Post/Author/DateTime	Post
M1kh43l_P4r4d1s0 04-06-07, 09:51 AM	Is there a feat that allows intimidate to be a str based skill intead of cha? If there is, what book is it in?
Witch 04-06-07, 10:00 AM	I don't know if there is. But there shouldn't be, because it doesn't make sense.
runestar 04-06-07, 10:08 AM	It would make perfect sense from the POV of a fighter with 30str but only 8cha...:P
Witch 04-06-07, 10:13 AM	No, that would mean "I would love that", not "That'd make sense". Wanting something and something making sense is different ;)
Rhuxley 04-06-07, 10:14 AM	I don't know if there is. But there shouldn't be, because it doesn't make sense. I concur. One feat allows you to add both. "Dread Tyrrany" (RoD p154). you have to be a 3rd level cleric of hextor.
tarkin 04-06-07, 11:03 AM	Honestly, the feat ideas is not a good one. The problem is that 1. once you hit a certain strength, you cease to be more impressive, without HUGE increases. 2. What that certain strength is should depend on your victim's strength. That is, a Titan with a strength of 43 should not be impressed at all with your strength of 32, while a kobold commoner would quake in fear. ------- Instead of making a stat replacement feat, try this: Intimidating Strength Pre-req: Strength of 13 or greater. Benefit: If you display your strength as a Move Action, and it is greater than your targets, you get a bonus. For every 2 points above your target's strength, you gain +1 strength bonus to your intimdate check, upto a maximum of +5. Note, this will stack with the bonuses for size normally given to Intimidate.
Frugal 04-06-07, 11:50 AM	What a lot of people seem to forget is that CHA is your force of personality moreso than your looks (and I'd argue not looks at all). Low (below 10) CHA doesn't mean you're ugly, it means you're not comfortable/good in social situations. Maybe you're shy, or stumble over your words. You're the kind of person who no one remembers even being at the party. When you enter a room no one notices you. You're a wallflower. You might be all big and tough but that doesn't help you with actually approaching anyone and showing it off. Not to mention that intimidation has a lot more to do with what you say and suggesting you can back up a threat than it is about muscles. Now yes, you do run into issues with races like half-orcs having the hit to CHA. Personally, I'm solving this by adjusting half-orcs (and full orcs as well) to have racial bonuses to intimidate; they should be good at it.
Longarms 04-06-07, 01:02 PM	How about a feat that gives you a flat +4 to intimidate. The feat can be given a STR stat prereq. of 15 if you prefer. EDIT - I don't see any harm in allowing such a feat to provide move action-based intimidate checks per Tarkin's suggestion. I disfavor the OP suggestion simply because I personally don't like the feats that allow you to swap stats. I wouldn't want them at my table, and I don't think this is the right thread to go into why. So take my input for a grain of salt, if your table likes those types of feats go for it. I don't see any "realism" problem with your suggestion though. The analogy of a titan and a kobold doesn't present any kind of problem to me. There are already size modifiers in intimidate, so it will take a greater STR score relatively speaking to intimidate a titan VS. a kobold. Plus, the idea of a human intimidating a titan with his STR is no more silly to me than a human intimidating a titan with his presence. A titan is very unlikely to be intimidated either way, which is already reflected by the enormous size modifier the titan gets to add to his opposing roll.
Someone 04-06-07, 01:21 PM	How about a feat that gives you a flat +4 to intimidate. The feat can be given a STR stat prereq. of 15 if you prefer.You know, there's a feat that provides a flat +3, and has no pre-reqs whatsoever. :D
OravennasBrother 04-06-07, 02:31 PM	You know, there's a feat that provides a flat +3, and has no pre-reqs whatsoever. :D IIRC there is a efat that gives +4 on intimidate with the pre-req of being ORcish (Orc/Half Orc) - Called Terrifying Visage or some such.
Witch 04-06-07, 06:42 PM	I don't see any "realism" problem with your suggestion though. The analogy of a titan and a kobold doesn't present any kind of problem to me. There are already size modifiers in intimidate, so it will take a greater STR score relatively speaking to intimidate a titan VS. a kobold. Plus, the idea of a human intimidating a titan with his STR is no more silly to me than a human intimidating a titan with his presence. A titan is very unlikely to be intimidated either way, which is already reflected by the enormous size modifier the titan gets to add to his opposing roll. I fail to see the point that Strength should ever govern how you impress someone. Noone ever comes up with how intelligence should be able to affect intimidate, but a more intelligent wizard can do far more painful things to you than a stronger fighter.
