# Intimidate with STR



## Shader (Jun 6, 2004)

Quick question, with some disclaimers to kick off. I don't have the Search facility and I *did* have a quick butchers through the posts, but couldn't find what I was after.

My question is regarding the Intimidate skill with the STR stat instead of CHA.

I felt sure I had read an official source that bowed to popular pressure and allowed the Intimidate skill to be used with STR instead of CHA to perform a more threatening Intimidate. The basis was that while CHA could be used to almost emotionally blackmail or subtly coerce a character, the STR side would be used for a more direct, threatening approach.

The problem is that I'll be damned to Hell and back if I can find the source for it, but would REALLY like to use it for an upcoming character. I have some Mongoose Publishing material with the change in, but cannot find the actual source c/o Wizards.

Can anyone know remember the source, please, or am I talking from my bottom? 

Very many thanks in advance.

-s-


----------



## Thanee (Jun 6, 2004)

It was in one of the 3.0 splatbooks, I think. Sword & Fist, Song & Silence, or Master of the Wild, probably.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 6, 2004)

Yuck!

I've heard this one officially ruled somewhere but I really hate it.

I can only assume it's based off the idea that a very strong character is obviously very capable of hurting the subject..  Except that physical strength is hardly the only way to go about hurting someone in D&D.  Somehow the frail old wizard who just blasted all your companions with a lightning bolt and currently has you flailing helplessly in mid-air using Telekinesis is less threatening than the barbarian behind him flexing like he's auditioning for Mr Universe?  Please.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 6, 2004)

Meh.  

Strength might impress, awe or frighten, but charisma is what makes them do what you want.


----------



## HellHound (Jun 6, 2004)

The issue with intimidating with Strength is of course that the target doesn't do what you want. A successful Strength based intimidate will result in a person being scared, sure, but definitely not doing what you want. People intimidated by Strength tend to do stupid things, or resist significantly.

I can't remember any D&D book specifically bowing to the demands for Strength based intimidate, but I tend to sckip over those rules sections in non OGL books  I do know that at least one d20 book had a feat for this, however.


----------



## Khristos (Jun 6, 2004)

It first made an appearance in Sword & Fist..... I dont know if it was ressurected in Complete Warrior


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 6, 2004)

You can't intimidate people with Str. You can frighten them or threaten them, but the fine art of intimidation isn't for brutes.

If you use Str to bully someone, they call for reinforcements, lie to you, ran away, or resist. You might be stronger than them, but you aren't stronger than them and their army. But if you Intimidate them, they *know* that the reinforcements won't arrive in time to save them, that they can't run or hide from you, that you know when they're lying, and that resistance is futile. It is no fear, it is a cold certainty.

You can use str for what some DM's associate with Intimidate (especially before 3.5 where the effect was spelled out), namely frightening people, who might just ruin your plans by running away and screaming like a child (I always loved it when a DM used my good Intimidate roll against me in that way - especially when it was one of the few rolls I didn't fumble that session)


----------



## Horishijin (Jun 6, 2004)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> You can't intimidate people with Str. You can frighten them or threaten them, but the fine art of intimidation isn't for brutes.




That is a good way of looking at it.  You can probably look to the cinema for many examples.  One that comes to mind for me is Christopher Walken.  Not a physically intimidating presence, but by using voice, meter and sheer presence he creates characters who are frightfully intimidating.


----------



## Christian (Jun 6, 2004)

As I always do when this subject comes up, I'll mention my favorite cinematic example. In the original Star Wars, Chewbacca is growling and roaring at Artoo after losing a piece in their holographic 'chess' game:

Threepio: "It was a fair move. There's no point screaming about it."
Solo: "Let it go. It's not wise to upset a Wookie."
Threepio: "But sir, noone worries about upsetting a droid."
Solo: "That's because droids don't tear people's arms out of their sockets when they lose."
Threepio: "Oh ... Artoo, I suggest a new strategy ..."

Chewbacca's size and Strength can make people nervous. But it takes Solo's Charisma to make their fear translate into desired actions.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Jun 6, 2004)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> You can't intimidate people with Str. You can frighten them or threaten them, but the fine art of intimidation isn't for brutes.




Although I agree with you about not being able to intimidate people with Strength, I hate it when people say "the fine art of intimidation isn't for brutes". It IS for brutes. That's why Fighters and Barbarians have it as a class skill. Fighters and Barbarians take a much more direct course to intimidate (they don't try to blackmail or anything like that) but Charisma is STILL important. A Barbarian with a Charisma of 6 is just gonna be dumb looking, and a really dumb looking half-orc screaming his head off is just going to be weird, not intimidating. If he has high charisma, he's got much more of a presence- much more intimidating ability. Most low-charisma Barbarians, however, make up for their low presence with lots of ranks.

Basically, you should never be able to use Strength instead of Charisma on intimidate checks. The Barbarian used Charisma as his dump stat, and he should have to pay for it.


----------



## Darklone (Jun 6, 2004)

Yeah. Heros have high Charisma. They suck at fighting and get whooped in major battles, but they look fine while they go down. 

And they get the medals later.


----------



## Three_Haligonians (Jun 6, 2004)

*Mixing Stats and Skills*

First of all, on page 33 in the 3.5 DMG, there is a variant section that discusses using abilities with skills that they are not normally keyed to, and it gives a few examples. For instance, in the games I lead, PC's have often gone to a local library to research the various clues they've picked up. This created a  "research check" house-rule that is a Gather Information check based on Int instead of Cha (and they don't have to pay any money). So to me, A character using Str instead of Cha for their intimidate checks seems to fit in with this idea nicely.  

  As for barbarians with a Cha of 6 who are dumb-looking, it is true that their screaming madly won't be that intimidating, however if this same barbarian had a 22 Str and managed to bend the guy's sword in half... that's a different story.

  Lastly, the idea that this kind of intimidation won't work because it will just make the person scream and run away or faint or whatever, well that's what would happen if the character -failed- their Str based intimidate, just like if they failed their cha based one and the target wasn't fooled or scared by their threats, blackmail, etc.


J from Three Haligonians


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 6, 2004)

If you do allow str for intimidate it would allow Giants and Dragons to use their intimidate skill to make you shaken with fear rather easily.

Sure, that is a standard action that they haven't used to pound you, but the d20 check will be too high to resist if it uses their enormous str modifier.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Imo, this desire to use str seems to spring from the player who dumps on charisma for their fighter-type character and then realizes that the bard (for e.g.) has a greater intimidate score.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Jun 6, 2004)

I think using Str is a bad idea. It's just another reason to make Cha your dump stat.


