the price of that fighters change. Just because you want him to be a one trick pony.
Ok. Here's your chance to actually make a strong point. I've asked you questions before, and so far you've ignored them all, so please understand that I'm not asking this question just to waste time... delving into the specifics might actually bring up something worthwhile. So:
Who are you suggesting becomes a one-trick pony under the change I've made? The bard or the fighter?
1. This still doesn't make sense though. A threat is only intimidating if you believe that there is an intent to do harm and that it is conveyed believably. That's charisma. The only other way to convince someone you're serious about harming them is by actually demonstrating it. Like if you ripped their buddy's arm off and then asked them again where their hideout was... that might be a strength-intimidate. Because you physically showed them what you're capable of.
I suspect it doesn't make sense because you're doing the same thing I did for years: overthinking it and rationalizing how the status quo (Intimidation = Charisma) is justified.
Seriously, think about it in everyday situations. It's nighttime on the subway. A group of young men are in one car, along with other passengers. It's dead quiet. Someone walks into the car, and tries to take a seat near one of the young men. The biggest guy, a huge kid with muscles clearly visible, stands up, blocks his path, and shakes his head. The new arrival stops, then decides to sit elsewhere, without a word of protest.
That's Intimidation in action. Not the high-level scheming kind. It's the down-to-earth, base kind. No words were exchanged. There was no display of strength. There didn't need to be one. The size of the man doing the intimidating was enough all on its own.
(Which means, yes, size should arguably be the determining factor, but again, as that's a player-chosen flavor stat, Strength is the most appropriate substitute.)
I'm not overthinking it. It just makes sense that intimidation is tied to how convincing you are. But almost no one is physically larger than me so maybe my personal experience isn't true to most people. If some big dude rolled up on me I'd just stand up and look down at him. Only if he was convincingly willing to attack would I hesitate, and not just brawl, that's not threatening enough. He'd have to be able to convey he's willing to main or kill. That is entirely charisma.
Well, yes, I suspect your personal experience might be skewing things. (And I say that in as friendly a manner as I can.)
And yes, you're right, intimidation can be tied to how convincing one is, but look at the very word you're using: convincing. It seems like you're falling into the idea that unless someone's making some specific verbal threat aimed at a specific goal, there's no intimidation involved, because otherwise how would the supposed target even know that there's a threat being made? But depending in part on the physical dynamics, there doesn't even need to be higher-level or conscious processing of an overt threat for an intimidating fear to be elicited.
But that's the thing, a kid could be intimidating if they conveyed that same intent. So could an old person. Willingness to commit harm is what is intimidating. I go back to my example, Terry Crews could never intimidate me. He's just too friendly and kind. He's also massive. According to you he should be super intimidating but the idea of him attacking someone is comical instead.
That's because you've seen Terry Crews act in a friendly and kind manner. Do you honestly not see how he could be intimidating to someone who doesn't know him? Do you not think that, were he to move somewhere no one had ever heard of him, he couldn't be hired as a bouncer on the spot?
2. We're fragile. Really, really fragile. A child can murder you. An infirm old man could. It doesn't take overwhelming physical power to be a very real threat, it takes desire and will. Someone is only scary when you believe that they want to and will hurt you. That could be a child, that could be an old man. Someone's willingness to kill is entirely independent of their physical strength.
And I'm telling you something that's obvious to anyone you ask on the street: That doesn't matter.
People react to size, bulk, strength, etc. They just do. I (kinda) get not wanting it to be true. But it is, and it's unreasonable to declare that that's not the case, especially in a game where the concept of people reacting to innate qualities is actually encapsulated in a Charisma stat.
People responding to my houserule seem to keep thinking of the social skills as always requiring words, but I think we should take a step back and reconsider. We KNOW Charisma incorporates things like looks. Force of personality. Attractiveness. Grace and poise. Mannerisms. Little things that don't necessarily require any sort of mental prowess. Someone using Persuasion to get a better discount at a shop doesn't necessarily have to say a single extra word. It could be a little laugh and an extra wink and a smile. Friendly overtures. Simply looking attractive and flashing it. It just doesn't matter that the INT 18 member of the party has a bigger vocabulary and could string together a 15-page poem capable of impressing the shopowner. Unless he's going to try to write his way into getting a discount, his words are useless compared to the high-CHA character's sheer social presence.
