# Intimidate in combat: viable?



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

I've got a level 4 character with +21 Intimidate, boosted to +23 1/encounter. I want to use Intimidate to get bloodied foes to surrender. On average, I'll need something like a 4 or higher on a d20 to get an even-leveled enemy to surrender. How viable is this tactic? Has anyone seen it used before?


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 9, 2009)

half level +         trained +      Feat bonus +    max Ability mod +      Largest item bonus + racial
    2          +        5     +         3      +        4       +     4 + 2 = 20



and thats with a lvl 17 item. How did you get it up to 21?


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

By being more creative than you. =P

5 trained
4 cha
2 half level
2 background
2 racial
1 item
2 familiar
3 feat

Which is completely irrelevant, because I'd like to know if anybody's actually tried this. I don't want my DM pulling some hokey "well, their allies are still fighting so they refuse to surrender" crap. If the skill works, it works. You don't tell a player "no" just because his attack bonus is through the roof, yet I can forsee it happening with a skill use because it'll catch the DM off guard, so it's "clearly" broken. =P 

So if that's common, I want to hear about it.


----------



## Mad Hamish (Jun 9, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> half level +         trained +      Feat bonus +    max Ability mod +      Largest item bonus + racial
> 2          +        5     +         3      +        4       +     4 + 2 = 20
> 
> 
> ...




There are (iirc) several items that add to intimidate that use different bonus types so they stack


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 9, 2009)

That is more creative than me .

And to be technical you simply *can't* catch the DM off his guard. It states simply that the DC of the roll can be set by the DM.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

No.



			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> Opposed Check: Intimidate vs. Will (see the table for modifiers to your target’s defense). If you can’t speak a language your target understands, you take a –5 penalty to your check. If you attempt to intimidate multiple enemies at once, make a separate Intimidate check against each enemy’s Will defense. Each target must be able to see and hear you.
> Success: You force a bloodied target to surrender




You don't just say "well, the DC is 45 because I said so". That's horrible, awful DMing. Going after someone's Will +10 at level 4 is already a DC 25+ check. That's normally hard for a level 4 character already (without ridiculous ad-hoc DM metagaming), it's juts that I powergamed the heck out of my skill bonus. You don't suddenly change someone's AC just because you discover the fighter has +4 more attack bonus than you thought, so anybody worth salt isn't going to do it for a skill check.


----------



## Nightson (Jun 9, 2009)

The DC is set by DM fiat by the rules.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 9, 2009)

DMs aren't told directly that they can set the DC to hit an enemy. That's why they shouldn't change the ac willy-nilly

As for this "strategy" you've worked out. You've taken a skill option, and have decided that since you min/maxed the heck out of your character that the DM has to suck it up and let you intimidate your way through campaigns. Any DM worth his salt is going to set a DC that you can't accomplish in certain circumstances for a few reasons

1. If you roll above a 4 and can end a combat instantly (even if the enemy is bloodied) that's not challenging and less fun for the group as a whole
2. It doesn't make sense. You aren't going to make an Otyugh bow to your will just because you are scary. In that scenario I would set the DC much higher than their will, because surrendur simply isn't something they do.
3. You making the rest of your party useless after your enemies are bloodied 4/5  the time is not fun for everyone else.

Is a good DM going to let your min/max go to waste, of course not. Is a good DM going to let you win most battles through intimidate, of course not.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

Does anyone have any worthwhile answers to my question?


----------



## Nebten (Jun 9, 2009)

I've used it before, but I use it sparingly. I pretty much use it in situations where the enemy could give up if given the chance: a major NPC just went down, majority of his fellows are blooded, its by it self. Its pretty much a time saver and then you can question the person afterwards. Being a DM myself, I try to use it against enemies that would make sense (mostly things with intelligence). You are more then likely to use it against other creatures that seem out of character, but I feel that would just piss off your DM. While its with in the scope of the game, its within his scope of the game to crank it up a couple notches too =v).


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 9, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Does anyone have any worthwhile answers to my question?




1. No I have never seen your idea implemented to that degree.
2. Its as viable as your DM chooses it to be.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

Nebten said:


> I've used it before, but I use it sparingly. I pretty much use it in situations where the enemy could give up if given the chance: a major NPC just went down, majority of his fellows are blooded, its by it self. Its pretty much a time saver and then you can question the person afterwards. Being a DM myself, I try to use it against enemies that would make sense (mostly things with intelligence). You are more then likely to use it against other creatures that seem out of character, but I feel that would just piss off your DM. While its with in the scope of the game, its within his scope of the game to crank it up a couple notches too =v).




Yes, but...you already get a further -5 penalty if you don't speak the language. So that Otyugh from before? I have to roll a 34(at 4th level!) to make him surrender. Even with my maximum obscenely twinked out roll, I still have to roll an 11 on the d20. A normal character, even one trained in Intimidate, would find this task literally impossible, having a maximum roll of about 31 or 32. This is what "makes sense". Normal characters cannot do this. But my twinked guy can. Just like wizards can't sneak attack, people who aren't optimized for Intimidate can't do this. I'm giving up attack bonuses and damage bonuses so I can do this neat trick. Why further penalize someone who already has a DC 10-15 higher than a normal skill check?

I guess I don't see why it's so insane to believe a D&D character can be so utterly terrifying that even monsters don't want to fight anymore. Anything with an Int score understands the concept of dominance. And anything with a lower Will + 10 (or +15) than my Intimidate check is dominated (animalistically speaking, not literally dominated as in mind control).


----------



## Caliber (Jun 9, 2009)

I have both seen this use of Intimidate in campaigns run by me as a DM, and employed it myself as a player. And while its fine for occasional use, I'd probably step on it if you really used it constantly, for many of the reasons above. Perhaps very important to you is this:



			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> Intimidate can be used in combat encounters or as part of a skill challenge that requires a number of successes. Your Intimidate checks are made against a target’s Will defense or *a DC set by the DM*. The target’s general attitude toward you and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC.




Bolded part added by me. The DM can decide a creature simply isn't intimidatable by you, and be 100% within the RAW, even ignoring the fact that the DM gets to say what flies anyway.

Edit: 







			
				Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I guess I don't see why it's so insane to believe a D&D character can be so utterly terrifying that even monsters don't want to fight anymore. Anything with an Int score understands the concept of dominance. And anything with a lower Will + 10 (or +15) than my Intimidate check is dominated (animalistically speaking, not literally dominated as in mind control).




The problem here is that in the real world, dominance almost always arises from actually, you know, being dominating. In this case, it isn't that your character is so mighty/powerful/whatever that the creature absolutely knows it has no choice but to submit. It's that you've twinked a mechanic meant to emulate that and created a character who somehow portrays himself as far more threatening than he can possibly be. Why would the bloodied monster submit to you, especially if it still has fully functional allies running about, has a healing word available (did I mention it was an Elite templated Cleric monster?) and the rest of your party is dying?


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

Yeah...I'm pretty sure that bit is in regard to trying to get more out of Intimidate than what is outlined in the book, such as "surrender, and also give me all your money, tell me where your rebel base is, tell me the access codes to Zion, and then kill yourself".

It's pretty clear to me that the DC to get a bad guy to stand down is Will + 10, + 5 more if you don't speak the same language. It's literally impossible to do this by yourself with a normal character, I make a character that can do it sometimes, and suddenly the DCs go up. Sounds really stupid to me.

What exactly is so broken or unfun about scaring things into submission? I guess because nobody thinks about the fact that D&D parties are literally wandering bands of thieving murderers, where surrender is infinitely lamer than cutting something's head off and urinating on the corpse.

I, for one, would be glad to have the combat over more quickly, since it takes freaking forever. Plus, survivors are interesting. Corpses are just dead.


----------



## Caliber (Jun 9, 2009)

Hey, look. You asked a question and I provided my answer. Obviously, you feel this is a tactic you should be able to employ with impunity, and that's fine by me. I'm just trying to warn you to check with your DM first. The rules clearly allow him to increase the DC to any amount he deems reasonable, even if that means your min-maxing here is totally negated. You may want to try to get some kind of pre-approval before rolling in planning on pulling this stunt off.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 9, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> It's pretty clear to me that the DC to get a bad guy to stand down is Will + 10, + 5 more if you don't speak the same language.
> 
> What exactly is so broken or unfun about scaring things into submission? I guess because nobody thinks about the fact that D&D parties are literally wandering bands of thieving murderers, where surrender is infinitely lamer than cutting something's head off and urinating on the corpse.




1. How is it clear to you. What about the text makes that clear?
2. Its not that its unfun to sometimes use this option. Its also not that surrender is infinitely lamer than killing, its that this should be an option that pcs can have instead of fighting in certain situations when one of the characters focuses on it. It should NOT be an option in every conceivable conflict because its essentially an ability that says this

-----------------------
at-will ability
target: a bloodied enemy 
Roll a d20, if you get higher than 4 that enemy is now out of combat. If you miss with this ability you can't use it again on the same target for the rest of the encounter.
-----------------------

If any class had that ability no matter how much min/maxing it took to get there, it would be broken. You have made it clear that you intend to use this a lot, that's the problem. Its a flavor RPG type option (as most skill options in combat are), its not supposed to be a consistent viable combat option. The evidence for that is the denoted ability of the DM to change the DC. Not proof but I'd say its evidence in that regard.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

Caliber said:


> The problem here is that in the real world, dominance almost always arises from actually, you know, being dominating. In this case, it isn't that your character is so mighty/powerful/whatever that the creature absolutely knows it has no choice but to submit. It's that you've twinked a mechanic meant to emulate that and created a character who somehow portrays himself as far more threatening than he can possibly be. Why would the bloodied monster submit to you, especially if it still has fully functional allies running about, has a healing word available (did I mention it was an Elite templated Cleric monster?) and the rest of your party is dying?




That's patently wrong. Supernatural arcane power accounts for the majority of my character's intimidation. And it clearly goes a long way, as evidenced by my huge skill bonus. The character "somehow" portrays himself as that threatening because he leaks arcane lightning and thunder, flies around with glowing yellow eyes and a magical skull mask, while further boosted by unearthly charisma and a magical creature. Plus he's just plain good at being Intimidating already.

Wolverines can intimidate bears, why can't a fantasy hero that commands supernatural authority intimidate things that are generally thought to be larger or more tough?


----------



## Regicide (Jun 9, 2009)

Caliber said:


> The problem here is that in the real world, dominance almost always arises from actually, you know, being dominating.




  Um.  In a 4E encounter the players are almost always going to win.  They are in fact dominate in every fight except the very very rare one they may TPK in.  Most monsters should be running on round 2.  Waiting until they're bloodied is usually really toughing things out.

  This is a perfectly fine tactic.  Most of my monsters would be running around the time you'd be using it anyway.  It'd only really be useful on the stupid ones that aren't quite stupid enough to be immune to intimidate, or to peel off wounded ones in the middle of a fight that wouldn't run since they have lots of allies.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> -----------------------
> at-will ability
> target: a bloodied enemy
> Roll a d20, if you get higher than 4 that enemy is now out of combat. If you miss with this ability you can't use it again on the same target for the rest of the encounter.
> -----------------------




First off, it's only a 4 or higher if I blow an encounter utility, and I'm using it on an equal level opponent that has approximately 16 Will and speaks a language I know. Second off, I'm giving up valuable attack and damage bonuses to be able to use this tactic. The DM doesn't just add AC and HP because my attack and damage bonus is higher than he thought. You guys are acting like I'm cheating at dice or something because I don't think a DM should be able to ad-hoc a number you can't target just because he doesn't approve of your strategy.


----------



## javcs (Jun 9, 2009)

I've seen it run that you can't attempt Intimidation until/unless the target is bloodied. 
As a DM, I'd usually do that. Also, as a DM, I'd certainly apply circumstance modifiers to attempting this - and those circumstances could affect whether or not you could attempt to Intimidate.

As an opening move, unless you had a truly amazing result, Intimidate won't net you an immediate surrender in my game - if you did well, you'd likely demoralize the target - depending on exactly how you described your attempt and exactly how well you did, the target might get penalties against you or you might get bonuses against it for a varying amount of time.
Now, if you attempt Intimidate once the target is bloodied, then, it's usually going to be easier to get the target to surrender or flee. Again, modified by circumstances.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jun 9, 2009)

*Intimidate in Combat*

Intimidating a foe is a standard action, and yes, there is a -5 penalty to do it in combat. Unless you had the good fortune to happen upon a hostile otyough or whatever already bloodied, you are in combat in this scenario. If it's a level four creature and the DC is set at the hard end of the suggestions in the DMG, (which I have found in the last year to be pretty do-able for a min/maxed character) then you have 4 level +10 or 14 with -5 to your roll for in combat and -5 more for no language, and it only affects one creature, not so the otyough, not it's orc keepers or whatever. In effect your roll +21 would need to be 3 or higher with what must be all your resources in intimidate. Pretty reliable, but I don't image you have much else in the way of items at that level, and how to pull your weight getting the thing bloodied in the first place?


----------



## Caliber (Jun 9, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> That's patently wrong. Supernatural arcane power accounts for the majority of my character's intimidation. And it clearly goes a long way, as evidenced by my huge skill bonus. The character "somehow" portrays himself as that threatening because he leaks arcane lightning and thunder, flies around with glowing yellow eyes and a magical skull mask, while further boosted by unearthly charisma and a magical creature. Plus he's just plain good at being Intimidating already.
> 
> Wolverines can intimidate bears, why can't a fantasy hero that commands supernatural authority intimidate things that are generally thought to be larger or more tough?




