Why the fuck is Intimidate a Charisma-reliant skill and not a Strength-reliant skill...

>playing 5e game
>Romanesque fighter hired by party to help them out
>friends with everyone but the GM
>have criminal tied up and are trying to find out where the mob boss is
>refuses to crack
>pick him up and haul him over to the window
>we are in a tower on the wall that is acting as guard station
>say "If you don't tell me where your boss is, I will throw you from this window. You being stubborn just makes us waste time looking for other means, your death is not a dead end in our investigation."
>GM tells me to roll intimidate
>get a 2
>"He laughs at you."
>drop him
>rest of the group's face when

It's less a measure of your ability to be scary, more of their ability to grow a pair. Window guy is fondly remembered for being a heroic bastard unwilling to oust his brothers.

>Used to have the perfect reaction image for this
>Just re-formatted

Here's a good intimdation roll,

>"Did you ever have a dream of a large man, breaking into your house and killing your children and your pets and you lover? Before burning it all down to the ground? That was me. Please answer the lady's question."

It looks so much better in the comic but I gotta track it down. Intimidation = "Is he actually willing to carry out that threat? And if so can he pull it off?"

youtu.be/fzxt-AWEnHg?t=276

best explanation I've got of the difference between intimidate and combat capability is link related, dude making the threats is a Roman centurion and absolutely capable of backing up his threats with force, but the other guy just isn't buying it. Some days actually being good at murder isn't enough to convince someone you're good at murder.

You know, a non-buff and old inquisitor with a torture instrument kit standing next to you could be more terrifying then a RIPPED but friendly looking guard trying to pass for a torturer.

Although I entirely agree on your cheerleader example. Its not a problem with intimidate, rather with the fact that charisma can be interpreted differently. Like an average looking person who has good oratory and acting skills versus handsome attractive person who gets what he/she wants using looks.

There's a feat in pathfinder that allows you to add your STR modifier to all intimidate rolls.

There you go.

Intimidate isn't just scaring people.
It's scaring them the way you want, so they do the thing you want.

When a str 20 cha 8 barbarian botches an intimidate roll to make the spy say who he's working for, it's not because he's not scary. It's because the spy is scared in the wrong way. Maybe he shuts down and starts babbling. Maybe he enters fight-or-flight mode and tries his best to resist. Maybe he just faints.
When a str 8 cha 20 cheerleader passes an intimidate roll, it's not because she's more scary. It's because she makes just the right threat in just the right way to get the spy to spill his guts.

>High strength, Low charisma
"despite your great bulk, you come across as a teddy bear asking for a handout, rather than scaring him"
>low strength, High charisma
"despite your lean look, you manage to sound menacing enough that they buy your threat"
>High strength, High Charisma
"hey kid, give me your adventuring money or i pound you"
"you gain advantage on your intimidate roll"

If a guy with muscle comes up to you and says "I-i-i-i'm gonnae... uh... shag ye! Ah'm gonnae beast ye!" are you gonna take him seriously?

>extremely powerful and famous warrior comes up to a girl

>y-you t-too

You can't just win by looking good.

> Veeky Forums believes this.

One need only look at Veeky Forums to see real life precedent

Counterpoint: a 45 kg dweeb manlet with a gun pointing at you.

>the question isn't if I'm going to pull the trigger
>it's if I can even physically pull the trigger with these noodly arms

Charisma is more about the force of your personality. A bodybuilder can be a total bitch too you know.

>being scared of women, regardless of size

lol?

if you arent scared of a woman in power armor, trained to rip and tear, and wielding holy flame you are one of three
>an MEQ/TEQ
>a close combat monster
>really stupid

...

I'm all three

Eater pls

Here's Lenny, from Of Mice and Men.
One of the points in the book is that, despite his strength, nobody takes him seriously because he's so dumb, ultimately resulting in deaths that could have been easily avoided.

damn son calm down

youtu.be/wMEq1mGpP5A

Because being the one who knocks does not take muscles.

If you need to use strength then you are stacking up the bonuses the come from actually beating up the fucker when you aren't good at communicating how readily you can do such.