That's how it also is for people reacting to size when threats (real or implied, explicit or subtle) are on the table. It simply affects people, in reality, everyday, in lots of little ways, even in our modern society with educated citizens. To say it wouldn't have any effect among peasants in a fantasy world is to expect players to suspend their disbelief indefinitely.
Thinking of Charisma as attractiveness is wrong. You can look at a number of absolutely foul creatures that have high charisma to disprove that notion quick. Unless night hags are your kink, I think we can agree that charisma and attractiveness aren't associated to one another.
Yeah, this is probably half of the issue right here: I'm of the opinion that D&D's take on charisma is wrong, and should have been changed early on. Rather than rehash it all here, please read my post above commenting on the definitions of the word. If my position still doesn't make sense after that, I'd be glad to continue.
You're obviously sold on the idea that strength is all that's important when it comes to Intimidation, which is fine.
I'm not, actually. Where have I said that strength is all that's important when it comes to intimidation?
But that's not the default for very good reasons. You can discount them and even ignore people's reasoning who have shared them, but you shouldn't strawman them.
I'm not ignoring anyone's reasoning, although I am countering arguments. Could you please show where I've made a strawman out of someone's argument?
Claiming to know what someone is doing in their head isn't going to win you any arguments.
Could you please show where I claimed to know what someone is doing in their head?
Last little nugget for you to mull over: Intimidation is simply the means of believably conveying a threat of some kind. Physical is one obvious kind of threat but not everyone reacts to that, so Str works here if your target is susceptible to raw size-envy. But to other people you'll need a different source of threat, because they're not scared of that one.
.....
I've agreed with this. Over and over and over. My position is NOT that Charisma is never appropriate for use with the Intimidation skill.
I'm getting the impression that half of those responding to my houserule are posting without even reading what my stance actually is.
Your stance is simple to understand. Being Big and Strong makes you more Intimidating than someone who isn't Big and Strong. The problem with this, it doesn't take into account all the other ways that Intimidation can happen. You have said that sometimes CHA is appropriate to use, sometimes it is not. This makes it sound like everything is situational, in which case Intimidation becomes the only skill that would not be based off of a single Attribute. Keeping it at Charisma, being the attribute which involves how you interact with others (whether you agree with that definition or not, it is the one the game uses), allows it to have a single Attribute it is based on.
Fighter with high STR flexing his muscles. Your way, makes an Intimidation check using STR. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of that action.
Monk with high DEX, but being thin and wiry, kicking his foot 1 inch from someone's face. Your way, makes an Intimidation check using DEX. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of that Action.
Halfling with high CON, but not particularly strong, holding his hand over a fire. Your way, makes an Intimidation check using CON. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of that Action.
Gnome with high INT, but not physically imposing at all, threatening with hidden information. Your way, makes an Intimidation check using INT. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of that Action.
Rogue with high WIS, but not muscle bound, knows exactly when you are lying (Insight). Your way, makes an Intimidation check using WIS. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of successful Insight check.
Each time you use Intimidation would have to have a different Attribute based on how you use it using your logic. RAW way, 1 Attribute but with Advantage or Disadvantage based on the situation and how you perform. Unless you are saying that the only time Str should be used is when you are trying to be physically imposing and all other times would be Charisma, in which case why change the base stat and just have it be Situational in those few instances?
Over and over again, you have argued (and I mean this in a Debate manner, not a hostile one) that being Big and Strong should be the basis for Intimidation because in real life Big and Strong people are naturally more Intimidating. But I just gave just a few examples having nothing to do with someone's physical appearance and entirely on how they Interact which is what Charisma is (again, whether you agree with this definition or not, it is how the game uses it).
