1) Is Strength/Physique NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
2) Does some kind of Social Interaction (which falls under the Charisma Attribute) NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
Social Interactions can be overt threats, body language, displays of magic, etc. Answer these questions and you'll have the Base Attribute for Intimidation.
Does Strength/Physique give an Advantage in these situations? Absolutely. But is it NECESSARY?
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.
Your argument has essentially been, "physique has no role in Intimidation."
You have not answered a single question of mine. You don't appear to actually read through my posts. You seem unable to represent my position properly. You call careful responses to arguments "ignoring any and all proof." You don't at all seem interested in a dialogue; you instead ignore my presuppositions and then state your position--based on completely different presuppositions--as truth and expect it to be immediately accepted, apparently not even understanding how unreasonable that is. You ignore counterpoints and blame the one who gave them for being "stubborn" by giving them.
If this is what you bring to the table any time you are attempting to provide feedback, then yes, I agree that there is little point in continued discussion. Good day.
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.
Let's called it "flawed." My position is that it's still less flawed than a common-sense definition of charisma. (I'm not interested in comparing it to the current D&D definition of Charisma. Why? Because as I've said, I believe that it only is defined as it is to avoid dealing with Intimidation, and the entire reason behind my houserule is that I reject the D&D concept of Charisma because of it's lack of justification.)
Your Goliath with STR 10 and Gnome with STR 18 is, however, a salient point. By my houserule, the Gnome would have a higher Intimidation, whereas the Goliath should clearly have a higher rank if going by the concept of physique.
I'll admit this aspect of it has me wondering. In my experience, most builds don't go that way in the first place--in fact, it's highly probable that I could go for the next 10 years and not have to deal with this, just because an average Goliath on a team with a much stronger Gnome might never crop up. I do feel it's rather sloppy to not at least have something in mind regarding it, though.
One possible solution would be to require the Gnome to do more (make his actual Strength more visible) to justify using Intimidation in the first place. Another would be to simply apply a penalty of some sort (disadvantage, or perhaps a flat -X) to Small creatures, although I was really not wanting to do that. For now, I'll settle on the first option, should it crop up, and see how it plays out.
1) Is Strength/Physique NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
2) Does some kind of Social Interaction (which falls under the Charisma Attribute) NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
Social Interactions can be overt threats, body language, displays of magic, etc. Answer these questions and you'll have the Base Attribute for Intimidation.
Does Strength/Physique give an Advantage in these situations? Absolutely. But is it NECESSARY?
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.
I agree; a "Danger" stat would probably be the ideal. Frankly, it would pretty much be an Ability chosen specifically for use with Intimidation.
Unfortunately, as we both know... that's not an option. (I mean, I could create an entirely new Ability for my players, but that seems so much more disruptive and cumbersome than my current houserule.)
But I fully acknowledge that there are multiple ways to elicit an intimidating fear. That's why I intend to keep the RAW concept of using different Abilities with the skill as appropriate.
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.
The PHB already gives at one viable use of Strength as Intimidation, presumably one among many:
"Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."
It was the fact that the game designers felt it wasn't a problem to do this that even led me to think my houserule could be viable in the first place. If they see no issue with Strength causing Intimidation--or, apparently, other abilities--then I don't think there's much of an issue to Strength-as-physique causing Intimidation.
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.
I agree that other abilities can also be a viable choice for use with Intimidation.
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.
That actually seems like a decent solution to that problem, but I must have missed something... where does the PHB dictate that Intimidation automatically causes the target to hate you afterward? If Intimidation has the same side effect as using the Friends cantrip, that would significantly lower its utility in my mind.
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.
Let's called it "flawed." My position is that it's still less flawed than a common-sense definition of charisma. (I'm not interested in comparing it to the current D&D definition of Charisma. Why? Because as I've said, I believe that it only is defined as it is to avoid dealing with Intimidation, and the entire reason behind my houserule is that I reject the D&D concept of Charisma because of it's lack of justification.)
Your Goliath with STR 10 and Gnome with STR 18 is, however, a salient point. By my houserule, the Gnome would have a higher Intimidation, whereas the Goliath should clearly have a higher rank if going by the concept of physique.
I'll admit this aspect of it has me wondering. In my experience, most builds don't go that way in the first place--in fact, it's highly probable that I could go for the next 10 years and not have to deal with this, just because an average Goliath on a team with a much stronger Gnome might never crop up. I do feel it's rather sloppy to not at least have something in mind regarding it, though.
One possible solution would be to require the Gnome to do more (make his actual Strength more visible) to justify using Intimidation in the first place. Another would be to simply apply a penalty of some sort (disadvantage, or perhaps a flat -X) to Small creatures, although I was really not wanting to do that. For now, I'll settle on the first option, should it crop up, and see how it plays out.
1) Is Strength/Physique NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
2) Does some kind of Social Interaction (which falls under the Charisma Attribute) NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
Social Interactions can be overt threats, body language, displays of magic, etc. Answer these questions and you'll have the Base Attribute for Intimidation.
Does Strength/Physique give an Advantage in these situations? Absolutely. But is it NECESSARY?
1. No
2. No
Ok, give me an example of Intimidating someone without using some form of Social Interaction.
In your example of the subway, the bully got up, crossed his arms, shook his head no. That may have been a minimal Social Interaction, but it was still a Social Interaction. His Strength and Size may have been an Advantage, but it was the Social Interaction that initiated the Intimidation. If he had just sat in his seat and not made any motion towards the person, his being Big and Strong would have had no effect except maybe making the other guy a little wary, but that was not Intimidation...that was just the other guy being scared.
