When I started reading this thread, I would have agreed that a Str (Intimidation) check might sometimes be appropriate. Now I’m beginning to think that Str is almost never appropriate for an Intimidation check.
Instead, I would allow a character to make a Str check to succeed at breaking a quarterstaff like a twig (or something similar). If successful, I would then give the character advantage on their Cha (Intimidation) check.
Just because I can't sleep, let's look at some actual game play scenarios. In each one (except the 1st and last) Str is -3, Chr is +0, the Primary Attribute is +3, and Proficiency is +3.
Scenario 1 - You want to Intimidate someone by crushing a stone in your hand (STR). 1st, you make an Athletics check to crush the stone...it succeeds and it grants Advantage on the Intimidation check.
Str Based you get +3 for Str, +3 for Proficiency and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Str based
Scenario 2 - You want to Intimidate by spin kick landing 1 inch from face (DEX). 1st, you make Acrobatics check to see if you do...it succeeds and it grants Advantage on the Intimidation check.
Str Based you get -3 for Str, + 3 for Prof and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, + 3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Cha based.
Scenario 3 - You want to intimidate someone by holding you hand over open flame (CON). 1st, you make Constitution check to hold your hand there...it succeeds and it grants Advantage.
Str based, you get -3 for Str, +3 for Prof and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Cha based.
Scenario 4 - You Intimidate by researching where someone has a farm that nobody else knows about (INT). 1st, you make a History check to discover the info...it succeeds and it grants Advantage.
Str based, you get -3 for Str, +3 for Prof and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Cha based.
Scenario 5 - You Intimidate by calling out every time he lies (WIS). 1st you make Insight check...it succeeds and it grants Advantage.
Str based, you get -3 for Str, +3 for Prof and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Cha based.
Scenario 6 - You just get in somebody's face(CHA). There is no Advantage
Str based, you get -3 for Str, +3 for Prof and Roll once. Cha based, you get +3 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll once. You do better if it is Cha based.
In every one of those Situations, the only one where it benefits having Intimidation be Strength is the 1st one.
In 3e, you made skill checks that were modified by your appropriate stat bonus. An Intimidation check modified by Str could make sense.
In 5e, you make ability checks that are modified by your proficiency bonus if you have a relevant skill proficiency.
I can’t come up with something that would be a Str check that would benefit from Intimidation.
If a player said “I want to intimidate him by breaking his arm” that would be a Str check to break his arm but how would proficiency in Intimidation help you break his arm? Medicine maybe but not Intimidation.
Strength: your physical attribute. Bending bars power lift climb a mountain.
Dexterity: how agile you can be. Can you do the bridge, can you do flips.
Constitution: your endurance. Can you hold your breath for long. How long can you run.
Intellect: your memory. Accumulated years of knowledge and training.
Wisdom: the art of not suicide. Is it wise to attack that creature knowing i may lose my life. This is why you dont fight till death against a dragon without good reasons.
Charisma: force of personnality. The lowest it is the more shy or jerk you are. The highest you are the more commanding and authority you get.
May you like it or not this is the definition of it. Strength as a charisma thing is not working because that not what strength is. I would give advantage for such a thing as bend a bar. But i wouldnt give him strength bonuses. It was the players choice of dumping charisma. Its his fault if he is not intimidating.
You ignored the fact that a prostitute is probably beautiful. But that doesnt mean she is great at making the man get into her room. She can be as physical as you want. In the end if she is jerk or a shy person you wouldnt make her go upstair. If you go by what people see the that girl should definitely get all clients just because of her physique and physique is strength. Which is why your analogy of strength do not work. Because a stats should be general. Not specific. Unless you want to add a 7th stats for beautiful bodies.
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)
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.
Well, I certainly think it's simple to understand. Yet still, I find myself repeating points that were already raised.
From the PHB:
"Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check."
Just to be clear: if you read the rest of the section, you'll see that it's referring to using a different Ability outright, not just granting advantage, and it even includes Strength (Intimidation) as an example.
If you agree with the PHB allowing for non-default ability/skill comibinations in RAW, then I would think you would agree with the same concept here.
If you disagree with the PHB allowing for non-default ability/skill combinations in RAW, then while I can certainly see where you're coming from, at that point we're basically discussing apples and oranges. I think the flexibility here is a good idea, and I intend to keep it, so my change reflects that.
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).
And--once again--I agree that there are times Charisma is more appropriate.
May you like it or not this is the definition of it.
And for various reasons, I'm rejecting that definition of it. I'll be using a clear, consistent, common-sense definition for Charisma in my games, by making a small, simple change that has minimal impact on gameplay. I made all that clear in my post above... did you read it?