------
Alternatively, think about this. Keep CHA as the base score, but add the appropriate Attribute modifier where it makes sense instead of giving Advantage. You have a Level 3 Goliath with 18 Str and a 10 Cha trained in Intimidate, add in the additional +4 from Str if he Intimidates by crushing a stone in his bare hand. Same with the monk above with Dex, or any of the other examples. This way you keep your situational modifiers, but don't base it off of an attribute that is only useful when physical Intimidation it what you are doing. This ruling could be used with other skills as well. Str is what is used in Climbing (Athletics) which makes a certain amount of sense. But what if you have an extremely Dexterous thief who can leap from wall to wall...add the Dex modifier in this particular situation.
Presuming that this is directed toward me, I'm again not sure exactly what you're wanting. I've answered your yes/no question ("does this mean you make strength based checks") to the best of my ability, with a YES to one situation, and a NO to another.
If you feel that's somehow inadequate, perhaps you can rephrase your question into something more direct?
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
Reminds me too much of the 'death spiral' some games have, where as you take damage, you take penalties, meaning that once you start losing, you're pretty well hosed. Too harsh, not much fun that I can see.
1. This still doesn't make sense though. A threat is only intimidating if you believe that there is an intent to do harm and that it is conveyed believably. That's charisma. The only other way to convince someone you're serious about harming them is by actually demonstrating it. Like if you ripped their buddy's arm off and then asked them again where their hideout was... that might be a strength-intimidate. Because you physically showed them what you're capable of.
2. We're fragile. Really, really fragile. A child can murder you. An infirm old man could. It doesn't take overwhelming physical power to be a very real threat, it takes desire and will. Someone is only scary when you believe that they want to and will hurt you. That could be a child, that could be an old man. Someone's willingness to kill is entirely independent of their physical strength.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It works better if you cram all the penalties towards the end of the HP total. That way you're fine for the most part until you start getting really seriously injured and suffering penalties near 0. It keeps it from being an all or nothing system, and prevents the wack a mole healing word type play.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I suspect it doesn't make sense because you're doing the same thing I did for years: overthinking it and rationalizing how the status quo (Intimidation = Charisma) is justified.
Seriously, think about it in everyday situations. It's nighttime on the subway. A group of young men are in one car, along with other passengers. It's dead quiet. Someone walks into the car, and tries to take a seat near one of the young men. The biggest guy, a huge kid with muscles clearly visible, stands up, blocks his path, and shakes his head. The new arrival stops, then decides to sit elsewhere, without a word of protest.
That's Intimidation in action. Not the high-level scheming kind. It's the down-to-earth, base kind. No words were exchanged. There was no display of strength. There didn't need to be one. The size of the man doing the intimidating was enough all on its own.
(Which means, yes, size should arguably be the determining factor, but again, as that's a player-chosen flavor stat, Strength is the most appropriate substitute.)
And I'm telling you something that's obvious to anyone you ask on the street: That doesn't matter.
People react to size, bulk, strength, etc. They just do. I (kinda) get not wanting it to be true. But it is, and it's unreasonable to declare that that's not the case, especially in a game where the concept of people reacting to innate qualities is actually encapsulated in a Charisma stat.
People responding to my houserule seem to keep thinking of the social skills as always requiring words, but I think we should take a step back and reconsider. We KNOW Charisma incorporates things like looks. Force of personality. Attractiveness. Grace and poise. Mannerisms. Little things that don't necessarily require any sort of mental prowess. Someone using Persuasion to get a better discount at a shop doesn't necessarily have to say a single extra word. It could be a little laugh and an extra wink and a smile. Friendly overtures. Simply looking attractive and flashing it. It just doesn't matter that the INT 18 member of the party has a bigger vocabulary and could string together a 15-page poem capable of impressing the shopowner. Unless he's going to try to write his way into getting a discount, his words are useless compared to the high-CHA character's sheer social presence.
That's how it also is for people reacting to size when threats (real or implied, explicit or subtle) are on the table. It simply affects people, in reality, everyday, in lots of little ways, even in our modern society with educated citizens. To say it wouldn't have any effect among peasants in a fantasy world is to expect players to suspend their disbelief indefinitely.