Yes, but by the time the fight has progressed to the point that you are intimidating bloodied opponents, they've had time to actually see just how threatening you are. And in many cases, just because they are bloodied is no indication that you are in any way a threat. A wolverine can try to intimidate a bear, and can sometimes succeed. But I wouldn't want to be the wolverine when the bear decides it's not taking it that day.

The long and short of it is: this is supposed to be a difficult to use mechanic that is sometimes a viable choice. You are proposing to make it an at-will "I Win" button that ends neary every fight halfway through, many times in defiance of all logic. As a player, I'd probably ask you to stop it, as a DM I'd almost certainly begin giving monsters hefty DC bonuses against you. 

I'd strongly suggest you clear this build with your DM before you go with it.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

javcs said:


> I've seen it run that you can't attempt Intimidation until/unless the target is bloodied.




That's the only way to run it, strictly by the rules. I also wouldn't allow a character to force a surrender at the start of a fight. But after I literally blast you with lightning until you leak blood, that really changes things.


----------



## Caliber (Jun 9, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> First off, it's only a 4 or higher if I blow an encounter utility, and I'm using it on an equal level opponent that has approximately 16 Will and speaks a language I know. Second off, I'm giving up valuable attack and damage bonuses to be able to use this tactic. The DM doesn't just add AC and HP because my attack and damage bonus is higher than he thought. You guys are acting like I'm cheating at dice or something because I don't think a DM should be able to ad-hoc a number you can't target just because he doesn't approve of your strategy.




You said the encounter only gives you a +2 earlier. I'm not sure Flip's point is altered much if you change the description of his at-will power from "roll a 4 or higher" to "roll a 6 or higher".

I think the DM should be able to ad-hoc a number because that is what the rules state. I'll restrain myself from speculating as to what purpose that ability is meant to be used for, but there it is.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

shadowoflameth said:


> Intimidating a foe is a standard action, and yes, there is a -5 penalty to do it in combat. Unless you had the good fortune to happen upon a hostile otyough or whatever already bloodied, you are in combat in this scenario. If it's a level four creature and the DC is set at the hard end of the suggestions in the DMG, (which I have found in the last year to be pretty do-able for a min/maxed character) then you have 4 level +10 or 14 with -5 to your roll for in combat and -5 more for no language, and it only affects one creature, not so the otyough, not it's orc keepers or whatever. In effect your roll +21 would need to be 3 or higher with what must be all your resources in intimidate. Pretty reliable, but I don't image you have much else in the way of items at that level, and how to pull your weight getting the thing bloodied in the first place?




Actually, you can do it to multiple opponents with one Standard action. You just have to roll separately for each. And the mask is only a level 5 item. I'm a level 4 PC. I've also got the Staff of Ruin +1, and magical armor and neck slot. I pull my weight by being the only striker in the group and putting out a lot of damage through multitarget spells.



Caliber said:


> Yes, but by the time the fight has progressed to the point that you are intimidating bloodied opponents, they've had time to actually see just how threatening you are. And in many cases, just because they are bloodied is no indication that you are in any way a threat. A wolverine can try to intimidate a bear, and can sometimes succeed. But I wouldn't want to be the wolverine when the bear decides it's not taking it that day.




Then that's the wolverine's fault for failing its check, I guess. If I bomb a check on a red dragon, do you know what I just did? I made it easier for the dragon to kill us all because I didn't peg it with damage or status effects, or do something useful.



> The long and short of it is: this is supposed to be a difficult to use mechanic that is sometimes a viable choice. You are proposing to make it an at-will "I Win" button that ends neary every fight halfway through, many times in defiance of all logic. As a player, I'd probably ask you to stop it, as a DM I'd almost certainly begin giving monsters hefty DC bonuses against you.




More like "it's supposed to be an impossibility, but proposing to make it an "I win faster" button that ends about 25% of fights earlier than planned". Seriously, have you ever tried this skill without maximizing it? It's freaking impossible. The only time my party used it, they had to spend all their standard actions using Aid Another on the guy with the highest check (which I believe according to RAW doesn't even work) and he STILL had to roll a 15 to pass. Luckily for him, he did. It flew in the face of "logic" because the party was losing the fight, but it was hilarious, climactic, and relieving. Everyone loved it. 



> I'd strongly suggest you clear this build with your DM before you go with it.




Well, I'm not going to, because there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not using illegal sources or crazy builds. I just stacked a few feats and items together, like most any character does. Why the hell would fellow players get mad at me for making an encounter easier to win? Nobody gets mad at you for stacking on piles and piles of damage, and effectively doing the same thing via attrition, instead of all at once with a single check.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

Caliber said:


> You said the encounter only gives you a +2 earlier. I'm not sure Flip's point is altered much if you change the description of his at-will power from "roll a 4 or higher" to "roll a 6 or higher".




Bad post is bad. Try reading what I write next time. If I use the skill on a level 8 artillery with huge Will defense that doesn't speak my language, I'm looking at 15 or higher, with my encounter power, with my super tricked out skill that I gave up a lot to get.

It's 6 or higher on a level 4 soldier or something that will freaking die with 1-2 more hits anyway. This is really not a big deal. =/


----------



## RyvenCedrylle (Jun 9, 2009)

I've used this tactic before myself because I really enjoy it - especially for arcane characters.   I've rolled Intimidate checks to cast _Power Word: Kill_,  _Cage of Force_ and _Plane Shift_.  I also run a "Batman" Fighter who refuses to kill; enemies dropped to 0 HP either get knocked unconscious, pinned to various objects by their clothing, or are simply grabbed with a good old-fashioned blade-to-the-throat.  As a GM, if you've built your character to do this really well, I'm going to let you do it to at least two or three enemies per encounter - about as many as you would defeat by HP depletion.  After that, maybe DCs will start going up, but I find this particualr mechanic very rich in possibility and encourage it when at all possible.


----------



## Griogre (Jun 9, 2009)

For what it's worth I think you missed the point on clearing it with the DM.  I think the point was if the DM is going to always make the DC = 100 then you are wasting your time and should build another character.

On topic.  You should be aware that this build is mostly front loaded and you are just front loading it more.  The tactic tends to get less effective as your character advances in levels unless you can continually advance your Intimidate skill.  This is because intimidate like all skills advances only one point per two levels.  Will defenses for monsters advance one point *every* level.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 9, 2009)

Griogre said:


> For what it's worth I think you missed the point on clearing it with the DM.  I think the point was if the DM is going to always make the DC = 100 then you are wasting your time and should *find a new gaming group*




is how I would say it. But yeah, fair enough. 

Re: front loading, I don't expect this campaign to hit mid-Paragon, to be honest. I just felt like trying something a bit different than "do as much damage as possible" with a striker.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jun 9, 2009)

In my campaign, a successful Intimidate on a bloodied monster causes it to believe that to fight on is hopeless and certain to end in its death.  How the monster reacts to that belief depends on the situation and the monster; it does not always equal surrendering and being out of the fight.  Frequently it will.  But not always.  The monster's intelligence, culture and motivations; the PC's actions, demeanor and reputation; the preceived likelihood of survival if the monster surrenders, pretends to surrender, flees, bluffs or feigns death may all play into the result.  A successful check will always give the party some benefit, but it may not be a surrender.


----------



## Lancelot (Jun 9, 2009)

On Puget Sound said:


> In my campaign, a successful Intimidate on a bloodied monster causes it to believe that to fight on is hopeless and certain to end in its death.  How the monster reacts to that belief depends on the situation and the monster; it does not always equal surrendering and being out of the fight.  Frequently it will.  But not always.  The monster's intelligence, culture and motivations; the PC's actions, demeanor and reputation; the preceived likelihood of survival if the monster surrenders, pretends to surrender, flees, bluffs or feigns death may all play into the result.  A successful check will always give the party some benefit, but it may not be a surrender.




In my DM'ing experience, I'm something like this as well. However, I apply the ruling that some monsters simply can't be intimidated.

Although the rules don't say as much, you can't intimidate an ochre jelly. Or a zombie. Or a starspawn of hadar. Some creatures are so mindless or utterly alien they simply don't understand the concept of intimidation.

I'd also DM fiat to prevent intimidation in an encounter which is specifically designed for story reasons. For example, the final uber-battle against the Big Bad.

I'd allow Intimidation to work in most other encounters as long as it wasn't being abused. I'd even encourage it in some circumstances, because I agree with the original poster that it's a great way to end combats before they become boring, and live enemies are more interesting than dead enemies.

I also think that if a player came to me with a munched out Intimidate build and expected that it would work for *every* encounter that he wanted (as long as he rolled a number on a d20), I would hope that he talked to me first. I could give him some references for other gaming groups to try out.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 9, 2009)

Even without maximizing the skill, trying the tactic is still useful in situations when a lot of enemies are bloodied, as you can try it on all of them at once. I've done that a few times with my previous character to good results.

I think the regular DC is fine for most monsters, and its fine for the DM to have his boss monsters be much harder to scare down. Its all RAW, and its all good.


----------



## Legildur (Jun 9, 2009)

I like the tactic. Mind you, it's not always a suitable tactic to employ.

What do you do with a surrenderered enemy?  You can't keep just killing them afterwards.

What happens mid combat if one enemy surrenders when you turn your attention elsewhere? Do they resume fighting or perhaps slink away?


----------



## Chris Knapp (Jun 9, 2009)

I have used Intimidate a few times, and seen it used by others at the table, but we all have failed; haven't seen a success yet so haven't seen how my DM's handle it. Personally, its just asking for an errata since its the only skill with an opposed check versus a defense. All other opposed checks are against other skills. Moreover, the very nature of an opposed check indicates that the opponent is supposed to roll too: Stealth vs. Perception, Bluff vs. Insight, etc. Not so with an in-combat intimidate check. Its really a form of basic attack as written. This becomes a huge problem when a level 4 character can achieve a +30 to their "attack roll." The skill description text that states it targets will or a DC set by the DM is also confusing. I believe it is summarizing the 2 situations where its used: either in combat where its straight Intimidate vs. will, or in a skill challenge where its intimidate vs. a set DC. I don't think RAI was to target a DC in combat.

All that said, if I was DM'ing a PC that tried to max out their intimidate, I'd let the other players police the game. If they didn't like it but failed to stop it I'd be tempted to get all passive/aggressive by throwing out a monster with a fat charisma and trained in intimidate and let it try to intimidate one of the players. "I'm sorry, your warlock has just crapped his pantaloons and has surrendered." What's good for the goose is good for the gander. . .


----------



## Tuft (Jun 9, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I just felt like trying something a bit different than "do as much damage as possible" with a striker.





I can very much understand _that_ argument...   


I dont know if you've realized that, but Minions are always going to be immune versus this tactic, since they never can become blooded... You cannot scare away _those_ guys, no matter how supernaturally scary you are.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jun 9, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> No.
> 
> You don't just say "well, the DC is 45 because I said so". That's horrible, awful DMing. Going after someone's Will +10 at level 4 is already a DC 25+ check. That's normally hard for a level 4 character already (without ridiculous ad-hoc DM metagaming), it's juts that I powergamed the heck out of my skill bonus. You don't suddenly change someone's AC just because you discover the fighter has +4 more attack bonus than you thought, so anybody worth salt isn't going to do it for a skill check.



Hell no. You don't get to dictate what the DM rules. That kind of thinking is the worst D&D could foster (the inclination to replace DMs with rulebooks and computers to ensure minmaxing isn't opposed).

At best, you get to choose which DM you play with. But an attitude like that would get you booted from my game in two seconds flat, so you wouldn't even get to make that choice yourself.

Cheers,
Zapp


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 9, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Well, I'm not going to, because there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not using illegal sources or crazy builds. I just stacked a few feats and items together, like most any character does. Why the hell would fellow players get mad at me for making an encounter easier to win? Nobody gets mad at you for stacking on piles and piles of damage, and effectively doing the same thing via attrition, instead of all at once with a single check.




I think you're asking two different questions:

1) Can I do this, by the rules?
2) Should I do this?

For me, the answers are as follows:

1) Yes, you can, and it'll be successful.
2) Like any character build, it's normally good gaming etiquette to run this kind of thing past a DM first, to give them some idea about it. Otherwise, you're likely to be playing a different kind of game to the DM, which can cause all sorts of problems.

Still, it's up to you how you play the game, and how the DM runs it. Personally, if a player came into my game with this schtick without telling me and used it in every combat, I'd want to talk to them about it after the first session because it messes with a fairly basic assumption of D&D (that the monsters die at the end of the combat).

By pulling this as a surprise on the DM, you're not exactly stacking up the likelihood that they'll react well to it, which is (I think) what other people in the thread are trying to say.


----------



## jbear (Jun 9, 2009)

Ok, well... seems the discussions is a bit touchy, and I don't know if my answer to your question will seem useful, but here goes anyway...

My players are big fans of using Intimidate. I believe it was errata'd to a minor action, so you can use it once an encounter without blowing an attack. 

Edit: errr... don't know why I thought I read that somewhere. Not the case... Ok, standard Action.
Well, In my game my players enjoy intimidating so much that it's staying a minor action. Anyway...