IonizedChicken 04-06-07, 07:29 PM	Why should it be limited to Strength? any display of great (and seemingly unnatural) physical prowess could be intimidating. It could work just as well with CON and DEX as with STR. Hell, some people would be intimidated by intelligence -- say you are at court. There, the strength of your mind may count more than the strength of your body. There isn't any need for feats and the like. If someone makes a Strength check and it is applicable to the situation the DM should grant him a +1 to +3 circumstance bonus on his Intimidate check. That's all there is to it.
Longarms 04-06-07, 07:32 PM	"I fail to see the point that Strength should ever govern how you impress someone." The skill is called intimidate, not impress. Try to think of one of the many movies where two people are about to fight, and one exhibits his strength before the fight causing the other to seriously reconsider fighting. That's what I thought the OP was thinking of when I read his post. EDIT: the chicken guy one post up has a good point. Opposed STR checks can provide a circumstance modifier to the intimidate check.
Witch 04-06-07, 07:35 PM	"I fail to see the point that Strength should ever govern how you impress someone." The skill is called intimidate, not impress. Try to think of one of the many movies where two people are about to fight, and one exhibits his strength before the fight causing the other to seriously reconsider fighting. That's what I thought the OP was thinking of when I read his point. What intimidates you more, a mage or a fighter? If you know what the mage can do, I'd say the mage.
Cartigan 04-06-07, 07:55 PM	Off-topic, but holy crap arn't there sig limits around here? The problem with applying Str to intimidate is then anything powerful can arguably be used on intimidate checks. Wielding a huge Battle Axe? +2 to intimidate. Warming up a fireball spell? +2 to intimidate. Full plate covered in spikes? +2 to intimidate.
darkness ninja of light 04-06-07, 07:57 PM	I agree that Intimidate is rightly governed by charisma, but I don't see anything wrong with a feat allowing it to be based off of strength. This isn't a thread asking "shouldn't intimidate be based off of strength?" it's asking "what do you think about a feat that changes the modifier for Intimidate to Strength?" What intimidates you more, a mage or a fighter? If you know what the mage can do, I'd say the mage. Well, not all mages have high charisma scores. You can be a powerful mage with all kinds of torturous spells and intimidate still wouldn't work for you. Frankly, my view on the whole "I smash a brick wall to frighten my opponent" is that it's a bonus to intimidate. Thus, proving that you're a powerful mage who could fry you in a second would also work as a bonus. As a feat though, strength for intimidate is fine. Perhaps even a "governing stat" for intimidate so that mages could join in would work too, but I don't know.
Karish 04-06-07, 07:59 PM	It all depends on HOW you intimidate a person. As noted about the key ability in skills I think I once saw in the PHB, you can change them for the situation. Examples: - Intimidating someone using a calm little threat? CHA - Lifting someone off the ground and snarling? STR - Rushing circles around a person and giving a series of feinting attacks while taunting? DEX And so on.
Someone 04-07-07, 01:35 AM	The problem being a lot of the "examples" that have been given for Str-based Intimidate are really just examples of a character with a lot of skill points invested (and likely as a class skill, too).
zuul88 04-07-07, 04:51 AM	Does anyone remember Shadowrun???(I wish they would bring it back) You could use either str or chr for your check. I always thought that intimidate was weak mechinaclly and flavor because it being a chr check. The bard is scarier then the hulking half-orge with a huge greataxe???? WTF???? It doesnt fit. Even a little. But by spliting it up into to different types of intimidate checks then it makes sense. Combat oriented checks-str, non-combat checks-chr. Anyways thats my 2c.p. Respect Nathan
Witch 04-07-07, 04:57 AM	What about the ones where the low-charisma Wizard uses intimidate? Intelligence? Seriously, people. It's not that hard for your strength-focused character to use intimidate. You've got it as a class skill, unlike most classes. Put ranks in it if you like it that much. Get higher charisma. You don't hear spellcasters complain "why doesn't intimidate work from intelligence? :("
Archangel62 04-07-07, 06:15 AM	What intimidates you more, a mage or a fighter? If you know what the mage can do, I'd say the mage. And if you see a man walk up, pick up a buss, and juggle it please tell me that you wouldn't feel at least slightly nervous.