Also, Charisma is more than just a definition...it is a Game Mechanic. As such, it serves a purpose, which is how one engages in Social Interaction. You don't like the name Charisma, call it something else but it has a purpose for the game. Deception - Social Interaction. Performance - Social Interaction. Persuasion - Social Interaction. And yes, Intimidation - Social Interaction. It seems like you want Charisma to go back to what it originally was which was simply Charm and Beauty. There is a reason it was always considered a Dump Stat...the only characters who had to worry about it were Bards and Paladins...everyone else put their lowest stat there and forgot about it. With Role Playing being on such a rise as opposed to the old shoot and kill type games, there needed to be something hat dealt with how Character Interaction with NPC's could be judged and Charisma was the perfect stat to fill that role.
By the physical definition you are giving rodthebard. Every single person i met that have my shape is actually intimidating me just by being themselves in the street. By your definition everyone in the street should be arrested by the cops for intimidation.
Sorry but thats not what intimidation is.
While someone can be shaped for intimidation. It is that playing fear that makes them cooperate or not. Without actually doing anything to put fear into the person there is no way to intimidate anyone. And sorry but seeing someones muscles is not intimidating.
You are exchanging the victim with the intimidator and you think because the victim as problems with big guys that strength is something. Its not... And this is from a guy who was pretty much intimidated all of his life.
I suggest you go read on intimidation instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So a while back I was reading an article and they were talking about a varient way of doing skill checks. Basically it's instead of asking the player to make a skill check, the players say what they do, and the DM decides if they need to do a check, and if it does, the DM decides which of the six abilities it uses and just asks them to make an ability check and then the players can ask if one of their proficiencies apply.
For instance: [Player] "I bend the crowbar with my bare hands and than say 'Tell us where the treasure is now!'" [DM] "Alright make a strength check." [Player] "Does my proficiency in intimidation apply?" [DM] "Definitely."
It seems like a cool way of doing it, but I'm not entirely sure how much I would want to change things.
I’m probably making it more complicated than it needs to be but I see it as two separate things. Bending the crowbar requires strength, successfully bending the crowbar is necessary to looking intimidating but Intimidation proficiency doesn’t help you bend the bar. A successful Str check bends the bar which gives you advantage on the Cha (Intimidation) check. That makes logical sense to me but is the added step necessary? I don’t know.
I would let my players know that this is how I would handle it before character creation. It would be really annoying for a character to dump Charisma because they thought they could directly substitute Str for Cha when using Intimidation and then find out they can’t.
1) Is Strength/Physique NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
2) Does some kind of Social Interaction (which falls under the Charisma Attribute) NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
Social Interactions can be overt threats, body language, displays of magic, etc. Answer these questions and you'll have the Base Attribute for Intimidation.
Does Strength/Physique give an Advantage in these situations? Absolutely. But is it NECESSARY?
1. No
2. No
Ok, give me an example of Intimidating someone without using some form of Social Interaction.
How about one from the PHB?
"Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."
This is one where the game designers themselves think that calling every display of raw strength a "Social Interaction" and stating they MUST thereby be placed under Charisma goes too far.
Another, not from the PHB:
A stray cat followed the party. Determined to drive it off, the team barbarian rushed towards it. The cat was intimidated and ran off.
I'd hardly call that a "Social Interaction."
(And please note, that these are examples even using D&D's current tweaked definition of Charisma. As I've stated before, my entire reason for doing this is to use a common definition of it instead [ex: "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others"] where all social interactions are NOT automatically deemed the purview of Charisma. If the designers of D&D think that calling every single act made in the vicinity of someone else a "Social Interaction" and forcing them all to be under Charisma goes too far even under their tweaked definition, it certainly would make no sense to presume all instances of intimidation have to fall under Charisma when its restored to a natural definition.)
Also, Charisma is more than just a definition...it is a Game Mechanic. As such, it serves a purpose, which is how one engages in Social Interaction.
Yes, that is how the game designers have designed it, as an broad "fits-all-social-situations" ability.
You don't like the name Charisma, call it something else but it has a purpose for the game. Deception - Social Interaction. Performance - Social Interaction. Persuasion - Social Interaction. And yes, Intimidation - Social Interaction. It seems like you want Charisma to go back to what it originally was which was simply Charm and Beauty. There is a reason it was always considered a Dump Stat...the only characters who had to worry about it were Bards and Paladins...everyone else put their lowest stat there and forgot about it. With Role Playing being on such a rise as opposed to the old shoot and kill type games, there needed to be something hat dealt with how Character Interaction with NPC's could be judged and Charisma was the perfect stat to fill that role.
If the only change was that Intimidation was moved under Charisma, then does that really sound like something that just "needed" to be done?
OTOH, if there were other mechanical changes made in how the Ability functions, changes that would be destroyed by using a common definition of Charisma, I would be interested in hearing what those changes were.
(Also, side note: Some players use Charisma as a dump stat. Some use Strength. Some use Intelligence. I'm not seeing a problem there.)
I want to clarify something. The issue isn't using the Variant Rule to use Str for Intimidation where the DM feels is appropriate. The issue is you want to make Str the DEFAULT for Intimidation. It has been shown time and again that most of the time, Intimidation has nothing to do with Str. By making it the default, you are implying that Intimidation is primarily about being Strong when that is furthest from the truth. The reason for the variant rule in this case is for when you have someone who is Big and Strong does make an Intimidation check, it isn't penalized because of a low Charisma...even though the Show of Strength is a Social Interaction. And yes, the Barbarian rushing towards the cat is a Social Interaction. So even with the two examples you used, there is a Social Interaction. A Social Interaction is any interaction where you are not Physically or Mentally controlling someone in an attempt to get them to do something else. If you have someone in chains and push them along, that is not a Social Interaction. If you have someone Dominated and make them tell you something, that is not a Social Interaction. If you threaten some someone to make them run, that is a Social Interaction. Which is why Cha is the DEFAULT, which is all we are talking about.