Have you ever seen Fist of the North Star? The entire series is full of absurdly powerful characters botching intimidate checks.

"Who wants to die should make a step forward." says Kenshiro to an army a thousand strong after deflecting hundreds of arrows with his fists. EVERYONE make a step forward. EVERY TIME.

That costing an entire feat slot is bullshit, though.

I'm just wondering why it's not intelligence-driven. You can intimidate people really fast if you know the right words.

>You can intimidate people really fast if you know the right words.

So...Charisma?

Does anyone on Veeky Forums actually strike you as intimidating?

We have this same fucking thread every day, where people confuse Charisma and Appearance and shitpost the same stale memes like "CHARISMA IS YOUR DICK SIZE IN INCHES LMAO :^)".
I cannot calm down. I do not condone this rampant shitposting where people pretend to be retarded just to conceal the fact that they are actually retarded.

Dude, it's a post on Veeky Forums. You are getting angry about a post. On Veeky Forums.

It is an arrangement of lights on a screen on that you use when you take a break from fapping to other arrangements of lights on a screen that come from japan.

It's an anonymous Thai pottery board.

It's Veeky Forums.

I enjoy this rage. You will come to enjoy it too someday.

There's a difference between getting angry at a post and getting angry at the person behind it.
The former doesn't happen aside from strawmen, and the second is a natural consequence of people interacting.
I might not be meeting the retard I'm getting mad at face to face, but he's still out there in real life shilling his opinions and maybe even acting on them, and that in turn makes me madder.

Vocab is intelligence based

>"Reveal the clandestine information or I'll bifurcate your patella"
>the wizard ejaculated

Because clowns aren't strong. And in some systems (I.e. HeXXen) it is.

>implying you don't find this man intimidating as fuck

Because there are dozens of ways to intimidate someone, and very few of them require strength. However, all of them require convincing your victim to cooperate with you.

INT, WIS and CHA are just three retarded versions of the same thing, much like STR, DEX and CON.

absent-minded professor vs. mountain sage
most people would point out that they have 2 very different types of thinking going on, and that having both these people be governed under a single attribute would make that attribute so broad as to not describe anything at all

Sounds like the pitch for another minimal rules meme system

>Brains vs Brawns
>only two attributes are brain and brawn
>brains get twice as many skill points but the system is entirely combat based so Brawns win anyway

Fifteen million dollars on kickstarter

So Brutalis Rockmunch the 7'11 man-beast with hands like shovels and the shoulder span of an elephant has the same mechanical chance to succeed at squeezing through a narrow tunnel as Keebler Silvertree, the elven thief who practically dislocates his joints for a living?
Smarmy Adman the buzzword-spewing salesman who covers up his fundamental ignorance with memorized buzzwords and fast talking obviously has the same chance at solving a math problem as Autismo Numbercrunch, who has the computing speed of a Pentagon supercomputer but consumes 20% of the global production of hugboxes and can't link "no" to "she doesn't want to have the sex with me".
And if you're going to say "but you can solve that with abilities", you can as well remove attributes entirely, because they're either going to have to not apply in a lot of arbitrary cases or result in games where a cat can take as many blows as a fully armored soldier because the cat's dexterity and thus its total physical stat is higher.

Character stats should be even more abstract?
So you have even less idea how each character is formed?

In 40k roleplaying it does in fact use strength. And I always found it stupid. When I GM I roll Intiidation from any stat that makes sense given certain method characters are using, sometimes even using double checks - say a mix of Fellowship and Ballistic Skill for threatening people with a gun, or even using character knowledge skills (or lack of them). In some systems using fame/notoriety/infamy statrs for intimidation actually amkes more sense than any other stat

OH I would 'give it to her' alright if you appreciate I mean that I would engage in sexual activity with her. No matter what.

Strength-based intimidation skill is idiotic.

Strength differential between you and the other person giving some kind of modifier if your threat relies on your ability to kick the shit out of them makes sense.