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
So you are taking a large kid with strong enough confidence to know that he can pull off that sort of maneuver. While he has a high Strength, I'd argue he has a better than average Charisma as well. If he had a low Charisma, he'd not have gotten up to try and Intimidate him to begin with. As such, while his Strength may give him an Advantage on the Check, the driving force would be his Charisma.
For example, you have Ferdinand, a huge fellow, very strong, but he has always avoided conflicts. He's there on the subway and a bunch of guys come on, none of them as big as him. They start causing a commotion on the train, but even though he's strong he doesn't have the force of personality to stand up to them. However also on the train is Tony. Now Tony is not physically imposing, but he has a force of will. He gets up and tells them to sit down and shut up. The leader of the group, who while not as physically imposing as Ferdinand is more so than Tony, goes up and towers over Tony. Tony doesn't back down and just stares him in the eyes, his force of personality overwhelming his less Charismatic opponent causing him to back down instead.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
But you're missing the point that had these been skinny, waifish old men in "biker" outfits with the same amount of chutzpah, the interaction would have likely turned out quite differently. At the very least, I can't imagine no protest being made, no challenge. This suggests that the driving force would be physique.
Then consider... what if it wasn't even his idea? What if one of the other kids had just said, "Jimmy, I know you don't want to, but if someone tries to sit down, don't let them." I never mentioned anything about a swagger (although I imagine many people added that in themselves.) Just a move and a shake of the head. That's all. Yes, Charisma may have been involved, but I think it's more than a bit unreasonable to say that the encounter, as described, was anything other than a physical confrontation. Mind games weren't needed beyond "hmm, he looks big, and he doesn't want me to sit here."
Well, I would agree that the deal with Tony (not Ferdinand though, keep reading) is a more ambiguous situation.
And as a DM, I'd rule that it might be one where Charisma is involved... if Tony had done something other than glare, like make a threatening statement, or if the player had given me something else to go on. One can just presume that force of personality will get equal or better results than a massive physique, but at the end of the day, if it's Intimidation, you've got to be invoking fear. With a huge physique, the nature of the fear is obvious. With someone trying to get into a battle of wills through a staredown, the fear is... of what exactly? That the charismatic guy will beat up the leader? Maybe; if Tony was bigger, that would definitely help. But the question then is, why would the leader have anything to fear from Tony, especially with backup around him, if he doesn't look like he could easily cause harm? ("Is this just a bluff? Pfft, yeah, look at him, of course it's a bluff.")
Even if you've not witnessed this situation in real life, I think we all have seen it portrayed in popular media, where someone who appears ordinary stands up to bullies, glaring hard at them, then a fight ensues and the bullies get beaten up, precisely because they saw no reason to react to someone who didn't look dangerous. That's an Intimidation roll that FAILS. The trope works because we all know that that's how many people actually view things, especially if they're not bothering to think things through. And if Tony's actually smaller than average? That's just going to make it worse for him. In that case, if he actually wants to be successful with his Intimidation, he should probably need to have actually learned how to do that staredown pretty darn well (i.e., he's proficient in the skill) otherwise he's probably going to have to fight them anyhow, because they'd be more likely to laugh than actually be Intimidated.
So, yeah... average-physique, high-Charisma is a gamble in that situation. Might work, might not. IMO, it should come down to whether or not Tony is proficient in Intimidation more than anything else.
As far as Ferdinand goes? I think saying he wouldn't even get into the situation because he's not charismatic enough isn't just putting too much into Charisma, it's cheating the question. Because the question is, if he DOES stand up to the bullies--if the player DID choose to try that Intimidation roll--THEN how successful would he be at it? I'd say he should have a fairly high chance of being successful, regardless of Charisma; that's exactly why I made the houserule.
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
There is a difference, however, between being Intimidating and actually Intimidating someone. If Ferdinand does stand up to the bullies, because of his low Charisma, he's looking down at the ground, muttering his words, being apologetic, because he doesn't have the Charisma to effectively Intimidate him. At first when he stands up, the guys may take a second look at his size, but once he starts trying to Intimidate them, they don't fall for it.
