Conan the Barbarian and Pee Wee Herman the Drow Fey Pact Warlock are on a quest to save Princess Toadstool from the evil Baron Harkonen. Conan is 6'3", 250 lbs and has a 20 Strength and 10 Charisma, Conan's player designed him to be a damage dealer since barbs are strikers afterall. Pee Wee is 5'7", 100 lbs, provided he's wearing three layers of clothing and soaking wet, has an 8 strength and a 20 Charisma.
Conan and Pee Wee enter into a rough tavern located in the worse part of town to question the patrons about a gang of cutthroats associated with the Baron. As they begin the skill challenge portion of the encounter, which also happens to require an Intimidate check, Pee Wee has a +15 (2 for level, 5 from ability, 5 from trained and 3 from skill focus), to the roll. While sadly Conan has only a +7 (2 from level, 5 for trained). The thug whom they are to question doe not feel inclined to answer any questions regarding the gang. The DC is this case is 25 to make the thug talk using an Intimidate check. Conan's player turns to Pee Wee's player and says I don't think I can get that DC, could you roll the check. Pee Wee's player rolls the dice and makes the thug wet his pants while Conan's player sits there and watches in awe.
If anyone knows anything about Conan, seedy taverns and rough neighborhoods are the Barbarian's playground. In these places, big and scary are requirements to play. So how is it a puny Warlock can outpunk a Barbarian?
One of the biggest auguments I have had with D&D since 3e is the employment of the Intimidate skill. Why is it soley a Charisma based skill? Most people are not going to pump a fighter's or barbarian's Charisma score up enough to be able to use that skill effectively, unless you're a Dragonborn. I have been in real life situations where the guy didn't have to say a word, just be big and scary and that was enough for me to leave the room. In anyone has ever watched Stargate SG-1, T'ealc could scare a confession out of a bad guy without ever saying a word. He could stand or sit there are let his muscles do the talking.
When I brought this up before I was told that's because Intimidate works off words. In other words, you describe in graphic detail what will happen if your victim does not cooperate. What's wrong with physical intimidation? A mucsle bound, 7 foot barbarian grabbing the victim by the scruff of the neck and giving him a taste of what is to come. Actually giving a demonstration of the physical harm that could befall him without actually subtracting any hit points to do so.
In our home games, we allow Intimidate to key off of Charisma or Strength, which in our view makes more sense and has enhanced our games greatly. In our games, at least, Conan is the one who is scary and Pee Wee is there as back up. The way we use Intimidate allows the skill to be versitile. You can make a PC that is either charimatically scary or monsterously scary.
Anyway, I'm done.
Let the assault begin...
In this situation, PeeWee is describing in graphic detail to the thug what Conan is going to do to him... :D
I do have some problems with the concept of intimidate coming from charisma. Charisma doesn't have to mean good looking and friendly, I tend to take charisma is your sense of self and projected presence - ability to dominate a space... Small guys can have that presence and project deadly intent and thus PeeWee could intimidate someone on his own. Conan is big and muscled but doesn't have the iron will, ruthlessness and ability to project his presence. There are great big guys that are not intimidating. The half level helps scale this for those characters as does skill training and skill focus in said skill. Conan could also challenge said thug to or perform a feat of strength that could lend him a bonus to his intimidate check. Crumple that bronze drinking goblet into a little ball and make allusions to the thugs limbs after that...
I would have to consider more, but I just don't like intimidate keying off strength. Instead I like the concept above. Use a strength based check or skill to add a bonus to the followup intimidate check... ;)
Cheers
Secondly, you're not giving this "Pee Wee" enough credit. It doesn't matter what his physical attributes are, he's got about as much Charisma as Johnny Depp (people sit up and notice him when he walks into a room) and traffics with demons. His threats aren't physical...
Bigger doesn't always mean more imposing. I'm sure you've seen movies where a weasely little guy manipulates a tank of a man. Despite the berating and brow-beating, the big guy usually stays loyal until someone convinces him "Hey, you could totally kick that little guy's ass if you wanted to." (wasn't there a character in the Get Smart movie like this?)
About the only argument for Cha over Str I can come up with is that, if you use brute force to Intimidate the target, he may be so scared that he just says anything to get you to let him go. This means that you have succeeded in Intimidating him, but have failed the check because he was over Intimidated and provided you with nothng useful as a result (obviously this would be reversed in order in-game). Using the right words with just enough edge to them to show you mean business may well be more effective than simply pickin' a dood up an' shakin' 'im 'til he tells ya' what he thinks ya' wanna hear. ;) In any event, I almost always use Diplomacy before Intimidate anyway.
Still, if you want to use that HR, I can't find any real fault with it myself. All it means is that more people will be able to participate in more aspects of the encounter in a way that still makes sense. And who'd argue with that?
Conan is like a big rock. Looks threatening but at the same time passive. Seems like he will not follow up. The little guy though plays out as though he will rip the guy's intestines out in his sleep and therefore through the play, intimidates the enemy. Barbarians in truth do not rely heavily on intimidate. In R. A. Salvatore's early books (Icewind Dale Trilogy in particular), they are famed for the fighting in the tavern instead of talking. Strength means nothing if you cannot properly demonstrate it through tactical conversation. If you can, then you have a decent charisma and are sure of yourself.
Makes perfect sense though to have strength go into it as well. I agreed with your house rules in the beginning and I think that it is a great custom thing. To make it a bit more fair, I would suggest that you give the -5 penalty to whoever is making it strength based just to make it fair. After all you are negating some rules there.
Just something to keep you thinking; in many movies, during a police interrogation, the person that is attacking or threatening the thug with his huge posture is the one that never gets the answers. It is the cop that plays it cool and describes to the man what will happen if he set the big guy upon him, that gets some results.
Yeg
Level 6 item, 1800 gp, Waist Slot
Property: You can use your Strength modifier instead of your Charisma modifier when making Intimidate checks.
Conan OBVIOUSLY has Skill Focus: Intimidate and one of these on.
Cincture of the Dragon Spirit
Level 6 item, 1800 gp, Waist Slot
Property: You can use your Strength modifier instead of your Charisma modifier when making Intimidate checks.
Conan OBVIOUSLY has Skill Focus: Intimidate and one of these on.
Why would I buy a magic item to allow him to do what he should be able to do on his own?
Why would I buy a magic item to allow him to do what he should be able to do on his own?
Because nobody's Intimidated by a guy who just looks stupid, and can't form the right words together to scare the crap out of you. Then it just turns humorous, and you're not really Intimidated by a clown.
Conan doesn't even NEED that item, really. The level bonus should usually be enough to scare normal Commoners witless, which represents the fact that he's an experienced killer, and people know it when they look at him.
Because nobody's Intimidated by a guy who just looks stupid, and can't form the right words together to scare the crap out of you. Then it just turns humorous, and you're not really Intimidated by a clown.
Conan doesn't even NEED that item, really. The level bonus should usually be enough to scare normal Commoners witless, which represents the fact that he's an experienced killer, and people know it when they look at him.
Uh, if that clown could eat nails and swing a battle axe using only his finger tips? Yeah, I'd be scared out of my mind. I'd even tell him my social security number if he wanted.
Besides, Intimidate is used for a lot more than just getting information. Conan the Clown should be able to scare a group of bloodied goblins into surrender with a mighty roar. To reference: football players don't use eloquent words to intimidate their opponents. They use grunts, ground punches, and profanities. I should know, it was one of my better tools in high school.
Uh, if that clown could eat nails and swing a battle axe using only his finger tips? Yeah, I'd be scared out of my mind. I'd even tell him my social security number if he wanted.