Another argument that could have been avoided if "White Wolf is edgy so everything about the oWoD is bad forever no matter if it mainly suffers from bad editing" wasn't a meme.
At least the system operates on logic and real-world parallels instead of setting up RPG physics which autists will proceed to metagame and min-max while arguing about details that should be obvious for people who know that "outside" isn't a dungeon recommended for level 18 (that most of them enter at level 32).

>that big guy's face when the dude he's trying to intimidate is fucking batshit

Wrong. It was me. And it wasn't a dream.

I certainly accept that charisma is more than just beauty. I also accept that a person can use their air of authority to unsettle people. What I don't accept is that the Hulk has a high charisma. Or are you saying that a skilled orator is more frightening that the Hulk?

A skilled orator can be more frightening than the Hulk, but in a different way (Charisma-based versus Strength-based).
The Hulk might not be good at swaying people's emotions or telling lies, but he can point a bus at someone and see if they feel like arguing.
The skilled orator might not be able to lift a bus or even a 20-kilo dumbbell, but he can convince people of a lot more things using guile, profiling and general people skills than the Hulk can. For example, he could try to use his experience with crowd reading to take a guess at what people are thinking and cut in front of them to unnerve them; he could pretend to be a part of a criminal organization or otherwise have the ability to sic people on his enemies; he could threaten people using personal information about their family or friends; he could actually pretend to be friendly and make up a danger separate from himself ("Shit, did you hear that? They're coming - follow me and let's gun it") or he could just mimic the mannerisms of a complete sociopath or mentally ill person, something that instinctually sets people on edge.
Intimidation that runs on the threat of the user perpetrating grievous physical violence against the target in the moment is Strength.
Intimidation that runs on the implication of the user being well-connected, powerful, cruel or bearing a grudge is Charisma.

Are you saying that all fear is equally useful for intimidation purposes? Are you saying that all intimidation is "Give me what I want or I'll beat you up"?

What if you're intimidating someone via blackmailing them, that'd be intimidate, right? You see the Hulk doing that? What if your intimidation is based around an indirect threat, to a loved one. "HULK SMASH" doesn't really get you there, does it?

The real question is why you would ever use intimidate in the first place when difference between it and diplomacy is
Attempt to persuade target but they hate you if you fail
Or
Attempt to persuade target but they refuse if you fail

They should just be the same skill and rename is cajole or something

I'm not saying you can't be intimidating if you're weak. I *am* saying that you can be plenty intimidating if you're not charismatic. I would argue that the Hulk actually has a low charisma, and if intimidation is based solely off charisma, that should make him less intimidating than your average Joe. It may be that an intimidation skill should use either charisma or strength, or that it should be broken into two similar skills that overlap, but have some distinct uses. But in a game like D&D, I'd argue that strength has at least as legitimate a tie to intimidation attempts as charisma--more, honestly, given the way it's typically used. On the other hand, in a sci-fi game with guns and shit, I would expect strength to play a smaller role.

Skill ranks and circumstantial bonuses are a thing you know.
Even with 0 charisma if the hulk is level 20 and he's intimidating a commoner he has little chance to fail. But if he's trying to intimidate Galactus then all his strength doesn't amount to much.

Consider the following: Charisma is the main stat for Intimidation, but you can base it off Strength with a feat.
The feat would be called something along the lines of Violent Diplomacy.

In a game like dnd strength has even less reason to be factored in intimidate as the hulking barbarian with 20 strength is actually much less dangerous than the old man with strength 6 but ten wizard levels.

It's a matter of degree.
To be simple, there are four degrees of convincing someone.
There's diplomacy, which is "I am X and I have Y. You have Z, which I want, so let's talk it out." In that case, you won't risk much if you fail, because you're being honest and not deceiving people - but on the other hand, you're leaving yourself open to dirtier strategies and can't accomplish a lot. In the oWoD, it's Charisma+Etiquette or Charisma+Empathy, depending on if it's actual diplomacy or just talking to someone.
Then there's deception, in which you want something from the target which they can provide unknowingly or while being deceived about it, for example money. You have more means at your disposal because you aren't telling the truth, but you'll end up with a minor problem on your hands if they figure you out. In the oWoD, this is Manipulation+Subterfuge.
Then there's blackmail, in which you use the threat of something happening later on (a kidnapping, setting fire to someone's house, your cousins coming over to kneecap the target). You use this when you can't plausibly get what you want from the target through deception (for example "Bring me the head of your wife on a silver plate and I'll let your daughter live"). You're already picking a fight from square 1, but you do this because there's no other option, and since you have a lot of means at your disposal, you can mitigate the risk. In the oWoD, this is Manipulation+Intimidation.
And then there's the physical threat, which is as simple as "I look scary and you don't, so do what I want now or you're paste". That's Strength+Intimidation.

