D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[Vikingkingq]

Perhaps, but major armstrong has quite a few episodes where he shows that simply flexing& pantomiming an attack can convey entirely undesired & less than helpful threats

Sure, that works. But I would also say that this is also a classic of an Intimidation (Strength) check (albeit a failed one).

And one that doesn't involve an initiative check...

 

[Yaarel]

I feel Intimidation is ALWAYS a Charisma check.

At the same time, the intimidator must ALWAYS have a credible threat.

In the case of the nonphysical Halfling bank accountant, the credible threat might be to ruin the bank account.

In the case of the oversized Orc, the immediate threat of physical violence is its own credible threat, but the Orc still requires a Charisma check to pull it off.

If the Orc fails the Charisma check, then those threatened perceive the Orc as an insignificant disruption that must be eliminated immediately. The humanly relatable presence would be missing.

To intimidate in any meaningful way requires social skills to "steer" the persons threatened.

The charismatic Orc that utilizes threats savvily gets ones way − and gets respected for it.

 

[Pauln6]

as it should be, throwing someone against the wall is no intimidating someone of what can you do to them, but displaying what you can do to them. It's a direct attack.

Not everyone wants a fight. Plus if it's someone you already knocked to 0hp, they may not want to fight but still might not want to talk. Context is everything.

I might let a wizard use int to intimidate using the threat of magic or possibly an illusion or a priest to use the threat of divine retribution for breaching religious strictures back up by Thaumaturgy. Charisma often feels like the least appropriate stat for intimidate rolls.

 

[Horwath]

Not everyone wants a fight. Plus if it's someone you already knocked to 0hp, they may not want to fight but still might not want to talk. Context is everything.

I might let a wizard use int to intimidate using the threat of magic or possibly an illusion or a priest to use the threat of divine retribution for breaching religious strictures back up by Thaumaturgy. Charisma often feels like the least appropriate stat for intimidate rolls.

throwing strength around or making some elaborate threat is the message, but CHA is the messenger, it's how you present the threat, your force of personality.

I've seen lot's of times buffed up guys throwing their weight around and no one taking them seriously, some times even laughing at them.

 

[Pauln6]

throwing strength around or making some elaborate threat is the message, but CHA is the messenger, it's how you present the threat, your force of personality.

I've seen lot's of times buffed up guys throwing their weight around and no one taking them seriously, some times even laughing at them.

Context is king and if that works in your game and your gym life then that's cool. But equally an 8 stone weakling with a gob on them may be seen as if their threat is not credible. Don't mistake what in game terms was a failure to succeed on a roll as opposed to a suggestion that the roll was not appropriate. I might even let them try again using a different ability score if the first one didn't work by adjustingtheir method. So threat of violence doesn't work. Threat of revealing their corrupt practices might. Context.

End of day, if you and your players think it's appropriate, roll with it (literally) and vice versa.

 

[James Gasik]

Context is king and if that works in your game and your gym life then that's cool. But equally an 8 stone weakling with a gob on them may be seen as if their threat is not credible. Don't mistake what in game terms was a failure to succeed on a roll as opposed to a suggestion that the roll was not appropriate. I might even let them try again using a different ability score if the first one didn't work by adjustingtheir method. So threat of violence doesn't work. Threat of revealing their corrupt practices might. Context.

End of day, if you and your players think it's appropriate, roll with it (literally) and vice versa.

While there's nothing wrong with Strength (Intimidation), I personally would prefer to keep it Charisma-based, but instead apply advantage or disadvantage if the one making the check seems particularly dangerous or not.

So the 8 Strength/19 Charisma Halfling Sorceress that you could carry with one arm might get disadvantage (unless she waves a fireball under your nose) and the 19 Strength/8 Charisma Goliath Barbarian might get advantage by looming menacingly over you.

 

[mellored]

throwing strength around or making some elaborate threat is the message, but CHA is the messenger, it's how you present the threat, your force of personality.

I've seen lot's of times buffed up guys throwing their weight around and no one taking them seriously, some times even laughing at them.

For example...

 

[tetrasodium]

For example...

I had a warforge character with a PrC that gave -1persuade/+1intimidate/level who would use intimidate for every social interaction way back just like batsy there, tons of fun

 

[ECMO3]

Throwing someone against the wall and threatening to break them is an intimidation (str) roll without question.

I would disagree. I think that is still charisma because it is related to how believable you can make the threat (whether real or not).

I just don't find strength or feats of strength to be very intimidating. It is the threat of violence that would be intimidating and your charisma is what would convince someone that violence was coming or that it would be bad.

For example spraying someone with mace or shooting someone with a gun is the same sort of threat and none of these need any sort of strength.

As someone else above mentioned, using your strength to throw someone up against a wall to intimidate them could grant advantage if you were particularly strong, likewise shooting their captured ally before threatening the next guy with a gun would grant advantage on that check, or alternatively having my 8 strength character threaten to break your legs might be a disadvantage situation.

 

[ECMO3]

Sometimes just showing, you can do it better or that you can hurt someone really bad can be done by the most uncharismatic person. It might even increase the chance to convince the other one.

Or sometimes you will laugh at the big bufoon. That is why strength makes no sense to me.

What you think of is deception or performance. You make people think you could hurt them. If your intend is really hurt them, if they don't give you information, intimidation(str) works well.

I just don't think this is strength to pull, this off, especially in the 5E where physical strength alone is nearly meaningless to being able to actually hurt someone.

Turn this around on the level 15 PCs - how scared is your Wizard going to be when a 15 Strength, CR1/2 thug throws you up against the wall? Not very!