Besides, Intimidate is used for a lot more than just getting information. Conan the Clown should be able to scare a group of bloodied goblins into surrender with a mighty roar.
But with poor Charisma he'd be a big guy just going "WOOF" and end up sounding like a wounded puppy.
Having a poor charisma means that no matter how big a guy you are, the point you're trying to get across displaying it will fall flat.
Because nobody's Intimidated by a guy who just looks stupid, and can't form the right words together to scare the crap out of you. Then it just turns humorous, and you're not really Intimidated by a clown.
Conan doesn't even NEED that item, really. The level bonus should usually be enough to scare normal Commoners witless, which represents the fact that he's an experienced killer, and people know it when they look at him.
If you're refering to the Conan movies, I would agree. Arnie was the wrong choice to play that part. I've read just about every Conan novel there is and the literary Conan is an intimidating figure and far, far more impressive than the movie Conan. He looks dangerous and he looks like an experienced killer. Pee Wee the Warlock talks of demons, Conan IS a demon, mediforically speaking. In issue 200 of the Savage Sword of Conan, the time travel issue where Conan meets Solomon Kane the Puritan. Kane finds himself on the loosing end of a physical arguement. He exclaims as Conan is about to seemingly end his life that he is about to be killed by a "bronze demon." After that they team up and kill the wizard who trapped them in time.
That's what I mean by physical intimidation.
Uh, if that clown could eat nails and swing a battle axe using only his finger tips? Yeah, I'd be scared out of my mind. I'd even tell him my social security number if he wanted.
Besides, Intimidate is used for a lot more than just getting information. Conan the Clown should be able to scare a group of bloodied goblins into surrender with a mighty roar. To reference: football players don't use eloquent words to intimidate their opponents. They use grunts, ground punches, and profanities. I should know, it was one of my better tools in high school.
For reference, the Intimidate skill is more than what you're describing. The Intimidate skill, specifically, is using the ability to make a credible threat and get what you want out of someone with it. It requires, quite specifically, the ability to manipulate your audience and work off their expectations. That's not something Strength has anything to do with.
A target who's so scared that they clam up entirely, or who, hearing the Barbarian's roar, decide that the man is a feral beast who will give *no* quarter, those are examples of a *failed* Intimidate check. Yes, the target's scared, but he's not Intimidated.
Moreover, it's D&D, and *everyone* has power. And everyone can make a display of such power as part of an Intimidate check, getting a small bonus to the check. I'd be just as scared of a Rogue or Ranger who just shot a fly out of the air or a Wizard or Warlock who burned a hole in the wall WITH HIS MIND. Wouldn't you? Even an unarmed beaurocrat can Intimidate people quite effectively, through his connections and political power; the threat of physical violence is *nothing* compared to the threat of destroying or taking away everything they value in this life, and really ought to be respected as such.
Plus, one of the things the mentioned as early as Second edition is that ability scores do *not* necessarily map onto appearance in any meaningful way. So, there *is* no particular reason why someone would look at a Strength 20 Barbarian and say, "That guy looks strong, let me be afraid of him". That's silly.
We used to joke about how I could bend adamantine bars into pretzels, break through steel walls, and wrestle a behemoth, no one would EVER respond to intimidation from him because all they would ever "hear" was:
"Fleshbag, answer my question and I will kill you, otherwise I will kill you!"
We all agreed that npcs were well within their right to react to this war-thing with the simple response of soiling themselves and giving up hope. There was no reason to answer it's questions, it could not be appeased, reasoned with, or talked down.
While thats an extreme end the basic principal is the same. The charismatic person has the force of personality that conveys that, yes, if you do what I say you may live. It's the ability to impress that underlying social contract that intimidate represents, not just the ability to scare someone.
If you're refering to the Conan movies, I would agree. Arnie was the wrong choice to play that part. I've read just about every Conan novel there is and the literary Conan is an intimidating figure and far, far more impressive than the movie Conan. He looks dangerous and he looks like an experienced killer. Pee Wee the Warlock talks of demons, Conan IS a demon, mediforically speaking. In issue 200 of the Savage Sword of Conan, the time travel issue where Conan meets Solomon Kane the Puritan. Kane finds himself on the loosing end of a physical arguement. He exclaims as Conan is about to seemingly end his life that he is about to be killed by a "bronze demon." After that they team up and kill the wizard who trapped them in time.
That's what I mean by physical intimidation.
Of course, literary Conan has vastly better mental stats than movies Conan. There's no doubt that he had middling-to-high values for all of them, including Charisma. He also had a brilliant tactical mind, was unbelievably sneaky, and was even capable of casting a handful of magic spells. It doesn't seem all that far-fetched that he might just be more convincing that your average strong guy. Just for a counterfactual example from popular culture, take Fezzik from The Princess Bride. Easily the strongest, and definitely physically imposing, but, to be perfectly frank, the least Intimidating of the bunch, barring a particularly clever ploy (devised by Inigo, you'll note-- either it's his check, or he's Aiding) involving setting him on fire.
I mean, a much more apt comparison wouldn't be Pee Wee the Warlock, but Al Pachino the Warlock. *Now* who's more intimidating?
I mean, a much more apt comparison wouldn't be Pee Wee the Warlock, but Al Pachino the Warlock. *Now* who's more intimidating?
Pee Wee, the Feylock. FEAR THE CHAOS!
That's what I mean by physical intimidation.
That would be because he's WORKED for it and has 10 levels on the guy.
If a 20th-level Conan tries to Intimidate a 20th-level Wizard by stretching his biceps, the Wizard looks at him like he's an idiot. The Level Bonus represents the massive strength and killing look that always makes Conan so Intimidating to people who aren't as powerful to him.
Well,
In this situation, PeeWee is describing in graphic detail to the thug what Conan is going to do to him... :D
I do have some problems with the concept of intimidate coming from charisma. Charisma doesn't have to mean good looking and friendly, I tend to take charisma is your sense of self and projected presence - ability to dominate a space... Small guys can have that presence and project deadly intent and thus PeeWee could intimidate someone on his own. Conan is big and muscled but doesn't have the iron will, ruthlessness and ability to project his presence. There are great big guys that are not intimidating. The half level helps scale this for those characters as does skill training and skill focus in said skill. Conan could also challenge said thug to or perform a feat of strength that could lend him a bonus to his intimidate check. Crumple that bronze drinking goblet into a little ball and make allusions to the thugs limbs after that...
I would have to consider more, but I just don't like intimidate keying off strength. Instead I like the concept above. Use a strength based check or skill to add a bonus to the followup intimidate check... ;)
Cheers
One DM I played with used both stats for it, depending on the character and type of intimidation. I can see it using either stat, really.
While I like using STR for Intimidate, and would allow it, you don't leverage somebody's will with your Strength, instead they decide if you size is scarey. It's a passive thing. A big 6'10" guy is a mouth of broken teeth and a bent nose is a little frightening, and he doesn't have to do anything to be unsettling. But he is also unlikely to get scarier, unless you know, he has skill training.
A big dumb barbarian with low charisma and no Intimidate training is not Conan. He's Fabio. Are you afraid of Fabio? No, neither am I. Conan would have trained Initimidate, and probably had halfway decent Cha. He's a king, after all.
Similarly, the warlock you describe: Physically weak, but with a very strong personality, who is not only trained in intimidation but also has SKILL FOCUS in it, is not Pee-Wee freaking Herman. He's Hannibal Lector. Or the Joker. People who you are sure you could take in a straight-up fight, but they are still terrifying because they know how to scare you. They've STUDIED how to scare you.