When Proficiencies were 1st introduced in AD&D, Intimidation was placed under Charisma or Strength, so this discussion goes back that far. Thus I don't understand why you think Charisma was changed just to fit in Intimidation. At it's basic level, Intimidation is Persuasion with a threat of some kind and there is no argument that Persuasion is Charisma based.
(Side note: With today's game, there is no Dump Stat. They use what is appropriate for their character. By Dump Stat I mean a Stat that almost everybody agreed in the previous versions of the game had no use except for character prerequisites (If I remember correctly in order to be a Paladin you needed CHA of 17)).
So one of the reasons that the example in the rules of strength based intimidate works is because it skips the convincing (Cha) step and replaces it with a demonstration (Str) step.
Charisma is used for convincing, or otherwise selling, the threat. If you simply demonstrate the threat (strength or otherwise) then you hardly need to convince them of it. Back when I first chimed in I gave an example of using a strength-based threat of like ripping a dude's arm off to get his buddy to talk. That's the kind of Strength-based threat that can skip charisma. Bending a crowbar is reasonable enough too, as would be smashing something ripping something in half. Etc. Some feat of destructive strength that demonstrates the threat. Because once demonstrated you don't need to convince anyone it is real, they can see it for themselves.
But you'd need to actually do something. Just being strong and not demonstrating the threat is pointless. You have to threaten someone somehow and just being big isn't a threat. If you intend to convey the threat you have to either perform an act of destruction to showcase your threat, or otherwise sell the threat in a convincing way with charisma.
Edit: Thing is, Intimidation is to achieve a specific goal from the interaction and you still need to convey that goal somehow. Unless that goal is as simplistic as "stay away from me I'm scary, grrrr." then you'd still need to socially interact with your victim.
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.
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.
That actually seems like a decent solution to that problem, but I must have missed something... where does the PHB dictate that Intimidation automatically causes the target to hate you afterward? If Intimidation has the same side effect as using the Friends cantrip, that would significantly lower its utility in my mind.
Guess I'm using a house rule for a 3.5 rule in my 5e without even realizing it lol. In 3.5 after a few minutes, the target you intimidated becomes unfriendly or hostile. I'm kinda shocked that isn't the case spelled out for 5e too because being threatened for sure causes a shift in people's attitudes towards you. What that shift is, depends on their character and nature... but threatening someone for sure causes them to immediately reevaluate you. It is odd that there isn't even a footnote about it in 5e.
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.
I want to clarify something. The issue isn't using the Variant Rule to use Str for Intimidation where the DM feels is appropriate. The issue is you want to make Str the DEFAULT for Intimidation.
Then why are you repeatedly giving examples of Intimidation with other skills, as if that has relevance?
It has been shown time and again that most of the time, Intimidation has nothing to do with Str.
No, it has not. What has happened is that lists of examples of Intimidation being better suited for Charisma have been presented. But the mere presence of a few lists does not automatically mean that there aren't an equal number of viable examples of Intimidation being better suited for other abilities, or that some of the cases are ambiguous. Moreover, it doesn't even matter anyway--finding a million variants on how to use Intimidation with Charisma (appropriately) doesn't impact the nature of Intimidation's interaction with physique.
By making it the default, you are implying that Intimidation is primarily about being Strong when that is furthest from the truth.
That's what has not been disproven here (presuming that we're discussing Strength as including physique. If we're not, we're discussing apples and oranges.)
I've asserted that at its base, most low-level usage, intimidation relies on physique. Presenting a list of ways Charisma can be used to Intimidate does not in any way negate that. If you find the assertion invalid, you should challenge the assertion, not simply say that there are other ways to Intimidate (which the assertion itself supports.)
The reason for the variant rule in this case is for when you have someone who is Big and Strong does make an Intimidation check, it isn't penalized because of a low Charisma...even though the Show of Strength is a Social Interaction. And yes, the Barbarian rushing towards the cat is a Social Interaction. So even with the two examples you used, there is a Social Interaction.
(1) If you want to declare every act done in the presence of others as a social interaction, that's your prerogative, but I disagree, and I believe the designers of the game would themselves disagree.
(2) As I pointed out already, it doesn't matter anyway. Even if what you are asserting were true, it still doesn't stop the creators of the game from accepting Strength being used with Intimidation. As such, if you want to deny that it is ever appropriate, that's fine. But I side with them in this case and disagree with you.
When Proficiencies were 1st introduced in AD&D, Intimidation was placed under Charisma or Strength, so this discussion goes back that far. Thus I don't understand why you think Charisma was changed just to fit in Intimidation.
Because it uses a definition not found in dictionaries, the main difference being it allows for the use of Charisma in a negative sort of interaction (such as with Intimidation.) I don't believe that was an accident.
At it's basic level, Intimidation is Persuasion with a threat of some kind
If you are eliciting fear, you are using Intimidation. If you are not eliciting fear, you are not using Intimidation. Mixing skills isn't helpful here.
and there is no argument that Persuasion is Charisma based.
It CAN be. You are correct that there is no argument there.
That it ALWAYS is, or MUST be, is something that even the designers of the game disagree with you on. (And of course I disagree, I have a completely different assertion, as I stated above.)
(EDIT: Sorry, I had read that as "no argument that Intimidation is Charisma based." That's what the above two lines are responding to. Is the fact that you're trying to lump everything under Persuasion why you tried to mix skills earlier?)
Also, I noticed you slid by something that I wanted to get into, so I'll repeat it as an explicit request:
Could you please provide examples of mechanical functions of the Charisma ability that are destroyed/ruined/etc by treating Charisma as if it had a common-usage definition?
So one of the reasons that the example in the rules of strength based intimidate works is because it skips the convincing (Cha) step and replaces it with a demonstration (Str) step.
