Post/Author/DateTime	Post
xdahnx 07-04-07, 02:24 PM	I know there's a feat out there! which supplement is it from? thanks in advance!
Tsuul 07-04-07, 02:29 PM	Take a look on the consolidated lists.
xdahnx 07-04-07, 02:46 PM	well, i've checked them (here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats for anyone needing a link) and they're pretty awkward to search, as the description isnt necessarily telling of the effect... thanks anyway
Aryxbez 07-04-07, 02:48 PM	I see not why you just house rule it? I know in my games I do so if the situation is appropriate for the Intimidate.
xdahnx 07-04-07, 02:58 PM	I see not why you just house rule it? I know in my games I do so if the situation is appropriate for the Intimidate. ah, i would (and do) when i am dming however, this time i am a player. i'll ask the dm about it
tui 07-04-07, 03:08 PM	Here's a very long thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=766758) discussing using Str instead of Cha for Intimidate. I didn't read all the way through, but the general gist is that there is a lot of resistance to just swapping it, but allowing a +2 circumstance bonus after show of strength was generally acceptable to folks. I'd be inclined to allow Str to substitute for Cha at the cost of a feat.
Someone 07-05-07, 12:17 AM	Rather than a feat that swaps Str for Cha on Intimidate checks, I'd suggest simply taking Skill Focus (Intimidate). Replicates a Str of 16 fairly well when you have a Cha of 10.
strenoth 07-05-07, 02:09 AM	I've always just allowed some one to make a strength check to do something impressive, and if they make the strength check, then they can use STr in place of CHA. Example: The orc barbarian had earlier slain a goblin with a nice hit that removed its head (descriptive, was dead via taking about 3x it's HP in one shot), and others were currently captive. Orc picked up the head, and gave it a good squeeze while growling menacingly... and rolled another 20. POP... i'll leave the rest to your imagination. One of the captives wet himself. Talking commenced.
Ellone 07-05-07, 08:48 AM	If you are a 22 strength barbarian facing 2 goblins with 8 strength, i personaly don't require any check to make the goblin realize they won't be wining a hand to hand fight. Strength shouldn't replace charisma in intimidation check because visible strength is only part of the check. The goal of intimidate is not to put in advance things everyone has already fairly noticed, but to push argument on the way you shoud be considerered as being too big a threat for your opponent to be able to change your position. If strength is everything you need to push your opponent to retreat, you don't need a check. Intimate is usefull only when your strength level is not that completly greater than your opponent's. I still think this kind of element should be applied as a modifier to the check, but not directly.
Dalthbar 07-05-07, 09:02 AM	The closest thing you get to a strength-based bonus to intimidate is the size bonus: You gain a +4 bonus on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are larger than your target. Conversely, you take a -4 penalty on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are smaller than your target. This makes perfect sense to me and in some ways captures the "the stronger you are, the more intimidating you are" aspect that we're talking about because increased size yields a strength bonus. So at most, any bonus granted from strength needs to be in line with the bonus granted from being larger than your opponent - though these two bonuses should never overlap if you do allow a strength-based bonus. That being said, it's important to note that some opponents will NEVER be intimidated by strength alone. A high level wizard may look down upon those that have to use strength of arms to overcome people because they wield the very forces of the multiverse. The ability to force reality to bend to their very whim tends to alter their perceptions a bit. And at the heart of it, that's why Charisma is used for Intimidate - because you need to convince someone to see your point of view regardless of their personal opinions.
tui 07-05-07, 09:59 AM	The closest thing you get to a strength-based bonus to intimidate is the size bonus Yep, although a similar comparison could be made for Might Makes Right from RoF; it allows you to add your Strength bonus to your Leadership score... I'm not sure if that's in replace of or in addition to your Charisma, but in either case it is an example of using Strength to sway people favorably, in more than just a flat +2 or +4 modifier. That's what I'd use as the basis for justifying a feat to replace Cha with Str for Intimidate. [Note that Might Makes Right is 3.0, so you might not feel like accepting that as a basis.]