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 6, 2004)

Itimidation isn't being a big strong brute to break peoples arms and legs to get what you want, that's tortue.  Intimidation is the -threat- of harm.  You can pound your chest and scream and rage all you want, that's not going to scare someone like a person who knows the right words to chill a man.


----------



## Three_Haligonians (Jun 6, 2004)

Ottergame said:
			
		

> Itimidation isn't being a big strong brute to break peoples arms and legs to get what you want, that's tortue.  Intimidation is the -threat- of harm.  You can pound your chest and scream and rage all you want, that's not going to scare someone like a person who knows the right words to chill a man.





Pounding your chest and screaming is a cha based intimidation.  We're talking about breaking a table, or EXHIBITING your str in some way.  Aside from that, torture does intimidate.  That's why torture is used.  To get info.

R from Three Haligonians


----------



## reapersaurus (Jun 6, 2004)

It's a Variant Rule sidebar in Masters of the Wild, page 18.

Thank goodness they put it somewhere.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Jun 7, 2004)

Three_Haligonians said:
			
		

> Pounding your chest and screaming is a cha based intimidation.  We're talking about breaking a table, or EXHIBITING your str in some way.  Aside from that, torture does intimidate.  That's why torture is used.  To get info.




But the point is that Barbarians generally don't tie up opponents, drag them down to their torture chamber, and then intimidate them to get answers. Barbarians generally use Intimidate in the thick of battle, where there is rarely a table or a metal bar sitting there to be broken or bent in half. But in each case, it would hardly be an intimidate check with Strength as the key ability score- it would be a Strength check, first, to do the feat of strength, and then an intimidate check using his charisma modifier (as normal) with a circumstance bonus for the action he just performed. After all, if a Barbarian with no presence that comes off as a dumb oaf breaks a table and then roars at you, it'll be intimidating, no doubt. However, if a Barbarian that has an aura of destruction and amazing presence rips a metal bar apart with his bare hands, it's definitely going to be more intimidating than the other guy.

In short, don't switch around the ability scores. Charisma is just as important, if not moreso, than Strength. And bending a guy's sword in half is completely out of the question. First he'd have to make a sunder attack with his bare hands (which would incur an attack of opportunity unless he has both the Improved Sunder and Improved Unarmed Strike feats), THEN make a Strength check (opposed by his opponent's Dexterity check, of course, since his opponent isn't just gonna stand there and let him bend his sword), and THEN an intimidate check. I can see him taking damage somewhere in that too, even without an attack of opportunity, as it's not that easy to bend a sharpened blade with your bare hands without cutting yourself.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 7, 2004)

Three_Haligonians said:
			
		

> First of all, on page 33 in the 3.5 DMG, there is a variant section that discusses using abilities with skills that they are not normally keyed to, and it gives a few examples.




Exactly.

It is a DM specific issue, and if the DM decides that in a particular circumstance it warrants it, then fine. It doesn't need to be written down anywhere else because the DMG specifically allows the DM (not the player!) to determine if another attribute is appropriate in a given situation.

Trust your DM, your DM is your friend.


----------



## Shader (Jun 7, 2004)

*Cheers*

Thanks guys, at least I know it's out there now. I felt sure it was.

You can argue until you're blue in the face whether or not it's a good or a bad thing, but I think it really is valid.

Charisma-Intimidate should be the subtle, the persuasion, the manipulation. Grima Wormtongue. The threat of surprises or nastiness if you don't do what is asked of you.

Strength-Intimidate should be as valid, but for the less subtle, more threatening approach. You can still intimidate someone by a display of strength. If you don't think so, surely the guy with the huge muscles pounding his fist into the palm of his other hand and asking for your money isn't trying to sweet-talk you?

Likewise someone here has pointed out the use of Gather Information and Intelligence for research in a library, another excellent indication of how you can adapt the rules so suit another situation.

Sometimes these things just can't be black and white.

Thanks for all your help guys.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 7, 2004)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Although I agree with you about not being able to intimidate people with Strength, I hate it when people say "the fine art of intimidation isn't for brutes". It IS for brutes. That's why Fighters and Barbarians have it as a class skill. Fighters and Barbarians take a much more direct course to intimidate (they don't try to blackmail or anything like that) but Charisma is STILL important.



So they take a "direct course" to the "fine art" of Intimidation? They may intimidate (and proper intimidate), but a brute (read: low charisma) won't elevate it to an artform (charismatic fighters, rogues and bards do).


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 7, 2004)

I'd personally give someone who used a strength check to back up an intimidate roll a circumstance bonus (or better yet, an unnamed bonus so that it stacks with everything ) to their intimidate check.

For anyone that watches WWE, I'd say the Big Show is a classic example of a high strength, not-so-high Cha character. Sure, he can chokeslam a guy in each hand, but I've never bought him as a genuinely scary guy. Now Eddie Guerro (apologies for the spelling), who is much smaller, has the charisma to pull off being a bad guy (or good guy, whatever).

My point is that no matter how much work Big Show does on being more intimidating, Eddie can always up his game as well. Why? Better Cha score.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 7, 2004)

Shader said:
			
		

> Strength-Intimidate should be as valid, but for the less subtle, more threatening approach. You can still intimidate someone by a display of strength. If you don't think so, surely the guy with the huge muscles pounding his fist into the palm of his other hand and asking for your money isn't trying to sweet-talk you?





			
				Three_Haligonians said:
			
		

> As for barbarians with a Cha of 6 who are dumb-looking, it is true that their screaming madly won't be that intimidating, however if this same barbarian had a 22 Str and managed to bend the guy's sword in half... that's a different story.
> 
> Lastly, the idea that this kind of intimidation won't work because it will just make the person scream and run away or faint or whatever, well that's what would happen if the character -failed- their Str based intimidate, just like if they failed their cha based one and the target wasn't fooled or scared by their threats, blackmail, etc.




Let's follow Johnny Adventurer into peril and see how he thinks about all this.

Here, we see Johnny on the road, and the gentleman with the wardrobe-like build next to him is a professional highwayman, as are the guys who stand around them both with smiles on their faces that suggest that they don't think the words that come out your mouth are funny, but the entrails that will soon come out of the huge, gaping hole in your stomage will be.

Now, the gentleman tells Johnny to hand over his valuables or he'll go hard on him. Johnny thinks: "S***, they got me. This guy is huge, and he has friends with him, some with bows and crossbows, and I'm all alone. I might beat him with room to maneuver, but those guys don't look like think much of fair play. I think I'll hand over my stuff, cause I have no friends here.