If it just based off of Strength and Physical Size, where is the skill? A large man standing in an alley is Intimidating, but isn't necessarily trying to be Intimidating. There are actions which need to happen just like any other skill. Flexing the muscles is an action that has to do with the appearance of Strength, but not necessarily a utilization of Strength. It is less about actually having Strength and more utilizing the knowledge of how to use that Strength to achieve your goals.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I think of Charisma (Intimidation) as a Godfather “I’m going to make you an offer you can’t refuse” situation.
Intimidation in combat is a little different and I’m not sure how I would handle it but I think charisma still figures into it.
Against low intelligence creatures, being big is going to be a deterrent to being attacked. That’s why you should raise your arms above your head to look as big as possible when facing a wild animal. Is this Intimidation or should it be handled in a different way? They say animals can sense fear, fear effects are usually a wisdom save. Animal Handling is a wisdom skill so it makes sense to me that against animal intelligence creatures, Animal Handling would be more effective than Intimidation.
Against more intelligent creatures, big may still be important but looking threatening can mean a lot of different things. Is that a wizard who can throw Fireballs? That would scare me as much as or more than a strong fighter. Halfling monk with a quarterstaff? I might just laugh until I realize that she is a tiny whirlwind of death.
I would never use Intimidation in combat against the party and force them to do something they don’t want to do. If the party uses Intimidation in combat, I would factor that in to how the enemy reacts. I don’t like the idea of every enemy fighting to the death anyway.
I think, again, you're putting too much into Charisma. Charisma COULD include stuttering and stammering, but it doesn't NECESSARILY include that. A character might have low Charisma just because they have horrible facial burn scars, and peasants tend to react poorly because of it (and in such a case, you could argument that, like The Mountain, such a person might actually have it easier trying to intimidate someone... which again suggests that linking Charisma to Intimidation by default is... suspect at best.)
Well, please bear in mind, I'm not saying Charisma is NEVER appropriate for Intimidation, just that Strength makes a better default.
Usually, yes, although if it's something that can happen by accident, it clearly doesn't necessarily require much to achieve. The action could be as simple as making known what you want, or even just moving in someone's direction, depending on the situation, and what you're trying to accomplish. Frankly, I'd have no problem with, say, making a "Passive Intimidation" roll behind the screen on a player's behalf if, say, they were keeping guard of a cave entrance, and a would-be assailant accidentally runs into them, thinking the entire party was in the cave. If the assailant actually gets so startled he runs off, I'd then have the guard roll Perception to even notice the assailant was even there.
I agree that a proficiency in the skill should allow one to be more effective, but as I point out above... it sometimes (often, even) CAN be just about having the strength.
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
Charisma
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
Strength
Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force.
The reason Charisma works better as a default is that Bodily Power, Athletic Training, and Raw Physical Force are not necessary to Intimidate someone, but being able to Interact Effectively with Others is. Can being Physically Strong be an Advantage...absolutely. But so could having a high Dex by twirling a dagger around your fingers. Or a high Constitution by holding your hand still over an open flame. Or a high Intelligence where you use hidden knowledge about their family to threaten. Or a high Wisdom where you read their bodily language and uncanninly know when they are lying. Take Joe Pesci in Goodfellas...he's not tall, he's not strong, he's not exceptionally smart, he's not particularly good looking (which is why Charisma is no longer about physical appearance as it used to be). But he's able to threaten and intimidate people by force of will. If you have a character with a long scar that runs down its cheek and gives a frightening look, that could add an Advantage to your Intimidation roll.
Having said all this, it's your game. You want it to be based on Strength, go for it. I'm just attempting to show why CHA is used for it instead.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
Understood. I actually appreciate the challenge, as I want to be certain that my position makes sense, and honestly, the counterarguments are simply convincing me of that more and more.
Two things. First, keep in mind that Strength is merely a substitute for a more ideal "Physique" trait for the skill. And simple observation shows that one's physique can make quite a difference when attempting to intimidate someone.