Charisma is used for convincing, or otherwise selling, the threat. If you simply demonstrate the threat (strength or otherwise) then you hardly need to convince them of it. Back when I first chimed in I gave an example of using a strength-based threat of like ripping a dude's arm off to get his buddy to talk. That's the kind of Strength-based threat that can skip charisma. Bending a crowbar is reasonable enough too, as would be smashing something ripping something in half. Etc. Some feat of destructive strength that demonstrates the threat. Because once demonstrated you don't need to convince anyone it is real, they can see it for themselves.
But you'd need to actually do something. Just being strong and not demonstrating the threat is pointless. You have to threaten someone somehow and just being big isn't a threat. If you intend to convey the threat you have to either perform an act of destruction to showcase your threat, or otherwise sell the threat in a convincing way with charisma.
Edit: Thing is, Intimidation is to achieve a specific goal from the interaction and you still need to convey that goal somehow. Unless that goal is as simplistic as "stay away from me I'm scary, grrrr." then you'd still need to socially interact with your victim.
Well, I understand your position. Depending on the goal, in MOST situations I'd likely require some demonstration as well. But the reason I've never emphasized that is because I wouldn't make the requirement absolute... sometimes just a simple "stay away from me, I'm scary" is all you need.
This is also why I wouldn't anticipate most CHA-based characters being impacted much by this houserule. Most of the ways that such characters seem to use the skill (probably because of how "Intimidation = Charisma" sells the skill in the first place) is for some higher-level indirect or delayed threat. Convincing is actually important for that; which is why most of those uses of the skill could probably justify using Charisma.
It's the lower-level uses of the skill that most people don't seem to even think about that are opened up by switching the default ability.
Help Variant: If a player takes the help, the person they are helping gains the helper's modifier in whatever skill they're doing. For example, if someone is trying to lift a box, they add their own +4 modifier, and instead of getting advantage, they instead gain the modifier of the helper, let's say they have +3. Then it would be +7 total and not +3 with advantage. This way it matters who is helping instead of the halfling wizard giving the same type of aid as the barbarian goliath, which never made sense to me.
Help Variant: If a player takes the help, the person they are helping gains the helper's modifier in whatever skill they're doing. For example, if someone is trying to lift a box, they add their own +4 modifier, and instead of getting advantage, they instead gain the modifier of the helper, let's say they have +3. Then it would be +7 total and not +3 with advantage. This way it matters who is helping instead of the halfling wizard giving the same type of aid as the barbarian goliath, which never made sense to me.
Do they just get the helper's ability modifier, or do they get the total modifier (ability + proficiency bonus, assuming they are proficient)?
I require that the helper be proficient in the appropriate skill, which makes it matter a little bit. I like your system, but the modifier could get pretty high and end up being much more powerful than advantage (which is roughly +5).
What modifier do you use when someone helps with the attack action?
Help Variant: If a player takes the help, the person they are helping gains the helper's modifier in whatever skill they're doing. For example, if someone is trying to lift a box, they add their own +4 modifier, and instead of getting advantage, they instead gain the modifier of the helper, let's say they have +3. Then it would be +7 total and not +3 with advantage. This way it matters who is helping instead of the halfling wizard giving the same type of aid as the barbarian goliath, which never made sense to me.
Do they just get the helper's ability modifier, or do they get the total modifier (ability + proficiency bonus, assuming they are proficient)?
I require that the helper be proficient in the appropriate skill, which makes it matter a little bit. I like your system, but the modifier could get pretty high and end up being much more powerful than advantage (which is roughly +5).
What modifier do you use when someone helps with the attack action?
1. Ability Modifier or (Half of Ability Modifier + Proficiency) whichever is higher, which mainly comes into play at higher levels.
2. That requirement could be good, and I might actually enforce that for some of the more intricate helps. Simple tasks won't need it, but I could see something like picking a lock, not just anyone can help with that.
3. It depends on how they are helping, if they are trying to cause a distraction it could be charisma, if they are trying to lower the enemies shield it could be athletics. It all depends on how they want to actually help the attack. I don't let my players help by just saying, "I tell him to aim 2 inches higher" or something like that lol it has to make some logical sense to me.
Could you please provide examples of mechanical functions of the Charisma ability that are destroyed/ruined/etc by treating Charisma as if it had a common-usage definition?
If the Mechanics remain how you interact with others, the definition doesn't really matter. They are the original definitions used. The only reason the wording was changed was to clarify that it was more than just how you look and personal charm...it was about how NPCs respond to your interactions.
Because it uses a definition not found in dictionaries, the main difference being it allows for the use of Charisma in a negative sort of interaction (such as with Intimidation.) I don't believe that was an accident.
An extremely Charismatic politician talks about how a certain type of person is bad and should be eliminated. This not only Inspires hate in their supporters, but also fear in the people they target. These are both negative interactions and in Game Play purposes, it would be Persuasion for his supporters (convincing them to hate) and Intimidation for the targets (causing fear).
I've asserted that at its base, most low-level usage, intimidation relies on physique. Presenting a list of ways Charisma can be used to Intimidate does not in any way negate that. If you find the assertion invalid, you should challenge the assertion, not simply say that there are other ways to Intimidate (which the assertion itself supports.)
At its base, most low-level usage, Intimidation relies on fear. Can a large physique be a benefit to this? Absolutely. But it is not necessary. Those other examples show that it is the fear that is important, not the physique. You admitted yourself that having a big physique was not necessary. If you are walking down the street and a large figure is standing in the shadows, that could illicit fear in you, but unless they actually do something, they are not using the Intimidate skill. On the other hand, if a small guy jumps out of the ally with a knife and demands you hand over your wallet, that is using the Intimidate skill and his size has nothing to do with it...it is the fear he attempts to generate. And this is the difference. If the large figure came out of the shadows and punched his fist into one hand and leered at you, he would be using the skill and his size would add a benefit to his Skill check.