I rule it the following way (obviously completely my own personal ruling): If the fight isn't clearly in the favour of the PC's and the leader is still alive then PC's can use intimidate to penalise all bloodied enemies that can see the person intimidating with a -2 to attack rolls until the end of the PC's next turn. Non-stackable with other people intimidating, so best to take turns. If the leader is bloodied but he still has the majority of his troops still up and fighting strong... same deal.

If the leader was dead, then any bloodied creatures would surrender... the fight would be over. If the leader was bloodied and his troops slaughtered, he would most likely surrender too (under most normal circumstances).

I prefer it this way because the skill can be useful mid-combat before the fight enters the 'lapping up the left-overs' stage and end a fight when the outcome is decided without grinding it til the last man falls. My monsters also use intimidate on bloodied PC's to inflict the same -2 penalty. Seems a lot fairer than forcing their charcter to surrender just because that's what is implied in the rules.

I imagine you wouldn't like your character to be forced to surrender as soon as he was bloodied, just before you took one of the 10 healing potions on your belt or your leader used one of the many healing powers he has left to get you back to full HPs, just because the enemies acted first. I wouldn't rule this as fair. The same goes for the monsters. Hence my house ruling described above.

I'd enjoy your character in my game I'm sure. And he would have many opportunities to shine with his incredible aura of pure fear that surrounds him. But it would have to be used appropriately. I wouldn't increase DC's on you, I would just reduce/change the effect it had on those you are intimidating if I deemed it impossible to achieve surrender given the circumstances.

Anyway, that's what you'd be dealing with in my game. But hey, that's just my game. Best person to check this out with is your DM.


----------



## Aran Thule (Jun 9, 2009)

To echo what others have said, i would definately run your idea past the DM first, otherwise you run the risk of alienating them and possibly the other players.

I agree with On Puget Sound as to how they might react, here are a couple of possible responses:
Run away to get reinforcements and regroup. This will give foes time to prepare and increase their numbers (had this happen last session and it could have caused the death of some of us)
Surrender. You now have a prisoner


What do you plan to do with those that surrender, i would have a few ideas if i were DM.
do you disarm them and lock them in a room. Could have a lurker free them later and then you have a group made up of prisoners that could flee the area or go looking for revenge on you.
I would increase the differculty if you tried to intimidate something again or possibly if they had warning.
The reputation you form will have a big effect, after clearing a dungeon what do you do with the prisoners, a good DM could put that to good use.
If you are killing everything after surrender and news of this gets out then even as scary as your character is creatures would not surrender as they know they will die anyway.

You could also be digging you own grave.
in a party a b C d e f , when C is the big scary then you could well find yourself as public enemy number one and main target, again if they have seen you bloodied or dropped i would increase the DC to intimidate.


----------



## Tuft (Jun 9, 2009)

CapnZapp said:


> Old Gumphrey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's the DM's job to keep up the appropriate appeareance of a threat against the party. 

That means that he most probably adjusts the monsters to fit what the party can do. For example, I've had a DM that changed the 3.5 "always hit on a 20" rule into "always hit on a 19-20", just because members of the party had too good AC. With another GM in a 3E Shadowrun game, the combat prowess of the opposition changed noticably during a single round of combat.

That's the problem with hard-line optimization; it is self-defeating. The DM _will_ react to it, and he _will_ change the threat level to compensate. Different DMs react quicker than others, but if you press hard enough, you will force the reaction. That goes for single skill checks, as the OP describes, as well as pure damage output. Now, if you concentrate on optimization, you most probably sink a lot of resources into it (feats, build points, skill points, etc, depending on system); recources you could have spread out on other things. When you force the DM to react, he restores the balance so that you are back where you would have been without the optimization - but you are still out of your spent resources. That's the self-defeating part. 

The other part is that you are actually worsening the odds for the members of the party that are not on the arms race train, not improving them. If the DM selects or designs monsters to fit your optimized character, they will very probably be a much higher threat to the non-optimized ones.


CapnZapp talks above about "computers [...] ensure minmaxing isn't opposed". The interesting part is that it is not true; minmaxing is opposed even on computers. If enough players in an MMO employs a specific optimization, the game _will_ change - the developers _will_ employ the dreaded "nerf bat". The MMO developers may react slower than a PnP DM, but they _will_ react...


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 9, 2009)

Personally I think the main problem with the current intimidate rules is that they're too binary. There's no power that's going to allow you to roll at stat - 10 vs will and let you kill any bloodied targets within range: it would be far too good.

And yet, as written that's what the intimidate rules do.

Personally I think they should have written intimidate up as a charisma-fuelled aoe damage power with the fear keyword, making it an excellent minion killer and at the same time grounding it in the normal combat mechanics and not making it crazy-good. That would have gone a long way to relieving DM worry about it, and it might actually see some use.

Intimidate
Encounter, standard
Fear, psychic
All enemies within close burst 3
Intimidate skill - 10 vs will
1d6 psychic damage (increase to 2d6 at 11, 3d6 at 21). Does not affect foes immune to fear.

I'm sure it can still be cheezed, but there are better powers to cheeze.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 9, 2009)

I think using a skill to outright dictate how another creature behaves doesn't work. Influence perhaps, but not absolute control.
If I ever did entertain the idea of this kind of skill usage, then it would apply to PC's as well as NPC's. Being forced to surrender via die roll a couple times would make the use of this skill unpopular with players.


----------



## Caliber (Jun 9, 2009)

Saeviomagy, interesting idea re: Intimidate. I don't have a problem with it in my group, but I'm still halfway tempted to propose this house rule, seeing how (as someone upthread pointed out) Minions (who should be super-duper vulnerable to Intimidating) are immune to Intimidate by RAW. Intriguing. 

And Griogre, YES PLEASE. This is what I have (unsuccessfully, but oh well) been trying to say here. Thanks for putting it better than I was apparently able to. 

Anyway, the one time I've used Intimidate it succeeded (I rolled well). I also distinctly remember a player using it successfully as well (out of maybe 2 or 3 tries? Dunno for sure.) So, definitely possible.


----------



## tmatk (Jun 9, 2009)

I think using the intimidate in combat rule as straight RAW can be bit silly. I would almost never let a PC force a surrender on a bloodied monster if its allies were all still fighting.

I allow it is a solution if the threat of an encounter is over, but some monsters fight to death. Period.

Rules go both ways AFAIC, How would one feel as a PC if your DM let the monsters roll intimidate checks against you?


----------



## timbannock (Jun 9, 2009)

I think your character idea is totally valid.

I also think -- as a DM -- that I wouldn't allow it to succeed in every encounter.  Just as I wouldn't allow combat to succeed in every encounter.  Sometimes, you just have to use other options.

In general, I would play this by the RAW and if you succeed, fine.  Enemy = intimidated.  But remember, you're rolling against each enemy.  So again, that's fine.

But, on occasion, you will fight creatures that will fight to the death.  Remember, although RAW states Bloodied enemies will be intimidated, the fact of the matter is that some creatures/people act more aggressive when being intimidated.  Perhaps instead of having the enemy surrender, I'd have it fly into a "rage."  I would NOT give it benefits for doing so, but instead "penalize" it by having it ignore other (potentially more dangerous) attackers to get to you.  I would have it ignore the possibility of taking OAs to get to you.  Thus, it would likely die or be defeated more quickly, but would not flee.

Also, I would not allow this to work on BBEGs UNLESS I felt it helped the story.  Intimidating Magneto?  Not gonna happen.  Intimidating Toad?  Sure.  He'll fess up, give you the location of Magneto's hideout, and then either slip away or stab you in the back.  Intimidating Pyro?  Even easier.  This is the guy who'd rather go to jail than die for Magneto's cause, so sure, intimidate him all you want.

Because if you fail the roll, any one of these guys will still trounce you (or at least give it their best shot!).

As an aside, I think Intimidate is THE PERFECT tactic for ending low-threat battles against unnamed badguys.  This is a GREAT way to get out of grindy combats that everyone knows the PCs are going to win.  Intimidate is like the [ENCOUNTER STOP] command, and should be used by more Players & DMs in order to save the fun fighting for the big, set-piece battles.

That help at all?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 9, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Personally I think the main problem with the current intimidate rules is that they're too binary. There's no power that's going to allow you to roll at stat - 10 vs will and let you kill any bloodied targets within range: it would be far too good.
> 
> And yet, as written that's what the intimidate rules do.




I agree with this. Instead of the DM increasing the intimidate DC to make it impossible to intimidate the Big Bad, have it easier to use but have less effect. So if the big bad has a -1 to attacks for the encounter, or a bigger but briefer penalty or something of that note.


----------



## Eric Finley (Jun 9, 2009)

I have a similar build for my Dragonborn Starlock (Intimidate 15 at 1st level without magic items, with a potential daily +5 from Feverish Certainty of Caiphon, IMO the most stylish utility power in the game; could be an encounter +5 instead using a different L2 utility, but then I wouldn't get this crazed glare in my eyes and begin performing whatever skill it is in a manner which is simultaneously effective and yet alien and inhuman).

And we are all fine with the ability exactly as written.  Because in actual play, it simply feels unwise to actually be totally focused on it; it's simply kept in reserve as a slightly-more-than-once-per-encounter technique.  You've gotta have _something_ to do before things get all bloodied all over; in both the OP's post and mine, that's inflicting pretty solid striker damage, call it 90% optimized instead of 100% to make room for the Intimidate toys.  Then you get into a real fight and it often happens that enemy A might be bloodied, maybe even enemy B as well, but it's enemy C who's managed to get our Wizard into melee who's the immediate concern.  Sometimes it feels worth spending my standard action to try and take out A and B, sometimes it's not.

So I end up using it, I'd guess, about every other fight.  And the individual skirmishes it ends are usually ones that we're ever so slightly tired of fighting anyway (or perhaps more accurately, that have lost their initial "cool!" factor), and we're ready to move on to a new and different tactical situation.  With the -10 modifier, the binary nature of it is annoying (because it's so all-or-nothing) but neither over- nor under-powered in my experience.

So - is it a good mechanic?  Yes.  It's honestly quite balanced by the existence of that nasty -10 penalty (not uncommonly -15 due to language).  Is it optimally designed?  No.  Not working on minions (who ought to be the easiest targets for it), all-or-nothing results, and the screwed up setup for the nonhostile targets... all seem like things which deserve a better design.  Which I've been working on, here and there.  But from experience with an Intimidate-focused character in actual play, I'm designing it with an eye to baselining it about where it is now.

(A funny story about the nonhostile targets... our most recent battle with that character was one where some dwarves and an elemental were fighting against some kobolds and a white dragon.  We'd had not-adversarial discussions with both groups, and were basically being presented by our GM with the challenge: "Pick one side, or the other... or decide to take them both out (which we did)... but you can't stay neutral."  It was a cool setup.  But the Inimidate rules kicked in at that point... by the time we'd established the full situation, some of both sides had become bloodied due to the skirmishing.  Yet they both trusted me, still.  So... no -10 for being hostile.  "What are you people *doing?*  Throw down your swords!" ... dice hit the table, and due to pure dice luck all three bloodied kobolds hear it and freak out, while both bloodied dwarves shoot me an irritated glance and go back to killing kobolds.  Powerful?  Maybe.  Dumb (the not-hostile-therefore-easier part)?  Yes.  But nonetheless memorable.)

To keep it simple, I think the binary nature is actually the last thing I'd fix.  But ditch the "-10 for hostile" thing.  Call that -10 for standard monsters; make it -12 for elites and -15 for solos.  Minions are "bloodied" when they're down to half the original batch of minions; against minions it's -7.  The -5 for no shared language stands.

Typical situational modifiers (+2 to -2) include if there's a surviving monster with the "Leader" subrole and comparable level to the target, or if more than half of the enemy are already down or fled (prorated by XP value, as roughly eyeballed by the DM), or if the encounter is Easy (level N-1 to N) or Hard (level N+3 or above).  Even if the DM feels "no way, he really wouldn't back down" he should restrict himself to using the -2 situational modifier in most circumstances; remember that if the PC has a decent chance of this then they're almost certainly running some kind of supernatural assistance to their fearsomeness.

Oh, and... I also use it against my PCs.  If they RP it well, either dropping weapons and trying to surrender or else fleeing without regard for tactics, then I'll usually let them come back in after a round or two.  If they don't play it out, then the rule stands.  I won't use it in situations where it would totally kill their fun, and in general the fun-killing is quite counterbalanced by the fun of playing a different set of actions in combat (fleeing isn't normally part of their repertoire), aided by DM roleplaying of the monsters doing the intimidating.

------------

However...

In no wise should you ever present your DM with a build and say "this is how it works, period."  The fact that you can even _consider _making that comment would cause me as a DM to disqualify the build on the spot.  Something like "it feels like a reasonable build, given that it's normally out of the question for most characters to pull off, and here are some intelligently written forum comments supporting my position"...  that, absolutely.  I'd be happy to listen to.  So just watch your approach to your DM, dude - it sounds like mostly you know that, but just in case you missed it, that was a big red warning flag you threw up earlier.

And mention to him that there's nothing in the rules saying he can't use it on PCs, either... and that at least one poster has done so, to fun effect.  It's not as invasive of player autonomy as the knee-jerk reaction suggests, it's actually rather fun.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 9, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> You don't just say "well, the DC is 45 because I said so". That's horrible, awful DMing.
> ...
> You don't suddenly change someone's AC just because you discover the fighter has +4 more attack bonus than you thought, so anybody worth salt isn't going to do it for a skill check.