You ignored the fact that a prostitute is probably beautiful. But that doesnt mean she is great at making the man get into her room. She can be as physical as you want. In the end if she is jerk or a shy person you wouldnt make her go upstair. If you go by what people see the that girl should definitely get all clients just because of her physique and physique is strength. Which is why your analogy of strength do not work. Because a stats should be general. Not specific. Unless you want to add a 7th stats for beautiful bodies.
I didn't ignore anything. The question you're referring to--which I did answer--asked about her trying to "persuade" someone. Persuasion is not the same as Intimidation. I'll repost it below, since it appears you might not have actually read my answer.
However, I must note that you did again ignore my question.
Out of curiosity, do you think it's reasonable to expect someone to keep answering your questions when you refuse to return the same courtesy?
Referenced question, modified to consolidate context despite the error about "my own assumption:"
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 ?
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.
I'd like to note here, that what was supposed to be a thread of simply sharing houserules, seems to have devolved into a debate over one specific shared houserule, a debate that keeps retreading the same ground because some participants either are not reading replies, are refusing to give responsive answers to questions, or are unaware of relevant D&D rules.
It might be cleaner at this point to simply move the debate regarding that one houserule to a new thread, so as to unclutter this one.
So... yeah. So far two of the four folks in my campaign have given me feedback, and it's been positive. We'll see how it goes, but out of all the (surprisingly few) 5e houserules I've made, this one seems by far to be the easiest to defend
To me, this seemed like you wanted Feedback on it. So far, most here have given you Feedback saying why it doesn't work as a DEFAULT. You ignore that Feedback, which is your right, by saying "Yeah, sure, sometimes Charisma is appropriate" when 90% of the time, Intimidate has nothing to do with STR.
I've been thinking about implementing a house rule that when you're returned to consciousness after having dropped to 0 hitpoints, you're stunned for the first round. This eliminates the whack-a-mole aspect of players getting knocked out and popping right back up. What do you all think? Too punitive?
It seems reasonable to me - if having Haste drop leaves you stunned for a round, surely coming back from being beaten almost to death should too?
I've been thinking about implementing a house rule that when you're returned to consciousness after having dropped to 0 hitpoint, you're stunned for the first round. This eliminates the whack-a-mole aspect of players getting knocked out and popping right back up. What do you all think? Too punitive?
It seems reasonable to me - if having Haste drop leaves you stunned for a round, surely coming back from being beaten almost to death should too?
Most forms of healing require the person administering it to be up close and personal, so they would have someone else there with them preventing them from being targeted without issue. Otherwise it becomes almost comical:
Also, take into account that once Unconscious you are knocked Prone. This is already limiting you a little by forcing you to use half your movement to get up before you can do anything. Maybe, instead of Stunned which makes a character Incapacitated, can't move, can't speak, fails Str and Dex Saving Throws, and Attack Rolls have Advantage, add a Point of Exhaustion each time they come back from 0. This way they aren't stuck not being able to do anything, but still have penalties imposed which get cumulative the more they go down. When you get to 6th level of Exhaustion, instead of instant death simply make it to where they can't wake up from that. If they keep getting hit after that, they still fail the Death Saving Throws and can die.
So... yeah. So far two of the four folks in my campaign have given me feedback, and it's been positive. We'll see how it goes, but out of all the (surprisingly few) 5e houserules I've made, this one seems by far to be the easiest to defend
To me, this seemed like you wanted Feedback on it. So far, most here have given you Feedback saying why it doesn't work as a DEFAULT. You ignore that Feedback, which is your right, by saying "Yeah, sure, sometimes Charisma is appropriate" when 90% of the time, Intimidate has nothing to do with STR.
I did (and do) want and appreciate feedback. (Edit: I'm not sure how the body of my replies constitutes "ignoring" it, but OK.)
But I kind of expected it to be preceded by actually reading what I'd written so as to avoid misunderstandings and to allow a profitable back-and-forth dialogue. That that's not occurring with some posts is creating a lot of repetition and unnecessary bulk, enough that I'm beginning to think having a separate thread is warranted.
I've been thinking about implementing a house rule that when you're returned to consciousness after having dropped to 0 hitpoints, you're stunned for the first round. This eliminates the whack-a-mole aspect of players getting knocked out and popping right back up. What do you all think? Too punitive?
It seems reasonable to me - if having Haste drop leaves you stunned for a round, surely coming back from being beaten almost to death should too?
I can see the rule as possibly being reasonable. I'm just not sure it'll achieve your goal.
If my party is fighting a dragon, with two of our characters down and making death saves, and my role is support and/or healing, I'm not going to NOT heal them because of a stun rule. I'll still run around popping my teammates up; I'll just be hoping that they don't get whacked down again before they can contribute anything.