(2) As I pointed out already, it doesn't matter anyway. Even if what you are asserting were true, it still doesn't stop the creators of the game from accepting Strength being used with Intimidation. As such, if you want to deny that it is ever appropriate, that's fine. But I side with them in this case and disagree with you.
When did I ever say Strength could never be used? You rip the arms off of someone, I could see that being a Str check for Intimidation. Again, its using Str as the BASE skill that is at issue here. Charisma as a game mechanic can always be used as a basis for Intimidation, although you can choose to use Strength for certain situations. Strength as a game mechanic can not always be used as a basis for Intimidation.
Let's look at 2 examples:
1) You stand tall glaring down at someone, flexing your muscles, trying to get them to talk. DM 1 says that would be using Str, so you make a Straight roll adding your Str and Prof modifiers to the roll. DM 2 says its a Chr check, but because of your display you get Advantage, so you make 2 rolls adding your Chr and Prof modifiers, taking the higher of the 2. (from a game play perspective, both give different benefits. A character with high Str and medium Cha would get the benefits of the higher Str in the 1st and the benefits of Advantage in the 2nd)
2) You put a doll on the table and the person you are talking to recognizes it as his daughter's who they thought was safely hidden. There is no way this is a Str check.
If the Attribute cannot be used every time, than it has no purpose being the Base for the Skill...even if in some situations you can use that Attribute.
Could you please provide examples of mechanical functions of the Charisma ability that are destroyed/ruined/etc by treating Charisma as if it had a common-usage definition?
If the Mechanics remain how you interact with others, the definition doesn't really matter.
But my question is, do the mechanics of the function change when Charisma is considered "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others?" If so, can you provide examples of such a mechanical change?
Because it uses a definition not found in dictionaries, the main difference being it allows for the use of Charisma in a negative sort of interaction (such as with Intimidation.) I don't believe that was an accident.
An extremely Charismatic politician talks about how a certain type of person is bad and should be eliminated. This not only Inspires hate in their supporters, but also fear in the people they target. These are both negative interactions and in Game Play purposes, it would be Persuasion for his supporters (convincing them to hate) and Intimidation for the targets (causing fear).
You don't use "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" to get in someone's face and generate fear. That's like saying Gandhi would have been great at intimidating people into giving them their wallets, or at chasing away feral wolves, because of his incredible charisma. That's just not how the word is used OUTSIDE OF RPG CIRCLES (and one guess as to why RPGers would think "charisma" applies in those situations.)
I've asserted that at its base, most low-level usage, intimidation relies on physique. Presenting a list of ways Charisma can be used to Intimidate does not in any way negate that. If you find the assertion invalid, you should challenge the assertion, not simply say that there are other ways to Intimidate (which the assertion itself supports.)
At its base, most low-level usage, Intimidation relies on fear.
Incorrect. ALL Intimidation relies on (edit: invokes) fear, base or not, low-level or high, or it's not even Intimidation.
But at its base, most low-level usage (as opposed to high-level usage, such as with indirect threats,) it (edit: I'll add, typically) relies on physique. That's how animals intimidate each other. That's the most base form of intimidation outside of uncivilization. Higher forms of intimidation require more complex understanding, although still often assisted by physique.
Can a large physique be a benefit to this? Absolutely. But it is not necessary.
Correct, it's not necessary, because higher forms of intimidation exist. We're retreading the same ground again.
(2) As I pointed out already, it doesn't matter anyway. Even if what you are asserting were true, it still doesn't stop the creators of the game from accepting Strength being used with Intimidation. As such, if you want to deny that it is ever appropriate, that's fine. But I side with them in this case and disagree with you.
When did I ever say Strength could never be used?
You stated that all interactions are social interactions, and seemed to imply that that means all interactions are more appropriately placed in the purview of Charisma. My apologies if that was not your intent.
You rip the arms off of someone, I could see that being a Str check for Intimidation. Again, its using Str as the BASE skill that is at issue here. Charisma as a game mechanic can always be used as a basis for Intimidation, although you can choose to use Strength for certain situations. Strength as a game mechanic can not always be used as a basis for Intimidation.
Ah. I see what you're getting at. But I strongly disagree. You cannot always use strength/physique for the basis of Intimidation, I agree with that. But you cannot always use Charisma either.
If one larger animal chases another off, that's not common-usage Charisma. Low-level uses of Intimidation do NOT require "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others."
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.
1) Is Strength/Physique NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
2) Does some kind of Social Interaction (which falls under the Charisma Attribute) NECESSARY to Intimidate someone?
Social Interactions can be overt threats, body language, displays of magic, etc. Answer these questions and you'll have the Base Attribute for Intimidation.
Does Strength/Physique give an Advantage in these situations? Absolutely. But is it NECESSARY?
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
Your argument has essentially been, "physique has no role in Intimidation."
You have not answered a single question of mine. You don't appear to actually read through my posts. You seem unable to represent my position properly. You call careful responses to arguments "ignoring any and all proof." You don't at all seem interested in a dialogue; you instead ignore my presuppositions and then state your position--based on completely different presuppositions--as truth and expect it to be immediately accepted, apparently not even understanding how unreasonable that is. You ignore counterpoints and blame the one who gave them for being "stubborn" by giving them.
If this is what you bring to the table any time you are attempting to provide feedback, then yes, I agree that there is little point in continued discussion. Good day.
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
Let's called it "flawed." My position is that it's still less flawed than a common-sense definition of charisma. (I'm not interested in comparing it to the current D&D definition of Charisma. Why? Because as I've said, I believe that it only is defined as it is to avoid dealing with Intimidation, and the entire reason behind my houserule is that I reject the D&D concept of Charisma because of it's lack of justification.)