No, but don't forget about circumstance bonuses and penalties.  The DM can certainly adjust someone's AC due to unusual circumstances, such as an odd angle of attack, strong winds blowing your way, or maybe the enemy just Intimidated you and you are quaking a little. ;}  Similarly, interaction skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate) are extremely sensitive to circumstance bonuses and penalties.  There may be circumstances influencing the enemy's morale.  He may have an especially high opinion of himself, or he might notice that his forces outnumber yours, or maybe your means of Intimidation is to say, "uh, please surrender?"  Conversely, if the enemy is the last one standing, and the rogue is flanking him with a readied action, the DC should be lower.

Personally, I feel there are a lot of role-playing issues with capturing enemy combatants, which can bog the game down.  I would discuss those with your group and DM and make sure that it isn't going to disrupt the game.  If you guys are OK with managing captives and spending a lot of time interrogating them etc., then I think the Intimidation trick can be balanced.

 -- 77IM


----------



## IanB (Jun 9, 2009)

IMO the way that bit about the Intimidate skill is worded indicates that is a potential use under some circumstances, not a hard and fast 'you can always try this' rule.

If it was a specific defined use of the Intimidate skill, usable on any bloodied creature, it would be broken out in the skill description much like opening a lock or jumping, I think.

Vaguely disloyal mercenary/lackey? Sure, I'd let a player try. Ultimate bad guy explicitly described in a module as fighting to the death? Sorry, no dice.


----------



## babinro (Jun 9, 2009)

As per the rules of the game, intimidation could be widely and easily abused if the player choose to do so. I think there should be a little more to it rather than immediate surrender as been suggested above

This simply carries over from 3rd editions diplomatic character who could max checks in order to get an unlimited amount of fanatical followers doing their bidding so long as they aren't mindless.

Players are allowed to do it and the rules allow for it...however, overusing such things would quickly take a lot of fun out of the game (for most people).  Which is why people are inclined to try and 'houserule' it.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 10, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I agree with this. Instead of the DM increasing the intimidate DC to make it impossible to intimidate the Big Bad, have it easier to use but have less effect. So if the big bad has a -1 to attacks for the encounter, or a bigger but briefer penalty or something of that note.




Well, interestingly enough, making it a damage power as I put above allows you to do interesting things, like take psychic lock to add a -2 penalty for a round to anyone you hit, or take damage boosters for it etc etc.

Now... if only it had an ongoing save-ends effect so doomsayers could get some use out of it...


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jun 10, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Actually, you can do it to multiple opponents with one Standard action. You just have to roll separately for each. And the mask is only a level 5 item. I'm a level 4 PC. I've also got the Staff of Ruin +1, and magical armor and neck slot. I pull my weight by being the only striker in the group and putting out a lot of damage through multitarget spells.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






My mistake for answering off the cuff instead of referring to the rules on pg. 186 of the PG. Still, the result is pretty much as I would anticipate. 

You can roll seperately for multiple foes, but intimidating a foe into surrendering, giving a clue or taking some other action is a skill check vs. will. At level 4 with a +2 ability mod (which is not at all uncommon), the creature might have a 14-16 or so will, but then there is -5 to your roll for no language in common (which will likely happen a lot), and the creature would get a +10 bonus to will for already being hostile. 

so it has an effective will of 24-26 against your roll with a total of +16. so, an 8-10 vs. each foe to succeed.

This seems pretty fair as it approaches a 50-50 chance at like level foes with ordinary abilities. The same rules on the same page though are specific that the DM can set a DC instead of the will defense.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jun 10, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Now... if only it had an ongoing save-ends effect so doomsayers could get some use out of it...




Here's a fun thought... if you are using intimidate to apply a penalty other than "surrender", have that penalty persist until the intimidated target succeeds at a hit.  Once your confidence is shattered, only a success can restore it.


----------



## Tenniel (Jun 10, 2009)

The DM could also interpret the the rules this way: If you succeed with your Intimidate vs Will, it is up to the DM what happens next:

_Success: You force a bloodied target to surrender, get a target to reveal secrets against its will, or cow a target into taking some other action. _

It does not specify whether it is the player or the DM that specifies the action taken.  In some circumstances, the DM might get the target to do something (e.g. switch to another target, take defensive action for a round or two, temporarily drop its guard, wet pants).


----------



## 77IM (Jun 10, 2009)

Another thing you could do is use penalties to influence decision making.  It's similar to the -2 penalty for being marked; it doesn't force the creature to attack a particular target, just offers some encouragement.

For example, maybe the Intimidate works like this:
*Success:*  The target suffers a -5 penalty to all attacks and defenses (save ends, with a -2 penalty on the saving throw).  _Aftereffect:_  The target suffers a -2 penalty to all attacks and defenses (save ends).

So that doesn't force the creature to flee or surrender, but may influence his decision to do so, based on whether he has allies in the fight that can protect him for two rounds, is a solo, etc.  If he chooses to stand his ground, the players still get considerable advantage over him.  In this way, the PC's can't dictate NPC behavior, but the DM can't negate the PC's ability, either.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Lauberfen (Jun 10, 2009)

I have a dragonborn paladin who just finished thunderspire at 8th level- he has intimidate +14. I do occasionally intimidate bloodied creatures into surrendering (although not too much, because I don't kill captives without trial, and I don't want loads of prisoners).

It's entirely subject to DM decision- DC is always as the book, but some monsters (insane/berserk ones, for example) just won't surrender, and monsters will usually not surrrender if there are many other monsters surviving.


----------



## timbannock (Jun 10, 2009)

Two things I noted:

1. Saying to the DM: "This is RAW, so therefore, it always works this way" is ridiculous.  Even in D&D, the RAWest of the RAW, the DM is told they can ignore the rules for the story if they want.  Check out the DMG.  Not accusing anyone, but this point has been brought up in a couple posts now, and it's worth noting.

2. Remember that RAW works like this: specific beats general.  If an enemy is listed in an adventure as "always fighting to the death," then by RAW, they ignore Intimidate's power.

Two more things:

3. Using a power on PCs like this is dangerous.  I mean, I understand the whole "what's good for the goose" thing, but being a dick is still being a dick.  If you're players do it, let them know it and discuss it.  Don't be a 3-year old and just go "Neh-neh-na-neh-neh!  I can do it better than you!"  Nobody needs a DM to be a doucher.

4. Intimidate may sound good, but indeed remember that circumstantial bonuses and penalties are ALWAYS appropriate, if the DM so wishes.  It's also in the RAW.  If the DM feels this enemy is particularly hard to initimidate (because it is bolstered by its allies, because it has some item/power that influences the effects of fear, etc.) then by all means, make it a little more difficult.  Stick within +5/-5 and you are following the precedents of the rules pretty well.

No tactic should "always" work every time guaranteed...that is the realm of silliness in any game, because it's no longer a game.


----------



## Alrethe (Jun 10, 2009)

I always DM with Risk vs Reward in mind.

The first time a PC does this (and it has happened) then cool you win.  They surrender.  Now what are you going to do with the 3 Orcs? "we tell them to go home" this is their home. "Oh, we tell them to screw off or we'll kill them" Hmm ok they run off (and inform other Orc that a crazy powerful band of heroes are just down the way).  

The next encounter they tried it again.  Ok it works combat ends.  I'm 1/2 the xp of any mob that surrendered (risk vs reward).  PC said ok as long as we still win.

Next encounter same thing.  Ok 1/2 xp again and one guy has magic armor.  "cool give me that armor" Orc "over my dead body as it's was passed down from my dad".  And he's no longer intimidated by that player.

After a while the players got tired with the game and the number crunching player noticed how much less xp he's getting.   So things corrected itself.  The easier the fight the less reward you get.  I don't care what the books say. DM's rights.

Oh also yes I agree some bad guys just can't be intimidated.  If it’s a story plot encounter then no sorry it’s just not going to work.  But I’ll say that.   If you don’t want to play nice and just have phat loot.  Here’s the book, you find a magic chest with 5 copies of everything in the book.   You want to play my story?  You follow my rules.

But yes you can do it by the rules and it will work in combat.  Your DM might not invite you back to the game as it's no fun for him/her.


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 10, 2009)

*[B]The 4th level, +21 Intimidate character![/B]*

Oh no, it's Him!  Run for your lives!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw]YouTube - Dramatic Chipmunk[/ame]


----------



## LittleFuzzy (Jun 10, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Second off, I'm giving up valuable attack and damage bonuses to be able to use this tactic.




And by doing so, you're getting a result equivalent to dealing half the creature's hitpoints, taking it from just bloodied to zero.  With an attack that you've made very hard to miss, and which you can repeat the next round.  If the DM lets you use it as freely as you seem to want, you are going to completely take over the table, make the other players be little more than your set-up.  Using intimidate is fine, I've done it as have many others here, and some of us have done some optimization around it to help make sure it goes through when we want it to, but you can go overboard with it.  In which case the DM _should_ be putting up some roadblocks, that's why there's a DM in the first place.

Knapp, on the subject of opposed checks vs defenses, remember using Acrobatics and Athletics to escape from grabs.  Intimidate isn't the only skill use that targets a defense.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 10, 2009)

Don't forget about this part of the rule:

*Failure:* If you attempted to intimidate the target during combat, you can’t try again against that target during this encounter.


I think the DM is well within rights to assign a moderate circumstance penalty per failure when attempting to Intimidate _other_ targets, as well.  "Well, Bob isn't afraid of the big bad dragonborn, maybe I shouldn't be either..."

 -- 77IM


----------



## Naszir (Jun 10, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> Personally I think the main problem with the current intimidate rules is that they're too binary. There's no power that's going to allow you to roll at stat - 10 vs will and let you kill any bloodied targets within range: it would be far too good.
> 
> And yet, as written that's what the intimidate rules do.
> 
> ...




I like this idea Saeviomagy.  However, being able to just scare minions to death is not to my liking.  If you intimidate creatures I would think what would happen is that they become weakened.  Maybe the it could look more like this:

Intimidate (in combat)
Encounter, standard
Fear
All enemies within close burst 3
Intimidate skill - 10 vs will
All enemies affected by this are considered weakened (save ends).

From there maybe a line of feats could be designed to interact with this so that bloodied enemies become dazed or stunned or immobilized.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 11, 2009)

Yeah...except Intimidate doesn't "kill" anything. Nothing prevents the monster from escaping and ambushing you later. It just stops fighting you. 

If the designers didn't intend for this tactic to be able to work, why is it a rule? Why is it when you have a low bonus and roll super lucky once in a while, that's ok, but if you have a high bonus and roll moderately well and it works more often, that's stupid/broken/lame/unintended/etc.?


----------



## LittleFuzzy (Jun 11, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Yeah...except Intimidate doesn't "kill" anything. Nothing prevents the monster from escaping and ambushing you later. It just stops fighting you.




It defeats the enemy.  And it is arguable *and will be argued, at many tables* whether "surrender" allows a creature to escape, find more friends, and come back at you with them, rather than meaning exactly what it says, surrender.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 11, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Yeah...except Intimidate doesn't "kill" anything. Nothing prevents the monster from escaping and ambushing you later. It just stops fighting you.




So obviously this tactic would not give you experience.



Old Gumphrey said:


> If the designers didn't intend for this tactic to be able to work, why is it a rule? Why is it when you have a low bonus and roll super lucky once in a while, that's ok, but if you have a high bonus and roll moderately well and it works more often, that's stupid/broken/lame/unintended/etc.?




1. There are bad rules in D&D, it does happen on occasion.
2. You yourself noted that you don't even have to roll moderately well.

Its a cool option for a skill that is ruled a little funky imo. Its definitely not intended to be the extreme focus of a character as you have made it.

And btw if you got the belt that makes str your stat for intimidate this build wouldn't even be that bad for a fighter.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 11, 2009)

I have an different opinion:

the DC can be lowered or raised by the DM, but usually it is will + 10

what could change the situation:

making it easier:
- a monster beeing hurt several times in combat by the person
- a wizard displaying tricks with fire against wild animals
- seeing one of his allies beeing chopped in half by tha wicked axe (maybe also take bloodthirsty mien which does spell out tis bonus)
- one of your allies already run for his life
- you are hired for other duties... getting yourself killed was not exavtly in your contract
- you are the controller/leader of the group, your minions are disposable and you getting bloodied was not your intention...

making it harder:
- the enemy is hired as a guard and running or surendering will make him fail his duty
- the enemy fears punishment by is master more than his death
- the enemy is under a spell which simply doesn´t allow him to surrender
- the enemy is simply too stupid
- the enemy has no escape route and has seen you torture prisoners
- the enemy hates you so much he rather dies than let you escape
- you are the only one bloodied and your team is clearly succeding, you are the defender and you know your team will not let you go down...

you have your extraordinary high skill bonus:
- maybe you get to make an enemy flee when it is a bit harder... but when two or more of those conditions arise you may still fail.

Also i would let you allow an insight check as a free action before you try it, and if you use an appropriate tool/power etc. I may still allow it...

example:
- your enemy is cornered, you shift beferoe you start intimidating him, opening that route using prestidigitation to surround your hand in flames, let your eyes glow, intonating a spell formula which involves the names of some known demons...