Kalis Atrud 07-05-07, 10:57 AM	I was thinking of doing the same thing for hide and move silently. What happens is that the guard notices you, sees your huge rippling muscles and just decides that if he ignores you, you might not kill him. When you are out of sight, he then takes off his uniform and goes home to his wife. I'm tired of being punished for dumping dex and wearing platemail on stealth missions.
tui 07-05-07, 11:05 AM	I was thinking of doing the same thing for hide and move silently. What happens is that the guard notices you, sees your huge rippling muscles and just decides that if he ignores you, you might not kill him. When you are out of sight, he then takes off his uniform and goes home to his wife. I'm tired of being punished for dumping dex and wearing platemail on stealth missions. Good idea; maybe you should do the same thing for AC too. When the guy tries to hit you, you just flex your muscle and bounce the weapon away from you harmlessly.
Dalthbar 07-05-07, 11:07 AM	Might work well for spells per day - if you run out of spell slots but need to "just cast one more" you can flex and squeeze and pump out that last one that you had hanging out that your mind was too weak to take advantage of.
Dnarris 07-05-07, 11:09 AM	I think that if the player is applying intimidation in the proper manner that it's easy for the DM to allow strength to be used. I mean a character strong enough to lift a fully armed and armored guard off the ground by his neck should be able to sufficently intimidate that guard using strength even if he isn't very charsimatic. In the end it is really the DM's discretion whether or not they allow substitutes for skills when actions are done in a certain way. I've allow diplomacy rolls to use intelligence instead of charsima, because I felt the character was using superior logic to appeal to the NPC's sense of reason rather than using charisma. Use what you feel is right for the situation.
qwerty1 07-05-07, 11:17 AM	I would still only consider the +2 to the Intimidate check though.
Pentar 07-05-07, 05:08 PM	I think it's important to consider game balance here too. I can see a lot of arguments as to why Strength should be a factor in intimidation, but that would almost make it too easy to intimidate people successfully. And as someone else pointed out, some people simply won't be impressed by high strength. Intimidate has in-combat applications too, which can potentially make it game-breaking if fighters and warrior types who will almost always take a high strength, will be able to increase their intimidate ability at the same time. Similarly to why Concentration is a Constitution based skill - it's game balance more than anything else. I think the size modifier for Intimidate is a good enough representation of "strength" being a factor in the skill check. It should remain a purely Charisma based skill. Some of the scrawniest people can be extremely intimidating by simple virtue of their look and attitude.
strenoth 07-05-07, 09:21 PM	this is kind of why I make a high STR person make a strength-check to do something impressive/scary, and THEN allow it to add on to intimidate, or at least add a circumstance bonus. As per my previous example, it was a moment of "OMG did you just see what the hell he just did to cousin larry's head?!?!?! "
dengarbountyhunter 07-05-07, 11:19 PM	Here we go... we'll have the whole "scared vs. intimidated" argument again. To sum up... you can DECIDE to obey the barbarian because you know he's gonna rip your limbs off if you don't... or... you can be INTIMIDATED by the canny bard, who makes you feel inferior and stupid even though he's 5' 4'' and his arms are thin as spaghettis. If you've seen Pulp Fiction, you get the "scared vs. intimidated" thing when Jules takes a big slurp of the guy's drink and talks about hamburgers. Anyway, if you think Strength should apply to Intimidate, then maybe the base damage of your weapon should too, hmm? Because any wimp can handle a d10 crossbow, and an average damage of 6.5 (if I'm not mistaken) is kinda scary for any commoner who has a head for numbers. Or give a bonus for magic items, or spells, or anything that can hurt... Or maybe add your Perform (Weapon Drill) modifier too, uh?
bob_the_great 07-06-07, 12:25 AM	I like the idea of differentiating between being scared and intimidated. a show of strength can make people rationally weigh their well-being and whether or not it will be negatively affected by not making you happy. the most hardcore, impossible to intimidate guy should be able to look at the logical situation "if I talk I live, if I don't I die" and decide to talk. giving in does not mean he was intimidated, but means he was smart. *warning - story time. skip if you don't care* I once had a half-orc character who ate the arm of a fallen enemy as a way to intimidate an enemy taken alive. when it didn't work, he threatened to chop off the guys arm with his scythe. when that didn't work, he chopped off the arm. the guy woke up to see my character chewing on his arm. when that didn't work he started beating the guy with the arm. when my character was discussing what to do with the guy (I never had any intention of killing him) he started spouting off about how he was just going to get the arm regenerated and he'd be plundering and murdering in no time. the guy was so hardcore and impossible to intimidate he talked me into killing him. i love that story. i hated that DM.
