D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Today's game brought up a oft-overlooked ability of Intimidate: the ability to cause a bloodied foe to surrender or to cow a target into taking some other action. Apparently, there is no limit to the amount of foes you can Intimidate in a round (within reason, of course) and the language of the ability leaves it open for characters to end many combat situations before they've begun with a high enough Intimidate score (again, I realize that completely out of control uses can be vetoed by the DM; I'm just discussing rules as written at this point).
Lastly, this seems better than some powers; for example, the 1st-level prayer, Cause Fear.
For posterity:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player's Handbook
Intimidate: Standard action in combat or part of a skill challenge. Opposed Check: Intimidate vs. Will. (Irrelevant information removed.) 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.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, you can Intimidate multiple enemies at in one Standard action. In addition:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Player's Handbook
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.
In today's game, it was three kobold dragonshields. One of the kobold dragonshields was bloodied and the player rolled very high -- the target promptly dropped his weapon and shield and surrendered. No problem. However, the player proceeded to roll for the two remaining (non-bloodied) kobold dragonshields (based on the line, "...or cow a target into taking some other action").
So where's the line? How many enemies can one conceivably Intimidate in a Standard action? What's to stop a player from starting with this tactic to end most fights before they begin, given a high enough Intimidate score? Additionally, this seems better than many powers that cause enemies to do similar things (such as the clerical prayer, Cause Fear, which can only effect one target).
Again -- I realize the DM can put the line wherever he wants. I'm just looking at the rules as written and wondering what was the spirit of the rule that was intended.
What I ended up allowing was for the character to Intimidate two of the three kobold dragonshields (the battle was largely over by that point anyway, so it made sense in the narrative).
Did you overlook the fact that the RAW explicitly say that the DM can set any DC he wants for the check?
Quote:
Your Intimidate checks are made against a target's Will defense or a DC set by the DM.
It's a neat thing that you can do if the DM lets you. There is a reason however, why it is not a power, nor is it something you want to build a character around unless you work with the DM.
Did you overlook the fact that the RAW explicitly say that the DM can set any DC he wants for the check?
I don't see anywhere in the Intimidate description where it says "...or a DC set by the DM. " (Though I realize I can set any DC to anything I want any time I want... I'm just focusing on the Intimidate description.)
I don't see anywhere in the Intimidate description where it says "...or a DC set by the DM. " (Though I realize I can set any DC to anything I want any time I want... I'm just focusing on the Intimidate description.)
Make an Intimidate check to influence others through hostile actions, overt threats, and deadly persuasion.
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.
Imagine an at-will power that can kill any enemy that has taken at least half damage. Now imagine that this at-will power was Close Burst 50. That's pretty sick, right? Well, that's exactly what the Intimidate Skill is. For example, if you got the BBEG to bloodied, and you then employ intimidate and succeed, you have essentially "killed" the BBEG in one hit! You can potentially put a winning end to entire encounters with just a single attack.
Now, some people will say that the +10 modifier for a hostile target should mean intimidate would be hard to pull off. Well, the +10 modifier is a bonus to the target's Will defense, which is not the strongest defense of most monsters. So, take a Paladin with 20 CHA, for example. He now has a +5 to his "hit". He takes training in intimidate, for another +5. He is now at +10 to hit, and has now effectively nullified the +10 modifier the target got for being hostile for a total bonus of +/- 0. But wait, there is more! He now takes Skill Focus as a feat to achieve a +3 bonus and thus a grand total of +3 to "hit"
+3 vs. Will is not bad for a power that automatically kills enemies that are bloodied, and that can hear and see you. The fact that it scales with a +1 every two levels in line with every other power out there means that it's better than 'not bad', it's pretty damn good.
The Living Forgotten Realms group that I play with have already had Intimidate come up into play as a very powerful ability. In our tiny slice of the RPGA pie, we have had discussions on how to handle intimidate, and have defaulted to the fact that DMs are given the leeway to interpret the rules as they see fit.
Should constructs, who have no emotions, be able to be cowed into doing anything? How about the mindless undead? Should intimidating the leader of the enemies into surrendering mean that his underlings surrender as well? In DM Magic's case, should the player be able to use Intimidate to apply different kids of intimidation to all targets in the area as a single standard action? Unfortunately, this is where the rules simply don't address the issue properly, and hopefully WotC will eratta this skill mechanic in the near future. Until then, I feel that it is up to the DMs ruling for now.