Your Goliath with STR 10 and Gnome with STR 18 is, however, a salient point. By my houserule, the Gnome would have a higher Intimidation, whereas the Goliath should clearly have a higher rank if going by the concept of physique.
I'll admit this aspect of it has me wondering. In my experience, most builds don't go that way in the first place--in fact, it's highly probable that I could go for the next 10 years and not have to deal with this, just because an average Goliath on a team with a much stronger Gnome might never crop up. I do feel it's rather sloppy to not at least have something in mind regarding it, though.
One possible solution would be to require the Gnome to do more (make his actual Strength more visible) to justify using Intimidation in the first place. Another would be to simply apply a penalty of some sort (disadvantage, or perhaps a flat -X) to Small creatures, although I was really not wanting to do that. For now, I'll settle on the first option, should it crop up, and see how it plays out.
1. No
2. No
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 agree; a "Danger" stat would probably be the ideal. Frankly, it would pretty much be an Ability chosen specifically for use with Intimidation.
Unfortunately, as we both know... that's not an option. (I mean, I could create an entirely new Ability for my players, but that seems so much more disruptive and cumbersome than my current houserule.)
But I fully acknowledge that there are multiple ways to elicit an intimidating fear. That's why I intend to keep the RAW concept of using different Abilities with the skill as appropriate.
The PHB already gives at one viable use of Strength as Intimidation, presumably one among many:
"Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."
It was the fact that the game designers felt it wasn't a problem to do this that even led me to think my houserule could be viable in the first place. If they see no issue with Strength causing Intimidation--or, apparently, other abilities--then I don't think there's much of an issue to Strength-as-physique causing Intimidation.
I agree that other abilities can also be a viable choice for use with Intimidation.
That actually seems like a decent solution to that problem, but I must have missed something... where does the PHB dictate that Intimidation automatically causes the target to hate you afterward? If Intimidation has the same side effect as using the Friends cantrip, that would significantly lower its utility in my mind.
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
Ok, give me an example of Intimidating someone without using some form of Social Interaction.
In your example of the subway, the bully got up, crossed his arms, shook his head no. That may have been a minimal Social Interaction, but it was still a Social Interaction. His Strength and Size may have been an Advantage, but it was the Social Interaction that initiated the Intimidation. If he had just sat in his seat and not made any motion towards the person, his being Big and Strong would have had no effect except maybe making the other guy a little wary, but that was not Intimidation...that was just the other guy being scared.
Also, Charisma is more than just a definition...it is a Game Mechanic. As such, it serves a purpose, which is how one engages in Social Interaction. You don't like the name Charisma, call it something else but it has a purpose for the game. Deception - Social Interaction. Performance - Social Interaction. Persuasion - Social Interaction. And yes, Intimidation - Social Interaction. It seems like you want Charisma to go back to what it originally was which was simply Charm and Beauty. There is a reason it was always considered a Dump Stat...the only characters who had to worry about it were Bards and Paladins...everyone else put their lowest stat there and forgot about it. With Role Playing being on such a rise as opposed to the old shoot and kill type games, there needed to be something hat dealt with how Character Interaction with NPC's could be judged and Charisma was the perfect stat to fill that role.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
[Quote]intimidate
to frighten or threaten someone, usually in order to persuade them to do something that you want them to do:
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)
So a while back I was reading an article and they were talking about a varient way of doing skill checks. Basically it's instead of asking the player to make a skill check, the players say what they do, and the DM decides if they need to do a check, and if it does, the DM decides which of the six abilities it uses and just asks them to make an ability check and then the players can ask if one of their proficiencies apply.
For instance: [Player] "I bend the crowbar with my bare hands and than say 'Tell us where the treasure is now!'" [DM] "Alright make a strength check." [Player] "Does my proficiency in intimidation apply?" [DM] "Definitely."
It seems like a cool way of doing it, but I'm not entirely sure how much I would want to change things.
We probably read the same article.
I’m probably making it more complicated than it needs to be but I see it as two separate things. Bending the crowbar requires strength, successfully bending the crowbar is necessary to looking intimidating but Intimidation proficiency doesn’t help you bend the bar. A successful Str check bends the bar which gives you advantage on the Cha (Intimidation) check. That makes logical sense to me but is the added step necessary? I don’t know.
I would let my players know that this is how I would handle it before character creation. It would be really annoying for a character to dump Charisma because they thought they could directly substitute Str for Cha when using Intimidation and then find out they can’t.
How about one from the PHB?
"Similarly, when your half-‐‑orc barbarian uses a display of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."
This is one where the game designers themselves think that calling every display of raw strength a "Social Interaction" and stating they MUST thereby be placed under Charisma goes too far.
Another, not from the PHB:
A stray cat followed the party. Determined to drive it off, the team barbarian rushed towards it. The cat was intimidated and ran off.
I'd hardly call that a "Social Interaction."
(And please note, that these are examples even using D&D's current tweaked definition of Charisma. As I've stated before, my entire reason for doing this is to use a common definition of it instead [ex: "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others"] where all social interactions are NOT automatically deemed the purview of Charisma. If the designers of D&D think that calling every single act made in the vicinity of someone else a "Social Interaction" and forcing them all to be under Charisma goes too far even under their tweaked definition, it certainly would make no sense to presume all instances of intimidation have to fall under Charisma when its restored to a natural definition.)
Yes, that is how the game designers have designed it, as an broad "fits-all-social-situations" ability.
If the only change was that Intimidation was moved under Charisma, then does that really sound like something that just "needed" to be done?
OTOH, if there were other mechanical changes made in how the Ability functions, changes that would be destroyed by using a common definition of Charisma, I would be interested in hearing what those changes were.