Now, was Johny frightened? Hell yes! But why was that? Because the highwayman had a nice high value noted beside Str? Sure. Was it because he has made a really good Intimidate check? Sure not. He may have been intimidated, but he wasn't Intimidated (with the capital I, meaning it has something to do with the D&D Skill and Idea about intimidation). He saw no other way out than to do so. If we wait to see what's happened, we'll see that a dozen armed men on horseback - guards from the nearby city - will join the conversation, and as soon as the highwaymen look at their direction, Johnny will grab his valuables, shove one of the highwaymen aside and run for safety - he'll know the criminals will have better things to do than to deal with a single, harmless man. Not when they have a dozen far from harmless men, on horseback, with swords and lances, to deal with.


Now let us leave Johnny for a while, for he'll do some dungeoneering, and monsters don't intimidate, but try to bite your head of first chance they get. After a week of wating through the blood of aberrations, magical beats, and the occasional outsider (and other fluids of vermin and oozes), Johnny is back in the big city, where he sits in a bar (with a name like "the Rusty Anchor" or something with "Wench" in it) and quaffs his ale. After overhearing and unnecessarily loud (and unnecessarily stupid) remark by a half-ogre one table down the row, he makes a snide remark, not counting on the half-ogre's levels as ranger and ranks in Listen. And of course the bigjob takes offense.
He storms over to Johnny's table and shouts at him. They engage in some verbal sparring, and the half-ogre takes a sword and bends it in half and tells Johnny that he'll be next if he won't shut up this minute

This is what Johnny's thinking:
"Damn, that bastard is strong. If he gets me, I'm done for, I have my doubts he'll bend me in half - he'll probably break me - but he has to get me for that. He doesn't look fast, I'm sure I'm faster, and I only have to get out of the tavern - and the exit is right behind me - and run past that guard post. They'll see me followed by a big bloke screaming death threats at me, think he's an invader, and shoot so many arrow into him that he looks like a big, ugly hedgehog. Let's see if his muscles will avail him of anything then!"


Threatening with strength might people make frightened, but frightened people don't behave the way you want them to. Actually, in D&D terms they'll drop what they hold and run away. Intimidate with charisma, on the other hand, won't only make people frightened, but also make them sure that they can't run away from that. They won't get away as soon as some armed guards appear, they won't bolt and run past the guardpost. Because they *know* that such behavior won't save them.


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 7, 2004)

A show of strength may certainly frighten an opponent, but so would a display of magical power, or a display of skill, or even a show of hardiness.  (I remember once a tough goon in a movie (might have been Bond) intimidated people by chewing on a glass, or stubbing out a cigarette on his arm.)

I can stomach a high strength, _or other visible display of power_ applying a circumstance modifier to an intimidate check, but not having it replace charisma as the applied stat.


----------



## Shader (Jun 7, 2004)

This is all very helpful chaps, thanks. I stand by my original observation that Intimidate should be optionally useable by STR, and I think my reasoning is as justified FOR as some of yours are as justified AGAINST. Everyone will have an opinion, of course, and they're all valid. 

I'm just glad I got the references to said material


----------



## DreamChaser (Jun 7, 2004)

Shader said:
			
		

> Charisma-Intimidate should be the subtle, the persuasion, the manipulation. Grima Wormtongue. The threat of surprises or nastiness if you don't do what is asked of you.
> 
> Strength-Intimidate should be as valid, but for the less subtle, more threatening approach. You can still intimidate someone by a display of strength. If you don't think so, surely the guy with the huge muscles pounding his fist into the palm of his other hand and asking for your money isn't trying to sweet-talk you?




Why stop there?  Since making a strength based intimidate serves no purpose other than to allow fighters, rangers, and barbarians to avoid putting a decent score in Charisma, we should make sure to do the same thing for all the other classes.

Dexterity Intimidate: I move around so much that you get frightened that I won't stop.

Constitution Intimidate: I resist disease and poison frighteningly well.

Intelligence Intimidate: I use endless sophestry (which will be stuttered and uninspired) to make you afraid that I will never shut up (like now, perhaps).

Wisdom Intimidate: My perceptiveness and piety terrify you, you infidel.



None of these are any more intimidation than strength intimidation is.  They might offer circumstance penalties or bonus but not a replacement for the ability.

It is important to remember that Charisma is not simply VERBAL presence.  It applies to your sense of self and ability to express yourself in all ways.  It is the reason that ALL perform skills (even mime and instrumentation) are Charisma based.  A powerful fighter with a low charisma would always look unimpressive (compared to a high charisma fighter) when he attempted to use a feat of strength to intimidate.  He wouldn't convey his intent well enough.

Of course, you have already made up your mind (based on a pre-revision justification) but hopefully we the dissenters can keep others from falling into the same decision.

DC


----------



## Shader (Jun 8, 2004)

Despite the fact that we all have our own opinions, I wouldn't dream of forcing mine on anyone else. The posts I have made on this subject are simply that, my own opinions. You have yours, I have mine. However to suggest that mine are wrong is a little barking, and the way in which you mock by completely taking the pee, well that's just childish. Mildly amusing though 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying my way is right. Far from it. I'm simply saying that WOTC obviously thought it could be used as an alternative, which I agree with. You don't. That's great.

For the record, I personally believe that any attempt to intimidate or threaten someone through a "non-standard" method (ie using Intimidate skill), such as using a dazzling display of magic or bending an iron bar, should be permitted a check against the relevant stat; not just Charisma.

I believe Charisma has it's place, I really do. I'm not someone who thinks that Charisma is only useful for poncy Elves or Sorcerers. I just think that there needs to be a little flexibility. Being too narrowminded about stuff like this never got anyone anywhere.


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 8, 2004)

As well as all the points brought up so far, I think this sets a bad precedent.

I mean, if you have str based intimidation, why stop there?  Why not have str based perform (a weight lifting act), str based Knowledge: Arcana (think of all the books you could carry!), str based Search (how else can you look under all those big rocks?)

These are very silly examples of course; the idea is to show that you could wedge just about any skill under any stat if you think hard enough.  (It reminds me of an old 'your gun is your skill' joke I read once where someone went through the skills one by one and showed how you could replace all of them with a gun - Open Lock: Shoot out the lock, etc - that sort of thing)

Intimidation is about force of personality.  While being large and muscular is certainly a tool the intimidator could use (much like they could use a gun) and could certainly apply a circumstance modifier, it should never be able to replace charisma outright as the basis of intimidation.