That said, I probably would change how I'd administer aid to try to give them extra defense; maybe relying more on Healing Word, less on other heals, so I can maybe use a cantrip in the same round to give them cover (Mold Earth, Minor Illusion, etc.) But the whack-a-mole aspect would probably still be there; it would just be harder to keep everyone alive after the first player drops.
I did (and do) want and appreciate feedback. (Edit: I'm not sure how the body of my replies constitutes "ignoring" it, but OK.)
But I kind of expected it to be preceded by actually reading what I'd written so as to avoid misunderstandings and to allow a profitable back-and-forth dialogue. That that's not occurring with some posts is creating a lot of repetition and unnecessary bulk, enough that I'm beginning to think having a separate thread is warranted.
Some stuff gets lost in the weeds when a conversation gets a large number of back n forth posts over a span of days. Sometimes I find it helps to occasionally rewrite a summary of points that have been unaddressed or are critical to your central argument.
My best guess at what your summary of points would be:
You disagree with what Charisma is
You feel Intimidation is a physical action
You think anyone who thinks Charisma-Intimidation makes sense is deluding themselves
You've felt this way for a long time and people in your group are receptive to it
You want feedback and/or debate.
If I'm missing anything please elaborate.
The issue so many people have with your interpretation of the Strength instead of Charisma-Intimidation stuff is that you say it makes sense but it really, really doesn't. 5e uses Ability Checks. You're using the ability score to perform the action. This means that in your system, someone is exerting their physical might to... intimidate someone with the power of their muscles. So fear has mass and they're moving it around somehow. A Strength Ability check is:
A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation.
So you think fear is something which can be lifted, pushed, pulled, or broken? That is what using a strength check represents... physically interacting with and exerting raw brute force. How is that the method of intimidating someone unless you are saying that they are physically manhandling their target's raw emotions and smashing them with their fists? It isn't possible to process this idea and make sense of it.
Compare to a Charisma check:
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others.
A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation.
So a charisma check is rolled any time you attempt to interact with others and the outcome isn't predetermined or there is an element of chance at play. Specifically, when you attempt to influence them, ie intimidate them.
Even if you disagree with what charisma is, it doesn't change what strength does. A strength check is a physical action of brute force. How can that directly control someone else's emotions? That's the part most people are getting hung up on. We can agree that the abstraction of charisma gets murky and weird sometimes. But trying to make it a physical action to manipulate emotions is where we can't seem to follow you.
Questions: Does an archer with a drawn bow n arrow make a strength - intimidate check despite this threat having nothing to do with strength? Would you call for a Strength - Intimidate check to Intimidate a blind man who cannot see that the guy threatening him is shredded?
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've been thinking about implementing a house rule that when you're returned to consciousness after having dropped to 0 hitpoints, you're stunned for the first round. This eliminates the whack-a-mole aspect of players getting knocked out and popping right back up. What do you all think? Too punitive?
It seems reasonable to me - if having Haste drop leaves you stunned for a round, surely coming back from being beaten almost to death should too?
I can see the rule as possibly being reasonable. I'm just not sure it'll achieve your goal.
If my party is fighting a dragon, with two of our characters down and making death saves, and my role is support and/or healing, I'm not going to NOT heal them because of a stun rule. I'll still run around popping my teammates up; I'll just be hoping that they don't get whacked down again before they can contribute anything.
That said, I probably would change how I'd administer aid to try to give them extra defense; maybe relying more on Healing Word, less on other heals, so I can maybe use a cantrip in the same round to give them cover (Mold Earth, Minor Illusion, etc.) But the whack-a-mole aspect would probably still be there; it would just be harder to keep everyone alive after the first player drops.
Good point about it not really eliminating the problem. Maybe a better route is to implement James Haeck's suggestion that you gain a point of exhaustion every time you get popped back up.
Good point about it not really eliminating the problem. Maybe a better route is to implement James Haeck's suggestion that you gain a point of exhaustion every time you get popped back up.
That's an idea, although I don't know that it would fare much better.
But on further thought, here's another idea: simply get rid of death saves.
Maybe replace them with a rule that upon dropping to 0 hit points, you roll a 1d4 to see how long you're out, but you're effectively stable until you take 3 hits, which kills you (crits count for 2.) "Overkill" (getting hit with an attack that does damage equal to or greater than your max HP) still kills you. Compensate for this by having revived characters be stunned for the first round.
This might actually limit some of the "pop up"... or at least tempt players to hold off a bit. If I don't have to worry about my teammate dying in 2-3 rounds, then suddenly I've got a lot more options, and depending on circumstances, I might make the choice to try something more strategic--including hitting the enemy harder--than just healing. After all, the enemy might leave a lying opponent alone, which would leave them safe... but if they're revived, they'll be a visible threat again.