People and their interactions aren't that simple. Intimidation exists in the real world for a reason, and your way of thinking is metagaming that assumes that the GM will always have to continue the plot and that players should thus always cut the risk. It's also simplistic and suggests a childish view of people as NPCs who have preordained reactions to stimuli.

And that is what the GM is for. Because you don't always get clear cut examples. And I would point out, that if you ARE trying to intimidate someone based on immediate physical harm, the victim's own physical prowess should contribute to the DC, when by RAW it doesn't.

But just in general, the GM should be applying different situational bonuses and penalties to things. Once, a long time ago, we had a low power DnD game, and the party rogue was pretending to be sick to a healer, who was actually examining him in his "office". Guess what? I made him do an opposed bluff vs heal check, instead of the classic bluff vs sense motive, because, you know, the NPC is using his medical knowledge, such as it is, to note if the guy's sick, rather than his innate knowledge of people.

You're supposed to be flexible. Rigid autistic DMing will make shit of any system.

In a fantasy game there are a hundred way in which a character can be extremely dangerous without using strength. The big huge brute is way less intimidating than the scrawny guy who made a pact with demons and just torched a village or the humble priest that you know has a God protecting him with angels on his speed dial.

If you don't want to consider a level disparity a circumstantial bonus then what you want would that intimidate is based on player level, not on a characteristic.

Charisma is R. Lee Ermey going from a skinny old man to Gunnery Sergeant Hartman.

Strength is nothing about it.

youtube.com/watch?v=71Lft6EQh-Y

I completely agree with your statements. But in terms of DnD at least it comes down to two different skills that serves a functional difference but essentially have no mechanical difference. If I want to make a guy who can convince people I have to dump all my points into 'talk nicely' or 'talk threateningly' and apply that hammer to every nail I see because if I split between the two skills I'll be terrible at both.

I completely agree that a good DM can fix this problem but it would be helpful if the mechanics were designed intelligently from the get go, something like make Diplomacy have penalties when used on targets that dislike you and intimidate have penalties on targets that like you.

I actually advocate basing it on level. Level modified by any one stat that's immediately obvious (strength, constitution, charisma) or you can bring into play (dexterity, wisdom, intelligence).

Strength relates to size and apparent power. Constitution also relates somewhat to size and to health / durability. Charisma applies even if you don't talk by your air of authority and the way you carry yourself.

The others are a bit trickier. I had a knife-thrower intimidate somebody by casually but repeatedly flipping and catching a knife (without looking at it) while talking to them. That would be the dexterity way to intimidate. Intelligence or wisdom would require you to be incisive some way. A computer hacker who says he's disabled somebody's security protocols and that he can overload the reactor at the push of a button on his phone might fall under intelligence. For wisdom, I'm not sure. Maybe you'd find a way to get at somebody's insecurities or phobias.

But honestly, I could take or leave the attribute part. Sheer level is what's important.

This is actually a good argument for making "intimidate" strength-based and having "persuade" be a broad skill that overlaps "intimidate" some.

>Pathfinder

>Intimidating Prowess

Pretty much all versions of DnD explicitly mention that the DM can allow you to make a skill roll with a stat that you normally couldn't if the situation calls for it. When Hulk tries to intimidate people his player asks the DM if he can roll STR instead of CHA and the DM says yes becsuse it fits the situation. Stuff like this is literally the reason we have DMs.