Hehe...Hannibal Lector. XD
I would also add i encounter ALOT of people bigger than me (I know one guy, who is on my team, he is 6ft 4 and 450lbs (not an exaggeration) and I can tell i am not scared of him in the slightest, even when he tries to intimidate, he has nothing.
I think this demonstrates that Intimidate is effectively a force of personality, not how big you are.
And SeraphimDominion gave a great explination on how your examples names are flawed.
Probably the best example I can think of to support the Intimidate through CHA is from the movie Little Children. If you've seen it, the part at the end of the date where they stop in front of the playground and the "villain" looks at his date and says "Don't tell anyone", that was scarey. He's scrawny, odd looking, and at first, very submissive, but in that moment he leveraged his full force of personality and became terrifying..
Another great example is also in the Princess Bride. Towards the end, after Westley is revived, he's confronting Prince Humperdink. Westley can't move or can barely move-- the very *definition* of 0-1 Strength in 3e. And yet, he's able to describe a fate so ghastly, with such certainty, that Humperdink surrenders anyway:
Show
Prince Humperdinck: First things first, to the death.
Westley: No. To the pain.
Prince Humperdinck: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.
Westley: I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.
Prince Humperdinck: That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.
Westley: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.
Westley: I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.
Westley: WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
Prince Humperdinck: I think your bluffing.
Westley: It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.
[slowly rises and points sword directly at the prince]
Westley: DROP... YOUR... SWORD!
[mouth hanging open, drops sword to floor]
Westley: No. To the pain.
Prince Humperdinck: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.
Westley: I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.
Prince Humperdinck: That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.
Westley: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.
Westley: I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.
Westley: WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
Prince Humperdinck: I think your bluffing.
Westley: It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.
[slowly rises and points sword directly at the prince]
Westley: DROP... YOUR... SWORD!
[mouth hanging open, drops sword to floor]
Seraphim FTW! :D
Hehe...Hannibal Lector. XD
Agreed. Lector and the Joker (especially in the recent movie) are some of the best examples of unbelievably Intimidating characters, that are nevertheless not physically imposing and whose Intimidation has everything to do with their ability to own their environment with their personalities.
Look, there's a pretty easy solution here. In 3e and 4e both, Intimidate is a class skill for melee-types, *already* giving them a strong edge over non-strength-based classes, if they choose to focus on it a little.
However, that notwithstanding, it's always been pretty effortless to permit a demonstration of power to add a circumstance modifier to the Intimidate check. A display of strength- bending a bar, smashing a table, or the like, would qualify, but so would blowing a hole in a wall with an eldritch blast, or lighting a copse of trees on fire with a word, or even simply a demonstration of the far-reaching political influence a character has, depending on the circumstances, and the nature of the check. I don't think it's remotely appropriate to privilege Strength by allowing it to modify the check- it runs counter to the concept of Charisma being the stat that represents the ability to manipulate and persuade others, and frankly, it smacks of a min-max-ey attempt to turn Fighters and Barbarians into a SAD class.
You wouldnt be scared of Fabio my a$$!! If that guy walked up to you and pushed half the people on this site they would be scared. Michael Clark Duncan looks like a gentle giant but I bet you would be scared of his a$$ too. Anyone saying physical size does not play into some forms of intimidation is denying reality. force of personality is big too, which is why I advocate adding CHa too, but STR should add some benefit.
The potential fact that the "I can't beleive it's not butter" guy can bench press twicce my weight is nothing to the fact that I don't believe he'd be able to fight. Deck him out like Arnold in Conan and I'll still laugh at his face, or stand ready to defend myself. No kidding, I've got barely 12 STR, I assume, and he's 14-16. But you have to know how to fight, too. First weapon he had I'd disarm from him, using whatever I could grab (improvised weapon) to do so. Then I'd have a good weapon (if his is any good or another improvised). I'm not scared of a guy who's best talent is to smile pretty.
Al Pachino, on the other hand... I'll admit this could be simply nerd bluster. But what you're not thinking of is that STR is NOT SIZE! I had a friend in high school who was twice my size, and we were the same height. He was weaker (physically) than I was, and I was a lanky stick-figure.
Thirdly, you mix intimidation and fear. If an intimidation works, the intimidatee wants to make you happy (so he doesn't get hurt). He doesn't have to be afraid, just believe you. If it doesn't work, the intimidatee may or may not be afraid, that has nothing to do with if he helps you.
You wouldnt be scared of Fabio my a$$!! If that guy walked up to you and pushed half the people on this site they would be scared. Michael Clark Duncan looks like a gentle giant but I bet you would be scared of his a$$ too. Anyone saying physical size does not play into some forms of intimidation is denying reality. force of personality is big too, which is why I advocate adding CHa too, but STR should add some benefit.
Here is the deal with Fabio. I'm sure that guy could pretzel me. I would not doubt that for a second. BUT, if he were trying to get me to do something I did not want to do, he would actually have to pretzel me to make me do it. I can picture it now.
Fabio: Give. Please be giving me jour car.
Me: Um, *looks around* what?
Fabio: Jour car. *point*
Me: Dude, aren't you Fabio?
Fabio: You, get out of. Me go drive bye.
Me: Jesus, are stealing my car? What happened to all the margarine money?!
Fabio: Give! Now!
Me: Hell no! Get away from me! HELP! HELP! He smells like 80s cologne!
Fabio:*reveals himself for the Italian-made murder machine that he is and just takes my car after mangling me*
I believe intimidation is more subtle than that. It's about getting your point across without having to use your awesome power. Hell, I think that's an interesting point. Heroes are intimidating by nature. A small band of people waltz into your town with treasures and scars and stories of epic deeds. All the girls want to get with them, and all the boys want to be them. That's intimidating and they didn't even do anything! They were just themselves.
So, I think intimidation is more about getting things done rather than just being frightening.
HELP! HELP! He smells like 80s cologne!
This whole thing is win for awesome.
Part of your problem here is that your example names are a bit misleading and disingenuous.
A big dumb barbarian with low charisma and no Intimidate training is not Conan. He's Fabio. Are you afraid of Fabio? No, neither am I. Conan would have trained Initimidate, and probably had halfway decent Cha. He's a king, after all.
Similarly, the warlock you describe: Physically weak, but with a very strong personality, who is not only trained in intimidation but also has SKILL FOCUS in it, is not Pee-Wee freaking Herman. He's Hannibal Lector. Or the Joker. People who you are sure you could take in a straight-up fight, but they are still terrifying because they know how to scare you. They've STUDIED how to scare you.
And this is win for truth, sufficiently that it bears full quoting.
I can feel the OP on the desire to make Intimidate key off of strength. I really can. Trouble is, if nothing else, this opens up a ginormous can of worms. What about the wizard who is demonstrably brilliant? The rogue who's literally juggling daggers one-handed? The ranger who has his huge bear, William? If you're going to let 'it's what lets me hurt people' be the core of Intimidate, then you're going to have to let it key off of every ability score.
Intimidating people isn't about being able to bring someone pain and suffering. That's what being a threat is about. Intimidating is about being able to read people well enough to know what they'll respond to, and how to implement that response. You can scare someone reallyreallyreally badly, and all they'll do is poo and fall over. The part that makes it Intimidate is knowing just the right way to make that person cooperate through fear.