I did (and do) want and appreciate feedback. (Edit: I'm not sure how the body of my replies constitutes "ignoring" it, but OK.)
But I kind of expected it to be preceded by actually reading what I'd written so as to avoid misunderstandings and to allow a profitable back-and-forth dialogue. That that's not occurring with some posts is creating a lot of repetition and unnecessary bulk, enough that I'm beginning to think having a separate thread is warranted.
Some stuff gets lost in the weeds when a conversation gets a large number of back n forth posts over a span of days. Sometimes I find it helps to occasionally rewrite a summary of points that have been unaddressed or are critical to your central argument.
My best guess at what your summary of points would be:
You disagree with what Charisma is
You feel Intimidation is a physical action
You think anyone who thinks Charisma-Intimidation makes sense is deluding themselves
You've felt this way for a long time and people in your group are receptive to it
You want feedback and/or debate.
If I'm missing anything please elaborate.
Thank you, this might indeed be helpful. I'll go through the points one at a time.
1. Yes, I disagree with what D&D (and through its influence, other RPGs) has made Charisma into.
2. I feel that Intimidation CAN be a physical action, without requiring words, but that it's not ALWAYS just physical action. Any act that elicits enough legitimate fear of pain/harm/loss as to prompt a reaction counts.
3. No. Not in the least. (EDIT: Meaning, I DO think Charisma-Intimidation is sometimes appropriate.) This is where I'm really getting frustrated, because I've said no to this numerous times, yet people seem to keep thinking it's where I stand. (That's not a strike at you, by the way.)
4. Regarding points 1 & 2, yes, I've long suspected Charisma in D&D was "flawed" for lack of a better term, especially in regards to Intimidate. I've recently thought it through, and decided to try out a change to see how well it works with the "flaw" fixed.
5. Yes!
I'll also add a #6 and #7:
6. Strength is merely a substitute for a better, ideal "Physique" Ability. Used with Intimidation, it should represent size and musculature more than (edit: or at least as much as) ability to move/damage an object.
7. The idea of using non-default abilities with a skill when appropriate, which is already RAW, is one I like and intend to keep.
With these clarifications (and one correction and two additions,) perhaps we can restart the discussion from here?
(Edit: Sorry for the multiple edits, but I really want to try to be as clear as possible. I should be done fixing things now.)
8. The idea that "physique/strength/etc. is NEVER the basis of Intimidation" is one I consider disproved by observed reality. To anyone who supports the idea, we should probably just agree to disagree.
Strength = Physique is flawed however. There is no "Physique" attribute...Constitution, Dexterity and Strength would hypothetically combine to be Physique, just like Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma would combine for a Mental Acumen. Physique is a personal choice which has no real basis from the Attributes. In your "real world" example, a Goliath with a 10 Strength would be more Intimidating than a Gnome with 18 Strength. It's the same reason Charisma is no longer linked with personal beauty. Donald Trump, like him or hate him, would have a very high Charisma...his entire career has been about Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation...but nobody could say he is a great beauty. The "Physique" aspects of the game are entirely up to the player to decide and while one might choose to have a character with a high Strength be extremely Muscular, another might be that skinny guy with a hidden strength.
Rod... you've been asking people to disproove you that strength is the ability to go, but everytimes we give you a reason and a very valid one... you literally just say you hate the idea and just continu to with your own stuff. when you consider that you've been, literally the only one here to say that... it is clear that you will ignore any and all proof we can give reguardless of what it is. and as mentionned... of course your players that have only strength will be on board with it, you just gave them a boon. while of course your charisma based characters will dislike it to no end.
but go pon ahead and contnu your stuff. i'm thru trying to explain to you what is wrong with your theory and why it may not work. so yeah, have a good game later on, have fun.
@GenericPoster i dislike the idea of putting more limit on death. i think the death saves are much better then the minus HP other editions had. i do not think we need more then the incapacitated condition going down gives. you have to realise that going back up requires someone to heal you, and you being next in initiatives for you to go back up to avoid all the flaws that prone gives you. remember, you still are ont he floor, so basically you are not back up until it comes back to your turn. in a game where multiple enemies will be there, it will be a cluster**** and your players will go into a death spiral. remember, its up to the DM to make some strats with his monsters. he's not obligated to be dumb about fighting.
the one thing i would change, is the fact that revivfy do not give any penalties. which i am against, for me at my table... old ruling from 1e and 2e. you lose a point of constitution everytime you died.
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)
6. Strength is merely a substitute for a better, ideal "Physique" Ability. Used with Intimidation, it should represent size and musculature more than (edit: or at least as much as) ability to move/damage an object.