Witch 04-07-07, 06:18 AM	And if you see a man walk up, pick up a buss, and juggle it please tell me that you wouldn't feel at least slightly nervous. That would be a circumstance bonus, which can be achieved by far more than merely strength. I don't care how someone is throwing that bus around - I'm going to be terrified in any case. If he's using some hand gestures, or just actually throwing it around, it's going to be scaring the hell out of me. That doesn't make intimidate based on strength.
Aracor 04-07-07, 03:06 PM	Yeah, it's been a while since I actually saw this post. I think the main problem is that people do not understand what intimidate is, primarily. Intimidate is a way for you to convince someone it is in their best interests to help you. It is NOT primarily just to frighten someone. Take the tarrasque. Scary? Yes. Intimidating? No. If there's a strength 30 and 8 cha fighter trying to intimidate someone into helping him, his strength means nothing because he CANNOT GET HIS POINT ACROSS EFFECTIVELY. Charisma is about communication. It's about using your will to affect the outside world. People argue that the fighter should be able to intimidate people. Why? Because he's big and strong? So what? In a world where someone who can wave their hand, mutter a word, and vaporize someone, being able to swing a sword just isn't the threat it should be. And as Tarkin said, the problem is there's too much of a range. If you're trying to intimidate someone with strength, and they happen to be stronger, you shouldn't get any kind of advantage. And there are too many capabilities that can be taken into account. Trying to intimidate a wizard with strength? He just teleports. Trying to intimidate a barbarian with strength? He'll just rage and bash you. If you use charisma, it's not just about what you CAN do. It's about what you make them THINK you can do; and what they think you WILL do if you don't help them. That's flat-out charisma.
mobius2702 04-07-07, 04:05 PM	Intimidate is a way for you to convince someone it is in their best interests to help you. It is NOT primarily just to frighten someone. I would also like to add that intimidate is also about convincing someone that things would be worse than imaginable if they didn't help me. The best examples of intimidate are the mob movies. The guy doing the actual intimidating is scrawny and ugly, but he has his toughs to back him up. The toughs aren't doing the intimidating, they're just standing there. Either adding circumstance bonus or aiding another (if they are actively trying to look mean). But the intimidating is being done by the little guy. (Usually, but I haven't seen every single mob movie/show out there, so please understand if I've missed examples of the toughs doing the intimidating while the scrawny guys stand back and look mean).
Khadmus 04-07-07, 04:14 PM	Charisma (Intimidate) is convincing people that you'll hurt them. Strength is used when you actually hurt them. BTW, Dragon Magazine issue 349, page 92. Barbarian gets "Fearful Gaze" at 7th level. +4 on Intimidate checks and they are now based on Strength.
camirblu 04-07-07, 05:29 PM	There's an optional rule that lets you use either/or, but you have to pick one, not both. Also, resisting intimidate checks lets you factor in a few things besides your save. As regards strength not making sense...just me, personally, I'll back up from someone that looks like Musclehead Mel before Spaghetti Sam. Now, if Spaghetti Sam is good at being creepy, maybe him, too. However, Muscle Mel would just have to stand there. Size/bulk is intimidating. Speaking from a non-bulk'd person's perspective. So, to be brief, there are optional rules out there. Discuss it with your DM and decide what makes sense.
Witch 04-07-07, 05:47 PM	As regards strength not making sense...just me, personally, I'll back up from someone that looks like Musclehead Mel before Spaghetti Sam. I'll try again, but a bit more obvious. Who's the scariest out of these two? http://home.comcast.net/~ebowers84/gandalf_ring.jpg http://www.grueskin.net/pictures/misc/clemenza.jpeg
darkness ninja of light 04-08-07, 12:23 AM	I don't know, I'd really hate to meet that guy in the picture below...he looks creepy, then again, I'd be scared of anyone holding the ONE RING. Still though, pictures are not "Charisma" and I still think that everyone is missing the point of this thread and degrading it into another intimidate equals strength debate
RichMiller 04-08-07, 01:28 AM	Wrath and Rage: A Guide to Orcs and Half-Orcs lists a feat named Greataxe Diplomacy which does indeed allow one to use Str instead of Cha for Intimidate checks. However, its not exactly WoTC approved, so as always, check with your DM first.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-08-07, 12:12 PM	And if you see a man walk up, pick up a buss, and juggle it please tell me that you wouldn't feel at least slightly nervous. I'd be scared. I would not be intimidated. If I was intimidated, he could give me a gun, make himself as vulnerable as possible, and I still wouldn't shoot him. In fact, I'd shoot anyone who tried to harm him. Intimidation =/= frightening someone. There's a world of difference.