(Also, side note: Some players use Charisma as a dump stat. Some use Strength. Some use Intelligence. I'm not seeing a problem there.)
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 want to clarify something. The issue isn't using the Variant Rule to use Str for Intimidation where the DM feels is appropriate. The issue is you want to make Str the DEFAULT for Intimidation. It has been shown time and again that most of the time, Intimidation has nothing to do with Str. By making it the default, you are implying that Intimidation is primarily about being Strong when that is furthest from the truth. The reason for the variant rule in this case is for when you have someone who is Big and Strong does make an Intimidation check, it isn't penalized because of a low Charisma...even though the Show of Strength is a Social Interaction. And yes, the Barbarian rushing towards the cat is a Social Interaction. So even with the two examples you used, there is a Social Interaction. A Social Interaction is any interaction where you are not Physically or Mentally controlling someone in an attempt to get them to do something else. If you have someone in chains and push them along, that is not a Social Interaction. If you have someone Dominated and make them tell you something, that is not a Social Interaction. If you threaten some someone to make them run, that is a Social Interaction. Which is why Cha is the DEFAULT, which is all we are talking about.
When Proficiencies were 1st introduced in AD&D, Intimidation was placed under Charisma or Strength, so this discussion goes back that far. Thus I don't understand why you think Charisma was changed just to fit in Intimidation. At it's basic level, Intimidation is Persuasion with a threat of some kind and there is no argument that Persuasion is Charisma based.
(Side note: With today's game, there is no Dump Stat. They use what is appropriate for their character. By Dump Stat I mean a Stat that almost everybody agreed in the previous versions of the game had no use except for character prerequisites (If I remember correctly in order to be a Paladin you needed CHA of 17)).
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
So one of the reasons that the example in the rules of strength based intimidate works is because it skips the convincing (Cha) step and replaces it with a demonstration (Str) step.
Charisma is used for convincing, or otherwise selling, the threat. If you simply demonstrate the threat (strength or otherwise) then you hardly need to convince them of it. Back when I first chimed in I gave an example of using a strength-based threat of like ripping a dude's arm off to get his buddy to talk. That's the kind of Strength-based threat that can skip charisma. Bending a crowbar is reasonable enough too, as would be smashing something ripping something in half. Etc. Some feat of destructive strength that demonstrates the threat. Because once demonstrated you don't need to convince anyone it is real, they can see it for themselves.
But you'd need to actually do something. Just being strong and not demonstrating the threat is pointless. You have to threaten someone somehow and just being big isn't a threat. If you intend to convey the threat you have to either perform an act of destruction to showcase your threat, or otherwise sell the threat in a convincing way with charisma.
Edit: Thing is, Intimidation is to achieve a specific goal from the interaction and you still need to convey that goal somehow. Unless that goal is as simplistic as "stay away from me I'm scary, grrrr." then you'd still need to socially interact with your victim.
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.
Guess I'm using a house rule for a 3.5 rule in my 5e without even realizing it lol. In 3.5 after a few minutes, the target you intimidated becomes unfriendly or hostile. I'm kinda shocked that isn't the case spelled out for 5e too because being threatened for sure causes a shift in people's attitudes towards you. What that shift is, depends on their character and nature... but threatening someone for sure causes them to immediately reevaluate you. It is odd that there isn't even a footnote about it in 5e.
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.
Then why are you repeatedly giving examples of Intimidation with other skills, as if that has relevance?
No, it has not. What has happened is that lists of examples of Intimidation being better suited for Charisma have been presented. But the mere presence of a few lists does not automatically mean that there aren't an equal number of viable examples of Intimidation being better suited for other abilities, or that some of the cases are ambiguous. Moreover, it doesn't even matter anyway--finding a million variants on how to use Intimidation with Charisma (appropriately) doesn't impact the nature of Intimidation's interaction with physique.
That's what has not been disproven here (presuming that we're discussing Strength as including physique. If we're not, we're discussing apples and oranges.)
I've asserted that at its base, most low-level usage, intimidation relies on physique. Presenting a list of ways Charisma can be used to Intimidate does not in any way negate that. If you find the assertion invalid, you should challenge the assertion, not simply say that there are other ways to Intimidate (which the assertion itself supports.)
(1) If you want to declare every act done in the presence of others as a social interaction, that's your prerogative, but I disagree, and I believe the designers of the game would themselves disagree.
(2) As I pointed out already, it doesn't matter anyway. Even if what you are asserting were true, it still doesn't stop the creators of the game from accepting Strength being used with Intimidation. As such, if you want to deny that it is ever appropriate, that's fine. But I side with them in this case and disagree with you.
Because it uses a definition not found in dictionaries, the main difference being it allows for the use of Charisma in a negative sort of interaction (such as with Intimidation.) I don't believe that was an accident.
If you are eliciting fear, you are using Intimidation. If you are not eliciting fear, you are not using Intimidation. Mixing skills isn't helpful here.
It CAN be. You are correct that there is no argument there.
That it ALWAYS is, or MUST be, is something that even the designers of the game disagree with you on. (And of course I disagree, I have a completely different assertion, as I stated above.)
(EDIT: Sorry, I had read that as "no argument that Intimidation is Charisma based." That's what the above two lines are responding to. Is the fact that you're trying to lump everything under Persuasion why you tried to mix skills earlier?)
Also, I noticed you slid by something that I wanted to get into, so I'll repeat it as an explicit request:
Could you please provide examples of mechanical functions of the Charisma ability that are destroyed/ruined/etc by treating Charisma as if it had a common-usage definition?
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, I understand your position. Depending on the goal, in MOST situations I'd likely require some demonstration as well. But the reason I've never emphasized that is because I wouldn't make the requirement absolute... sometimes just a simple "stay away from me, I'm scary" is all you need.