Ellone 07-06-07, 05:01 AM	all these example demonstrating than a few peon should be easily intimated by a 10th level very strong barbarian seems stupid to me. A 10th level barbarian with a standard charisma will anyway be able to intimidate such foes. And the one with 4 in charisma simply find difficult to express anything, including unability for a good feat of strength show. I certainly won't consider as an intimidating feat of strength a goblin head crushing when facing the goblin's ogre warlord.
Derren S. 07-06-07, 06:16 AM	Using strength only means that the enemy knows that you are strong and acts accordingly. That might be surrendering to you but that could also mean just using ranged weapons or waiting for reinforcments. Real intimidation means that the enemy thinks that no way what he does he will die unless he begs for his life and does everything you say.
Erato 07-06-07, 08:25 AM	I've always just allowed some one to make a strength check to do something impressive, and if they make the strength check, then they can use STr in place of CHA. Example: The orc barbarian had earlier slain a goblin with a nice hit that removed its head (descriptive, was dead via taking about 3x it's HP in one shot), and others were currently captive. Orc picked up the head, and gave it a good squeeze while growling menacingly... and rolled another 20. POP... i'll leave the rest to your imagination. One of the captives wet himself. Talking commenced. :rolleyes: And a wizard burning the flesh from their limps should be allowed to use his int or CL instead of cha. And the ranger shooting out the eye of their fleeing companion from 600 ft away, should be allowed to use his dex for intimidate... or better yet, his BAB :P The point is that whenever you're in a position of power, whether from high STR or something else, intimidation becomes easier. That's what circumstance bonusses are for - and don't give it exclusively to the melee characters, just because you think they should be more intimidating. They have intimidate as class skill, it should be enough. And as mentioned before, the guy that obeys you because he knows you can kill him, is not intimidated, just smart. It's when he doens't know if you can kill him that you need to convince him not to take that chance. And there's a difference between scarred and intimidated. Intimidate allows you to prevent your target from reacting with the normal and logical behavior of someone who's scarred or panicked, like running away when they have the chance, fighting back in panic, lying to you if there's no way you'd be able to tell, ect. - in other words, act friendly. If the DM wont allow anyone to be scarred of you 28 STR Barbarian who has just chrushed the skulls of his/her enemies, then it's the fault of the DM, not the rules. That being said, RoD have the Dread Tyranny feat that gives your STR modifier as a bonus to intimidate ;)
Galdur_es_Sumar 07-06-07, 12:01 PM	If I am not mistaking...I believe using STR for intimidate was introduced in the Arcana Unearthed books. There was also the combining of hide and move silent into one skill called stealth for the simple reason most people do not do one without the other. I could be off on the books, but I have seen it and I believe there.
lukelightning 07-06-07, 01:26 PM	Strength is not necessarily a visible characteristic. How the heck does the target know you've got bull's strength on you? Besides, it can easily be faked. A simple disguise self spell can make it look like you've got a 24 strength with more muscles than Arnold.
RobbyPants 07-06-07, 01:57 PM	If you are a 22 strength barbarian facing 2 goblins with 8 strength, i personaly don't require any check to make the goblin realize they won't be wining a hand to hand fight. Strength shouldn't replace charisma in intimidation check because visible strength is only part of the check. The goal of intimidate is not to put in advance things everyone has already fairly noticed, but to push argument on the way you shoud be considerered as being too big a threat for your opponent to be able to change your position. If strength is everything you need to push your opponent to retreat, you don't need a check. Intimate is usefull only when your strength level is not that completly greater than your opponent's. I still think this kind of element should be applied as a modifier to the check, but not directly. This is very similar to how I feel. When you really look at it, isn't a high level wizard with a low Str and Cha still pretty intimidating? It doesn't really matter that he can't crush you or scare you (by personality alone, at least); he can incinerate you! What if someone is really strong, but you're a better fighter? It seems that a character's level would have more impact on how intimidating they are, not how strong they are. I'd just keep it as Charisma, in that it's meant to be a social skill. If you feel your Charisma score is lacking, you can always scare them with a nice display of your class abilties!