That Warforged Juggernaut above is a beautiful example of how scary does not equal Intimidating. It's not about brute force, it's communicating what you want and utilizing the force carefully to get the result you want. A ginormous-strength, zero-charisma Intimidate is epitomized as a wild animal; you're terrified of it, but its motives are unknown, unknowable. If you're walking through a state fair and a prize-winning bull bellows loudly, kicks the gate of hiss stall off the hinges, and comes steaming your way, you're not going to offer him a bite of your funnel cake, no matter how badly he wants it. He's very scary, but he's not successfully Intimidating.
An example of bad Intimidate from Princess Bride was when Fezzik tried to 'jog the albino's memory'. *THUD*. Yeah, not so productive. More productive was when the cleverer of the two told the larger of the two to tear the target's arms off. 'Oh, you mean this gate key!' Very productive. It's about reading people, seeing what will frighten them, and knowing exactly how to implement that fear.
I agree with some of the posters that Intimidate doesn't need to be about what you say. You can intimidate someone with a look, a flex, a dancing of lighting across your fingertips. Eventually, though, you have to convey what you're trying to get them to do. Even if you have someone else say 'this is what we want you to do' and you try to scare the person wordlessly, you might just be some brute who simply wants to mangle the target whether zie helps or not. If you don't speak up, there's room for the target to misinterpret your intent, which is why I feel that there's a -5 penalty if you don't speak the target's language.
Besides, Intimidate is used for a lot more than just getting information. Conan the Clown should be able to scare a group of bloodied goblins into surrender with a mighty roar. To reference: football players don't use eloquent words to intimidate their opponents. They use grunts, ground punches, and profanities. I should know, it was one of my better tools in high school.
Question: how many of the opposing players handed you the ball when you did that? Turned and sacked their own quarterback? Dropped prostrate and begged that you spare them if they let you get a touchdown? If the answer is none, then you did not Intimidate them. You merely scared them, inflicting a morale penalty at best, but likely merely incurring fluff-only roleplay reactions from a rules perspective. Why? Because Intimidate is not scaring people, it's manipulating them. Intimidate is not combat with words, it's Diplomacy with teeth. That's why it's Charisma-based.
However, muscle (or arcane power, for that matter) will either help you or it won't. If you try to present it as more threatening than it actually is, that's straight charisma.
Someone gave the example of the To The Pain speech, which I actually partly reproduced today (while having exactly one HP and no dailies or encounter powers left, of course).
Someone gave the example of the To The Pain speech, which I actually partly reproduced today (while having exactly one HP and no dailies or encounter powers left, of course).
It wouldn't be a true reproduction otherwise.
I point to the new thread,
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17306411#post17306411
Did the OP lose this thread somehow? Did it get lost in the mass number of threads he started or something?
I point to the new thread, where he ignores all disagreement:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17306411#post17306411
Looked earlier, but couldn't find it. Thanks for noticing...
Looked earlier, but couldn't find it. Thanks for noticing...
Two ways to quickly find your own posts/threads.
1st) when you click on someone's username (even your own), there is an option to search for all posts by that user.
2nd) is the full search function; http://forums.gleemax.com/search.php
I use this all the time to check the threads I've posted in. I type my username into the "search by username" box, and find all posts (you can also choose to find all threads posted instead) I made, up to the most recent 100 threads. This allows me to keep track of multiple discussions at one time.
Try it with mine, I've made several posts, and I visit different parts of the forums.
As a side note if you wanted to make things a little more realistic, I think it only fair that the wizard makes a bluff check before his intimidate check to hid his wet pants personality.
yea all this discussion is fine and all but you haven't got to the meat of the matter. Barbarian uses intimidate in this way: "crush anyone who no tell me truth" (aka. strength modifier to his skill check). Wizard uses intimidate in this way: "I have the power to break you, what you don't believe me? Well have you ever know what it..." (aka charisma modifier). Short and simple, strength could work perfectly well as a modifier. A big tough guy doesn't need to have a high charisma in order to shove his weight around, come on. Any simpleton with a 5 intelligence or higher would no now to do that. We've been adding strength modifier to intimidate in my group for a long time.
As a side note if you wanted to make things a little more realistic, I think it only fair that the wizard makes a bluff check before his intimidate check to hid his wet pants personality.
Why couldn't the wizard simply have lightning dance between his hands as a way to demonstrate his power, thus having Intimidate work off Intelligence (since it's this ability score that governs wizard powers)? Wouldn't it be the same as the big barbarian just lugging his weight around through Strength?
See, if you're going to allow Strength for Intimidate checks, you might as well allow all ability scores since, in one way or another, they're all directly linked to a character's apparent power. Why wouldn't anyone be intimidated by the frail rogue who, by a feat of Dexterity, can manage to get his dagger to your neck before you can even react?
Let's face it. Strength for Intimidate is pointless. Intimidate is a communication skill. It's all about Charisma.
yea all this discussion is fine and all but you haven't got to the meat of the matter. Barbarian uses intimidate in this way: "crush anyone who no tell me truth" (aka. strength modifier to his skill check). Wizard uses intimidate in this way: "I have the power to break you, what you don't believe me? Well have you ever know what it..." (aka charisma modifier). Short and simple, strength could work perfectly well as a modifier. A big tough guy doesn't need to have a high charisma in order to shove his weight around, come on.
There's already a system of strength-based (or int-based for wizards, dex-based for rogues, etc) checks the barbarian can use to crush anyone who isn't cooperating; it's called 'combat'. After enough successful checks, you have a captive who's likely more docile than at the start of combat. If you continue to make these strength checks against the captive in order to gain cooperation, it's called 'torture'.
The point of intimidate is threatening your foes without starting a fight. Threatening someone with violence in order to gain cooperation is intimidation; trying to force cooperation with violence is assault, and is exactly one attack roll too far to be considered 'intimidation'. It's ironic that you mention getting to the 'meat' of the matter, since intimidate isn't about the steak; it's about the sizzle.
STR is used for intimidate like an assist check. Maybe that'd be the best way to do it, allow people to use STR with initimidate for assisting. But its all in the person who knows how to spin the situation to make it seem bad for the person. And spin, is definatly charisma.
"You need to tell me what I want, or I'm gonna let Bruno have a go at you."
*Bruno picks up a rock and crushes it*
"Bruno, is not gentle, and a little over zealous... Once he gets started it can be difficult to stop him. Are you sure you don't want to just tell me?"
Physical strength is a means of intimidating people, but not the only means.
Someone is not intimidating simply because they're strong, they're intimidating because they possess the understanding, wit, and self confidence to manipulate others into being intimidated by them. You could argue that intelligence and wisdom can be as intimidating as strength. However, charisma is the stat that governs one's abilities to manipulate elements of a specific situation to make others feel intimidated by them.
Think about it from a real world perspective. Intimidation is more often associated with social differences than anything else. I feel more intimidated by my supervisor, regardless of size, gender, etc., than I do of a peer who just happens to be bigger than me.
As an example, my sister is extremely sharp and charismatic and despite being half my size, is twice as intimidating as I am because she's quicker witted than me and possesses a grand sense of self understanding and confidence.
Now like someone above said, it's possible that someone huge who totally lacks charisma could be great at lintimidating, but it woulnd't be the right type of intimidation (as in, an initimidation not governed by the usage of the siill). Intimidation is a tactic used to get more information or gain some kind of insight out of someone, which would require some type of social grace/awareness.
How many big tough guys have you seen in TV and movies, that are just goons? They aren't intimidating, they just do as their told. The one who's actually intimidating is the one who convinced them that its in their best interest to do as he says.
That does not apply! When does a low Cha score = a low Int and WisThink about it from a real world perspective. Intimidation is more often associated with social differences than anything else. I feel more intimidated by my supervisor, regardless of size, gender, etc., than I do of a peer who just happens to be bigger than me.