Spikes01k 04-08-07, 12:24 PM	You know I have seen this feat around, maybe RoS?
Longarms 04-08-07, 05:11 PM	Some posted, "Intimidation =/= frightening someone" For reference here is the definition of intimidate from merriam webster: "to make timid or fearful: frighten" Emphasis added Synonyms:synonyms INTIMIDATE, COW, BULLDOZE, BULLY, BROWBEAT mean to frighten into submission. INTIMIDATE implies inducing fear or a sense of inferiority into another Emphasis added
Kintara 04-08-07, 05:36 PM	Firstly, the bonus for being an entire size category bigger is +4. Any bonus based on Strength, in my opinion, shouldn't exceed that scale. You know what number works perfectly, considering that information? +2. You know what DMs are recommended to hand out for situational modifiers? +2. Just hand out a +2 if the character's Strength is appropriately applicable and the character makes use of it. You don't even need a feat. Longarms, in D&D, "intimidate" means precisely what it means as defined in the rules. The dictionary has only ancillary relevance. In D&D, Intimidate is a Cha-based skill that allows you to use fear to manipulate someone into doing what you want (or quaking in their boots so that you can kill them faster). It's not simply making someone afraid. The reason to point that out is that there's a rules distinction between being frightened (or Frightened) of someone and being under the effects of Intimidation.
Longarms 04-08-07, 08:16 PM	""Longarms, in D&D, "intimidate" means precisely what it means as defined in the rules. The dictionary has only ancillary relevance." Here we go with the dogmatic rule lawyering. Despite your rule of thumb about ancillary references, dictonaries are always helpful in any context for understanding what each word in a rule was meant to express. I find it funny that we both are giving the OP the exact same suggestion (+2 circumstance bonus for demonstrating one's STR), yet somehow we are seemingly entering a debate on the process of interpreting the rules? I posted the definition in response to someone else who disagrees with both of us - someone who apparantly thinks STR has no influence in intimidating someone...
Kintara 04-08-07, 09:09 PM	I posted the definition in response to someone else who disagrees with both of us - someone who apparantly thinks STR has no influence in intimidating someone...Well, actually what he said was that Intimidation and being scared aren't the same thing. I agree with him. You can scare someone so much that they can't be controlled effectively (which means you fail at the Intimidate attempt). It's something worth considering when interpreting the consequences of the Intimidate check. I brought it up because I thought it was worth making this distinction, too. And Raymond's point doesn't necessarily put his opinion opposite from us. Besides, it's fun to argue sometimes. ;) If I didn't like getting into purely abstract debates about rules minutiae for a game, then I wouldn't have much reason to post here. :D
Longarms 04-08-07, 09:21 PM	"Well, actually what he said was that Intimidation and being scared aren't the same thing." Actually, if he just said they were "not the same thing" I would have agreed with him too. But that isn't at all what he said. What he actually said was that there is a "world of difference" between intimidating a person and frightening them. That statement is what prompted me to post the definition of intimidate, which uses the term frighten... Looking back, it kind of makes a lot of sense why I posted the definition. I suppose I could have been more clear why I was posting the definition... It appears that we have moved from the realm of debating the process of interpreting D&D rules to the realm of debating what Raymond's post said. Heh, I am not sure what is worse. :rolleyes:
Kintara 04-08-07, 09:30 PM	"Well, actually what he said was that Intimidation and being scared aren't the same thing." Actually, if he just said they were "not the same thing" I would have agreed with him too. But that isn't what he said. What he actually said was that there is a "world of difference" between intimidating a person and frightening them. That statement is what prompted me to post the definition of intimidate, which uses the term frighten...Hmm, now we're getting to the really pedantic points of difference. Yaay! :) I would say that there is a big difference. Intimidation is very much a skill of manipulation as it's presented. I think it's really pretty difficult to scare people in the right way so that they don't go into fight-or-flight (which is usually a bad thing), but so that they do still take you seriously. But I agree with you that intimidation is certainly about fear.
G_Mancer 04-08-07, 09:35 PM	Is there a feat that allows intimidate to be a str based skill intead of cha? If there is, what book is it in? one thing i've read was a 3.0 rule variant that a barbarian raging can use whichever is higher. i think the varialnt rule wasn't changed from 3.0 to 3.5.