IMO of course


----------



## Darklone (Jun 8, 2004)

Right. Give Dex bonus to damage in ranged combat. And dex to hit in melee. People say it's logical. Wait and see what happens to the game


----------



## Shader (Jun 8, 2004)

Clearly you and I will never change our opinions, as great as they are 

I think you really are getting silly though... A STR based Knowledge: Arcana? Barking mad.

An Int based Gather Information for research? Makes perfect sense to me.

And besides, we've already established that WOTC suggested the Intimidate thing as an option.


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 8, 2004)

Shader said:
			
		

> Clearly you and I will never change our opinions, as great as they are



And nor should we.  It's something I feel quite strongly about, but you should always do what's fun for you. 



> I think you really are getting silly though... A STR based Knowledge: Arcana? Barking mad.



That's the point though - it was meant to highlight how absurd it can be to apply a skill to an inappropriate ability, even if you can come up with some justification, in particular applying a mental skill to a physical ability.



> An Int based Gather Information for research? Makes perfect sense to me.



Maybe - bear in mind that the skill as is essentially represents knowing the right people to talk to and the right questions to ask, which is not as applicable in a library style situation.  Search might be more appropriate, and it's already based on int.



> And besides, we've already established that WOTC suggested the Intimidate thing as an option.



Not under dispute.  I just think it's a bad option.


----------



## DreamChaser (Jun 8, 2004)

Shader said:
			
		

> And besides, we've already established that WOTC suggested the Intimidate thing as an option.




Pre-revision.  Like how 3.0 archery and dualist were such good ideas, balance wise.  It is interesting to note that this concept didn't make it into the revision, thus suggesting that they reconsidered their original idea.

DC


----------



## Shader (Jun 8, 2004)

Or left them out unintentionally. We know how good they are at that. Multi-class levels not counting toward XP penalties, anyone?


----------



## UltimaGabe (Jun 8, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Right. Give Dex bonus to damage in ranged combat. And dex to hit in melee. People say it's logical. Wait and see what happens to the game




Well, there IS a feat that lets you use your Dexterity modifier to hit in Melee, but it's a feat, after all.

But heck, if one of my PCs wanted to take a feat to let them use Strength instead of Charisma for Intimidate Checks, I'd let them.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 8, 2004)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> Maybe - bear in mind that the skill as is essentially represents knowing the right people to talk to and the right questions to ask, which is not as applicable in a library style situation.  Search might be more appropriate, and it's already based on int.




Right. That's why d20 Modern has the Research Skill.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jun 9, 2004)

Just so people know:
STR vs CHA Intimidate has been discussed on these boards for years.

It always breaks down to the CHA-Intimidate-only crowd bringing up lame examples that pit a low-CHA, high-STR dude against a high-CHA dude.

And that's a straw man, in case you didn't realize.

It's as simple as this:
many people I've talked to thru the years simply CANNOT get it thru their heads that STR can be Intimidating. Many times they have explained Real life experiences which have caused them to believe this (people who know martial arts, etc).

Bottom line is, I'm glad I don't have to argue it anymore.
WotC seems more reasonable *gasp* in this arena than many people here.
I'm glad it's in the rules now so I don't currently (and hopefully ever) deal with the incredibly close-minded and unwaveringly bad examples that the CHA-only crowd has demonstrated time and time again.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 9, 2004)

I just use the DM's best friend.  A +2 (or more) situational modifier.


----------



## DreamChaser (Jun 9, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> And that's a straw man, in case you didn't realize.




 :\ Very moving.  Your declaration and lack of explanation has made everything clear.

How could I ever have been so closed minded as to have an opinion, argue it with examples, refute counter examples, and expect the same in return?

For the record, my sig says it all, and I'm happy to never think twice about the way Shader or anyone else plays it in their game.  I assume when a person continues to post on a topic, that they desire dialogue on an issue.

In continuation of said dialogue:

On a metagame level, the only real reason for Strength-based Intimidate is to allow warrior types to use Charisma as a dump stat without sacrificing scare factor.  It reduces the value of Charisma as a stat and reduces the value of classes with Charisma-based skills and abilities by making their primary stat less valuable.

On a more conceptual level, I believe that Intimidation is all about Charisma.  I feel that the definition of Charisma in the rules ("*force of personality*, *persuasiveness*, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness" PH p9 emphasis mine) fits the idea of attempting to convince someone of your intent to harm them.

I belive the definiton of Strength ("muscle and physical power" PH p8) has nothing to do with said activity.  I would argue that all a display of strength could do is make someone who is smart/wise enough to consider such things believe that you are ABLE to harm them.  The two are not the same things.

More to the point in the rules, I would be more willing to accept Strength based intimitdate if someone could give me a visual for a strength based use of the _Demoralize Opponent_ feature of the skill.



> You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent's resolve in combat.  To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target's modified level check (see above).  If you win, the target becomes _shaken_ for 1 round.  A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws.  You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.




I understand that with Charisma, a character could taunt, gesture, sneer, and otherwise use free actions attempt to make the opponent feel intimidated.  I do not understand what Strength based free action could be taken that allow you to make an opponent feel scared.  You cannot hit them, push them, pick up a rock and throw it at or toward them because these are all standard (or move + standard) actions and many provoke attacks of opporunity.  Flexing muscles is one possibility, but this is not something that can be done with armor on, nor is it easily done with one's guard up.  In addition, without an accompanying scowl or roar, flexing could appear to be nothing more than part of another action in combat.

If such an action is not possible, then simply being strong would have to be the key but your opponent would not have much way of knowing how strong you are, barring your acting upon them in some way.

The passage in _Masters of the Wild_ that sanctions the Strength based Intimidate is on page 18.


> Sometimes it's appropriate to change the key ability score of a particular skill.  While Intimidation is usually a function of Charsima, this rule allows the *barbarian* to apply his Strength modifier rather than his Charisma modifier to Intimidate checks.  This assumes, of course, that he accompanies such attempts with appropriate displays of of might, such as breaking objects or showing of impressive muscles.



 (emphasis mine)

I argue three things about this passage:
1) This passage refers only to barbarians, which indicates that it was an optional rule intended only for members of that class.  This literal interpretation is not my first instinct, but I'm indicating what rules lawyering could accompany it.
2) This passaged does not refer to replacing the primary stat for Intimidate with Str.  It is a situational adjustment.
3) This passage is from a pre-revision source and the specific example has not reappeared an any 3.5 book (to my knowledge) nor has it appeared in any errata or FAQ (again to my knowledge), which indicates that the PTB did not feel it was a relevant rule.