Second, that definition of Charisma is indeed the one used in the PHB, but it's actually the root of the problem. That definition has been tweaked just enough to be able to justify Intimidation having been under Charisma since the start of D&D. But it's not the definition in common use, which is why it constantly confuses new players, and why they typically have to "have it explained to them" (read: be given a bunch of rationalizations) why Intimidation should be accepted as a Charisma skill.
These are the common definitions for the word:
Google's definition: Charisma - compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others
Merriam-Webster.com's definition: Charisma - (1) a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (such as a political leader) - (2) a special magnetic charm or appeal
Oxford English Dictionary definition: Charisma - Compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others
Note that none of these common definitions has it making much sense to consider charisma the base attribute for intimidating others. Yet the game designers of D&D have decided to actually change the definition of the word as used in the game, rather than put Intimidation under a more appropriate ability, or resolve the apparent mismatch in some other fashion. While I understand the decision, and don't think it'll change any time soon, I can no longer agree with it, especially when such a simple change appears to have minimal impact on the system, and actually makes charisma operate according to the common definition, so that (most) players I've encountered understand both the skill and the ability better. That's why from now on, Intimidation will be based on Strength in my games, unless actual game feedback determines that the change is a mistake.
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 considering everyone is trying literally to tell you thatcharisma makes more sense then strenght yet you always dissmiss what we say as "bigger people are better at it" it seems to me like you are stubborn and just refuse to think that maybe your vision is false. The other possibility would be that you do not understand charisma at all which i highly encourage you to watch some youtube vids about it. Youd see why strenght doesnt make much sense to begin with.
Also... Of course your high strength players wont complain. But of course your high charisma players will talk. If i was a fighter without charisma and you give me strength for it. I wouldnt say no. But if i was a high charisma bard with proficiency in intimidation and a strength of 5. Id be much more inclined to tell you im the one who pays the price of that fighters change. Just because you want him to be a one trick pony.
So since many thinks exaustion is too strong... You have to realise that hp does it as well. Exemple of wildshaped druids who. Falls from a thousand feet yet lives with barely a scratch.
Something must be done to make things a tad harder. The ruling about massive damage in 5e is too dumb. 50% of your max hit points in one round... At later levels it makes no sense. So basically you have not much choice to make the game more challenging.
Option 1. You make monsters twice stronger.
Option 2. You remove the long rest full healing and leave only hit dices for healing.
Option 3. You make good use of exaustion which is great to simulate anything.
The problem with any of these options is that they make the game much harder for low levels. And are made for higher powered characters. The only way to make it great would be to use percentiles. But it makes the maths much more present. Something 5e is trying to avoid.
I have another option still...
Change the threshold of massive damage to something like 30 hp. At low level it happens not much but at higher levels it makes the game better. But what i like is the fact that you have penalties that actually matters with exaustion.
The chances of your party continuing the fight once they reach the third levels of exaustion are pretty slim. And i like that players do not fight till death on all fight just because heroes.
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)
This is why I allow you to substitute abilities under the right circumstances, but only if you're proficient in the skill. In your example, it sounds like Ferdinand simply isn't adept in using his size to his advantage (i.e., he's not proficient in intimidation); nor does he have the force of personality to intimidate people. If Ferdinand were proficient, I would assume that he had some knowledge of how to use his size to his advantage and let him use strength in the right circumstances.
I'm not overthinking it. It just makes sense that intimidation is tied to how convincing you are. But almost no one is physically larger than me so maybe my personal experience isn't true to most people. If some big dude rolled up on me I'd just stand up and look down at him. Only if he was convincingly willing to attack would I hesitate, and not just brawl, that's not threatening enough. He'd have to be able to convey he's willing to main or kill. That is entirely charisma.
But that's the thing, a kid could be intimidating if they conveyed that same intent. So could an old person. Willingness to commit harm is what is intimidating. I go back to my example, Terry Crews could never intimidate me. He's just too friendly and kind. He's also massive. According to you he should be super intimidating but the idea of him attacking someone is comical instead.
Thinking of Charisma as attractiveness is wrong. You can look at a number of absolutely foul creatures that have high charisma to disprove that notion quick. Unless night hags are your kink, I think we can agree that charisma and attractiveness aren't associated to one another.