- having the right timing: don´t immediately use your intimidate check, use it after a series of misses and maybe a solid blow from your axe. Maybe after you used a power which has turned a certain hit from your enemy into a miss, after your enemy hit you too bloodied and you after a minor action recover as though this blow just didn´t happen...

edit: and of course does it give experience!


----------



## Nail (Jun 11, 2009)

When I first saw the Intimidate skill, I thought the 4e designers made a HUGE mistake.  After all, we all know that twinking out a skill is easy to do: people did it all the time in 3.5e, especially with regard to ToB:Bo9S.

...but then I calmed down, and re-read the power.  (...and even then, I still think they made a mistake. )  There are two crucial pieces, that I think have been missed by some people here:



			
				Intimidate said:
			
		

> Your Intimidate checks are made against
> a target’s Will defense or a DC set by the DM. The
> target’s general attitude toward you and other conditional
> modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to
> ...



and







			
				Intimidate said:
			
		

> Success: You force a bloodied target to surrender,
> get a target to reveal secrets against its will, or cow a
> target into taking some other action.




So, with the text above, answer the following questions:
Is the DC set only by the target's Will defence?
If you successfully intimidate a bloodied target, is the only response possible "surrender"?
What, exactly, does an enemy do when surrendering?  How about fleeing?  How about stepping back and refusing to attack the intimidator? ...and who gets to determine the target's actions when surrendering?


----------



## Nail (Jun 11, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> If the designers didn't intend for this tactic to be able to work, why is it a rule?



Hee, hee, hee!

Uhm....if I said "original Skill Challenge mechanics", would that be enough of a hint?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 11, 2009)

Nail said:


> So, with the text above, answer the following questions:
> 
> Is the DC set only by the target's Will defence?
> If you successfully intimidate a bloodied target, is the only response possible "surrender"?
> What, exactly, does an enemy do when surrendering? How about fleeing? How about stepping back and refusing to attack the intimidator? ...and who gets to determine the target's actions when surrendering?




I am of the opinion that no skill use should allow any player (or DM) to actually dictate the reaction of another character. There is magic for that sort of control. 

I do think skills such as intimidate should be able to influence behavior to a degree. I like the idea of a variety of results depending on the current situation and what the aggressor is trying to achieve. For example a demand for surrender might result in a temporary combat penalty as uncertainty sets in, an ordered retreat, outright flight, or actual surrender. Depending on how good the roll was, the flight or surrender might last the entire encounter or the target might get a save to return to the fight if the tide starts turning for his side.  This would allow for a bit more flavor from the skill and keep it from becoming the dreaded I win button.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 11, 2009)

Nail said:


> [*]What, exactly, does an enemy do when surrendering?[/list]




Actually, I have an easy time figuring out what to have the enemy do when surrendering. The tougher question is: "What do the PCs do?".

I had a fight with about 20 humanoid monsters against the PCs a few weeks ago. About 14 of them were minions (it was actually two encounters, but the leader of the first group of monsters was smart and called the second group in).

19 of them were down and it was just the last guy and he dropped his weapon, threw up his hands and said "I give up".

The players didn't know what to do. One PC took one more swing at him and missed. Another player (playing the Tiefling Rogue) started doing the mental gymnastics of "the good side of the Rogue vs. the cruel side of the Rogue".

It was a real dilemma. They didn't know what to do with this guy. Eventually, they ended up questioning him and then just letting him go. They were far from town, so there were no authorities to take him to.

It was pretty amusing watching the desire to just kill him by the players war with the desire to roleplay the mostly good PCs into not just murdering him.


----------



## timbannock (Jun 11, 2009)

I don't see how any argument can be made over the specifics of the word "surrender."  I mean, the enemy gives up.

Until there's an opportunity for them to get away/kill the PCs in their sleep.

What DM wouldn't do it this way?  Are we supposed to coddle our players that much now?

Regardless, great ideas on possible circumstantial modifiers.  Nowhere does it say a DM can't add in circumstanstial modifiers.  In fact, the DMG constantly says that the DM SHOULD be adding in these situations to change things up...make sure you don't ALWAYS hand out penalties, and you'll be playing fair (enough).


----------



## Nail (Jun 11, 2009)

neuronphaser said:


> I don't see how any argument can be made over the specifics of the word "surrender."  I mean, the enemy gives up.



And what - specificly - does an enemy do that is "giving up"?

If you "give up" on eating a huge ice cream cone, does that mean you lie down on the floor and let it melt on you? 

But this is all beside the point:  An intimidated bloodied enemy doesn't have to surrender.  It could just give up a secret against it's will.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 11, 2009)

Pc at bloodied foe: I WILL DESTROY YOU!!!!!!

Bloodied foe: .... OK! OK! my uncle used to beat me with his belt of ogre strength until I told him he was a pretty girl! YOU HAPPY NOW!?

Pc: ohh........ ummm....

Bloodied foe: *soft weeping*


----------



## Nail (Jun 11, 2009)

<chuckle>

Last meeting, our bard literally insulted a monster to death.  So it can happen.


----------



## renau1g (Jun 11, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> I, for one, would be glad to have the combat over more quickly, since it takes freaking forever. Plus, survivors are interesting. Corpses are just dead.




This point, you can deal non-lethal damage with any blow now so you choose whether to leave an enemy alive at the end of a fight or not.

Personally, I'd allow this, but only for non-BBEG/elites/solos/first guy bloodied in a fight. So it let's you finish the fight sooner and moev the game forward quicker than passing the at-will attacks around the table one more round. I'd let you take down the last monster this way in a fight that has an inevitable outcome and the grind is starting to wear on people.

That being said, just watch out for abuse, as a DM I house-rule portions of the game that become un-fun for other players.


----------



## LittleFuzzy (Jun 11, 2009)

Nail said:


> And what - specificly - does an enemy do that is "giving up"?
> 
> If you "give up" on eating a huge ice cream cone, does that mean you lie down on the floor and let it melt on you?
> 
> But this is all beside the point:  An intimidated bloodied enemy doesn't have to surrender.  It could just give up a secret against it's will.




I don't think that line is meant to be read as the DM decides what something's reaction is to being successfully intimidated.  It's there because it is a social skill and the players can be trying to Intimidate a creature(s) into doing a number of different things.  The response depends on what they were using intimidate for.  You'd get a piece of information if you were using intimidate as part of an interrogation.  A surrender because you were trying to scare the goblin into putting down it's sword.  A push 1 because you were trying to make a noble's guard nervous enough to shift a square and stop blocking the doorway.


----------



## tmatk (Jun 11, 2009)

LittleFuzzy said:


> I don't think that line is meant to be read as the DM decides what something's reaction is to being successfully intimidated.  It's there because it is a social skill and the players can be trying to Intimidate a creature(s) into doing a number of different things.  The response depends on what they were using intimidate for.  You'd get a piece of information if you were using intimidate as part of an interrogation.  A surrender because you were trying to scare the goblin into putting down it's sword.  A push 1 because you were trying to make a noble's guard nervous enough to shift a square and stop blocking the doorway.




I'm pretty sure a DM gets to make decisions like that! 

The "rule" seems to written intentionally vague, so DMs can interpret on a per situation basis. Intimidate *is not* an at-will automatic insta-kill on a bloodied enemy.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 12, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> So obviously this tactic would not give you experience.




Wrong. If you overcome a challenge, you get experience points. It doesn't matter if you roll Intimidate, beat them to death, or they run away on their own.



Nail said:


> Hee, hee, hee!
> 
> Uhm....if I said "original Skill Challenge mechanics", would that be enough of a hint?




No, because "new Skill Challenge mechanics" are just as bad, but the other way.



Nail said:


> But this is all beside the point:  An intimidated bloodied enemy doesn't have to surrender.  It could just give up a secret against it's will.




Yes it does. "Success: you force a bloodied target to surrender".



tmatk said:


> Intimidate *is not* an at-will automatic insta-kill on a bloodied enemy.




Nope! It just makes them surrender.


----------



## Nail (Jun 12, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Yes it does. "Success: you force a bloodied target to surrender".



Is that the entire rules text, or just the part that interests you?

The text says:







			
				Intimidate said:
			
		

> Success: You force a bloodied target to surrender,
> get a target to reveal secrets against its will, or cow a
> target into taking some other action.




Who gets to decide which of those three actions a target will take?


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> Who gets to decide which of those three actions a target will take?



Obviously the player, since that give the skill option the most power.


----------



## Nail (Jun 12, 2009)

*Flipguarder *nails it in one!  Well done!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> Who gets to decide which of those three actions a target will take?




The DM, based on who/what is being intimidated and the prevailing conditions/circumstances. 

An intimidated opponent in the midst of a combat that looks to be closer to a draw may begin to bargain for his/her freedom in exchange for aid.
That same opponent faced with long odds against victory might flee. The hopelessly outclassed opponent might drop his/her weapon and grovel for mercy on the floor.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 12, 2009)

Although in my game I would let a player say something like:


"Tell us where the girl is or I will rip your eat your organs one by one!"

I would give them a higher dc than if they simply wanted to generally intimidate them with something like the Xena screech:


"Ai-Ai-Ai-Ai-Ai-Ai-Ai-Ai-AIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!"


----------



## timbannock (Jun 12, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Obviously the player, since that give the skill option the most power.




Yes and no.

Yes, the roll should reflect more than just the roll: the player should say WHAT they are doing to intimidate the foe, and that will inform the decision of what result will occur.  If the player says "I glare at him and tell him: tell me the location of Venger's headquarters," then the creature should -- if successfully intimidated -- try to the best of their ability to follow that line of reasoning (i.e., "reveal a secret").

No, because the situation may not be so 1:1 as that, or the creature may not be able to comply with that specific request.  I.e., in the example above, if the creature doesn't know the location of Venger's hideout, perhaps it will simply surrender itself to the party, knowing it can't give them that info (because it doesn't have it).  Or perhaps it will act as an inside agent for the PCs to find out that info, because they've successfully "cowed it to take some other action."

So, the player should inform the decision, but the DM is the final arbiter of what happens based on the situation.

Also remember the "specific beats general" rule in D&D (PHB, page really early in the book).  If the adventure says "This enemy will not back down in a fight, but can be goaded/taunted into taking an action much more risky to itself without regard to this risk," then that beats out the ruling on Intimidate.

Funny how players forget this kind of thing ;-)


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 12, 2009)

Just to stay consistent with logic an enemy may divulge a secret then realize that having divulged this secret their life is already forfeit if you live and continue fighting anyway.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 12, 2009)

If the player threatened the opponent with a terrible fate if it does not reveal certain information and the opponent really didn't know the information then I see flight as a more obvious move.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 12, 2009)

I just realized that you can't intimidate a minion into surrendering, because minions have no "bloodied" status!


----------



## Eric Finley (Jun 12, 2009)

Note that the phrasing is such that if you're using it on a bloodied target in combat, you're doing so with intent to obtain the "surrender" outcome.  Because nothing except the surrender outcome requires the bloodied status.  You can make it divulge secrets or nark on its fellow hobgoblins without having it be bloodied.

Besides which, look at the parallel to the phrasing under things like Insight, Streetwise, or Monster Knowledge checks.

Insight: "You counter a Bluff check, gain a clue about a social situation, sense an outside influence on someone, or recognize an effect as illusory."  DM: the thief rolls Bluff to try and convince you that there are thirty more thieves on the way.  Player: I roll Insight; I think he's a lying sack of rot grubs.  Success.  DM: You sense an outside influence on him; he's doing this because he's working for your arch-enemy.  However, you're still convinced about the thirty thieves, because I picked a different success outcome.

Monster Knowledge: "You identify a creature as well as its type, typical temperament, and keywords. Higher results give you information about the creature’s powers, resistances, and vulnerabilities." DM: there's a strange purplish serpent slithering through the swamp.  Player: Nature roll time, what the heck?  Success.  DM: See that bird over there?  That's a red-crested finch.  It nests in these parts during the summer, and eats millipedes by preference.  What?  It doesn't say you identify _that_ creature!

Streetwise: "You collect a useful bit of information, gather rumors, find out about available jobs, or locate the best deal."  Player: Okay, Streetwise time, I'm really curious about this meeting we're hearing about.  Success.  DM: You hear that Leroy's is hiring for new bouncers this week.  Oh, what, you were trying for a rumour?

................

Clearly the 'or' in these success descriptions is meant to be adjusted to the player's stated action, not to the DM's whim.  Now, I concur, the DM's overall powers perfectly include changing the DC as he sees fit, or changing his interpretation of "surrender"... but his powers do not extend to making the kind of slap-happy calls that are listed in my examples above.  So don't go looking to that "or" as a list of options for the DM in every case, regardless of player intent.

Serioously, guys.  Try Intimidate as written, before you slam it.  You might find yourselves surprised... I've used it, and GMed it, and it works.  Nothing breaks if you just run with it as written, as long as both you and your players are sane about it.


----------



## Nail (Jun 12, 2009)

lukelightning said:


> I just realized that you can't intimidate a minion into surrendering, because minions have no "bloodied" status!



Uhm, not quite.

Of the three effects listed after the "Success" bullet point, you may not cause "a bloodied [minion] target to surrender" because it can't be bloodied.  However, you can "get a target to reveal secrets against its will, or cow a target into taking some other action".

Since the DM gets to determine what the appropriate action is of an intimidated enemy (bloodied or not), she may also decide the intimidated minion drops it's weapon and pleads for mercy.

...which some might interpret as surrendering.