I suspect what you're really looking for a is Danger stat. A big strong guy could have innate dangerousness because of his size, sure... but so too does a small guy holding a fully automatic rifle. A powerful wizard might have Str of 8 but one Meteor Swarm and you and everything you ever cared about are incinerated. You've latched onto Strength as a replacement for Physique as the key identifier of how much of a threat someone is, but there are so many more terrifying things about people besides their size.
And that's still not even addressing the issue that a Strength ability check is a check to physically and forcefully move or interact with corporeal objects and not emotions.
8. The idea that "physique/strength/etc. is NEVER the basis of Intimidation" is one I consider disproved by observed reality. To anyone who supports the idea, we should probably just agree to disagree.
In my estimation to perform an Intimidation check, you need to actually threaten your target. To do that you need to provide a threat. If you're a big brawler type you could just be that threat by existing, essentially. A specific kind of glare, a quick flex or motion, puffing of the chest or a 'come at me bro' swing of the arms. All the things you're talking about for a high Str character fit here. That's the threat source they're bringing. And the skill clearly needs a threat of some kind. But there are others too.
Weapon-Based Physical Threat
Magical-Based Threat
Organizational/Reputational Threat
Legal Threat
Information Control Threat
Plenty More
My eyes crackle with arcane energy and my voice booms throughout the great hall while I threaten the king, 'If you don't comply with my demands your enemies to the east will find the blueprints to this keep'. Not a super smart move on my part, but my success has little or nothing to do with if I can lift 300 lbs instead of only150 lbs.
If I threaten to report a local shopkeep for cooking his books and scamming taxes unless he cuts me a deal... the threat isn't my size, it is the ramifications of legal action that would befall him.
If I have my heavy crossbow aimed at the innkeeper's chest my size isn't the threat here, it is the weapon itself. I could be beast of a man or a scrawny geezer, the crossbow will snuff out his lights either way. That's all the threat he'd need.
So yeah, when you Intimidate someone you need to provide a source of threat. It could be words, it could be actions, it could be objects... or, as you gravitate to, it could simply be your powerful musculature. But once you have a threat, how well you get them riled up about that threat... that's where the ability check comes into play.
Edit/Addition: I know one of the issues I've always had with the skill is that it just automatically causes people to hate you afterward... but that's not how threats work in reality. Not for everyone. So, in general, I have NPCs react by mostly following that trend unless they are Oppositional or Meek. Someone who is Oppositional will be especially likely to fly into a blind rage at being threatened straight away, and people who are Meek will not become hostile afterward.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I started reading this thread, I would have agreed that a Str (Intimidation) check might sometimes be appropriate. Now I’m beginning to think that Str is almost never appropriate for an Intimidation check.
Instead, I would allow a character to make a Str check to succeed at breaking a quarterstaff like a twig (or something similar). If successful, I would then give the character advantage on their Cha (Intimidation) check.
Just because I can't sleep, let's look at some actual game play scenarios. In each one (except the 1st and last) Str is -3, Chr is +0, the Primary Attribute is +3, and Proficiency is +3.
Scenario 1 - You want to Intimidate someone by crushing a stone in your hand (STR). 1st, you make an Athletics check to crush the stone...it succeeds and it grants Advantage on the Intimidation check.
Str Based you get +3 for Str, +3 for Proficiency and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Str based
Scenario 2 - You want to Intimidate by spin kick landing 1 inch from face (DEX). 1st, you make Acrobatics check to see if you do...it succeeds and it grants Advantage on the Intimidation check.
Str Based you get -3 for Str, + 3 for Prof and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, + 3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Cha based.
Scenario 3 - You want to intimidate someone by holding you hand over open flame (CON). 1st, you make Constitution check to hold your hand there...it succeeds and it grants Advantage.
Str based, you get -3 for Str, +3 for Prof and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Cha based.
Scenario 4 - You Intimidate by researching where someone has a farm that nobody else knows about (INT). 1st, you make a History check to discover the info...it succeeds and it grants Advantage.
Str based, you get -3 for Str, +3 for Prof and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Cha based.
Scenario 5 - You Intimidate by calling out every time he lies (WIS). 1st you make Insight check...it succeeds and it grants Advantage.
Str based, you get -3 for Str, +3 for Prof and Roll twice. Cha based, you get +0 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll twice. You do better if it is Cha based.
Scenario 6 - You just get in somebody's face(CHA). There is no Advantage
Str based, you get -3 for Str, +3 for Prof and Roll once. Cha based, you get +3 for Cha, +3 for Prof and roll once. You do better if it is Cha based.
In every one of those Situations, the only one where it benefits having Intimidation be Strength is the 1st one.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
In 3e, you made skill checks that were modified by your appropriate stat bonus. An Intimidation check modified by Str could make sense.
In 5e, you make ability checks that are modified by your proficiency bonus if you have a relevant skill proficiency.
I can’t come up with something that would be a Str check that would benefit from Intimidation.