This is also why I wouldn't anticipate most CHA-based characters being impacted much by this houserule. Most of the ways that such characters seem to use the skill (probably because of how "Intimidation = Charisma" sells the skill in the first place) is for some higher-level indirect or delayed threat. Convincing is actually important for that; which is why most of those uses of the skill could probably justify using Charisma.
It's the lower-level uses of the skill that most people don't seem to even think about that are opened up by switching the default ability.
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
Help Variant: If a player takes the help, the person they are helping gains the helper's modifier in whatever skill they're doing. For example, if someone is trying to lift a box, they add their own +4 modifier, and instead of getting advantage, they instead gain the modifier of the helper, let's say they have +3. Then it would be +7 total and not +3 with advantage. This way it matters who is helping instead of the halfling wizard giving the same type of aid as the barbarian goliath, which never made sense to me.
Published Subclasses
Do they just get the helper's ability modifier, or do they get the total modifier (ability + proficiency bonus, assuming they are proficient)?
I require that the helper be proficient in the appropriate skill, which makes it matter a little bit. I like your system, but the modifier could get pretty high and end up being much more powerful than advantage (which is roughly +5).
What modifier do you use when someone helps with the attack action?
1. Ability Modifier or (Half of Ability Modifier + Proficiency) whichever is higher, which mainly comes into play at higher levels.
2. That requirement could be good, and I might actually enforce that for some of the more intricate helps. Simple tasks won't need it, but I could see something like picking a lock, not just anyone can help with that.
3. It depends on how they are helping, if they are trying to cause a distraction it could be charisma, if they are trying to lower the enemies shield it could be athletics. It all depends on how they want to actually help the attack. I don't let my players help by just saying, "I tell him to aim 2 inches higher" or something like that lol it has to make some logical sense to me.
Published Subclasses
If the Mechanics remain how you interact with others, the definition doesn't really matter. They are the original definitions used. The only reason the wording was changed was to clarify that it was more than just how you look and personal charm...it was about how NPCs respond to your interactions.
An extremely Charismatic politician talks about how a certain type of person is bad and should be eliminated. This not only Inspires hate in their supporters, but also fear in the people they target. These are both negative interactions and in Game Play purposes, it would be Persuasion for his supporters (convincing them to hate) and Intimidation for the targets (causing fear).
At its base, most low-level usage, Intimidation relies on fear. Can a large physique be a benefit to this? Absolutely. But it is not necessary. Those other examples show that it is the fear that is important, not the physique. You admitted yourself that having a big physique was not necessary. If you are walking down the street and a large figure is standing in the shadows, that could illicit fear in you, but unless they actually do something, they are not using the Intimidate skill. On the other hand, if a small guy jumps out of the ally with a knife and demands you hand over your wallet, that is using the Intimidate skill and his size has nothing to do with it...it is the fear he attempts to generate. And this is the difference. If the large figure came out of the shadows and punched his fist into one hand and leered at you, he would be using the skill and his size would add a benefit to his Skill check.
When did I ever say Strength could never be used? You rip the arms off of someone, I could see that being a Str check for Intimidation. Again, its using Str as the BASE skill that is at issue here. Charisma as a game mechanic can always be used as a basis for Intimidation, although you can choose to use Strength for certain situations. Strength as a game mechanic can not always be used as a basis for Intimidation.
Let's look at 2 examples:
1) You stand tall glaring down at someone, flexing your muscles, trying to get them to talk. DM 1 says that would be using Str, so you make a Straight roll adding your Str and Prof modifiers to the roll. DM 2 says its a Chr check, but because of your display you get Advantage, so you make 2 rolls adding your Chr and Prof modifiers, taking the higher of the 2. (from a game play perspective, both give different benefits. A character with high Str and medium Cha would get the benefits of the higher Str in the 1st and the benefits of Advantage in the 2nd)
2) You put a doll on the table and the person you are talking to recognizes it as his daughter's who they thought was safely hidden. There is no way this is a Str check.
If the Attribute cannot be used every time, than it has no purpose being the Base for the Skill...even if in some situations you can use that Attribute.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I'm putting this up here as a reference for use throughout the post:
Charisma (common-usage definition) - "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others"
As a reminder, part of the point of my houserule is to make game Charisma adhere to THIS definition.
But my question is, do the mechanics of the function change when Charisma is considered "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others?" If so, can you provide examples of such a mechanical change?
You don't use "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others" to get in someone's face and generate fear. That's like saying Gandhi would have been great at intimidating people into giving them their wallets, or at chasing away feral wolves, because of his incredible charisma. That's just not how the word is used OUTSIDE OF RPG CIRCLES (and one guess as to why RPGers would think "charisma" applies in those situations.)
Incorrect. ALL Intimidation
relies on(edit: invokes) fear, base or not, low-level or high, or it's not even Intimidation.But at its base, most low-level usage (as opposed to high-level usage, such as with indirect threats,) it (edit: I'll add, typically) relies on physique. That's how animals intimidate each other. That's the most base form of intimidation outside of uncivilization. Higher forms of intimidation require more complex understanding, although still often assisted by physique.
Correct, it's not necessary, because higher forms of intimidation exist. We're retreading the same ground again.
You stated that all interactions are social interactions, and seemed to imply that that means all interactions are more appropriately placed in the purview of Charisma. My apologies if that was not your intent.
Ah. I see what you're getting at. But I strongly disagree. You cannot always use strength/physique for the basis of Intimidation, I agree with that. But you cannot always use Charisma either.
If one larger animal chases another off, that's not common-usage Charisma. Low-level uses of Intimidation do NOT require "compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others."
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
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/night-hag
She has a Charisma of 16.
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.