As an example, my sister is extremely sharp and charismatic and despite being half my size, is twice as intimidating as I am because she's quicker witted than me and possesses a grand sense of self understanding and confidence.
That's not charisma! Your boss and sister intimiade you because of their social standings. You are suppose to listen to your boss and take the high road in fights with your sister. That's not intimidating, it's diplomacy!
How many big tough guys have you seen in TV and movies, that are just goons? They aren't intimidating, they just do as their told. The one who's actually intimidating is the one who convinced them that its in their best interest to do as he says.
That does not apply! When does a low Cha score = a low Int and Wis
Well, your point #1 actually defends my point. It's based on social constructs, which are guided more by charisma than by any other stat. When I was talking about my sister i didn't mean she intimidates me, I meant in regard to other people, and the exact reason she intimidates other people more than I do is because she has more charisma than I do (better leadership skills, better clarity of purpose, etc) that allow her to exploit methods of intimidating people. She doesn't intimidate me because she's my sister...she neither holds any position over me nor dupes me with her mind games.
That's not charisma! Your boss and sister intimiade you because of their social standings. You are suppose to listen to your boss and take the high road in fights with your sister. That's not intimidating, it's diplomacy!
The point is that social standing is based mostly on charisma. With regard to my sister, i didn't mean she intimdates me, I meant she's more intimidating than I am toward other people, even though she's half my size. This is the case almost entirely because she's more charismatic than I am. She has more social presence, is quicker witted, and knows how to exploit other peoples' weaknesses. Her ability to be intimidating is mostly due to a combination if heightened self confidence, leadership skills, and clarity of purpose.
That does not apply! When does a low Cha score = a low Int and Wis
Er, when your generic mook has high STR/CON, but is otherwise useless. You're assuming we're getting low cha from "he's stupid." We're getting low charisma and low int and low wis from "he's a mook".
Er, when your generic mook has high STR/CON, but is otherwise useless. You're assuming we're getting low cha from "he's stupid." We're getting low charisma and low int and low wis from "he's a mook".
We're not talking about all scores, we are talking about based on Str and Cha alone, which is more intimidating. You can have a 20 Str, 20 Wis, 20 Int, and 17 Cha; yet you're suppose to be Intimidated againt the guy with 8 Str, 8 Wis, 8 Int, and 18 Cha! It should be based on Strength if you are picking just one mod to increase it.
We're not talking about all scores, we are talking about based on Str and Con alone, which is more intimidating. You can have a 20 Str, 20 Wis, 20 Int, and 17 Cha; yet you're suppose to be Intimidated againt the guy with 8 Str, 8 Wis, 8 Int, and 18 Cha! It should be based on Strength if you are picking just one mod to increase it.
But the problem with that, as has been said over, and over, and over again, and has been convineiently ignored by the "Meatloaf is intimidating" crowd, is that if intimidation is, falsly, attributed to being ABLE to harm something, then a Wizard could logicly apply their INT to it, as that is what he uses to fry you. There would be a case for EVERY stat being used by at least one class, as not all of them use STR to kill stuff.
Then again, since intimidation is not about being ABLE to harm someone, but is really about threatening people into doing what you want (as was described, "Diplomacy with teeth"), it should be based on how Charismatic you are, not how big of a beef wad you are.
Then again, it's probably a lost cause to try to argue anything in this thread. I mean, it was started on the premise of two strawmen being used by teh OP. I mean, calling the macavelien twisted intimidator "Peewee Herman" just to try to twist his arguement to his side? Nice try, but anyone could see that it's nonsense.
Strength is the only stat that physically noticable,
Strength is not physically noticeable!!!
Strength is not physically noticeable!!!
WHAT?!?!?! What bizarro world do you live in? I get several coments on days I go to the gym. My boss even gives me better assignments. One morning we open two hours late, so I got some extra time in the gym. My boss hears me come in and asks me to pick some stuff up. He walks around the corner, looks at me, and says "I can go get Jeremy to do it if you want.".
What bizarro world do you live in?
I happen to live in a world where your Strength score can change, based on how much effort you put into raising/maintaining it each day. Where the Int and Wis scores key off of the same ability.
I'm commenting on a world that assumes peak perfection from PCs, and bases all scores on this. This world that I am commenting on has no rules on the cause-and-effect relationship between how large your muscles are, and how much you can lift.
Not sure about you.
WHAT?!?!?! What bizarro world do you live in? I get several coments on days I go to the gym. My boss even gives me better assignments. One morning we open two hours late, so I got some extra time in the gym. My boss hears me come in and asks me to pick some stuff up. He walks around the corner, looks at me, and says "I can go get Jeremy to do it if you want.".
First off, no, there is no strong correlation between two peoples' muscle tones and their strength relative to each other. That was the point the above was making. It may be noticeable if an *individual* is suddenly in better shape, as crazysamaritan suggests, but, in fact, it *is* true that weight training for strength and weight training for muscle definition actually require wildly different types of training, so it's ridiculous to claim that the two are an identity to each other.
What's more, within this particular game called Dungeons and Dragons, this a long-standing and well-established distinction between physical appearance and physical stats:
2e PHB:
There are a number of other personal characteristics your character has--hair and eye color, body shape, voice, noticeable features, and general personality. There are no tables for these things, nor should there be. Your job, as a player, is to add these details, thereby creating the type of character you want. You probably know some from the start (do you want to play a towering, robust warrior, or a slim, unassuming swordsman?); others, especially your character's personality, will grow and take form as you play. Remember, you are an actor and your character is your role!
Here's a link for that: Manga page
One is often mistaken for a woman, and the other is a tall, bearded, giant of a man.
Guess which one is stronger? :D
Your Strength is not the size of your muscles, it is how hard you hit; how much force you can create with your muscles.
The random guy at the inn has no clue what your STR score is by looking at you, because there's no correlation between appearance and any stat.
(Thanks for the quote, yrogerg)
"a towering, robust warrior, or a slim, unassuming swordsman?"
Here's a link for that: Manga page
That's a Japanese story, has nothing to do with D&D, quit fishing.
One is often mistaken for a woman, and the other is a tall, bearded, giant of a man.
Guess which one is stronger? :D
Intimidate is only tied to Cha because they threw in a bunch of skills for it so it won't be a dump stat.
Your Strength is not the size of your muscles, it is how hard you hit; how much force you can create with your muscles.
The random guy at the inn has no clue what your STR score is by looking at you, because there's no correlation between appearance and any stat.
(Thanks for the quote, yrogerg)
You're basing your entire argument on Rurouni Kenshin. He doesn't intimate people in the story. The whole idea is the other guy is more intimating. Thank you for proving my point.
That's a Japanese story, has nothing to do with D&D, quit fishing.
Calling me a troll doesn't prevent me and other people from using Japanese stories as inspiration for our games. I am sorry if you cannot accept other cultures, especially since several D&D monsters (That Gygax invented) come from Asian miniatures.
Intimidate is only tied to Cha because they threw in a bunch of skills for it so it won't be a dump stat.
Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent
You're basing your entire argument on Rurouni Kenshin. He doesn't intimate people in the story. The whole idea is the other guy is more intimating. Thank you for proving my point.
Rurouni Kenshin (the girlie-looking guy) is much stronger than the other guy. You misunderstand the point.
Your point is that "Bigger scares people more".
My point is that size does not correlate to strength, therefore, it can only be a circumstantial modifier, awarded by the DM. You cannot measure size from STR mod, nor does the modifier increase the bonus.
