Masters of the Wild bloopers

[Arcane Runes Press]

The reasons for the Strength based VARIANT RULE on Intimidation are directly outlined in the sidebar. The most important part is "the barbarian, regardless of his might, can still fail to intimidate foes who are cowed by the stylish bard or the magnetic sorcerer."

It's a metagame issue.

The archetypal Barbarian is a Half-orc. The half-orc gets a -2 penalty to Charisma. WoTC, regardless of what they say about making Charisma better, still considers Charisma to be the dump stat for the warrior types. Look to the default DMG Barbarian. He has an 8 charisma if he is human, a SIX if he is a half-orc.

As it stands, only 2 classes have Intimidation as a class skill, the Barbarian and the Rogue. Problem is that the default sorcerer, bard and paladin,through virtue of their Charisma bonus, begin the game being just as good at Intimidation as the Barbarian without the need to buy a single skill rank. Basically, WoTC is trying to give one of the only classes with Intimidation as a class skill a reason to take the skill at all.

Personally, I applaud the move. I have no problem at all with Strong people being just as good at Intimidation. I view it this way: Both the strong and the charismatic know how to use the gifts the gods gave them to get others to do what they want. As it says in the PHB "Intimidation includes verbal threats and body language."

Verbal threats = the silver tongued devil's charisma
Body language = the legbreaker's rippling muscles

As the MoTW says regarding using Strength instead of Charisma "This assumes....that he accompanies such attempts with appropriate displays of might." APPROPRIATE displays. In other words, he can cow a group of peasants by smashing his fist through a wall, but that same display is not an APPROPRIATE level of might to intimidate a high level fighter.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

I am just glad Monte, Jonathon and Skip understand roleplaying.

Oh, brother. Here, allow me to retort with something equally stupid:

"I'm just glad that David Eckelberry and Mike Selinker didn't get beat up alot in school, so they have no prejudice against the big and strong."

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

That is all reasonable.

But let me ask this then, In your opinion, which should be better at using intimidate, a CHA 8 STR 18 barbarian or a CHA 14 STR 18 barbarian? Using the optional rule as presented, they would be the same.

I don't see how a low self-esteem Half-Orc is going to get away from having a -1 adjustment just through a a show of strenght unless the DM lets the player ignore the effects of his dump stat. Mechanics to let players simply ignore their dump stats are rarely a good thing.

The circumstance rule presented by CRGreathouse accomplishes the goal you presented without letting the half-orc ignore part of the race's balancing mechanics.

 

[blickish]

You've missed a key element of the definition

of Charisma in the PHB.

"It represents actual personal strength, not merely how one is perceived by others in an social setting."


Assuming (broadly) that all high Strength characters are lumpy mountains of muscle, who'd sooner pound you flat than look at you, does not make them Intimidating. The muscle bound oaf cracking walnuts with his bare hands may be perceived as threatening, but until he gives you that twisted sneer and mimes cracking a couple other nuts in his bare hands, he's not Intimidating.

Mike Tyson isn't Intimidating until he threatens to bite off your face.

In social situations, Hannibal Lecter is a refined gentleman. If you met a "Hannibal Lecter" at the opera, you would be charmed and dazzled by his poise and personal magnetism. We are only Intimidated by Hannibal Lecter because, as the audience, we know he's going to eat our liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Likewise, his next victim will have no inkling of what's in store until it's too late. By then he's already peeled his own face off with a shard of glass, because it seemed like such a good idea at the time.

Hannibal Lecter isn't Intimidating until he uses the power of suggestion.

The wry rogue with the rapier wit can be just as Intimidating as the snarling barbarian with the bloody axe can be just as Intimidating as the blue blooded aristocrat with the disdainful sneer can be just as Intimidating as the mysterious foreigener with the seductive charm. Your black mask or your bulging physique or your lofty position or your dangerous beauty may be perceived as threatening, but until you put your personality to work behind these things you are not Intimidating.

Which is to say, Intimidation is a function of Charisma, and nothing more.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Oh, brother. Here, allow me to retort with something equally stupid:

"I'm just glad that David Eckelberry and Mike Selinker didn't get beat up alot in school, so they have no prejudice against the big and strong."

You are right. That one was stupid. I'll plead frustration with lack of reasonable presentation of arguement to that point. But it was still stupid. I apologize.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: You've missed a key element of the definition

Which is to say, Intimidation is a function of Charisma, and nothing more.

*Cough*

Charisma, special circumstance bonuses, and nothing more.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Re: You've missed a key element of the definition

of Charisma in the PHB.

"It represents actual personal strength, not merely how one is perceived by others in an social setting."


Assuming (broadly) that all high Strength characters are lumpy mountains of muscle, who'd sooner pound you flat than look at you, does not make them Intimidating. The muscle bound oaf cracking walnuts with his bare hands may be perceived as threatening, but until he gives you that twisted sneer and mimes cracking a couple other nuts in his bare hands, he's not Intimidating.