Force of personality, yeah. Grace and poise, eh sorta. Mannerisms, a little. It is an abstraction of someone's ability to get their way in when interacting with others.
But I'd disagree about your 18 int example. Everyone has their own motivations, and ignoring that is a mistake. If that's a magical goods shop that shopkeep could very easily be prejudiced when it comes to the intellect of his clientele. Maybe he won't sell certain items to dumb characters or offers a discount to people he feels are capable of using his supplies properly. Presenting a full array of nuanced reactions for NPCs might not be for you, but to say that there is definitively no possible benefit is just wrong.
You're obviously sold on the idea that strength is all that's important when it comes to Intimidation, which is fine. But that's not the default for very good reasons. You can discount them and even ignore people's reasoning who have shared them, but you shouldn't strawman them. Claiming to know what someone is doing in their head isn't going to win you any arguments.
Last little nugget for you to mull over: Intimidation is simply the means of believably conveying a threat of some kind. Physical is one obvious kind of threat but not everyone reacts to that, so Str works here if your target is susceptible to raw size-envy. But to other people you'll need a different source of threat, because they're not scared of that one. Can a big tall strong warrior intimidate the king while he is sitting on the throne in his hall filled with armed guards? Certainly not. If the warrior tries best outcome is the king is feeling merciful and lets him keep his head. But that doesn't mean the king can't be intimated, of course he could be. Just not by something so barbaric as raw strength, especially not in that situation. Similar example, someone like a Goliath Barbarian... think he'd ever be intimidated by some thug's strength based intimidation attempt? The goliath is looking for a fight, why would he be scared by a free offer of his heart's desire? He'd smile. But certainly something could unnerve him.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I think part of the problem is that we often think of a high Charisma character as being eloquent, charming etc. We make a strong fighter thinking of the strong, silent type. We think that means we can use Charisma as a dump stat. We think we have created an Str 18, Cha 8 with a steely gaze and large muscles that intimidates everyone he looks at, but we really have a character that has trouble making eye contact and has other mannerisms that tell everyone that sees him that he lacks self confidence.
There are hundred of options here, not just 3 or 4. The question really is exactly what do you want, because the option that is right for you and your game will be based on what you want.
If you want super gritty realism, you can homebrew in called shots, new types of wounded conditions, new or more complex diseases and poisons, reduce the healing rate or even remove healing magic entirely. Most folk aren't looking for that type of IRL simulation in their fantasy game though. But if you did, you could do it.
But finding the easiest fix that is the least disruptive to the rest of the rules is the tricky part... and to do that you'd need to identify exactly what you want. It seems your only goal is: More challenging, especially at later levels. But that's easy to achieve by using higher CR monsters, or more of them. Since the fix for the game not being challenging is self evident, my guess is that isn't your actual goal.
When I brainstormed the HP/Healing homerules for my game, I identified these goals:
So, brainstorm the exact goals you have and then that makes it much much easier to identify the best way to modify the rules to achieve your goals.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm responding to concerns with salient points. I'd have no problem being shown that my change is a horrible/nonsensical idea, but that's going to take someone actually reading what I'm saying and then giving a counterargument that actually holds water. If you're starting out with "size never makes a difference in physical confrontations," then yes, that's a line that's not going to go anywhere since simple observation disproves it. If that's your tact, you really shouldn't plan on your argument going very far.
Please read my post providing the definitions of charisma further above. I understand what "charisma" represents in the real world. I also understand the "all-social-skills-combined" trait that D&D makes Charisma out to be. My conclusion is that the D&D version of Charisma is off from reality, and it makes no sense (for me) to continue with it as such when a simple change brings it in line with what it should be, while having minimal impact.
Ok. Here's your chance to actually make a strong point. I've asked you questions before, and so far you've ignored them all, so please understand that I'm not asking this question just to waste time... delving into the specifics might actually bring up something worthwhile. So:
Who are you suggesting becomes a one-trick pony under the change I've made? The bard or the fighter?
