GameBanshee Forums

I have a question about intimidation, why when using this skill, would one be afraid of the nice looking gentlemen, and not the towering half-orc that has bad breathe, scares, and an eye missing? i think having a -4 instead of a +4, for cha, would help more.

Charisma is not a function only of appearance, but force of personality. Think of it this way, person A has a high charisma and very eloquently explains the finer points of how he'll disembowel you, while person B says "duh.. me no like you." Now that's partly a matter of intelligence, but I think it illustrates how one could be more intimidating than the other. Many groups(mine included) will substitute a different ability score or the absolute value of the Cha modifier.

ok i wasnt quite sure on that one, i just thought Cha was a persons looks, not there will, thought will came from their wisdom.

Yep, an 18 Charisma can mean you're as ugly as sin, but have a fantastic personality!

However, I've known some people who also allowed warrior types to apply their Strength bonus to Intimidate checks, if they were trying to "rough" someone up a little.

i was tryin not to use the str right off the bat, and only for breaking things. you cant intimidate a dead person

I've used STR, |CHA|, and ranks of bluff + ranks of Intimidate. THey're all acceptable to me. As is CHA.

well ive used strenght to get my point across, my DM didnt like it, i hung a guy off a tower using my chains. got the information i needed lol

I don't see any problem with that at all, as long as it fits your alignment.

well he's a neutral character, but he wasnt getting the information he wanted, so he threatend to throw the guy off, me and the DM were the only ones who knew i wouldnt drop him.

The rules allow you to apply either your Charisma modifier or your Strength modifier to your Intimidate skill. It may be referenced in other sources as well, but Masters of the Wild definitely includes this rule.

My DM's tend to go 'by the book' so to speak with intimidation, meaning Charisma only. It bothers me slightly, as I fail to see how using one's strength is not intimidating in the correct fashion. I mean, coercian is form of intimidation, is it not?

Masters of the Wild, page 18, sidebar:

Sometimes it's appropriate to change the key ability score of a particular skill . While Intimidation is usually a function of Charisma, this rule allows the barbarian to apply his Strength modifier rather than his Charisma modifier to intimidate checks. This assumes, of course, that he accompanies such attempts with appropriate displays of might, such as breaking objects or showing off impressive muscles. A barbarian who is raging is even better at intimidation because of his increased Strength score.

I agree with Rudar. A Barbarian could use his strength to Intimidate, while another character with a high charisma modifier can use this modifier.

[QUOTE=Noghri]I agree with Rudar. A Barbarian could use his strength to Intimidate, while another character with a high charisma modifier can use this modifier.[/QUOTE]
Like the exerpt from Masters of the Wild said: only in certain situations can barbarians use strength for intimidation. Not when he's dealing with a king, sitting in his own castle for example.

[QUOTE=Rudar Dimble]only in certain situations can barbarians use strength for intimidation. Not when he's dealing with a king, sitting in his own castle for example.[/QUOTE]

I would say the barbarian can use his Strength in that and all situations. The Intimidate roll would just carry heavy minuses. A king in his castle surrounded by an army is going to be no more or less intimidated by a person making a show of how he could smash his face than by a person eloquently explaining how he could do the same. I would say that the Strength-based Intimidate check would be allowed, and that both types of check would carry penalties.

As a house rule, we tend to do an opposed check for Intimidation, the skill check versus a Will save. It doesn't seem to make much sense for the DC to be 10 + the target's Hit Die or whatever it is.

[QUOTE=Aramant]I would say the barbarian can use his Strength in that and all situations. The Intimidate roll would just carry heavy minuses. A king in his castle surrounded by an army is going to be no more or less intimidated by a person making a show of how he could smash his face than by a person eloquently explaining how he could do the same. I would say that the Strength-based Intimidate check would be allowed, and that both types of check would carry penalties.
[/QUOTE]

I woudn't allow either.
My king would laugh in your face and have you locked up in a deep dark dungeon.

But Rudar was making an example and it's not actually about that situation.

I realize he was making an example. I was continuing to use his example to further the discussion in the same context.

And as for the king laughing in the character's face: that could just be the result of the horribly failed Intimidate check, which would be brought about by the negative modifier applied to the roll. Or alternately, the ridiculously high DC. Whichever way you prefer to think about it.

[QUOTE=Aramant]I would say the barbarian can use his Strength in that and all situations. The Intimidate roll would just carry heavy minuses. A king in his castle surrounded by an army is going to be no more or less intimidated by a person making a show of how he could smash his face than by a person eloquently explaining how he could do the same. I would say that the Strength-based Intimidate check would be allowed, and that both types of check would carry penalties.[/QUOTE]
Well, Masters of the Wild clearly says "sometimes", so I don't agree with you that a barbarian can always use his strength as a key ability when intimidating.

The will save sounds like a good idea, however, if a barbarian is trying to intimidate someone by use of force, why would a fighter or ranger be initimidated for more easily than a wizard for example? They are probably even more custom to this type of intimidation. There's a great deal of difference in Will saves between the various classes.

[QUOTE=Rudar Dimble]Well, Masters of the Wild clearly says "sometimes", so I don't agree with you that a barbarian can always use his strength as a key ability when intimidating.[/QUOTE]
Purely for the sake of semantic argument, maybe "sometimes" refers to the occasions where a Barbarian's Strength is higher than his Charisma (which, while obviously the best idea, isn't by definition always the case), or to the occasions where a DM allows such a rule in his campaign.

It all comes down to the individual DM's ruling, however. My group always allows the option to decide on whether a character, Barbarian or not, applies his Strength or Charisma to his Intimidate skill. However, once that decision is made, it's permanent. If a character chooses to use Strength for the skill, he can't opt to use Charisma if he, for example, finds a Charisma-boosting magic item.

As for the Will save issue, that's up for interpretation. Maybe the warrior classes are trained to fight despite being intimidated. Sort of like "yes, I'm scared and shaken, but I can't just not fight."

[QUOTE=Aramant]Purely for the sake of semantic argument, maybe "sometimes" refers to the occasions where a Barbarian's Strength is higher than his Charisma (which, while obviously the best idea, isn't by definition always the case), or to the occasions where a DM allows such a rule in his campaign.[/QUOTE]
To be a real nitpicker...if they meant that they would have written: "A barbarian can use his strength instead of his charisma modifier...." and not "sometimes". 'Sometimes' suggests that there are in game situations where it isn't possible.