Not him, but intimidation is Zero charisma. You want something, you make it very clear that if the person does not give to you, you're going to hurt them. A lot. Faced with those options no sane person would chose to get hurt because "you didn't sound threatening, despite having a gun in hand".

seriously, if i point a gun to your head and you don't give me stuff, what can happen is that you're going to get shot and i get the stuff anyway.

If that's the situation, there'd generally not be a reason to roll for it at all.

Did he laugh while he was falling as well?

that would be badass.

Fucking up an intimidate check doesn't mean you're not scaring the NPC. It means you didn't scare them into doing what you wanted them to do.
For example, screwing up an intimidate check with a gun to the NPC's head demanding information results in the NPC telling you what they think you want to hear instead of the truth. They're too scared to risk disappointing you, because you didn't have the social ability to scare them just right.

Because in the world of death touch and magic missle, fitness isn't all there is.

So you're saying intimidation would be a roll when you can't normally compell the person to do what you want through imediate force. But what kind of situation is that?

Compelling them to give you information, for example. You have to be convincing to make them believe you can do worse than the consequences of not giving you that information.

I'm sure someone has said this but i can't be assed to go through the thread and find it. DEAR LORD THAT ART IS TERRIBLE.

Or hell, to use your example.
A failed intimidate check in that situation could result in the person being too scared to do anything but cry and beg to be spared, while shaking too hard to work whatever it is that's holding the thing or preventing you from just grabbing it.

> screwing up an intimidate check with a gun to the NPC's head demanding information results in the NPC telling you what they think you want to hear instead of the truth
the situation i'm thinking is more of "give me all your wallet, or else.."

no one would be retarded enough to Not give you their wallet if you fail such a test. I'm just saying this gets to retarded levels when the NPCs go through risks they shouldn't. Even in your case, he is risking too much because "you didn't sound scary".

See post immediately above yours.

>You have to be convincing to make them believe you can do worse than the consequences of not giving you that information
wat?

man, the consequence is Death.

If you need that information, you can't kill them. You'll never get it that way.

>the person being too scared to do anything but cry and beg to be spared
Doesn't that mean the person is MORE intimidated?

You leave them half dead. What are they going to do, STILL refuse to give information? that's retarded.

Yes, but they're not doing what you want. You didn't achieve the desired results.

"The man shudders and falls to his knees, sobbing and loudly begging you to spare him. His hand slaps against his pockets, but he's shaking too hard to get it out. "
>break for a few seconds to see if any player wants to do anything
"The man finally manages to pull out his wallet, but immediately drops it from his trembling hands. He seizes up and throws himself to the ground, scrambling for his wallet and begging for mercy even more vigorously. You can hear footsteps approaching the alleyway you're in and a voice shouts 'Freeze! This is the police!'. You have only a little while before they get to the alleyway entrance. "

You think the villain whose minions you're interrogating can't do worse than ending them? And if they're fanatics they may believe they will be heroes in heaven or princes in hell.

>Yes, but they're not doing what you want
That doesn't make any sense, you didn't FAIL to intimidate them. You actually were damn good. Also, incidentally, that would mean that a kid failing an intimidation check would make an adult piss his pants.

>You can hear footsteps approaching the alleyway you're in and a voice shouts 'Freeze! This is the police!'
don't add. things into the scene. You did so to avoid the obvious: in time, that man would give you his wallet because he has no goddamn choice.

>You think the villain whose minions you're interrogating
don't assume he is tied to some sort of evil villain.

If it's a situation where it's a random person you could just beat up, then yeah, beat them up, no roll required

>hat doesn't make any sense, you didn't FAIL to intimidate them.
Failing a check doesn't mean you didn't do the thing. It means you didn't get the results you wanted. For example, when the master bard botches a perform check it's not because he sucks, but maybe it's because the last bard played the same songs and everybody's already bored with it. Some circumstances don't make sense to have a "You can't do the thing you clearly can do" result, but a failure is a failure so you don't get what you wanted.