----------



## Fundin Strongarm (Jun 12, 2009)

I think it's safe to say the player will say something along the lines of "My character says 'surrender or die' -- I will now roll Intimidate versus Will."  Is the option really there for the baddie to offer secret information or do something against its will?  I'm not sure hanging your hat on this aspect of the Intimidate skill is doing much for the argument here.  I lean more towards the "...or DC set by the DM" part to reign in abuse of the skill.


----------



## Nail (Jun 12, 2009)

BTW, we really do need to put the final nail into the coffin of the "Intimidate = I win" idea:

Is "surrendered" a condition?

What are the game effects of "surrendered"?

What is the duration of "surrendered"?

Etc.


----------



## Nail (Jun 12, 2009)

Fundin Strongarm said:


> I think it's safe to say the player will say something along the lines of "My character says 'surrender or die' -- I will now roll Intimidate versus Will."  Is the option really there for the baddie to offer secret information or do something against its will?




What actions are included in the phrase "cow a target into taking some other action"?

I think it's pretty safe to say: "Quite a few, only one of which is dropping their weapon and pleading for mercy".


----------



## Fundin Strongarm (Jun 12, 2009)

Nail said:


> What actions are included in the phrase "cow a target into taking some other action"?
> 
> I think it's pretty safe to say: "Quite a few, only one of which is dropping their weapon and pleading for mercy".



It's also safe to say that it isn't "continue fighting as if nothing happened".  What actions under "cow a target into taking some other action" aren't effectively "fight=over"?  (I'm genuinely curious.)


----------



## IanB (Jun 12, 2009)

Fundin Strongarm said:


> It's also safe to say that it isn't "continue fighting as if nothing happened".  What actions under "cow a target into taking some other action" aren't effectively "fight=over"?  (I'm genuinely curious.)




All kinds of actions, outside of a fight. This bit of rules text is not _only_ talking about in-combat use of Intimidate.

I'm still firmly in the 'this is a list of sample types of things Intimidate COULD be used for, in the right circumstances' camp, personally, it is not carte blanche to get every bloodied enemy ever to surrender.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2009)

Fundin Strongarm said:


> It's also safe to say that it isn't "continue fighting as if nothing happened".  What actions under "cow a target into taking some other action" aren't effectively "fight=over"?  (I'm genuinely curious.)



Good Question!  Perhaps to help out all the DMs out there that are cowed by players with PCs with super-high intimidate scores, we should make a list.  

If a PC successfully intimidates a monster:
The monster refuses to attack the intimidating PC for 1 turn,
The monster only attacks the PC after one of its friends successful damages the PC,
The monster uses a move action to shift away from the PC,
The monster uses all its actions that round to move away from the PC,
The monster is immediately slid 3 squares, with the placement determined by the DM,
The monster suffers a -2 to attack the PC,
The monster suffers a -2 to attack any PC,
The monster uses a defensive power, rather than an offensive one,
The monster offers to surrender, but readies an attack if the PC ignores the offer,
The monster shifts away, offers surrender, but readies an attack if attacked by any one,
The monster offers to switch sides,
The monster does total defence for one turn,
The monster delays until after an ally's turn,
Monster shifts, then readies an attack which will only go off if the PC attacks it,
Etc.

Others?


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 13, 2009)

Nail said:


> Others?




The enemy explodes automatically damaging all its allies in close burst 8 for 100 damage. The exploding enemy also grants double experience (you scared the extra xp literally out of their body).


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 13, 2009)

Naszir said:


> I like this idea Saeviomagy.  However, being able to just scare minions to death is not to my liking.  If you intimidate creatures I would think what would happen is that they become weakened.  Maybe the it could look more like this:




Personally I think of minions reduced to 0 hps as not necessarily being eviscerated. Just unwilling to fight further. You could even add a rider that the power deals nonlethal damage (or whatever it's called where you decide if a foe lives or dies from that final blow).

It means that if a foe follows your intimidate with an inspiring word, those guys you intimidated out of the fight come back...


----------



## Caliber (Jun 13, 2009)

Eric Finley said:


> ...
> Serioously, guys.  Try Intimidate as written, before you slam it.  You might find yourselves surprised... I've used it, and GMed it, and it works.  Nothing breaks if you just run with it as written, as long as both you and your players are sane about it.




I agree with your larger point Eric, but I think what a lot of posters are trying to say here is that the OP's intentions are not sane about it. Not just the bonuses he has accumulated, but his apparent plans on how to use them. Maybe he and his group will be fine with it, but I think at least a few people would have problems with a 4th level character swinging a +21 Intimidate repeatedly against every enemy that gets bloodied.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 13, 2009)

Nail said:


> BTW, we really do need to put the final nail into the coffin of the "Intimidate = I win" idea:
> 
> Is "surrendered" a condition?
> 
> ...




Smart ass.

No. The effects are probably listed under the definition of the word. We do still use dictionaries where you're from, correct? The duration is "as long as it needs to be". If you force someone to surrender out of fear, they're not going to start fighting you again unless conditions change.

On a side note, I'm glad I don't play in games where the only way you can end a fight is through recurring murder, or by meeting a specific (and seemingly arbitrary) win condition.


----------



## Fundin Strongarm (Jun 13, 2009)

Nail said:


> Good Question!  Perhaps to help out all the DMs out there that are cowed by players with PCs with super-high intimidate scores, we should make a list.
> 
> If a PC successfully intimidates a monster:
> The monster refuses to attack the intimidating PC for 1 turn,
> ...



Most of those are great if you're using Intimidate to do something contained in the part of the paragraph that says "Success: you cow a target into taking some other action" (which is what I asked about, thanks).  What if you're using Intimidate to "Success: force a bloodied target to surrender"?

Eric Finley makes the point far more eloquantly than I have about a dozen posts up (while I was typing my first post).  The 3 cases contained in the Success paragraph seem to be 3 different uses of the Intimidate skill and their outcomes, IMO.

"Cow a target" is great for "I scowl at the goblin and warn him not to attack me" so the target "takes some other action."  But "force a bloodied target to surrender" is clearly (IMO) the appropriate response to "I scowl at the obviously beat up goblin and order him to lay down his weapon."


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 13, 2009)

And give us a break with your wild, purposeful misinterpretations of the rules. It clearly states that a check equal to or greater than Will + 10 forces a target to surrender. That means if you're forcing a surrender, that's the DC. They don't get to pick to "be cowed" and not surrender if you pass the check and force surrender. It's really not that hard. If you think the DM should be able to arbitrarily assign a number that's impossibly high for any character to achieve (just because one character is likely to succeed at the roll), then more power to you, I guess.

So in your groups, where you can only Intimidate things on a 19 or higher and nobody worries about how high their skills are, but milks all the points on attack and damage bonuses, and someone actually DOES roll the required 19, what happens?


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 13, 2009)

The DM not only should, but IS able to arbitrarily set anything he wants. And in addition to that, the skill option specifically states that the DM can set the DC.

Not to say its particularly nice or fair of him to set the dc to intimidate a human rabble at 100, but he can do it, its his right in more ways than one.

Your original post boasts that you can intimidate a bloodied foe your level with a 4 or higher. Your most recent post suggests that if someone did not do what you did that they must roll a 19 to successfully intimidate anyone. Is there no reasonable middle ground to these two extremes?

In situations were one is selecting the actions of a monster/npc, the DM is in full control. You can tell the DM that you wish to intimidate the monster/npc, you can roll a twenty and end up with a modified 50 on your intimidate check. The ball then goes to him and he can do with it whatever he wishes.

It never specifically states that you get to choose which result comes from a successful check. Your DM may be nice and say it's your choice, you may decide together that it makes the most sense if it's your choice. But because the rules do not specifically state it, you cannot go to your DM point at that page and say "See it's my choice". It simply isn't denoted in the text.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 13, 2009)

neuronphaser said:


> Also remember the "specific beats general" rule in D&D (PHB, page really early in the book).  If the adventure says "This enemy will not back down in a fight, but can be goaded/taunted into taking an action much more risky to itself without regard to this risk," then that beats out the ruling on Intimidate.
> 
> Funny how players forget this kind of thing ;-)




That right there is what I think some folks are missing. You don't get to just change the DC to 40 for a group of level 4 adventurers because you learned my character has a really high roll. 

"Oh, you have +23? Well uh..the DC's 40, sorry. Oh, you don't like that, eh? Well, then, instead of them surrendering, I'll just choose their action...let's see...how about "doesn't attack you for 1 round, even though he's marked by the fighter"?


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 13, 2009)

I definitely see where you are going with this. I would argue that the developers did not originally balance the intimidate system very well, and that the intimidate rules are not well thought out. What you have is a character that can often finish combats before they should be able to, and although it makes sense in some scenarios it is clearly abusable. Many players have dailies that can hit a group of baddies with a condition for a limited time, but here we have a skill check can remove several bloodied foes from combat.

The rules for intimidate use a skill check against a defense, and the result does not work well. A level 4 character with the appropriate feats and items succeeds on a 4+ where a similar character trained in intimidate but not tweaked for the skill needs maybe a 15+ or higher. There is too much difference. If intimidate were a real issue in my campaigns I would rework its combat use as an attack. This would cause it to scale and balance better by level, and make it more accessible and well explained.

I think a target roll of 16+ (25%) to force a bloodied enemy to surrender is fair for a character trained in the skill, and with a decent starting ability score (16). Such a character has about a +5 bonus on this check at level 1, and monsters tend to have defenses around 13 at level 1, if the DMG is to be believed. Thus a fair target DC is the Will defense + 8. If they hit the defense, but not at +8, they still get some effect. They can also have an effect on non-bloodied foes.

*Intimidate foes:* _at-will, standard action, fear_
_Close Burst 5_
*Target*: each enemy in burst that can perceive you
*Attack*: Cha or Str vs Will
*Hit*: The target is demoralized. It gains a -2 morale penalty to attack rolls and skill checks (save ends).
In addition, if you hit the target's will defense +8, and the target is a minion or bloodied, the target surrenders. It will not act as long as you continue to focus on it.  If you attempt to bind the target it will allow you to and if you direct it to go somewhere it will obey. If you or your allies attack the target or you continue to fight other foes, the target will flee. If a fleeing target is cornered it will resume fighting.
Miss: You gain a -2 penalty to any further attempts to intimidate the target until the end of the encounter. This penalty stacks.
*Special*: You gain a +2 bonus to the attack if you are trained in intimidate, and a further +1 for taking skill focus intimidate. If you are wearing a magic item that gives a bonus to intimidate, you gain an enhancement bonus to this attack roll according to the level of the item (+1 for level 1-5, +2 for level 6-10 etc). If more than half your team is bloodied or dead, you get -2 to the attack. If more than half of the opponent's team is bloodied or dead, you gain a +2 bonus to the attack. Elite monsters gain a +2 bonus to their defense for this and solos gain a +4 bonus.

Under this system, a level 4 (+2) character with 20 Cha(+5), trained(+2), skill focus(+1), and a Circlet of Authority (level 7 = +2) would get +12 to this attack. A level 4 enemy with a Will defense of 12+level = 16 would be intimidated on a roll of 4 or higher or would surrender on 12 or higher. A level 4 (+2) character with 18 Cha (+4), trained (+2) would have +8 to hit, intimidating on a roll of 8 or higher, and forcing surrender on 16 or higher. To me, this seems more balanced. Min/maxing will increase your ability to intimidate, but not to ridiculous levels. Not min/maxing will not make it impossible for you to intimidate.

Under this system, racial/background bonuses do not affect the attack. I did this because racial bonuses never give a character an outright bonus to an attack roll, and because any race that gains a bonus to intimidate already has an attribute bonus for Str or Cha anyways.



To help flesh out and balance using intimidate as an attack, I suggest letting diplomacy be used to cure demoralization/surrendering like a heal check.

*Inspire allies*
*Action*: minor
*DC*: 15
*Success*: Each ally within 5 squares can make a saving throw against being demoralized by an intimidate attack or surrendering because of an intimidate attack at a +2 bonus. On a success they are no longer demoralized or surrendering.
*Failure*:You cannot try again until next turn.

This way, if your players get intimidated by the monsters, they have an option not to be TPK'ed.


Anyways, have fun with your character!


----------



## Lucas Blackstone (Jun 13, 2009)

"Your Intimidate checks are made against a target’s Will defense or a DC set by the DM."

Old Gumphrey, that's the plain and simple rule behind it. You may not like it, but it's the rules, just like your character's intimidate is completely legitimate. So if your DM decides that a mindless ooze is a DC 60 to intimidate because it just doesn't care about what you do or how tough you are, that's it.

It could work in your favor sometimes too don't forget. If your group was fighting a band of goblins, and with a wave of your hand in the previous round, you made 7 of the goblin chief's allies die, the DC might be lower to intimidate him because he just saw you effortlessly kill 7 of the goblins. Yes, out of character, noone is impressed by an aoe attack that kills some minions, but in character, from the enemy point of view, it would be a fearsome act.

I'm not against the Combat Intimidate build. It amuses me actually, and always has since I first saw the option. But it really is within the DM's right to set the DC by the rules of the skill itself. Sometimes their Will defense is not the relevant factor to deciding if they will be cowed/surrender.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 13, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Although in my game I would let a player say something like:
> 
> 
> "Tell us where the girl is or I will rip your eat your organs one by one!"
> ...