First, the PHB's description of Charisma doesn't fully jibe with how it's used in play. Even parts of the description conflict with one another. The dwarf gets a penalty to charisma because he's "gruff and reserved". So gruff and reserved people lack personal strength in all cases? Half orcs are "crude". Crude = lacking in personal strength in all cases? In FR, Air Genasi get a penalty because they are "arrogant". Since when are arrogant people automatically lacking in personal strength? Earth genasi get a penalty because they are "stubborn", Fire Genasi because they are "quick to anger" and water genasi because they are "emotionally distant". Tiefling lose charisma because they "tend to disturb people". Wood elves because they are less "intuitive". Deep gnomes have a - 4 because they are "retiring", Duergar a -4 because they are "guarded". Since when do these things automatically equate to a lack of "personal strength".

Second, the oaf's intimation of violence is backed by a credible display of violence. I see it this way:

The Rogue with Charisma 18 and Strength 8 is cracking walnuts with the hilt of a dagger. He looks at you, gives a twisted sneer and mimes cracking a couple other nuts with his dagger hilt. For Intimidation purposes, his lack of credible physical power (STR 8) is balanced by his force of personality (CHA 18) and knowledge of how to use that sinister personality to best effect (Skill ranks).

The Barbarian with Charisma 8 and Strength 18 is cracking walnuts with his fingers. He looks at you, gives a twisted sneer and mimes cracking a couple of other nuts in his bare hands. For Intimidation purposes, his lack of presence (CHA 8) is balanced by his overabundance of credible physical power (STR 18) and knowledge of how to use that rippling physique to best effect (skill ranks).

Like it says in the sidebar, using Strength instead of Charisma requires "appropriate displays of might". There will be times when there is no display of might that is suitable to cow the victim. In other words, Charisma is still the primary stat that governs Intimidation, as it can (almost) ALWAYS be used.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Again I agree that your points are reasonable.

I particularly agree that WoTC has not been consistent.

But I don't buy your example of the Strength 8 rogue. You have forced him to use brute strength as an element of intimidation. There is no reason that need be the case. I would see the case you described as being a case where the Rogue either had few ranks or made a bad roll, either way he did not come up with a good threat.

On the other hand you have described the Cha 8 barbarian as miming and giving a twisted snear. You have ignored the effect an 8 CHR would have on his ability to pull this off well. Does an 8 mean he can not do it? Not at all, it only gives a simple -1 on a d20 roll. It just means there is a small chance his self-consciousness will cause him to drop a walnut, thereby looking stupid instead of scary. Or any of a hundred other explanations for why his lack of personal strength would over-ride his physical strength in a social interaction. Maybe he tries to snear and just makes a stupid face. The details don't matter.

Like it says in the sidebar, using Strength instead of Charisma requires "appropriate displays of might". There will be times when there is no display of might that is suitable to cow the victim. In other words, Charisma is still the primary stat that governs Intimidation, as it can (almost) ALWAYS be used.

I just don't buy the "almost". Given an appropriate display of strength, certain circumstances should certainly allow a bonus, but high or low CHR should always play into social interaction.

 

[blickish]

Special Circumstance Bogus

I completely agree. Strength check vs. constant DC should provide a possible circumstance bonus to the check, but shouldn't replace the Cha entirely. ("I twist the iron bar into a knot to intimidate the guy." "OK, make a DC 20 Str check; failure means a -2 penalty and success means a +2 bonus.")

"I twist the iron bar into a knot to indimidate the guy"

"I casually throw knowledge of quantum dymanics into the conversation to intimidate the guy"

"I juggle 3 keen vorpal daggers with one hand to intimidate the guy"

"I drain the goblet of poisoned wine and smack my lips to intimidate the guy"

"I point out the oh so obvious flaws in his Flawless Plan to intimidate the guy"

"I let shoulder of my tunic slip down, exposing an inviting expanse of creamy smooth skin to intimidate the guy"

"Great idea! Really fits your character concept. Make an Intimidation Check to see if you can pull it off"

Why force special circumstance bonuses and another die roll? Intimidation is about the character using her personal strengths to her advantage. Whether her personal strength is rooted in her Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, Constitution, Wisdom or Charisma, it should all be the same Charisma-based Intimidation check, because her strength of character is a function of her Charisma.

Hugo the horseshoe maker bends iron bars into knots for a living. He is a gentle soul, at peace with the world and happy in his little corner of the market. When a couple of thugs come by looking for protection money he can give in to their demands or he can look inside himself for the strength to defy them and maintain his sense of self respect. His mind made up, Hugo takes a large iron rod from the brazier and twists it into a smoking pretzel while explaining to the nice young gentlemen that there must be some mistake and encouraging them to take their business elsewhere, somewhere far from the stall of Hugo the Horseshoe Maker and far from this area of the market.