These are my reasons for not permitting (except perhaps in exceptional and yet to be encountered situations) replacing Charisma with Strength for the Intimidate skill.  It is not a straw man and it is not that I'm a strength hater or barbarian hater.

DC


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 9, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> It's as simple as this: many people I've talked to thru the years simply CANNOT get it thru their heads that STR can be Intimidating. Many times they have explained Real life experiences which have caused them to believe this (people who know martial arts, etc).



Str can be intimidating - so can magic, or a greataxe or many other things, and these things can and should apply circumstance bonuses where appropriate, but this doesn't negate the need for charisma to apply these tools effectively.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jun 9, 2004)

DreamChaser said:
			
		

> How could I ever have been so closed minded as to have an opinion, argue it with examples, refute counter examples, and expect the same in return?



It's been the same arguments for over 3 years now.

You're welcome to waste time on it, but the same things are said every time.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jun 9, 2004)

Bauglir said:
			
		

> Str can be intimidating - so can magic, or a greataxe or many other things, and these things can and should apply circumstance bonuses where appropriate, but this doesn't negate the need for charisma to apply these tools effectively.




Yeah but str is naturally intimidating.  Sure chr can be sure magic can be sure interviews can be, but str is the one stat that on its own doing nothing is intimidating.  People don't step aside for the charismatic guy walking down the street they step aside for the big guy.


----------



## Humanophile (Jun 9, 2004)

The "Str should be an _innate_ modifier because, well, the big guy is pretty scary" side of the arguement falls flat when we think for a moment all the things that Str can mean; the high Str guy could be wiry, or just have powerful magic on his side.  Give me a properly epic belt of giant strength, I can heft boulders...  but I'd still look like dorky me, not likely to make a bunch of Hell's Angels back away.  (At least until I take some action to demonstrate my incredible strength, thus earning me a hefty circumstance bonus on my Intimidate check.)  Exceptionally big (or little) characters already have a built-in modifier to their intimidate checks (which can be a little silly, since the halfling mafia don's intimidation is far less in your face and physical prowess based), and exceptionally large characters should reflect their intimidating size with already existing traits.

But that said, Reapersaurus is right; this debate has been going on for a long time.  People are going to stick to their opinions regardless, it's kind of silly to expect a conversion after the first round of evidence is rebuffed.  Besides, Shader made his position clear, he was just looking for a reference.  (To justify a position I disagree with, yes, but who among us can't reference rules that lead to situations we find silly?)  If you're looking for a Str-based Intimidate rationalization, intimidating in combat takes a standard action; surely enough time to make some impressive show of force in most environments.  I'll keep playing my way, but intimidating in combat is sub-optimal enough I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

And on that note, Str-based Intimidate really doesn't make minning Cha that much less painless for the fighter/barbarian; the kind of person who's going to min Cha is clearly going to prefer attacking over intimidating in combat, and out-of-combat Charisma has its own flaws that make it sub-optimal compared to Diplomacy.  Cha-minned tanks tend to let someone else do the talking anyways, or play in "just role-play it" games where the character's ability is absolutely negligible anyways.


----------



## Shader (Jun 9, 2004)

Humanophile said:
			
		

> The "Str should be an _innate_ modifier because, well, the big guy is pretty scary" side of the arguement falls flat when we think for a moment all the things that Str can mean; the high Str guy could be wiry, or just have powerful magic on his side.  Give me a properly epic belt of giant strength, I can heft boulders...  but I'd still look like dorky me, not likely to make a bunch of Hell's Angels back away.  (At least until I take some action to demonstrate my incredible strength, thus earning me a hefty circumstance bonus on my Intimidate check.)  Exceptionally big (or little) characters already have a built-in modifier to their intimidate checks (which can be a little silly, since the halfling mafia don's intimidation is far less in your face and physical prowess based), and exceptionally large characters should reflect their intimidating size with already existing traits.






			
				Humanophile said:
			
		

> And on that note, Str-based Intimidate really doesn't make minning Cha that much less painless for the fighter/barbarian; the kind of person who's going to min Cha is clearly going to prefer attacking over intimidating in combat, and out-of-combat Charisma has its own flaws that make it sub-optimal compared to Diplomacy.  Cha-minned tanks tend to let someone else do the talking anyways, or play in "just role-play it" games where the character's ability is absolutely negligible anyways.




You've also raised another point I was trying, indirectly, to make. I wouldn't want to stop using CHA for Intimidate, just have the option of using another stat if appropriate. I would quite like to have a Fighter type who is charismatic, handsome and smooth, while at the same time having a strong, oppressive physique that can intimidate the weaker types. If I wanted to apply STR to Intimidate for those purposes, and leave the CHA for his looks, I think that should be applicable under those rules.

I could be way off, and am prepared to accept that. However in this case, rather than open a can of worms - because I know it's a sensitive subject - I just wanted the reference  Still, it's an interesting discussion.


----------



## DreamChaser (Jun 9, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> It's been the same arguments for over 3 years now.
> 
> You're welcome to waste time on it, but the same things are said every time.



Well then why are you posting on this thread then?  Is it trolling, voice of doom, or simple snarkiness?  Seems like you think it's a huge waste of time...so stop wasting your and our time.

DC


----------



## reapersaurus (Jun 10, 2004)

DC - 
You obviously aren't thinking of the service provided by me pointing out the ancientness of this debate:

Some people who read this thread may not be aware (in fact, they probably wouldn't be) of the long history this argument has, and the entrenched viewpoints.

Given that most of the responses nowadays (years into the argument) consistently come from the "pure-CHA" side, I feel that me pointing out that there are 2 established camps that have long chosen sides could help someone reading this aspect of the rules for the first time.

It gives them a context that unless pointed out, they wouldn't otherwise have.


----------



## Falconnan (Jun 10, 2004)

You're all insane!  
The way _we_ play--

1. Strength can be used to intimidate, but only if you have a way to demonstrate your strength. For instance, the big bad fighter picking up the heavy wooden chair and crushing it between his hands might do the trick. In this case, you the Intimidate check would be as normal, but with your Strength bonus as a modifier.
2. Magic can also be used to intimidate, but also requires a demonstration. We generally allow the wizard or cleric a bonus equal to the spell level, with spectacular spells, or illusions thereof, up to double the level of the spell.
3. We subtract the level of the character being intimidated from the bonus these two options provide. In other words, big bad wizard may well be big and bad, but the almost equally big and bad fighter he wants to intimidate will not be impressed.