In my games, an Intimidate attempt with a specific outcome in mind ("Surrender!"  "Tell us who your master is!!!" etc.) is a standard action as normal, while a generic "I just want them scared of me" is a minor action.  My players aren't super-optimized for Intimidate, and they tend to shout things at the enemy during their turns in the vague hopes of getting a reaction, and I don't want to put the damper on that fun by saying, "sorry, you need to stop attacking to frighten people."

 -- 77IM


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 13, 2009)

I absolutely love that idea! Thanks Seven hundred-seventy one M!


----------



## 77IM (Jun 13, 2009)

The more I think about this, the more I realize that the problem isn't with Intimidate specificially, but with the widely divergent skill bonuses between characters.  Consider, at the Heroic tier, most weapon-wielders will have an attack bonus within 6 points of one another (ability +3 proficiency +2, _vs._ ability +5 proficiency +3 class weapon talent +1 feat +1 magic item higher than the other guy +1).  So enemy defenses tend to cluster within that range as well; a first level foe with AC 19, for example, will be hit by the lousy guy 35% of the time and by the awesome guy 65% of the time.  So as long as the guy hitting half as often is also doing more damage (or having some other effect) it should work out over time.

But with Intimidate, and other skills, the gap at 1st level can be as high as 19 (ability -1, _vs._ability +5 trained +5 racial +2 feat +3 background +2 item +1).  It's even worse for skills with armor check penalty.  This makes it very difficult to set a reasonable DC for the skill:  at DC 19, the lousy character only succeeds on a 20 and the awesome character can't fail; at DC 20, the lousy character can't succeed and the awesome character only fails on a 1.  So if the awesome guy has any chance for failure at all, the lousy guy can't possibly succeed.  If you consider a reasonably average guy (ability +3 trained +5; or ability +4 racial +2; or something, let's just call it 7), he's still 11 points behind the awesome guy.  So a DC 23, the average guy succeeds only 25% of the time, and the awesome guy succeeds 80% of the time.  For something as powerful as taking an enemy out of the fight instantly (which is the strictest reading of Intimidate), that's a huge probability gap.  It's like the old 3e bard who could Diplomacy a dragon into surrendering.

I don't know how to fix this problem without house rules.  It's worse because it only appears when you have a certain type of min-maxer (for example, there is a guy at my table whose Perception and Stealth are through the roof -- fortunately he is an eladrin wizard so that curbs some of the excess).  I've already house ruled that the +2 background bonus can't apply to trained skills (the last thing I want is people selecting the background that allows them to increase a maxxed skill), and it looks like I might do something similar to familiars (or maybe make it a feat bonus).

 -- 77IM


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 13, 2009)

771 you just keep saying stuff I agree with.

Circle gets the square!

I like the idea that familiar could be considered a feat bonus, as well as the idea that backgrounds don't count if someone is trained.

The next fix after that is you need to find another way to increase skills as they progress in level due to the fact that you are generally lowering the max skill someone can have.

I suggest something like "trained gives you +2 at lvl 1, +4 at lvl 11, and +6 at 21st level." Or maybe skill focus gives you +3 at 1st level +4 at 11th level and +5 at 21st level


----------



## keterys (Jun 13, 2009)

It does surprise me that the rules are more defined for making someone surrender entirely while fighting than they are for, say, making someone take a step back or fleeing.

I do think a minor action Intimidate to push an enemy would be interesting. Having the generic standard Intimidate action be that the enemy can't attack until it saves, and bargains, flees, or surrenders as makes the most sense... that would also work for me.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 13, 2009)

Just as a complete side-note and thread jacker....

What do you think about a houserule allowing a defender to use a Bluff check to make himself look like the weakest of the bunch?

And come to hell think of it.

Why is insight not targeted instead of will? That would fix most of my problems with this skill option.


----------



## keterys (Jun 13, 2009)

Honestly, monsters aren't designed to really interact with the skill system at all so it's generally a bad idea to encourage or require it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 13, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Why is insight not targeted instead of will? That would fix most of my problems with this skill option.




There are ~90 monsters in the MM with Insight. There are ~400 monsters in the MM with Will Defense.

If they used Insight, then everyone would be Intimidating foes, not just those who tricked out the skill.


----------



## Thanlis (Jun 13, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> That right there is what I think some folks are missing. You don't get to just change the DC to 40 for a group of level 4 adventurers because you learned my character has a really high roll.
> 
> "Oh, you have +23? Well uh..the DC's 40, sorry. Oh, you don't like that, eh? Well, then, instead of them surrendering, I'll just choose their action...let's see...how about "doesn't attack you for 1 round, even though he's marked by the fighter"?




That's true; that would be bad DMing.

What I would do is this: I would say "hey, I don't think your preferred play style fits with my DMing style, so if this is a deal-breaker for you I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave the table." I can't imagine this would be objectionable -- why would you want to play with a DM who refused to accept your interpretation of a rule you feel so strongly about?

This is not even that hypothetical. I've said that to players in the past, under similar conditions, and followed through.


----------



## Eridanis (Jun 13, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> We do still use dictionaries where you're from, correct?






Old Gumphrey said:


> And give us a break with your wild, purposeful misinterpretations of the rules.




Snarky posts like this are a sure-fire way to get a vacation from these boards. Please keep discussion civil and on topic.


----------



## eriktheguy (Jun 13, 2009)

Since this issue has been bugging me too, your thread inspired me to re-work this intimidation as an attack.
-Making it an attack balances it against the opponents defenses, and causes it to scale with level better
-You can use Str or Cha
-Items that give a bonus to intimidate add an enhancement bonus to the attack based on their level
-Skill training adds +2 to the attack and skill focus +1
-The attack effects minions and bloodied enemies, Solos and Elites get a bonus to defense
-It is a fear power so oozes and zombies etc would be immune
-I explicitly defined 'surrendered' and 'demoralized' as conditions ('surrendering' foes only works on bloodied/minions and is harder)
-Surrendered foes will usually run, unless you spend actions telling them what to do and do not attack them

The thread is here, check it out and comment please!


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 14, 2009)

Thanlis said:


> That's true; that would be bad DMing.
> 
> What I would do is this: I would say "hey, I don't think your preferred play style fits with my DMing style, so if this is a deal-breaker for you I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave the table." I can't imagine this would be objectionable -- why would you want to play with a DM who refused to accept your interpretation of a rule you feel so strongly about?
> 
> This is not even that hypothetical. I've said that to players in the past, under similar conditions, and followed through.




Ehhh...asking someone to "leave your table" over a skill bonus is easily one of the top 5 lamest things I've heard regarding gaming in a long time. "My way or the highway" isn't a good way to keep friends, either. I'll admit that while +23 intimidate at level 4 is hard to swallow, trying it out is another matter entirely. 

Speaking of which, I played this character tonight. I forced surrender on a total of 4 creatures across 3 combats out of approximately 12 monsters. Due to the fact that I replaced 6 standard actions with Intimidate checks, and also due to the fact that I replaced feats like Dual Implement Mastery and Expertise with Skill Focus and Arcane Familiar, it was WIDELY accepted that I was by far the lowest damage-dealing striker in the party. That said, I only pulled my weight due to the fact that I made enemies think twice and take off running, lay down their weapons and give up, or mozey away suddenly uninterested (in the case of an animal). 

Nobody at the table found it as ungodly stupidly powerful as most of this thread would have them believe, since, while I was attempting to Intimidate things and failing a couple of times, the rogue was just GINSU SLICING everything in his path. Seriously. When creatures have like 70 HP, and you deal 35 damage in one hit, what the hell is the difference if you Intimidate them, or just deal the 35 damage (other than, of course, the obvious fact that you avoid committing murder)!?



Eridanis said:


> Snarky posts like this are a sure-fire way to get a vacation from these boards. Please keep discussion civil and on topic.




I'll acquiesce to that--but only because you're right.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 14, 2009)

Mugger walks up and sticks a dagger in your gut leaving a bloody wound that needs medical attention.  He then says, "you better run or the next time it'll be your throat."

You:
a)  Think you're a DnD monster who should have +50 to DC checks and shout "RARRRRR!!!!" and try to blind him with the blood you've collected in your hands from your gut wound before bull rushing him.

b)  Decide that if you don't run away, you'll be dead very, very soon, so you flee.

c)  Have learned everything you know from playing Monkey Island at 3AM and say "First you better stop waving it like a feather-duster."


----------



## Thanlis (Jun 14, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> Ehhh...asking someone to "leave your table" over a skill bonus is easily one of the top 5 lamest things I've heard regarding gaming in a long time. "My way or the highway" isn't a good way to keep friends, either. I'll admit that while +23 intimidate at level 4 is hard to swallow, trying it out is another matter entirely.




I'm sorry you feel that way. Nonetheless, you wouldn't be welcome at my table. In my experience, removing players who prioritize being right over cooperative gameplay is a big win for the health of the gaming group.


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> It clearly states that a check equal to or greater than Will + 10 forces a target to surrender.



It clearly states a least three other things about Intimidate checks as well, and then places all of these options in the DMs hands....as has been said a number of times now.

The only wild, purposeful misinterpretation of the rules is that there's only a Will +10 DC = surrender to worry about.

Still, it's neat to see your group is making it all work out.  Game on, man.


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 16, 2009)

I know I'm a bit late in joining this party, but I have allowed my players to attempt to intimidate their opponents.  The first was against a group of kobolds which the party was attempting to capture - having bloodied the remaining kobolds and taken down their leader, the paladin made an intimidate test to force the others to give up.  I think he rolled like crap, but given the circumstances, I had the test succeed.  I think he used a standard action, but I don't remember.

More recently, the wizard had a cloud of daggers up in the only way a number of goblin minions had of accessing the chamber.  He then killed one of their allies with thunderwave, but specifically pushed the corpse into the cloud of daggers to be chopped up and intimidate the minions.  With his move action, he moved in behind the cloud, more so for positional reasons, but I allowed him to use his minor for an intimidation check.  Beating their will defence (I didn't impose the -15 for hostile and no shared language), he caused them to run rather than enter the room when the cloud of daggers ended.

Now, I imagine neither are examples that Old Gumphrey would be terribly happy with, as in neither case did I actually bother to strictly apply the intimidation rules but instead used rules that worked in the situation for the players and the story.

And Old Gumphrey, I think you are attributing to the posters a more extreme position than we are indeed taking.  Never (that I observed) have we said that you shouldn't be able play the way you want to, rather the point has been that you can really only play that way if your DM cooperates.  To which your response has been that you should be able to play that way regardless of how your DM feels.

To which Thanlis's comment of "play by the DMs rules or go home" is entirely appropriate.  The rules do not support (as Nail has pointed out) the absolute position you have taken that provided you get an intimidate result of "x", that the enemies would automatically surrender.  Even if they did, this is a game where DM's perogative reigns supreme, with the understanding that the intent is for the DM to excercise that perogative not on personal whim but in such a way that makes best sense for the story he wants to tell and ultimately will be the most fun for the players.

Now, from the annecdote you gave, it sounds like the way you are playing it works great for you, your gaming group, and the DM.  Great and more power to you!  I think that's awesome and I hope that your intimidation tactic and build continues to work for you.  I think that all in this thread would agree with me, as I don't think anyone has been saying how your gaming group should run its game.

Rather, it has been you that has been stating how we should be running our games, by stating that regardless of the DM your tactic should be allowed, while at the same time inferring that if we disliked your tactic or personally would not allow it that we are a bunch of rules breaking weasels.  Which, even though I had not previously posted, I found kind of offensive.


----------



## IanB (Jun 16, 2009)

*Intimidate*
At-will
Standard Action - Ranged sight
Target: One bloodied creature
Attack: Charisma +5 vs Will
Hit: Target is reduced to 0 hit points

What DM would allow that in their game? At the cost of a trained skill? That's basically what the "intimidate anytime on any opponent" camp is arguing for here.


----------



## keterys (Jun 16, 2009)

Technically it's more like

Close Burst Sight
Target: Any bloodied enemy in burst
Attack: Charisma -2 vs. Will

You do have that Will + 10 DC to look out for, and all.

I think one of the biggest problems I have with it is that Intimidate is frontloaded with all those feats and background/racial/etc bonuses, rather than scaling along with everything else.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Jun 16, 2009)

A couple of things, here.

First, the options under Success are clearly options for the Player, not the DM.  As a parallel construction, it would 'break out' as 

"Success: Force a bloodied creature to surrender OR Force a creature to reveal a secret OR Force..."

Since someone cannot intentionally force something on something else, this shows that if I want to use Intimidate to make someone surrender, I can choose that.

Whether that is what _happens_ or not is another issue altogether.

Having said that, I'll put myself down on the side of those who are more or less against the OP. 

To the OP: The skill clearly states that the DC for the check is either 'Will + 10', OR 'whatever the DM says', and obviously the DM must set the DC.  This means that the DM is clearly within his rights to set ALL DCs for this check at 100 or above.  Would the DM be rather vengeful to do this to you?  Yes.

However, _by the same argument_, to clearly deny the fact that the DM has this option (which you have implicitly done in more than one post by giving only the part of the DC-setting text that you want to use), you are committing the exact same error that you decry in the above reaction by the DM.

Finally, I must say also that if you would come to my game and tell _me_ how I _must_ run the game, you would be leaving my game quite rapidly.

Regarding the Intimidate rules, I think it should be a Fear effect and should have appropriate modifiers as such.  (Hellfire Blood Tieflings should get a +1 on it, Halflings should get a +5 against it, etc.)