If a player said “I want to intimidate him by breaking his arm” that would be a Str check to break his arm but how would proficiency in Intimidation help you break his arm? Medicine maybe but not Intimidation.
Strength: your physical attribute. Bending bars power lift climb a mountain.
Dexterity: how agile you can be. Can you do the bridge, can you do flips.
Constitution: your endurance. Can you hold your breath for long. How long can you run.
Intellect: your memory. Accumulated years of knowledge and training.
Wisdom: the art of not suicide. Is it wise to attack that creature knowing i may lose my life. This is why you dont fight till death against a dragon without good reasons.
Charisma: force of personnality. The lowest it is the more shy or jerk you are. The highest you are the more commanding and authority you get.
May you like it or not this is the definition of it. Strength as a charisma thing is not working because that not what strength is. I would give advantage for such a thing as bend a bar. But i wouldnt give him strength bonuses. It was the players choice of dumping charisma. Its his fault if he is not intimidating.
You ignored the fact that a prostitute is probably beautiful. But that doesnt mean she is great at making the man get into her room. She can be as physical as you want. In the end if she is jerk or a shy person you wouldnt make her go upstair. If you go by what people see the that girl should definitely get all clients just because of her physique and physique is strength. Which is why your analogy of strength do not work. Because a stats should be general. Not specific. Unless you want to add a 7th stats for beautiful bodies.
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)
Well, I certainly think it's simple to understand. Yet still, I find myself repeating points that were already raised.
From the PHB:
"Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics, for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM might ask for a check using an unusual combination of ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can apply a proficiency to a different check."
Just to be clear: if you read the rest of the section, you'll see that it's referring to using a different Ability outright, not just granting advantage, and it even includes Strength (Intimidation) as an example.
If you agree with the PHB allowing for non-default ability/skill comibinations in RAW, then I would think you would agree with the same concept here.
If you disagree with the PHB allowing for non-default ability/skill combinations in RAW, then while I can certainly see where you're coming from, at that point we're basically discussing apples and oranges. I think the flexibility here is a good idea, and I intend to keep it, so my change reflects that.
And--once again--I agree that there are times Charisma is more appropriate.
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
And for various reasons, I'm rejecting that definition of it. I'll be using a clear, consistent, common-sense definition for Charisma in my games, by making a small, simple change that has minimal impact on gameplay. I made all that clear in my post above... did you read it?
I didn't ignore anything. The question you're referring to--which I did answer--asked about her trying to "persuade" someone. Persuasion is not the same as Intimidation. I'll repost it below, since it appears you might not have actually read my answer.
However, I must note that you did again ignore my question.
Out of curiosity, do you think it's reasonable to expect someone to keep answering your questions when you refuse to return the same courtesy?
Referenced question, modified to consolidate context despite the error about "my own assumption:"
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
I'd like to note here, that what was supposed to be a thread of simply sharing houserules, seems to have devolved into a debate over one specific shared houserule, a debate that keeps retreading the same ground because some participants either are not reading replies, are refusing to give responsive answers to questions, or are unaware of relevant D&D rules.
It might be cleaner at this point to simply move the debate regarding that one houserule to a new thread, so as to unclutter this one.
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
At the beginning of this discussion you stated:
To me, this seemed like you wanted Feedback on it. So far, most here have given you Feedback saying why it doesn't work as a DEFAULT. You ignore that Feedback, which is your right, by saying "Yeah, sure, sometimes Charisma is appropriate" when 90% of the time, Intimidate has nothing to do with STR.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I've been thinking about implementing a house rule that when you're returned to consciousness after having dropped to 0 hitpoints, you're stunned for the first round. This eliminates the whack-a-mole aspect of players getting knocked out and popping right back up. What do you all think? Too punitive?
It seems reasonable to me - if having Haste drop leaves you stunned for a round, surely coming back from being beaten almost to death should too?
Most forms of healing require the person administering it to be up close and personal, so they would have someone else there with them preventing them from being targeted without issue. Otherwise it becomes almost comical:
Knocked Unconscious. Healed. Stunned. Knocked Unconscious. Healed. Stunned...
Also, take into account that once Unconscious you are knocked Prone. This is already limiting you a little by forcing you to use half your movement to get up before you can do anything. Maybe, instead of Stunned which makes a character Incapacitated, can't move, can't speak, fails Str and Dex Saving Throws, and Attack Rolls have Advantage, add a Point of Exhaustion each time they come back from 0. This way they aren't stuck not being able to do anything, but still have penalties imposed which get cumulative the more they go down. When you get to 6th level of Exhaustion, instead of instant death simply make it to where they can't wake up from that. If they keep getting hit after that, they still fail the Death Saving Throws and can die.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I did (and do) want and appreciate feedback. (Edit: I'm not sure how the body of my replies constitutes "ignoring" it, but OK.)