>don't add. things into the scene. You did so to avoid the obvious: in time, that man would give you his wallet because he has no goddamn choice.
Again, a failure is a failure. Bad things happen when you fail, good things happen when you succeed. If you're rolling for it, which is the premise of the OP (namely, which stat to use as a modifier to the roll) then you have a risk of failure and bad stuff. If it really is a situation when you have a gun to the guy's head and infinite time, then you don't need to roll because there's no chance of failure in getting that wallet.

It's not 'a random person' because he is not some sort of evil cunt.

But i think what you mean is that an intimidation roll should only be made if the person has enough guts to actually oppose your strength in the first place, in which case is still highly related to the damage you can do on that person. But anyway, do you really mean that the only kind of person that you will Ever do an intimidation check is against some sort of death cultist, not afraid of pain and that will only give in to your smooth talk?

There's other scenarios. You might be in public, having a hushed conversation with someone you obviously can't beat up or you get thrown out. It might be someone who is actually stronger than you, but you intimidate them into thinking you're tougher than you really are. It could be that you don't want to beat up that person because it'll hurt your reputation, but if you talk scary, they might give you what you want anyway.

"Sorry, you're too good at intimidating despite failing the test, so you failed"
that's just weird. And again, that would make the test extremely subjective, as a kid failing would fail because of his physique instead.

>Some circumstances don't make sense to have a "You can't do the thing you clearly can do"
The thing is, i don't think said situation should exist-- i mean, if you can obviously do it, why roll it? The whole idea of 'rolling to intimidate' is just weird, and probably very situational, but i still think even in those situations it's just weird how your goddamn physical appearance is not more relevant than smooth talk.

>Again, a failure is a failure
but a failure in intimidation test means that "the police finds you?" if there is no police will the guy have a heart attack? Look, let's talk about the failure in those situations when you Must do a check. What would that even be and why your talk would be more important than your physical appearance? (actually looking threatening).

But even in those situations if you look like a goddamn kid, people will just laugh at you, and if you look tough people will respect you. Don't you think there is a correlation?

>that's just weird. And again, that would make the test extremely subjective, as a kid failing would fail because of his physique instead.
Yes. Failure isn't a flat and static thing. It makes no sense for two different characters in two different situations to fail in the same way. The results might be the same, but the reason for their failure would be different.

>The thing is, i don't think said situation should exist-- i mean, if you can obviously do it, why roll it?
Completely agreed with you there.

>i still think even in those situations it's just weird how your goddamn physical appearance is not more relevant than smooth talk.
My stance is that an intimidate check isn't about just scaring the person, it's about making them do what you want. Some things it's obvious that you don't have a reasonable fail-state and shouldn't roll at all.

>but a failure in intimidation test means that "the police finds you?"
Really shouldn't be a rolling situation, so I had to stretch a bit to give a reasonable fail-state. If the PCs were under a time crisis, cutting the police and just making getting the wallet take a while would work.

>Look, let's talk about the failure in those situations when you Must do a check. What would that even be and why your talk would be more important than your physical appearance? (actually looking threatening).
My go-to situation is that of the person with important information who's at your mercy. Scaring them the wrong way or too much might make them tell you what they think you want to hear instead of the truth (actually a real concern during torture) because they're afraid of what might happen if you're unhappy with what they say. Physical appearance isn't going to help you scare them "just enough", but social ability will.

>The results might be the same, but the reason for their failure would be different.
Pardon, worded that poorly.
The result of "you don't accomplish your aim" or "yes, but something bad happens too" wouldn't change, but exactly what went wrong certainly would.

>It makes no sense for two different characters in two different situations to fail in the same way
If they're doing the exact same thing and using the exact same atribute, it does.
They are both intimidating using their speech.

>because they're afraid of what might happen if you're unhappy with what they say
the thing is, regardless of your speech, they KNOW what is going to happen if you are unhappy. You put him in a torture chamber, and you really look threatening and obviously not afraid to kill. He KNOWS that if you find out, he is going to get killed. Why speech should matter on his decision-making? if he thinks he can escape, what could you possibly tell him to change his mind? and if he thinks he cannot, why bother?

I could understand it as charisma if it was some sort of... more social event, but this whole 'torture/hurt' just screams of brute force.