Also; Straw-man. I am not basing "my entire argument" around Kenshin. I am providing you an example. YOU are basing your entire argument around the evidence "I'm scared of people bigger than me, so I'll tell them what they want to know".
Calling me a troll doesn't prevent me and other people from using Japanese stories as inspiration for our games. I am sorry if you cannot accept other cultures, especially since several D&D monsters (That Gygax invented) come from Asian miniatures.
When did I call you a Troll? I just said you seem to be scrapping the barrel looking for excuses to put Intimate in Con.
Accept other cultures? Chinese is my favorite food to cook, I know French and German, I know limited Italian, I'm part of an anime group. Your false assumtions are illrevalent and derogatory. Plus where Gygax got names for his monsters are illrevalent and trying to bring a dead guy into this... I can't even say what that is on this board.
Rurouni Kenshin (the girlie-looking guy) is much stronger than the other guy. You misunderstand the point.
Your point is that "Bigger scares people more".
My point is that size does not correlate to strength, therefore, it can only be a circumstantial modifier, awarded by the DM. You cannot measure size from STR mod, nor does the modifier increase the bonus.
No you missunderstand me. Intimidating is not about how much damage you do, but how strong you are. Many martial artists don't have much actual strenght and arn't intimidating, they use their wisdom to fight like the Pit Fighter path.
It was equivalent to saying, "Non-Western stories don't belong in D&D, quit trolling."
I am sorry if there was a miscommunication, goalpost head. Please, explain how "Japanese story" has nothing to do with D&D.
Intimidating is not about how much damage you do, but how strong you are.
In other words....
"I'm scared of people bigger than me, so I'll tell them what they want to know".
I'm willing to listen to you explaining the difference between your STRENGTH score and how much damage you can do. If you find a chart that makes all people with 14+ STR one foot taller than the people with 10-11 STR, I'll be convinced.
Point of order: I didn't say you claimed the damage you dealt affected how Intimidating you are, I said you claimed "How big you are" affects your Intimidate. I'm asserting that size is not a factor of strength, and therefore, strength is not a factor of intimidate.
And where did you get height from?
The potential fact that the "I can't believe it's not butter" guy can bench press twice my weight is nothing to the fact that I don't believe he'd be able to fight. Deck him out like Arnold in Conan and I'll still laugh at his face, or stand ready to defend myself. No kidding, I've got barely 12 STR, I assume, and he's 14-16. But you have to know how to fight, too. First weapon he had I'd disarm from him, using whatever I could grab (improvised weapon) to do so. Then I'd have a good weapon (if his is any good or another improvised). I'm not scared of a guy who's best talent is to smile pretty.
Al Pachino, on the other hand... I'll admit this could be simply nerd bluster. But what you're not thinking of is that STR is NOT SIZE! I had a friend in high school who was twice my size, and we were the same height. He was weaker (physically) than I was, and I was a lanky stick-figure.
Thirdly, you mix intimidation and fear. If an intimidation works, the intimidatee wants to make you happy (so he doesn't get hurt). He doesn't have to be afraid, just believe you. If it doesn't work, the intimidatee may or may not be afraid, that has nothing to do with if he helps you.
Why don't you just read my first post, Alphabet Head? I am not relying on one comic book for my argument. You are relying on the personal fears of "big people scare me".
I like analogies. They come naturally to me. Let me describe Intimidate with an analogy. Intimidate is something you use, a tool. Since it's something you use against others, that tool is, specifically, a weapon. So I'm going to talk about Intimidate as a gun.
Yes, big muscles are scary. Yes, those muscles come from strength. The barbarian's STR score is the force that backs up zir threats. So let's say that the barbarian's STR (like the wizard's INT or the rogue's DEX) is like a bullet. It is the scary consequence of not doing what the intimidator says.
Charisma is, among other things, your ability to maneuver socially. To orient yourself in a given social situation in the way that you like. It's what makes the threat that the barbarian's strength backs up; it directs that force in a useful direction, targeting it in a way that is productive to the wielder. It is the chamber and barrel of the gun.
You can set off the bullet alone and it will be very impressive. Lots of force usually is. It will not, however, be very productive. Indeed, if you will forgive me, it will very likely blow up in your face. You can use as big a bullet as you want; that won't make you a better marksman if you don't have a barrel to send it down.
Without charisma to guide it in social situations, strength alone is just as meaningful as a fizzle of gunpowder. It will look amazing, it will catch people's attention, but it won't do what you want. It might simply make a bad smell, it might take your fingers off, it might set the drapes on fire (or, in literal 'intimidate check' terms, it might make people treat you like a jerk, it might get you attacked by an angry mob, it might start a riot or stampede as people flee from you). It will not, however, achieve any useful, predictable result which you might want.
For that, you need charisma. Charisma is what focuses the force, keeps it from blowing up in your face, and targets it in a useful, reliable way.
Ironically, while strength without charisma is not intimidating, charisma without strength (or any other stat to back it up) can still be very intimidating. If this doesn't make much sense to you, try robbing a bank with an empty gun, and then try doing the same while brandishing nothing but a bullet. If you talk a good enough game, you'll never need to back it up to get what you want. If you talk zero game, no amount of backing it up will get people to simply react beneficially.
As to the actual subject, people are saying that a big, muscular, well-oiled individual is going to be super-duper at intimidate simply based on appearances? No demonstration of strength needed, just sit down with your 20 STR muscles and you'll get what you want?
That's great news for my changeling wizard! Since, apparently, strength score translates directly to muscle mass so specifically that people are more intimidated by +4 STR mod muscles than by +3, I'll just have my changeling look like zie has 20 STR! Hell, why not look like zie has 30 STR? 40? Ahahahaha! I can intimidate people into eating infinite oregano!
Of course this is absurd, but it's what 'strength for intimidate' opens the door to. In the real world, someone who's 'ripped' can be weaker than someone who isn't. In the game world, a 10 STR orc is probably going to look nastier than a 20 STR gnome. In both, there's the ability to fake the appearance of strength, which is all you're saying strength-based intimidate need use. You know what stat governs the ability to fake appearances? Say it with me: charisma.
You fail at logic, don't you?
Oh you edited it to include "You fail at logic, don't you?". You're the one bringing up slight spelling mistakes because there was nothing wrong with my logic, therefor nothing else to argue about.
Yup, Charisma based Intimidate is nonsense.
Oh you edited it to include "You fail at logic, don't you?". You're the one bringing up slight spelling mistakes because there was nothing wrong with my logic, therefor nothing else to argue about.
What logic??? your entire argument consists of "I'm scared of big people" and saying, "No, you're WRONG!"
I'm getting frustrated by posting to a brick wall who has come to a fore-gone conclusion that cannot be supported by any facts, so you don't mention them.
Charisma is for Bluffing, Diplomacy, or Streetwise.
Intimidating should be about Strength.
I don't care how charismatic you Intimidating is different. It' not about smooth talking. It's more dirty than that.
Skills are way too unbalanced.
Charisma gives way too many bonuses.
Intimidate should not be one of them.
All of these statements are opinions couched as facts, there is no support given for any of them.
[goons aren't intimidating, The one who's actually intimidating is the one who convinced them that its in their best interest to do as he says.] does not apply!
I don't have to say anything more about this.
That's not charisma! Your boss and sister intimiade you because of their social standings. You are suppose to listen to your boss and take the high road in fights with your sister. That's not intimidating, it's diplomacy!
First you say it isn't Charisma, then you say it's Diplomacy.
We're not talking about all scores, we are talking about based on Str and Cha alone, which is more intimidating.