A failed intimidate check will generally worsen an NPC's attitude one to two steps. However, an arrogant NPC might be impressed by the PC's "spunk". It depends on whether it will help the game.


----------



## Shader (Jun 10, 2004)

Falconnan said:
			
		

> 3. We subtract the level of the character being intimidated from the bonus these two options provide. In other words, big bad wizard may well be big and bad, but the almost equally big and bad fighter he wants to intimidate will not be impressed.
> 
> A failed intimidate check will generally worsen an NPC's attitude one to two steps. However, an arrogant NPC might be impressed by the PC's "spunk". It depends on whether it will help the game.




I quite like this method, thanks!


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 10, 2004)

I like it too - do you apply this level mod to normal cha based intimidation too?


----------



## DreamChaser (Jun 10, 2004)

Falconnan said:
			
		

> You're all insane!
> The way _we_ play--
> 
> 1. Strength can be used to intimidate, but only if you have a way to demonstrate your strength. For instance, the big bad fighter picking up the heavy wooden chair and crushing it between his hands might do the trick. In this case, you the Intimidate check would be as normal, but with your Strength bonus as a modifier.
> ...




I like this way as well.  The only thing I would change is that I would always apply Cha and then the special bonus (Str, spell level, etc)...especially since the target's level is going to get subtracted, the extra umph makes it worth while.


----------



## Henry Hankovich (Jun 10, 2004)

Here's where I stand on the issue.

I think the main thing is, people confuse "being intimidating" with "Intimidate," so to speak.  Understandable, given that I'm using the same word twice.   Here's the difference:

"Being intimidating" just means you're making someone or something afraid of you.  Not much to it--you can do it to puppies and small children, no matter how weak or powerless you are.  That's what most people are referring to when they talk about how a really strong guy "can be intimidating."  So can an angry mob with pitchforks and torches, too.  Or a rattlesnake.  Or a really high cliff.

Intimidate, however, as a D&D skill, is a rather advanced _social skill_.  You're not just making the guy crap his pants in sudden fear--any monster can do that.  What you're trying to do is elicit a very specific and persistant response from a person, using fear as the stimulus.  You have to be good enough at Intimidating that the person will continue carrying out your wish, even when he's out of arm's reach.  The effect is somewhat like a light version of the _charm person_ spell, wherein the person will act as though he is your friend, or is friendly toward you.  The same with intimidate--but instead of 'feeling' that he's your friend, he just knows that he has to -act- as your friend, or face the consequences.

The trick, though, is that there is a very specific response you want from the person, such as the answer to where the Tome of Unholy Puppykicking is hidden.  Now, if you just make the person _afraid_, you might get all sorts of responses.  He might soil his pants and start blubbering incoherently.  He might run out the door.  He might start yelling for his bodyguard in the next room.  He might cast Fireball.  Or--worst of all--he might lie to you, and send you walking toward the nearest dragon's den instead.   You've made him _afraid_, but without the social ability to manipulate that fear--or to figure out whether you've really accomplished what you wanted to do--you're not really any closer to your goal.  

Now, being strong--being able to threaten someone with physical violence--is one threat to use.  But it's not the only one, and certainly not the best.  So a high-STR character would probably use threats of physical violence as the 'stick' in his Intimidation technique.  But a halfling rogue might imply, instead, that if the guy doesn't give up the info, he might someday wake up to find his barn burnt down and his daughter pregnant.  Or a LG paladin might imply that if the person doesn't comply, the Church will be "very disappointed" in him,  having serious consequences to his social status.   They're all using whatever abilities or traits they possess, in forming their _threats_--but actually getting the response they want out of the person, is a _social skill_.  A CHA-based check.

Certainly, it's well and good to give circumstance bonuses for an appropriate display of strength, if that's your preferred method.  But there's no reason to unduly reward high-STR characters (by making STR an acceptable substitute in the check itself), as opposed to potentially intimidating displays from high DEX characters ("I throw a dagger into his chair, inches away from his crotch"), or high-INT characters ("wait, wait, what's this in my pocket...oh, I see, it's a FIREBALL spell..."), in Intimidation checks.   There's no sense in swapping the core ability for the check, when the game already lets you use your strength (or dexterity, or intelligence, or whatever) to benefit the Intimidate check using a "favorable circumstances" bonus.

So, I think the best way to treat it is, Intimidate itself remains a CHA-based skill--because successfully using fear to your advantage requires a bit of deft social handling.  But STR, along with any other attribute, can potentially be used to gain "favorable circumstances."  This accounts for the fact that physical strength is not going to be universally fear-inspiring, any more than any other personal attribute might be.  The hill giant isn't going to be impressed by the widdle human smashing a widdle table over his head, any more than the archmage is going to be too fearful of your l33t fireball.

Of course, this requires players to actually -think- about how to create favorable circumstances, aside from simply looking for the nearest table to smash over their heads.   Which is probably the core of the issue.


----------



## DreamChaser (Jun 11, 2004)

Welcome to the boards, Henry.

You wandered into quite the debate (which is useless, as we've been told rudely and repeatedly, but we're still enjoying it, none the less.)

I like the way you phrased that, distinguishing between "being intimidating" (or being scary) and the Intimidate skill.

DC


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 11, 2004)

Excellent post Henry, my thoughts exactly (only put way more eloquently than I could have ever managed )

Welcome to the boards.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Jun 11, 2004)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> Yeah but str is naturally intimidating.




I'm afraid I have to disagree.

An Iron Bar, I'm sure we can all agree, is strong. It's very strong. It's so strong it's kept prisoners in their cells for centuries. And yet, if I saw an iron bar sitting on a table, I wouldn't be the least bit scared.

I know you're all laughing at how horrible of an example you think that was. But was it? Let's say, instead of an iron bar, it were an iron person. I litte iron figurine, lifeless, and sitting there. I still wouldn't be intimidated. Why? Because it isn't doing anything. Okay. Make it move. Now, it's a little moving wind-up iron guy. Okay, it's a toy soldier. Ooh, scary. For some reason, it still isn't intimidating. What is he missing?

Well, he's got Strength, and he's got Dexterity. He hasn't got a constitution score, but something tells me that making him a little moving blob of flesh isn't going to help him out. What else is he missing? Mental ability scores.