But I kind of expected it to be preceded by actually reading what I'd written so as to avoid misunderstandings and to allow a profitable back-and-forth dialogue. That that's not occurring with some posts is creating a lot of repetition and unnecessary bulk, enough that I'm beginning to think having a separate thread is warranted.
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
I can see the rule as possibly being reasonable. I'm just not sure it'll achieve your goal.
If my party is fighting a dragon, with two of our characters down and making death saves, and my role is support and/or healing, I'm not going to NOT heal them because of a stun rule. I'll still run around popping my teammates up; I'll just be hoping that they don't get whacked down again before they can contribute anything.
That said, I probably would change how I'd administer aid to try to give them extra defense; maybe relying more on Healing Word, less on other heals, so I can maybe use a cantrip in the same round to give them cover (Mold Earth, Minor Illusion, etc.) But the whack-a-mole aspect would probably still be there; it would just be harder to keep everyone alive after the first player drops.
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
Some stuff gets lost in the weeds when a conversation gets a large number of back n forth posts over a span of days. Sometimes I find it helps to occasionally rewrite a summary of points that have been unaddressed or are critical to your central argument.
My best guess at what your summary of points would be:
If I'm missing anything please elaborate.
The issue so many people have with your interpretation of the Strength instead of Charisma-Intimidation stuff is that you say it makes sense but it really, really doesn't. 5e uses Ability Checks. You're using the ability score to perform the action. This means that in your system, someone is exerting their physical might to... intimidate someone with the power of their muscles. So fear has mass and they're moving it around somehow. A Strength Ability check is:
So you think fear is something which can be lifted, pushed, pulled, or broken? That is what using a strength check represents... physically interacting with and exerting raw brute force. How is that the method of intimidating someone unless you are saying that they are physically manhandling their target's raw emotions and smashing them with their fists? It isn't possible to process this idea and make sense of it.
Compare to a Charisma check:
So a charisma check is rolled any time you attempt to interact with others and the outcome isn't predetermined or there is an element of chance at play. Specifically, when you attempt to influence them, ie intimidate them.
Even if you disagree with what charisma is, it doesn't change what strength does. A strength check is a physical action of brute force. How can that directly control someone else's emotions? That's the part most people are getting hung up on. We can agree that the abstraction of charisma gets murky and weird sometimes. But trying to make it a physical action to manipulate emotions is where we can't seem to follow you.
Questions: Does an archer with a drawn bow n arrow make a strength - intimidate check despite this threat having nothing to do with strength? Would you call for a Strength - Intimidate check to Intimidate a blind man who cannot see that the guy threatening him is shredded?
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.
Good point about it not really eliminating the problem. Maybe a better route is to implement James Haeck's suggestion that you gain a point of exhaustion every time you get popped back up.
That's an idea, although I don't know that it would fare much better.
But on further thought, here's another idea: simply get rid of death saves.
Maybe replace them with a rule that upon dropping to 0 hit points, you roll a 1d4 to see how long you're out, but you're effectively stable until you take 3 hits, which kills you (crits count for 2.) "Overkill" (getting hit with an attack that does damage equal to or greater than your max HP) still kills you. Compensate for this by having revived characters be stunned for the first round.
This might actually limit some of the "pop up"... or at least tempt players to hold off a bit. If I don't have to worry about my teammate dying in 2-3 rounds, then suddenly I've got a lot more options, and depending on circumstances, I might make the choice to try something more strategic--including hitting the enemy harder--than just healing. After all, the enemy might leave a lying opponent alone, which would leave them safe... but if they're revived, they'll be a visible threat again.
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
Thank you, this might indeed be helpful. I'll go through the points one at a time.
1. Yes, I disagree with what D&D (and through its influence, other RPGs) has made Charisma into.
2. I feel that Intimidation CAN be a physical action, without requiring words, but that it's not ALWAYS just physical action. Any act that elicits enough legitimate fear of pain/harm/loss as to prompt a reaction counts.
3. No. Not in the least. (EDIT: Meaning, I DO think Charisma-Intimidation is sometimes appropriate.) This is where I'm really getting frustrated, because I've said no to this numerous times, yet people seem to keep thinking it's where I stand. (That's not a strike at you, by the way.)
4. Regarding points 1 & 2, yes, I've long suspected Charisma in D&D was "flawed" for lack of a better term, especially in regards to Intimidate. I've recently thought it through, and decided to try out a change to see how well it works with the "flaw" fixed.
5. Yes!
I'll also add a #6 and #7:
6. Strength is merely a substitute for a better, ideal "Physique" Ability. Used with Intimidation, it should represent size and musculature more than (edit: or at least as much as) ability to move/damage an object.