Demonstrates failure to read the rest of the thread; other ability scores have been mentioned, and the opposing 'roll' to Intimidate is Will, which works off of Cha or Wis. Which means even in a conversation about intimidate using STR or CHA still requires WIS as a consideration.
Strength is the only stat that physically noticable, so intimidate should be strength based.
As previously stated, there is nothing in the Rules that says my character's STR is physically apparent.
Your Str is your physical strength, and that's what the other guy is gonna notice.
Failure to comprehend previous posts on the subject.
You're basing your entire argument on Rurouni Kenshin.
Attempt at a Straw-man; my point is more than just one example, and you're attempting to pigeon-hole it.
Intimidating is not about how much damage you do, but how strong you are.
I then asked you to explain the difference between your STR and the damage you can deal, because fighter powers key off of strength. Even the pit fighter paragon path still uses STR for... everything. Wis adds to damage, but STR doesn't stop adding to damage.
Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct.
My removed statements and post were all references to the character AJR has taken his name from: Arnold J. Rimmer, of Red Dwarf. I said nothing 'insulting' that was not a reference to that character. I have no clue if this poster is a hologram or not, although I would assume he's a human. Whether the Rimmer character qualifies as human is another joke the show makes.
For reference, the Intimidate skill is more than what you're describing. The Intimidate skill, specifically, is using the ability to make a credible threat and get what you want out of someone with it. It requires, quite specifically, the ability to manipulate your audience and work off their expectations. That's not something Strength has anything to do with.
A target who's so scared that they clam up entirely, or who, hearing the Barbarian's roar, decide that the man is a feral beast who will give *no* quarter, those are examples of a *failed* Intimidate check. Yes, the target's scared, but he's not Intimidated.
Moreover, it's D&D, and *everyone* has power. And everyone can make a display of such power as part of an Intimidate check, getting a small bonus to the check. I'd be just as scared of a Rogue or Ranger who just shot a fly out of the air or a Wizard or Warlock who burned a hole in the wall WITH HIS MIND. Wouldn't you? Even an unarmed beaurocrat can Intimidate people quite effectively, through his connections and political power; the threat of physical violence is *nothing* compared to the threat of destroying or taking away everything they value in this life, and really ought to be respected as such.
Plus, one of the things the mentioned as early as Second edition is that ability scores do *not* necessarily map onto appearance in any meaningful way. So, there *is* no particular reason why someone would look at a Strength 20 Barbarian and say, "That guy looks strong, let me be afraid of him". That's silly.
Of course, literary Conan has vastly better mental stats than movies Conan. There's no doubt that he had middling-to-high values for all of them, including Charisma. He also had a brilliant tactical mind, was unbelievably sneaky, and was even capable of casting a handful of magic spells. It doesn't seem all that far-fetched that he might just be more convincing that your average strong guy. Just for a counterfactual example from popular culture, take Fezzik from The Princess Bride. Easily the strongest, and definitely physically imposing, but, to be perfectly frank, the least Intimidating of the bunch, barring a particularly clever ploy (devised by Inigo, you'll note-- either it's his check, or he's Aiding) involving setting him on fire.
I mean, a much more apt comparison wouldn't be Pee Wee the Warlock, but Al Pachino the Warlock. *Now* who's more intimidating?
Another great example is also in the Princess Bride. Towards the end, after Westley is revived, he's confronting Prince Humperdink. Westley can't move or can barely move-- the very *definition* of 0-1 Strength in 3e. And yet, he's able to describe a fate so ghastly, with such certainty, that Humperdink surrenders anyway:ShowPrince Humperdinck: First things first, to the death.
Westley: No. To the pain.
Prince Humperdinck: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.
Westley: I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.
Prince Humperdinck: That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.
Westley: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.
Westley: I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.
Prince Humperdinck: And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.
Westley: WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
Prince Humperdinck: I think your bluffing.
Westley: It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.
[slowly rises and points sword directly at the prince]
Westley: DROP... YOUR... SWORD!
[mouth hanging open, drops sword to floor]
Conan may have 20 Strength, but he doesn't have the Charisma to get it noticed by others. Pee Wee's strength is irrelevant. If he wants, he can just threaten to have Conan beat others up, showing that he has the Charisma to get Conan's strength noticed.
Conan is a bad example, as he is intimidating as hell, and has an awesome charisma ;)
Often people use the "big should be intimidating trope"
I just wonder if you have seen the film "The Goonies", and the film "Things to do in Denver when you are dead". Just to ask: who is more intimidating, the big huge guy with ugly face that eat a lot of Chocolate in The goonies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFZ1e5ql7cs )? or the wheel chair handicaped The Man with the Plan in Things to do in Denver ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfEsMO_m58 )?
Who is more intimidating? Average size and low muscle Chazz Palmintieri? or the big guy tatooed with a harley in The Bronx Tale?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2PXb7xKhcI
Only one thing to add. "are you scared now?"
Do you really think you would be more intimidated by the regular weightlifter in your gim than the Joker?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eISCvoPF87s
Do you think King Pin is intimidating becouse he is *big*? Do you think X-factor Strong Guy ( http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/StrongGuy.html ) is more intimidating that Wolverine (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/grkgrl88/blog/Wizard-Wolverine-Xmen.jpg ) or The Batman (http://images.google.es/imgres?imgurl=http://img.blogdecine.com/2008/05/batman%2520bebe%2520leche.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.blogdecine.com/2008/05/31-el-caballero-oscuro-nuevas-imagenes-promocionales-y-batman-recomienda-beber-leche&usg=__aSgfZmnSU92Cu-OPOcWGzDQMmTE=&h=470&w=350&sz=124&hl=es&start=25&um=1&tbnid=5O9ooxXkvRglsM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbatman%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Des%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:es-ES:official%26sa%3DN )?
Then we have completelly different meanings of Intimidate
Intimidating should be about Strength.
Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, The Man of the Plan, Batman, The Joker and every single character Chazz Palminteiri has made disagree with your blanket statement, though
Thank you for posting the Princess Bride example, the next thing Prince Humperdink said is, “You were BLUFFING!” Thus it was BLUFF not intimidate that was used.
"Do what I say or I'll rip your head off"
"You're bluffing"
"You're right; I'd probably have done better if I'd used Intimidate instead. Clearly the actual things I say or way I'm trying to manipulate you has no bearing on the appropriate skill for this situation, and the skills are all interchangable."
So, you're saying that the game-definition of Intimidate only refers only to a very very narrow subset of intimidation that occurs in real life (as you've argued above that everything else is Diplomacy).
BUT. Whenever anyone uses the term "bluffing" in-character, that means that the skill being used MUST be Bluff.
Jeez, you MUST be trolling at this point. There's no possible way you could be this dense.
Thank you for posting the Princess Bride example, the next thing Prince Humperdink said is, “You were BLUFFING!” Thus it was BLUFF not intimidate that was used.
Fine. That rule Pricess Bride out.
What about:
Hannibal Lecter
Darth Vader
The Man of the Plan
Marlon Brando's Godfather
Bronx's Tale Chaz Palmintieri character
Joker
The Batman
Wolverine
Darkman
Same thing with a Police Officer in real life - The person may not be that intimidating - but that badge is sure really powerful - more like a enchanted item than an intimidate check, but some Police Officers - wow - really scarry.
1
Immediate reaction, if you read this in threaded mode you would know that.
Immediate reaction, if you read this in threaded mode you would know that.
Damn, I forgot that my 4e books say 'Prince Humperdinck' on the cover, right between Rob Heinsoo and James Wyatt, making a movie which predates 4e by decades the obvious source for the definition of rules terminology.