Let's give him Intelligence and Wisdom. (And, as spelled out in the Monster Manual, a creature with Wisdom has to have Charisma. Let's just give him a charisma of 1 to keep it simple.) Now, he can perform thought processes and (vaguely) distinguish between himself and others. He can repeat things back to you, add numbers, do menial chores, and so on. If you tell him to say, "Give me all of your money," he'll say it. Heck, he might even say it on his own. Either way, it's a flat, monotone "Give me all of your money."

He's a bit more intimidating than he was before (as he now has thought), but still not very. Hmm. Let's give him more strength. Make him bigger. Make him human-sized, but with arms the size of beer kegs. Now, he's a big, iron person. And when he walks up to you, he says in the same, monotone voice, "Give me all of your money."

Alright, people are getting scared. At least, somewhat. They're getting a bit uneasy when around him, but if you really think about it, it's purely because they don't know who or what he is. Ignorance is more intimidating than anything else. However, whenever he asks for money, it's the same monotonous, boring tone. "Give me all of your money."

The reason? Because he can't distinguish between himself and others. He could probably punch a hole in a brick wall, but he doesn't know how to get people to do what he wants to do. Buff up his strength even more, but it's still gonna be the same, "Give me all of your money." Nope. "Give me all of your money." Nah. "Give me all of your money." Still the same boring, boring, boring iron guy.

Let's pump up his charisma a bit. Now, when he says, "Give me your money," he really means it. He sounds imposing. He sounds threatening. He's got just as many muscles as before, but he's just got more... presence. He's got more vigor. He emphasizes the "GIVE ME all of your money!".

I know it's a bit strange, but think about it. If he were a scrawny iron guy, he might not be as threatening when you see him coming down the hall, but it really wasn't his Strength that made him threatening in the first place- it was his Charisma.

I actually think Henry Hankovich summed it up really well. I just had to point out the inherent idiocy of the statement, "Strength is naturally intimidating."


----------



## Kalendraf (Jun 11, 2004)

I'm coming into this rather late.  I skimmed thru the responses, but didn't see anyone mention the Quintessential Barbarian.  It breaks Intimidation into 6 separate skills, each one keyed to a different stat.  You can buy points in each.

Using this approach, it would be theoretically possible for the DM to assign different DCs to each.  For example a certain foe might be very easily Coerced (cha) but resist being Bullied (str), while another might be more easily Terrorized (int) or Admonished (wis).  I actually like the concept behind breaking up the Intimidate skill like this, but have not tried to implement it in any campaign yet.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 11, 2004)

The whole issue of changing stats for skills for circumstances, while supported as an option in the dmg, seems to be a lot of work for such little gain.

(Support for Henry Hankovich's articulation  )

Another possible issue is the perception by some of charisma as a poncy flair found in pretty boys. While this can be true, I would point to Count Dracula or Darth Vader as figures I believe have impressive charisma (and probably intimidate) scores. 

Otoh, the negative modifier to charisma is seen by some as ugliness and being rough as guts. The thought is that such a figure should have an easier time scaring others around them and thus get a bonus to intimidate. I believe that such figures would fill the role of goons and toughs; able to bully others under threat of direct violence but their victims are not cowed afterwards (and seek justice via wandering adventurers  ).  

In short I believe that the fearsome warrior archetype possesses great charisma, not dumps on it.


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Jun 11, 2004)

I am so up for intimidating using STR if you can convince my next DM to allow my Wis bonus to hit and AC because I'm percieving what they're doing, and thus better able to counter their actions.

Ultimately, the biggest problem I have with this is if you have a high Cha guy in the group, it may feel like a ripoff to have the guy reaping the benifits of a high Str also getting a bonus to intimidate.


----------



## Shader (Jun 16, 2004)

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> Ultimately, the biggest problem I have with this is if you have a high Cha guy in the group, it may feel like a ripoff to have the guy reaping the benifits of a high Str also getting a bonus to intimidate.



I don't think this is such a problem. If I want to play a smooth, charismatic and slimy guy who can intimidate with his words and his attitude, then I'd love to. But if I wanted to play a huge f*** off barbarian who could flex his muscles and intimidate people, then I want the option of playing him, too.


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 16, 2004)

Shader said:
			
		

> I don't think this is such a problem. If I want to play a smooth, charismatic and slimy guy who can intimidate with his words and his attitude, then I'd love to. But if I wanted to play a huge f*** off barbarian who could flex his muscles and intimidate people, then I want the option of playing him, too.




You still do have that option, and you can easily spend the points for Intimidate, but you should NOT be as good as someone who's very charismatic at intimidating people.  Big stupid brutes pounding their chests are not as scarry as a man who is good with words convincing you that if you do not cooperate, you're family might come to harm.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 16, 2004)

FreeTheSlaves said:
			
		

> In short I believe that the fearsome warrior archetype possesses great charisma, not dumps on it.



 100% agree!

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Drakh (Jun 16, 2004)

heres some rules for using STR to *"enhance"* intimitdate checks while using the rules provided.

1) Visual Strength: As a full round action you can demonstrate your strength on an item to help intimidate the opponent with fear of using that strength to hurt them. Make a Str check vs the targets sense motive check, +4 per size category you are bigger than the opponent. This requires the destruction of an item within your grasp, be it a chair, a dead goblins leg, or a small stick (threats like "ill stap your neck like this twig if you dont tell me what i want to know" will often be as affective as bending an iron bar).
Success: You count your size as being one size category higher (+4) on all subsequent intimidate checks with the target.
Failure: Target does not believe you will hurt them and will not be threatened with a retry.

2) Actual Strength: You can physically threaten your target. You must be able to grab the target and either cause pain or place an item against them that could cause them harm. To do this you must initiate a grapple with the opponent. once you have a hold of them you make a str check vs the targets sense motive check, +4 per size category you are larger than the opponent.
Success: You gain a +4 circumstance bonus to the check.
Failure: Target does not believe you will hurt them and only actual harm will make them believe you and they get a free attempt to break the hold.

1) and 2) are both cumulative with each other - smashing the kobolds spear and then grabing its arm and threatening to treat it the same can work wonders 

These rules can be used by all but its gonna be of more benefit to say Chewbacca than C3P0.

Another Enhancement to Intimidate checks is Torture.

3) Torture: You use Torture devices to intimidate your target. The use of devices is an evil act... Full details of using Torture is listed in the Book of Vile Darkness suppliment and due to the nature of this subject i will refrain from going into detail here.

I personally like this enhancement than actually using Strength instead of charisma.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 16, 2004)

the Jester said:
			
		

> Meh.
> 
> Strength might impress, awe or frighten, but charisma is what makes them do what you want.