For the scenario that DM Magic laid out, I would have ruled that the player could do exactly as he did. How the outcome of those intimidates came out though would have been up to me, not the player. So the bloodied creature surrenders since it just took half damage, and its friends standing nearby saw that, shared with each other a "Holy crap look what they did to Carl" moment, and would have been maybe cowed into not taking an action for the round.
If the player insists that he gets control over the actions of the cowed monsters, I would say that it is up to the player to decide: Is the player's character going, "Graaaaaah, I'm going to skin you alive and pull you inside out through your mouth!" and scaring the bejeebus out of the monsters, or is he trying to say his character is saying "You, over there, surrender! You guys over there retreat two squares back and lose a turn" If the latter were true, I would have ruled that he was making two seperate actions.
Notice, though, that most monsters also have Intimidate in their stat blocks, so what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. So the buddies from the example above could use their intimidate check to force their comrade back into the fight. And they can do so without the +10 modifier because their friend isn't hostile. It is also within the realm of possibility that monsters could actually use Intimidate on the players as well. So Intimidate is not a weapon exclusive for abuse by players, but by DMs too!
If I were the players at DM Magic's game, suddenly, the appeal of having an overpowered Intimidate skill isn't quite so attractive, is it?
Intimidate, IMHO, is one of those issues that is like a delicate ticking time bomb for a group. On the one hand, if you mishandle it, it will shatter and blow up in your face. If you handle it with great care, however, you might be able to work with it for a while, but sooner or later, it's going to blow up anyways. My advice would be just prepare for some troubles with Intimidate, let the DM rule as they see fit,, and hope an eratta comes out soon. I hope you guys agree
Imagine an at-will power that can kill any enemy that has taken at least half damage.
Not really an at-will, more of an encounter power. Remember you can only try intimidate on a creature once, after that it has no effect for the rest of the encounter.
As for skills being powerful in combat, well....its about time!!
I want skills to be awesome, I want people to use their skills and feel that they are worth the actions.
As for intimidate itself, my group has 3 players that have good intimidate checks, and it hasn't been a problem. The Will defense of most monsters with the +10 is pretty challenging, so most of the time the tactic doesn't work. But we all enjoy it when it does work, and it hasn't nerfed the monsters or anything. Solos and Elites tend to have high defenses, so they are the least likely to get affected. And for regular monsters, getting them to surrender an attack or 2 before their normally killed isn't game breaking.
As for skills being powerful in combat, well....its about time!!
I want skills to be awesome, I want people to use their skills and feel that they are worth the actions.
I totally agree with Stalker.
Also, the DM can't follow the rules every single time. He always has control over an action like this, sometimes it should work or not according to the big picture in the narrative.
Imagine an at-will power that can kill any enemy that has taken at least half damage. Now imagine that this at-will power was Close Burst 50. That's pretty sick, right? Well, that's exactly what the Intimidate Skill is.
Except it isn't. Surrender =/= Kill. It's for the DM to decide what surrender means in a given context. There is no 'surrendered' condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inati
My advice would be just prepare for some troubles with Intimidate, let the DM rule as they see fit,, and hope an eratta comes out soon. I hope you guys agree
I don't think it needs errata. Except, perhaps, to clarify that surrender =/= kill
Intimidate is a good way to set up interesting stories. If the party is regularly abusing it to slaughter surrendering foes, they shouldn't be surprised if they find it will eventually get more difficult and finally noone is going to surrender anymore.
This isn't so different from some of the problems we had back in 3E.
I allow my players to use Intimidate only when it makes common sense. A foe that is bloodied but has a healthy chance of surviving because his comrades are still standing can't be subjected to intimidation. Also consider all emotions and forces the monster is subjected to. Perhaps he fears torture more than death, etc.
I'd also suggest to turn the tables against the players, and use Intimidate on them once in a while. Isn't the game all about balance and giving monsters a fair chance? A superior villain, the right context, can lead to a hero giving in. If one of my players would be trying to constantly (ab)using "intimidate", I would subject him to the same at one crucial moment.
You could use the old morale modifiers from 2E to make the check easier/more difficult. In particular, I would give a +5 bonus to will defense if the enemies think they have the advantage (ie: their BBEG is still alive, or they are the BBEG, or there's a surprise waiting for the party mid-combat etc..) and a +1 for each non-minion ally that's still alive. Even the 20 Charisma Paladin with +13 intimidate at 1st level will have difficulty taunting a bloodied kobold when his four friends are still alive and the Paladin's party has more bloodied members (Will defense +10 +5 +4 for +19 vs. +13 for instance..).