 

[Killer Shrike]

All the proponants of STR based Intimidate, are missing the fact that if a STR 18 CHR 8 Half-orc timidly walk up to you and says "Um, would you, um, drop your sword, if you want..." while crushing an Iron bar would you be intimidated? Not in the least. And that's what a CHR 8 characters going to be like. He won't have the self-confidence to intimidate someone.

Not at all. The half-orc would need to be confident in his abilities to even attempt to bend the iron bar. If the half-orc wasnt 'confident' in the first place, he would never be secure enough in his own capability to bend the bar in a pressure situation.

All that aside, the idea of Charisma as confidence is flawed in and of itself. Charisma is savoir fair, a personal magnetism, a combined innate and developed ability to manipulate others, an understanding of interpersonal dynamix. Ive known plenty of 'Charismatic' people who were not particularly brave, confident, or secure in themselves. Great manipulators of other people, who undoubtedly have and use 'Charisma' are not necessarily strong willed or sure of themselves.

In game terms, as someone else pointed out Dwarves have a Cha penalty as well, but they are not portrayed as being wishy-washy types that suffer from a lack of confidence. They suffer a Cha penalty because they are not skilled at getting along with others. They tend to be surly and insular; in short unfriendly.

Intimidation is not based upon schmoozing your way thru situations; thats what Bluff is for. Nor is it about appealing to others sense of compromise and getting the most gain for the least cost risk; thats Diplomacy at work.

Intimidate is confrontational. Whether you are Intimidating by situational threats 'If you dont do what I want, the organization I am a part of will make your life miserable and possibly shorter', coersion 'Do what I want or something bad will happen to you or someone close to you', personal strength of will 'Do what I say because I said to', or immediate threat 'Do what I want or Ill bend your knees the wrong way', Intimidation is always a form of confrontation.

I did 5 years in the USMC, and I met plenty of people with the personalities and self-awareness of wooden posts and their sheer bloody mindedness and willingness to engage in sudden physical violence made them Intimidating. While in the Corps, I was trained in the rudiments of Interrogation and how to resist Interrogation. "Physical Coersion" is the most crude means to an end, but it is often the most effective. Most people (particularly at the lower-echelon of mental capacity) respond fastest to threat of bodily harm and overt intimidation. The rare few that are hardened against this type of coersion or those you wish to turn are worked on via more subtle means but fear of harm and the threat of violence works fastest and easiest against the majority.

Now, to bring it home to game terms, if a barbarian is attempting to Intimidate an opponent and does some feat of strength or threatens the opponent with immediate violence (ham-sized fist balled up under thier nose for example) the DM could allow a Strength check to allow a +2 situational modifier to the Intimidate roll. Thats certainly one way to handle it.

However, in a pre-industrial fantasy setting civilized people fear the "BARBARIANs" that exist outside of thier laws and therefore thier control, living by force of arms and strength. Barbarians are frightening because they dont play by the same rules as 'civilized' people and in fact may even be unaware of them. Barbarians do what they want with little thought to the consequences. They are prone to violence, and are as likely to kill a 'civilized' man as to trade with them. Barbarians are prone to insane rages, and will fight on even after taking a mortal wound. Whether it's true or false of a particular "barbarian" is immaterial. As long as they look the part of a wild-eyed large-thewed brute people will be unwilling to anger them and prone to heed thier threats of physical violence because it plays into thier predefined beliefs.

Thus I dont think it is unreasonable to allow the Barbarian class the option to use thier Strength modifiers for Intimidate is they so choose as a class feature similar in nature to the rule that only a Rogue can hit Search checks higher than 25 to find traps, regardless of what is rolled on the dice. It's not overwhelming or unbalancing. In fact, the rules for Intimidate are already so vague and unspecified that it makes very little difference regardless. 'You may change other's behavior ' is fairly non-descriptive and open to DM interpretation.
********
Somebody earlier was making a differentiation between Intimidate and Scare. I would just like to point out that a targets save bonuses vs fear (if any) are added to the DC to Intimidate that person. This is a clear indication that Intimidation is based on frightening (syn. scaring) the opponent.

Further, as to using fast talk and guile to assist in an Intimidation check, 5 ranks in Bluff grant a +2 Synergy bonus to Intimidate. Intimidation is founded on confronting an opponent and forcing them to do what you want via fear. Getting them to do what you want because its in thier best interests is Diplomacy, and tricking them to do what you want is Bluff.

In a level system like D&D a higher level character is simply more powerful than lower level characters and therefore should have the capability to intimidate lower level characters just based on thier potential for destruction. Also, why isnt Intimidate opposed? Since its not all characters of the same level are equally likely to be Intimidated by an opponent, regardless of ability scores or even a feat like "Iron Will" which would seem to indicate a greater capacity to resist coersion.

Whatever. My point is the Intimidate skill isnt very useful anyway and is totally up to the DMs interpretation, so granting Barbarians the Str v Cha option is not a big deal, IMHO.