----------



## Nail (Jun 16, 2009)

Ulthwithian said:


> First, the options under Success are clearly options for the Player, not the DM.



 Given that we're talking about actions the affected monster could take, that can't be correct.  The player doesn't determine monster actions. 

For example, if a player successfully uses Diplomacy on a monster, does the player determine what the monster does as a result?  Bluff and other skills follow this same format.



Ulthwithian said:


> Regarding the Intimidate rules, I think it should be a Fear effect and should have appropriate modifiers as such.



If we're talking house rules, it seems reasonable to me that an Intimidate check should get the player no more than if she used an At-Will power successfully.  A skill check is used far too easily and often for it to be at the "Daily Power" or "Encounter Power" level.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 16, 2009)

I think that we, as a people, need to move past the debate about whether or not the DM can modify a DC or apply circumstance bonus/penalties to a check.  Clearly the DM _can_ do this; it's required for the game to work right.  In fact the DM can override any specific rule, including such rules as "Force a bloodied foe to surrender."

The more interesting question is whether the DM _should_ do this...

 -- 77IM


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 16, 2009)

I have no problem with the DM allowing such, provided it matches the appropriate tone for his campaign and his players.  The OP's recounting of his own experience with his group is a perfect example of this (though, to be fair, I'm assuming that his DM and the other players are as into it as he is).

That said, I don't believe the DM should be shackled to the rules.  If it doesn't work for the party/campaign, then he should place limitations on it.  Likewise, if some opponents are more/less likely to run away/surrender, I fully support him tweaking the modifiers.  Likewise, I have no problem with the DM both allowing it in circumstances which the rules don't allow (minions, last standing foe who isn't yet bloodied, as examples) or flat out disallow it (BBEG for example).  Likewise, I have no problem with the DM throwing more difficult encounters at the party based on the assumption that the party is likely able to end the fight early.

Personally, I think its a very interesting build and so long as the party is cool with it, I have no problem with it provided that in certain circumstances it just doesn't work.  Indeed, one of my main problems with it is that it gets worse and worse as the players level.  The other main problem is having the rest of the party feel like they are just warm-up hitters, but if the party doesn't feel that way, great.

That said, while I think the player can say what he is attempting to achieve, that may not be the result, even on a successful roll.  For example, the opponents may not surrender if there is an open avenue of escape - they would run instead.  However, I wouldn't normally penalise the player for rolling successfully - even if the plot required the baddies to stay and fight, I would give them some sort of negative for hanging around in the presense of a successful intimidate check.


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 16, 2009)

My DM is currently attempting to decide whether or not he will let me use the intimidate skill to goad people into attacking me.

I think we should talk about that now...


----------



## Dr_Ruminahui (Jun 16, 2009)

I would allow, but with bluff rather than intimidate - to me bluff seems the skill to use if you want to try to piss someone off.

Though, I might allow intimidate in certain circumstances, if the player made a convincing case.  If I did, I imagine there would be a penalty as compared to using bluff.  Although I can't imagine the circumstances of such at this very moment, it might very well be possible that there may be situations where intimidate would be easier to use.


----------



## 77IM (Jun 16, 2009)

I allow it.  It's somewhat subjective.  In fact here is my house rule:

*Intimidate* can be used to taunt people by making an Intimidate check vs. Will defense. The exact effects of success are up to the DM, based on the target's personality, the situation, and the creativity of the taunt issued. If you fail, you can't retry against the same target for the rest of the encounter.​

In general, I allow a successful Intimidate to cause the target to attack the character in preference to other characters, as long as it's a tactically sound option.  If the check succeeds by 10 or more, or the target is tactically stupid to begin with, then the target attacks the character even if it's tactically disadvantageous to do so.

I rationalize Intimidate as a taunt for two reasons.  One, you can make yourself seem more threatening, and hence a high-value target.  Two, for goading to be effective, you need to respect the person doing the goading, and I generalize Intimidate to the skill for commanding respect.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Flipguarder (Jun 16, 2009)

To be honest if I was DMing for myself, Id allow both intimidate and bluff to work in this situation considering the circumstances.

Fighting a minotaur, you would intimidate, as trying to make yourself seem stronger than them could easily put them in a rage.

Fighting a Wizard, you would use bluff, as trying to convince a wizard you were stronger than them would probably get them to attack someone else, but trying to convince them they were the weak link in the party could reasonably convince them you were an easy target.

Does this make any sense?


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Jun 16, 2009)

Old Gumphrey said:


> "Oh, you have +23? Well uh..the DC's 40, sorry. Oh, you don't like that, eh? Well, then, instead of them surrendering, I'll just choose their action...let's see...how about "doesn't attack you for 1 round, even though he's marked by the fighter"?




No, it instead goes like this:

_(At the beggining of the campaign)_
Gumphrey: "I want to play this character" (hands sheet)
DM: "Let me take a look... Mhmm... Any reason why you have put so many resources into Intimidate?"
Gumphrey: "I am very scary"
DM: "Oh, ok"

_In game preparation:_

DM: "Mhmm... Encounter F32 has two Elite monsters with low Will defenses, this is not going to work since Gumphrey has +23 to Intimidate.  Instead, lets substitute one Elite for two Lurkers, and let's tweak the other Elite so that his Will defense is better..."

In short, the DM needs to remain fully in control of the game, but there are other ways to do it than just saying "my way or the high way"

...of course, sometimes the DM needs to do that too, but it should not be the first course of action


----------



## 77IM (Jun 16, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> To be honest if I was DMing for myself, Id allow both intimidate and bluff to work in this situation considering the circumstances.
> 
> Fighting a minotaur, you would intimidate, as trying to make yourself seem stronger than them could easily put them in a rage.
> 
> ...




Yes, I would allow Bluff to make you seem more like a Striker -- high damage, medium/low defenses (e.g. the ideal target).  I would also allow people to use Bluff (opposed by the better of Insight or Heal) to make themselves seem more wounded than they actually are (this can make you seem closer to death, and a better target, or you can play dead and get skipped over).

But I would also allow Intimidate against the wizard -- "Your spells are useless against me!  When I close the distance between us, you will be destroyed!  Rawr!" -- if you are effective at making the wizard soil his robes, I think an appropriate response is for him to _scorching burst_ you in a fit of panic.  You're not going to Intimidate the wizard into charging -- it's a taunt, not a _feeblemind_.

 -- 77IM


----------



## Nail (Jun 17, 2009)

FWIW, in the game I DMed last week, I allowed all sorts of uses of the Intimidate skill.  Of course!  Examples included clearing a path through a hostile crowd (during combat), making a suspicious-looking guy back off (before combat), and getting some minions to leave the scene for a short time.  It worked great.


----------



## Thanlis (Jun 17, 2009)

Amphimir Míriel said:


> No, it instead goes like this:
> 
> _(At the beggining of the campaign)_
> Gumphrey: "I want to play this character" (hands sheet)
> ...




This is exactly the place where I'd want to talk through the use of Intimidate with Gumph. I mean, it's a cool skill -- this thread has convinced me I want to see my players use it more. I wouldn't decide we were a bad gaming fit until he accused me of wild, purposeful misinterpretations of the rules.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 17, 2009)

Nail said:


> Given that we're talking about actions the affected monster could take, that can't be correct.  The player doesn't determine monster actions.




  This is 4E, the players determine the monster's actions all the time.  If they hit, they stun them or put them to sleep forever or teleport them to hell and back, pin them in place, slide them all over.  The PCs make the monsters do more things than the DM does.



keterys said:


> Technically it's more like
> 
> Close Burst Sight
> Target: Any bloodied enemy in burst
> Attack: Charisma -2 vs. Will




  Yes, and can really only be used once, as anyone else in the burst becomes immune.

Close Burst Sight
Effect:  Win a fight you're already winning immediately instead of having to roll dice for another half an hour to determine something you already knew.


----------



## Nail (Jun 17, 2009)

Regicide said:


> This is 4E, the players determine the monster's actions all the time.  If they hit, they stun them or put them to sleep forever or teleport them to hell and back, pin them in place, slide them all over.  The PCs make the monsters do more things than the DM does.



The PCs can impose conditions.....and damage too!  That's clear enough.  But unless the PCs impose the condition "dominate", its the DM that determines the monsters actions.


----------



## Meeble (Jun 18, 2009)

Regicide said:


> Close Burst Sight
> Effect:  Win a fight you're already winning immediately instead of having to roll dice for another half an hour to determine something you already knew.




This is _exactly_ why I like intimidate. By and large, the PCs have used it mostly to end fights that had already been going on too long (past the point that player victory was a foregone conclusion.)

Then again, my players are quite understanding when I deem the DC would be next to impossible (a BBEG or a Campaign Villain, for example), so I guess I can see DMs with less demanding players being more annoyed with it.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 19, 2009)

Wow, quite a thread... Interesting too. I have to admit I skipped some of the middle, pardon if I am rehashing anything.

I see both sides of this, Grumpy's and others. He's invested a good bit in this skill and he should expect it to pay off in some fashion. I also agree that a DM is in control of his table. The DM's power does come with responsibility though. He has a responsibility to see to it that Grumpy's character is fun and reasonably balanced so that the other players have fun too. But consider this, if Gumph sat down at the table with a tricked out ranger that ginsued the BBEG in 2 rounds every other encounter and went by the rules of the table he wouldn't gimp the character just because it was likely to outdamage the whole rest of the party. 

So Gumph is entitled to get his bennies by the rules and the DM is entitled to make those rules work properly. In this case the DM has 2 large areas of leeway, setting the DC and determining the result. So it shouldn't be a big problem if everyone keeps clear about how it is going to work.

Thus I would sit down ahead of time with Gumph and we would just work out some ground rules. First of all it is clear to me (sorry Nail) that the PLAYER is entitled to specify which of the outcomes he is attempting to get. Just like he would be entitled to tell the DM what outcome he is wanting if he used an Athletics stunt. "I want to try to make the hobgoblin surrender". The DM, just like with any "page 42" type action will decide how that plays out. Success may or may not get the exactly desired results, but the results should be consistent with the players stated goals.

For example the hobgoblin is successfully intimidated and because it has an escape route and knows there are other hobgoblins nearby that could help it, it runs away screaming, goes to the next encounter, and sends reinforcements. The encounter could get a LOT harder all of a sudden! This isn't something the DM should connive to do, but when it best fits the situation it should be fine, just like a character leaping onto a platform might find out too late that even though he made his athletics check the platform is rickety and collapses and sends him plunging into a pit. Usually things will work out mostly to the player's advantage in the natural course of things.

Now, the real nut of the question we would be needing to work out would be what are a fair set of DCs? We already have the basic mechanism in place. Intimidate vs Will +10, and often +15. In the interests of fairness I would codify some of the other possible DM applied modifiers and do it with the player so they understand my reasoning and why they are certain values.

+5 Unbloodied Elite boss monster is present - you don't want to piss off the boss man. monsters will always fight harder when the boss is right behind them.
+10 Unbloodied Solo boss monster is present - And that goes double for the big boss who gets to decide to kill you for being a coward.
(note that these also apply to the bosses themselves, BBEGs rarely surrender etc)
+2 for each bloodied PC - Monsters are not going to surrender when they're winning.
+5 for each totally incapacitated PC - Ditto
+5 if the monsters outnumber the PCs by 5 or more

On the flip side each of these can become a minus for the inverse situation. Dead bosses etc will reduce the monsters morale and make them surrender more easily.

Other special bonuses will be approximately as follows:

Monster is "mindless" and just follows orders, thus has no sense of self preservation at all. Immune to intimidation. You simply cannot intimidate a zombie. It has no fear and can't be threatened because it doesn't value its own unlife. This is rare, but could also apply to at least some constructs etc. as well.

+5 monster is exceptionally fearless or reckless by nature. Red dragons fighting in their lairs, demons, monster which cannot be permanently killed (lich for example).

+2 monster is known for exceptionally high morale and dedication. Usually these are high will as well, but again there are some monsters that are "fanatical" and only give up very grudgingly.

+2 Party is known to kill prisoners and the monster cannot simply flee. Monsters want to live, and surrendering is worthless if it has no reward.

-2 monster is not fighting for any good reasons or cause it cares about. Intelligent monsters are no more likely to throw away their lives for nothing than anyone else. 

-5 monster is basically not aggressive or did not want to fight in the first place. There could be situations where a monster is simply cornered and attacked but would not normally have a reason or desire to fight at all. It is simply defending itself and will thus probably surrender if the chance comes up.

Notes on results of Intimidation: Most monsters will generally attempt to flee. In general they will try to act in their own best interests and intimidating them with the surrender option successfully will generally make them believe their cause is lost. They may also surrender entirely if flight is too risky or impossible and they believe they can survive by ceasing to fight. Cowing a monster in battle will cause it to back off or switch targets depending on the situation. It may also be used to demand a parley. The results of a parley will depend on circumstances. Some monsters may offer to allow the party to pass either for a fee or even pay a tribute depending on relative strengths of each side and story considerations. In DM determined situations the monsters may even be willing to switch sides. Such allies will almost always prove to be highly unreliable may well be treacherous. 

I think this covers most situations reasonably well. The various modifiers may need to be different, this is certainly not tested (yet). But it should both prevent silly results and at the same time make intimidation potentially quite useful.


----------

