• Reznik@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok, here is my point: being able to crush a neck is strength. Being believable that you will crush your victim’s neck is charisma. Of course you can torture someone. that is strength. threatening someone with torture is charisma. You have to be believable to be threatening. And that’s charisma.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      My beginner opinion (I’m in the middle of my first campaign ever) is…that doesn’t make sense. Big muscles are a weapon and if someone is threatening me with a weapon, being scared has nothing to do with their charm.

      Like would you be more threatened by the 140lb doorman with charm or the 240lb bouncer who just glares at you?

      • alexisonzen@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think that’s because you’re thinking about it with your body and your experience.

        Someone with a different body and different experiences might see that 240lb bouncer and think:

        Another guy they hired to be dumb muscle. I’ve dealt with his type before; wouldn’t hurt a flea without permission. Would probably cry right after, too. But the little guy… his eyes are saying he’ll do it. He’ll enjoy watching the big guy crush my windpipe. And big guy? If the little guy tells him to, he won’t hesitate.

        “H-hey, we’re all friends here. T-Tell you what, I’ll tell you what you want to know, and you can tell big guy here he’s got nothing to worry about.”

        If you take the right perspective, you can make almost any skill check make sense.

        • Susaga@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s the dumbest argument you could make. “The little guy is intimidating because he could tell the big guy to attack” just means the big guy is the threat, not the little guy. Imagine the little guy on his own and ask if he’d be as much of a threat at the big guy on his own. Even if he tried to hurt you, how much harm could he do?

          If anything, what you’re describing isn’t the little guy succeeding on intimidation. It’s the little guy using the help action to give the big guy advantage, and it seems the big guy really needed it.

          Absolutely, Charisma (Intimidation) checks make sense, but you can’t threaten them with simple bodily harm. You have to threaten them socially, or with a nearby weapon, or something along those lines.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, the little guy would stab you if they feel like it. They see the big guy as a weapon.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think I’d have to hear the DM say that was the situation before I could buy that logic

        • Square Singer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Turns out the charmless brute really likes killing people.

          How would you know in this situation that the big guy is a gentle giant and not a murderous giant? Not every big guy is automatically a nice guy.

          Charm is necessary when the threat that you are using to intimidate isn’t real or the victim doesn’t think you’d pull through.

          If you are tied to a wall and some uncharismatic weakling threatens you with a knife, the threat is very real after that guy starts punching holes in your arms.

          Tbh, if a big guy pins someone to a wall and chokes them, the situation is not anymore about how intimidating the big guy is, but about whether the victim is prepared to die for the cause.

          On the other hand, charisma-based intimidation makes a lot of sense in e.g. blackmail situations.

          So I’d say, strength-based intimidation doesn’t require a dice-roll since it only depends on the victim.

          And charisma-based intimidation only applies for situation, where the victim doesn’t know whether the threat is real.