Y'all used this example, not me. You can't use it as a source only when it fits you. I am not the one who tried to use it as a source for the definition of rules terminology. I just pointed out it. was wrong
"Do what I say or I'll rip your head off"
"You're bluffing"
"You're right; I'd probably have done better if I'd used Intimidate instead. Clearly the actual things I say or way I'm trying to manipulate you has no bearing on the appropriate skill for this situation, and the skills are all interchangable."
So, you're saying that the game-definition of Intimidate only refers only to a very very narrow subset of intimidation that occurs in real life (as you've argued above that everything else is Diplomacy).
BUT. Whenever anyone uses the term "bluffing" in-character, that means that the skill being used MUST be Bluff.
Jeez, you MUST be trolling at this point. There's no possible way you could be this dense.
No, but y'all keep confusing Bluff and Intimidate. Bluffing is Intimiditing when you can't back it up.
Y'all used this example, not me. You can't use it as a source only when it fits you. I am not the one who tried to use it as a source for the definition of rules terminology. I just pointed out it. was wrong
Again, how come you're completely redefining the conventional understanding of what "intimidate" means, but are so quick to claim that someone's use of the world "bluffing" means that the Bluff skill must have happened?
You can't have it both ways. Either Intimidate means all of the things that it means conventionally -where, anyone's display of *any* sort of prowess or of social standing can be a source of intimidation, circumstances permitting- or else it's not necessarily Bluffing just because someone uses the world "bluff" in a conversation. Your argument has taken a pretty self-contradictary -and, honestly, pretty intellectually dishonest- bent here.
The scene, taken en toto, suggests that Humperdink wasn't necessarily sold on whether Westley *was* capable of following through (as in, if there had been a Bluff check involved, that Bluff failed), but the *prospect* set forth for if he was wrong was so ghastly that his natural cowardice took over and overrode his more dispassionate assessment (as in, the Intimidate part *did* work). I'm not really sure how you could read it any other way; it wasn't, *couldn't* have been a description of a successful Bluff check, because Humperdink *identified* it as a bluff, but was cowed anyway.
Y'all used this example, not me. You can't use it as a source only when it fits you. I am not the one who tried to use it as a source for the definition of rules terminology. I just pointed out it. was wrong
Recalling an occurrence in a story as a memorable example of intimidation in action and citing that story's dialogue as though its use of the word 'bluff' were rules-precise or at all authoritative in the definition of that word within the D&D rules are two separate things. The former was done in earnest without pretense. The latter reads as a clumsy attempt by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about to use weasely logic to try to win an argument he shouldn't be trying to have in the first place. On a completely unrelated note, did I mention what an excellent choice that username was?
Bluffing is Intimiditing when you can't back it up.
Nope, sorry. Intimidating doesn't require that you back anything up. You can bluff if you want, and that might lend strength to the intimidate, but either way, intimidating does not need to be 'Do it, or I'll shoot you!' whether you have a gun or not. Intimidating someone is simply having sufficient force of personality to be able to get the result you want by putting the right inflection on the first two words alone. "Do it." The scene from Princess Bride presents an excellent example of this, as yrogerg explains so well below.
The scene, taken en toto, suggests that Humperdink wasn't necessarily sold on whether Westley *was* capable of following through (as in, if there had been a Bluff check involved, that Bluff failed), but the *prospect* set forth for if he was wrong was so ghastly that his natural cowardice took over and overrode his more dispassionate assessment (as in, the Intimidate part *did* work). I'm not really sure how you could read it any other way; it wasn't, *couldn't* have been a description of a successful Bluff check, because Humperdink *identified* it as a bluff, but was cowed anyway.
That is a brilliant analysis! I'd forgotten the tone of disbelief to Humperdinck's reactions1, but you're absolutely right! He called Westley on his bluff after he'd finished the entire spiel, and all Westley did after that was insult him, admit that he could be bluffing, and then use pure force of personality to intimidate him into disarming himself. Well done indeed! I award you this cookie.
(For those who need a refresher on the scene as I did, I offer this link.)
__
1 I'm going to be auditioning for a community theatre production of Princess Bride, and as I imagine the hardest part will be performing the role and not simply doing an impression of Mandy Patinkin/Andre the Giant/Wallace Shawn/etc, I've been abstaining from watching it. Since I doubt I'll be playing Westley, though, I felt free to dig up this scene in particular2.
2 Oh hell, I hadn't thought of my having to play the Prince. Ah well, here's hoping it won't make too much of an impact on my subconscious.
Wow, that was immature.
Charisma is for Bluffing, Diplomacy, or Streetwise.
Intimidating should be about Strength.
I don't care how charismatic you Intimidating is different. It' not about smooth talking. It's more dirty than that.
Dude, please give it up. I normally live and let live and hate when these kinds of arguments build on forums, but you're arguing with everyone and you're entirely wrong. The analogy with the gun and bullet was precisely on the head of the nail.
Charisma may not be the only stat that one would use in intimidation tactics, but it is the primary one. Any other stat works as support. A strong person isn't intimidating just because they're strong. They're intimidating because they're charismatic enough to manipulate the other person into subordination. Manipulating someone into subordination is not diplomacy, bluffing, or streetwise, it's intimidation. They may use their strength to do that, or their intelligence, or whatever. The fact is having good charisma is what gives them the ability to use other elements of the situation to intimidate someone. Trust me, a strong person isn't necessarily intimidating and a weak person isn't necessarily not. It's all about social cunning. A strong person that isn't charismatic attempting to intimidate someone would probably not be taken that seriously, or probably would be unable to get what they wanted out of the person. Meanwhile, a charismatic person that isn't that strong would know how to subvert the other person's standing in the interaction and place themselves in a dominant position that would allow them to use some element of the situation to intimidate.
No, but y'all keep confusing Bluff and Intimidate. Bluffing is Intimiditing when you can't back it up.
So when Hannibal Lecter says "I'm going to eat your ´liver" you think that he
1) cant back it up
or
2) he rolls intimidate using strength as key bonus?
I think you are terribly confused. *some* strong people are intimidating, some others arent. See Myke Tyson. He fougnt in the heavyweight championship. Everysingle boxer he faced was as strong as he is (same height, same weight). Lot of them, even stronger (See George Foreman). However, none of them had the impervious glare the Terror of Garden had. None of them was so much intimidating. The 140kg rusian that defeated Holyfield this week probably is stronger (and much higher). I'm completelly sure Hossain Rezzah Zadeh is stronger than Tyson (waaaaay stronger. Like in 2 or 3 leagues above stronger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgcsKCXnAeA ). But Tyson is much more intimidating. Like with Conan, you are wrongly confusing *why* he is intimidating. You think Conan is intimidating becouse of his muscles. He is not. He is intimidating becouse of his *behaviour*. He use few words. He is iron willed. He shows no fear, and no mercy. He does not follow the civilizated rules and laws. He is never compulsed to submission. He has the personality to keep on his own tracks. All of that, belong to force of personality, and will. The score that measure your force of personality, and will, is Charisma. Without such a high Charisma, Conan (or Tyson) wouldnt be more menacing, or intimidating, that the average 100kg rusian boxer that Tyson defeated regularly in 2 rounds, or the average 7' goon Conan face by dozens in each tavern. Those had the strength. But lacked the strength of will. That is, the charisma.
On the other hand, some people who arent strong, are intimidating as well. Hannibal Lecter is intimidating. Sean Connery's character in The Rock is intimidating. The Godfather is intimidating. Joker in The Dark Knight is intimidating.
There is not a conection between pounds you can bench and your ability to face down people.