That is exactly correct.

Spending a feat to use STR in place of CHR would be cool in my book however.

Also, I'd tend to give Silvertongue Sal a circumstance bonus if he has Muscles Mel there to use in his examples of why you should do things the way Sal would like you to.


----------



## Ottergame (Jun 16, 2004)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Spending a feat to use STR in place of CHR would be cool in my book however.




I wouldn't, since someone can already take Skill Focus and Persuasion to boost up a dinky intimidate skill.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 16, 2004)

In some ways, I think this question acts as a good determiner for whether you treat the pasttime more as a cooperative story or as a game.  Game folks, I think, prefer the charisma-only intimidate; folks that approach it as telling a story together prefer the flexible intimidate.

That said, I'd only allow it in certain, logical situations.  Whereas the charisma-based intimidator might be able to scare a prison guard into letting her go ("You can let me out now--or I can escape sometime during the night, slit your throat, and deliver your severed head to your loving wife, and can't you just imagine her screams?")  the strength-based intimidator isn't going to be able to do much ("Uurgh!  Og smash!" doesn't impress a gaoler very much).

But in a barfight, things might be different.  The 22 str barbarian wants the fighting to stop, so he picks up a table and snaps it in half.  People might not choose his side of the argument, but they sure start paying attention, and the ones that judge him more powerful than themselves are likely as not to stop fighting.  They may run away, they may start trying to pacify him, they might shout for the guards--but they'll stop fighting.

I'd allow it because it's *fun*.  Heck, I'm the charisma-monkey in our group, with a feat and a racial bonus on my charisma checks, and I still love watching the party tank intimidate people.  It leads to a better story for us, leads to a better time for us.

Does it bend the rules a bit?  Sure. But the rules are there to serve the stroy, as far as I'm concerned, and when a rule gets in the way, it gets bent.

Daniel


----------



## UltimaGabe (Jun 17, 2004)

Oh, trust me, I hate it when rules get in the way of the story, or when the focus becomes more on achieving a "perfectly balanced game" than having fun. However, in this case, I think it's less of a rules issue and more of a logic issue. I used to think that Strength should be used instead of Charisma, because I thought that all Charisma was was sweet-talking and being eloquent and smooth of tongue. However, through real-life instances, I came to realize that only a very small amount of Charisma is smooth words and eloquence- it's force of personality. A low charisma character isn't the loud, rude, brash individual, it's the one nobody notices. The one that people see, but disregard. The one that just can't get your attention no matter how hard he tries. In that sense, it's not simply a matter of the rules getting in the way of gameplay- it's a matter of people thinking Charisma is something it isn't. If you know exactly what Charisma is, then there's no other ability score for Intimidation other than Charisma. Strength without Charisma is not intimidating at all.


----------



## silburnl (Jun 17, 2004)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> A low charisma character isn't the loud, rude, brash individual, it's the one nobody notices. The one that people see, but disregard. The one that just can't get your attention no matter how hard he tries.




100% agree. I get very bored when players make Cha a dump stat and then claim that therefore their character is a surly, antisocial bugger, all darkened mien and "I'll be back". 

The character might want to *present* as the nightmarish offspring of Dirty Harry Callahan and an Ahnuld Terminator, but if they are weak in charisma they actually come *across* as Vincini from 'The Princess Bride".

Regards
Luke


----------



## Pielorinho (Jun 17, 2004)

Different ways of playing Charisma, I guess. I don't want players to have to pay through the nose in order to have a memorable personality, and I don't want fighters to be useless during noncombat scenes (which my games have a whole lot of).  I've never seen anyone play a Dirty Harry character with a high charisma, and I don't feel deprived .  

When a sorcerer makes strength a dump stat, I'm fine by that, and it's got specific numeric limitations that don't much affect how the player plays the character's personality.  The sorcerer can work around the strength limitations via other means--using crossbows, picking up a handy haversack, etc.  I try to make charisma the same thing:  I don't want it to limit a player's fun in creating and playing a personality, and I want there to be ways to get around the limitations.

It's all about the fun.

Daniel


----------



## RigaMortus (Jun 17, 2004)

Intimidation is all about Charisma.  Strength has pretty much nothing to do with it.  Strength is a purely physical-based attribute, and Charisma is a purely mental or emotional-based attribute.  When I think of someone trying to intimidate another person, I picture their tone of voice, their facial expressions, their words and their hand motions or general body language.  All of these little "characteristics" of intimidation are non-physical, or Charisma based.  If you used Strength in place of Charisma, you wouldn't be reacting in the same manner.  Strength doesn't determine your tone of voice, your words or your body language.  It determines if you hit something, if you hurt something, or if you break something.  And if you are doing that to a target, it is not intimidating but attack or torturing.  A big difference...



			
				Three_Haligonians said:
			
		

> As for barbarians with a Cha of 6 who are dumb-looking, it is true that their screaming madly won't be that intimidating, however if this same barbarian had a 22 Str and managed to bend the guy's sword in half... that's a different story.
> 
> J from Three Haligonians




What you describe here is NOT a Strength check, but a Charisma check with a possible circumstance bonus.  This is how I would handle the above scenario.

DM: Make a Strength check to see if you can bend the sword (DC would be something high, at least a 25 if not 30 - 35).

If the check succeeded, I would give a circumstance bonus to the intimidate check (Charisma based).  Probably just a +2, which is standard, but I might even give a +4 to the check based on the fact he just bent a metal weapon in his hands.  That would be the correct way to resolve the above scenario IMO of course...


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 17, 2004)

We have two charismatic characters in the party.

Character A is a dark brooding figure short on words and big on presence (Stirling Mortlock to any rugby fans). He is arrogant, assured and fearless.

Character B is a religious disciple with high reaching connections and a calming, good spirited influence (sort of like Tana Umaga). He is reasonable and humble.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Frankly I am of the opinion that for any character to have serious cool factor, they must have good charisma.


----------



## cybermonkey (Jun 17, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> If the check succeeded, I would give a circumstance bonus to the intimidate check (Charisma based).  Probably just a +2, which is standard, but I might even give a +4 to the check based on the fact he just bent a metal weapon in his hands.  That would be the correct way to resolve the above scenario IMO of course...




Perhaps that is what is needed: A strong person performs some act to display his strength and adds a circumstance bonus to the Intimidation check. This can also be done when a Charimatic leader has one of his goons perform some great strength act.

I keep picturing the executioner in "Shrek" punching the hand-held mirror to the other mirror to talk.


----------