7. The idea of using non-default abilities with a skill when appropriate, which is already RAW, is one I like and intend to keep.
With these clarifications (and one correction and two additions,) perhaps we can restart the discussion from here?
(Edit: Sorry for the multiple edits, but I really want to try to be as clear as possible. I should be done fixing things 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
I'll add a #8 as well:
8. The idea that "physique/strength/etc. is NEVER the basis of Intimidation" is one I consider disproved by observed reality. To anyone who supports the idea, we should probably just agree to disagree.
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
Strength = Physique is flawed however. There is no "Physique" attribute...Constitution, Dexterity and Strength would hypothetically combine to be Physique, just like Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma would combine for a Mental Acumen. Physique is a personal choice which has no real basis from the Attributes. In your "real world" example, a Goliath with a 10 Strength would be more Intimidating than a Gnome with 18 Strength. It's the same reason Charisma is no longer linked with personal beauty. Donald Trump, like him or hate him, would have a very high Charisma...his entire career has been about Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation...but nobody could say he is a great beauty. The "Physique" aspects of the game are entirely up to the player to decide and while one might choose to have a character with a high Strength be extremely Muscular, another might be that skinny guy with a hidden strength.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
Rod... you've been asking people to disproove you that strength is the ability to go, but everytimes we give you a reason and a very valid one... you literally just say you hate the idea and just continu to with your own stuff. when you consider that you've been, literally the only one here to say that... it is clear that you will ignore any and all proof we can give reguardless of what it is. and as mentionned... of course your players that have only strength will be on board with it, you just gave them a boon. while of course your charisma based characters will dislike it to no end.
but go pon ahead and contnu your stuff. i'm thru trying to explain to you what is wrong with your theory and why it may not work. so yeah, have a good game later on, have fun.
@GenericPoster i dislike the idea of putting more limit on death. i think the death saves are much better then the minus HP other editions had.
i do not think we need more then the incapacitated condition going down gives. you have to realise that going back up requires someone to heal you, and you being next in initiatives for you to go back up to avoid all the flaws that prone gives you. remember, you still are ont he floor, so basically you are not back up until it comes back to your turn. in a game where multiple enemies will be there, it will be a cluster**** and your players will go into a death spiral. remember, its up to the DM to make some strats with his monsters. he's not obligated to be dumb about fighting.
the one thing i would change, is the fact that revivfy do not give any penalties. which i am against, for me at my table... old ruling from 1e and 2e. you lose a point of constitution everytime you died.
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)
I suspect what you're really looking for a is Danger stat. A big strong guy could have innate dangerousness because of his size, sure... but so too does a small guy holding a fully automatic rifle. A powerful wizard might have Str of 8 but one Meteor Swarm and you and everything you ever cared about are incinerated. You've latched onto Strength as a replacement for Physique as the key identifier of how much of a threat someone is, but there are so many more terrifying things about people besides their size.
And that's still not even addressing the issue that a Strength ability check is a check to physically and forcefully move or interact with corporeal objects and not emotions.
In my estimation to perform an Intimidation check, you need to actually threaten your target. To do that you need to provide a threat. If you're a big brawler type you could just be that threat by existing, essentially. A specific kind of glare, a quick flex or motion, puffing of the chest or a 'come at me bro' swing of the arms. All the things you're talking about for a high Str character fit here. That's the threat source they're bringing. And the skill clearly needs a threat of some kind. But there are others too.
My eyes crackle with arcane energy and my voice booms throughout the great hall while I threaten the king, 'If you don't comply with my demands your enemies to the east will find the blueprints to this keep'. Not a super smart move on my part, but my success has little or nothing to do with if I can lift 300 lbs instead of only150 lbs.
If I threaten to report a local shopkeep for cooking his books and scamming taxes unless he cuts me a deal... the threat isn't my size, it is the ramifications of legal action that would befall him.
If I have my heavy crossbow aimed at the innkeeper's chest my size isn't the threat here, it is the weapon itself. I could be beast of a man or a scrawny geezer, the crossbow will snuff out his lights either way. That's all the threat he'd need.
So yeah, when you Intimidate someone you need to provide a source of threat. It could be words, it could be actions, it could be objects... or, as you gravitate to, it could simply be your powerful musculature. But once you have a threat, how well you get them riled up about that threat... that's where the ability check comes into play.
Edit/Addition: I know one of the issues I've always had with the skill is that it just automatically causes people to hate you afterward... but that's not how threats work in reality. Not for everyone. So, in general, I have NPCs react by mostly following that trend unless they are Oppositional or Meek. Someone who is Oppositional will be especially likely to fly into a blind rage at being threatened straight away, and people who are Meek will not become hostile afterward.
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.