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
Well, yes, I suspect your personal experience might be skewing things. (And I say that in as friendly a manner as I can.)
And yes, you're right, intimidation can be tied to how convincing one is, but look at the very word you're using: convincing. It seems like you're falling into the idea that unless someone's making some specific verbal threat aimed at a specific goal, there's no intimidation involved, because otherwise how would the supposed target even know that there's a threat being made? But depending in part on the physical dynamics, there doesn't even need to be higher-level or conscious processing of an overt threat for an intimidating fear to be elicited.
That's because you've seen Terry Crews act in a friendly and kind manner. Do you honestly not see how he could be intimidating to someone who doesn't know him? Do you not think that, were he to move somewhere no one had ever heard of him, he couldn't be hired as a bouncer on the spot?
Yeah, this is probably half of the issue right here: I'm of the opinion that D&D's take on charisma is wrong, and should have been changed early on. Rather than rehash it all here, please read my post above commenting on the definitions of the word. If my position still doesn't make sense after that, I'd be glad to continue.
I'm not, actually. Where have I said that strength is all that's important when it comes to intimidation?
I'm not ignoring anyone's reasoning, although I am countering arguments. Could you please show where I've made a strawman out of someone's argument?
Could you please show where I claimed to know what someone is doing in their head?
.....
I've agreed with this. Over and over and over. My position is NOT that Charisma is never appropriate for use with the Intimidation skill.
I'm getting the impression that half of those responding to my houserule are posting without even reading what my stance actually is.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
Your stance is simple to understand. Being Big and Strong makes you more Intimidating than someone who isn't Big and Strong. The problem with this, it doesn't take into account all the other ways that Intimidation can happen. You have said that sometimes CHA is appropriate to use, sometimes it is not. This makes it sound like everything is situational, in which case Intimidation becomes the only skill that would not be based off of a single Attribute. Keeping it at Charisma, being the attribute which involves how you interact with others (whether you agree with that definition or not, it is the one the game uses), allows it to have a single Attribute it is based on.
Fighter with high STR flexing his muscles. Your way, makes an Intimidation check using STR. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of that action.
Monk with high DEX, but being thin and wiry, kicking his foot 1 inch from someone's face. Your way, makes an Intimidation check using DEX. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of that Action.
Halfling with high CON, but not particularly strong, holding his hand over a fire. Your way, makes an Intimidation check using CON. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of that Action.
Gnome with high INT, but not physically imposing at all, threatening with hidden information. Your way, makes an Intimidation check using INT. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of that Action.
Rogue with high WIS, but not muscle bound, knows exactly when you are lying (Insight). Your way, makes an Intimidation check using WIS. RAW way. makes an Intimidation check using CHA, but with Advantage because of successful Insight check.
Each time you use Intimidation would have to have a different Attribute based on how you use it using your logic. RAW way, 1 Attribute but with Advantage or Disadvantage based on the situation and how you perform. Unless you are saying that the only time Str should be used is when you are trying to be physically imposing and all other times would be Charisma, in which case why change the base stat and just have it be Situational in those few instances?
Over and over again, you have argued (and I mean this in a Debate manner, not a hostile one) that being Big and Strong should be the basis for Intimidation because in real life Big and Strong people are naturally more Intimidating. But I just gave just a few examples having nothing to do with someone's physical appearance and entirely on how they Interact which is what Charisma is (again, whether you agree with this definition or not, it is how the game uses it).
------
Alternatively, think about this. Keep CHA as the base score, but add the appropriate Attribute modifier where it makes sense instead of giving Advantage. You have a Level 3 Goliath with 18 Str and a 10 Cha trained in Intimidate, add in the additional +4 from Str if he Intimidates by crushing a stone in his bare hand. Same with the monk above with Dex, or any of the other examples. This way you keep your situational modifiers, but don't base it off of an attribute that is only useful when physical Intimidation it what you are doing. This ruling could be used with other skills as well. Str is what is used in Climbing (Athletics) which makes a certain amount of sense. But what if you have an extremely Dexterous thief who can leap from wall to wall...add the Dex modifier in this particular situation.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.