__________________ Everyone is weird. Some people happen to be weird in the same way, which they choose to call normal.
I've house-ruled this use of Intimidate out of the game... for the moment. I'll probably add it back in once I think of some interesting way to avoid PC's attempting to intimidate into submission every single bloodied-foe they see.
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
Also, don't forget the additional -5 mod if you don't speak the same language.
I think the best thing to do would be to sit down with the group beforehand and discuss what you think intimidate shuold be able to do, that way everyone gets a say and you can mitigate any potential abuses by refering back to your previous discussion as precedence for an agreement.
These are all really good suggestions -- unfortunately, the player in question's computer is out of commission, so I'll have to point him to this thread when it's back up and running!
In today's game, it was three kobold dragonshields. One of the kobold dragonshields was bloodied and the player rolled very high -- the target promptly dropped his weapon and shield and surrendered. No problem. However, the player proceeded to roll for the two remaining (non-bloodied) kobold dragonshields (based on the line, "...or cow a target into taking some other action").
There's nothing wrong with using Intimidate on multiple targets, and it's very genre appropriate.
The key, here, is what was the player doing? What was he saying? Did he just say "Surrender"? If so, by the RAW, the bloodied kobald rightly surrendered. But, it is up to the GM to determine how the other kobalds react, if the PC beat their modified Will defense. Success could look like the kobalds merely backing off two steps on their next action.
The GM could also have given the kobalds an additional bonus for their numbers.
I've house-ruled this use of Intimidate out of the game... for the moment. I'll probably add it back in once I think of some interesting way to avoid PC's attempting to intimidate into submission every single bloodied-foe they see.
"The game will be boring if you intimidate every single bloodied-foe you see. If I don't think a particular NPC would surrender, even if he is bloodied, I'm not going to allow Intimidate to work."
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
I dont really think the intimidate issue is about trust at all. If a player tried to abuse it, he'd just get blue-bolted by the DM. The issue is one of balance. And not balance in the sense that it will break a game, but in the sense of relative power level of skills to powers. Powers are always more powerful than skills, and with good reason. Thematically, the reason they should be more powerful is rather obvious. They are 'powers.' Skills are just mundane skills that anybody can use. Balance wise they are more powerful because the characters are limited to the amount of times they can employ them in a given period.
Now, by RAW it looks like indimidate can, as a standard action, cow any number of enemy opponents who can see and here you, get some of them to spill their deepest darkest secrets, and force any who are bloody to immediately surrender.
So basically all the party has to do is get the enemy army to bloody, then the big bad warlock (not picking on Carl, warlocks just happen to be the best intimidators) gives them a stern talking-to and they all surrender. Clearly this is not intended. I think it's just another case of a poorly worded ability.
I think the in-combat usage is intended to be used against the single, bloodied target. Being able to effectively cast fear at-will would basically make the warlock the uber controler. I take the 'cow an enemy into taking another action' as to be a strictly out of combat type ability-- A couple thugs are starting a ruckass in the tavern, you stand up and give them a look, they all sit back down at their table and resume drinking peacefully. The lacky at the city gates doesnt want to let you pass, you give him a good tounge-lashing and he backs down... etc etc.
I do think it's a bit odd that there's no explicit limitation on the number of people you can intimidate. I dont care how scary you are, one guy isnt going to cow a mob. Maybe have max number of targets equal charisma bonus + 1/2 level. Even that becomes a fairly large number, but at least it's a theoretical cap. (alternately, you could increase the wil defense of each subsequent target by +2 or something. Or just give everyone a +1 per number of people in the group. Mobs/gangs tend to bolster each other against such attacks.)
The DMG actually DOES mention a limit. It says flat out that abilities in the game are designed around a small group of creatures, not an army. So the DM is perfectly within his right to say you can't intimidate a whole army.
Using published adventures as an example, I'm determining whether the foes might surrender or not, when I design the encounter. For some encounters, I have foes ready to run away the moment they are engaged. Perhaps they are hired hands who don't really think fighting for 10 gp is worth their lives. In some encounters, I have foes who simply will not surrender, such as zealous cultists, or bloodthirsty lychanthropes. Most encounters will be somewhere in between, where the foes won't surrender until their leaders are dead, at which point, they might lay down their weapons if intimidated (or try to run away otherwise).
__________________ Warning: This post may contain sarcasm.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
