A quick look at Intimidate: the D&D wunderskill

[Inconsequenti-AL]

The problem with the taking prisoners angle is that you've got to do something with them after you've finished interogating them... and IME, some people would say slitting the prisoners throat is not lawful or good behaviour? Depending on many campaign specific variables of course.

Quite possibly more trouble than they're worth?

 

[pawsplay]

A chaotic evil red dragon who is your friend is still a chaotic evil red dragon. He is not likely to give you a backstage pass unless he gets something out of the deal.

 

[Felix]

The problem with the taking prisoners angle is that you've got to do something with them after you've finished interogating them... and IME, some people would say slitting the prisoners throat is not lawful or good behaviour? Depending on many campaign specific variables of course.

How does this make Intimidate evil?

Or were you addressing a seperate question from mine to greywulf?

 

[LostSoul]

A chaotic evil red dragon who is your friend is still a chaotic evil red dragon. He is not likely to give you a backstage pass unless he gets something out of the deal.

It's exactly this sentiment that makes Intimidate (and Diplomacy) worthless.

 

[PallidPatience]

If you don't let the skill do what the skill says it does, then it won't do what it says it does.

Edit:

Thought I should also post a counter-argument to requiring players to use "real social skills" instead of buying ranks in the social skills in the game.

Not all people are as glib as all other people. Not everyone can out-talk a Red Dragon. Not all people can lie their way through the church treasury doors. That's why Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate exist. Similarly, not all people can tell that Wormtongue is lying to them, and that's why there is Sense Motive. For all of these reasons, requiring someone to actually talk their way through something, instead of allowing them a roll modified by their RP is as reasonable as forcing the fighter to stand up, and actually hit a dragon-like thing that's moving as you think the dragon is in the game. It's exactly the same. Forcing people to actually lie, intimidate, and persuade their foes doesn't build social skills. It penalizes people who aren't glib. Social skills are what they get just for playing; for the OOG chatter, the discussion on strategy, etc. ROLE-playing does not necessarily mean "saying everything my character says and doing everything he does".

 

[arscott]

I'm curious as to where you've gotten this from. Sure, it's a [Fear] effect, but it isn't [Evil]. It's the bad cop to Diplomacy's good cop: neither of them have alignment restrictions.

He's specifically talking about the willing deformity feat (from the book of vile darkness), not intimidate as a whole. Pretty much all of the BoVD feats require you to be evil.

 

[greywulf]

The alignment has to be Evil too, which isn't appropriate for all campaigns.

Read what I wrote again. It's the Willing Deformity feat that requires an Evil alignment.

On to the other points about how useless Intimidate is - it isn't!

Obviously, I read the text differently from everyone else. I read it as "outside combat, it takes 1 minute of interaction. In combat it take a standard action. You can choose to demoralize an opponent in combat if you wish, and the target becomes shaken for one round afterwards."

Taking a minute to intimidate someone is just silly in most situations, I agree. The only exception would be in an interrogation room or other other high-stress confinement situation. It's an immediate gut response not a reasoned argument, ferchissakes. Picking up the Batman analogy. He appears, stands there looking all dark and malevolent. He rolls Intimidate with fabulously high bonus. Poor crooks are Shaken, at -2 and try to flee. That's round one. Round two, Batman picks up one of the gooks and asks where the Joker is hiding. They tell him. That is Intimidate in action.

Even if that's not how it's written, I'd house rule it immediately. Read the intention, not the (admittedly broken) wording. Nerf the line "Changing another’s behavior requires 1 minute of interaction" to read "Changing another’s behavior outside a combat situation requires 1 minute of interaction".

If that's what it takes to make it a useful skill, do it. It's your game, after all.

 

[Hussar]

So, we're back to the 3.0 version of the skill where you have an unlimited Suggestion spell at your beck and call. After all, if I intimidate the baddy, he does what I say. There was a reason they took that bit out of 3.0 and added the 1 minute bit in 3.5. If I can do it as a standard action then it is WAY overpowered.

You can whack up some pretty high skill levels very, very quickly. The one minute, interrogation room bit, is exactly how the skill is meant to be used. Not as a mind control skill usable at will.

 

[MarkB]

Read what I wrote again. It's the Willing Deformity feat that requires an Evil alignment.

On to the other points about how useless Intimidate is - it isn't!

Obviously, I read the text differently from everyone else. I read it as "outside combat, it takes 1 minute of interaction. In combat it take a standard action. You can choose to demoralize an opponent in combat if you wish, and the target becomes shaken for one round afterwards."

Taking a minute to intimidate someone is just silly in most situations, I agree. The only exception would be in an interrogation room or other other high-stress confinement situation. It's an immediate gut response not a reasoned argument, ferchissakes. Picking up the Batman analogy. He appears, stands there looking all dark and malevolent. He rolls Intimidate with fabulously high bonus. Poor crooks are Shaken, at -2 and try to flee. That's round one. Round two, Batman picks up one of the gooks and asks where the Joker is hiding. They tell him. That is Intimidate in action.

Even if that's not how it's written, I'd house rule it immediately. Read the intention, not the (admittedly broken) wording. Nerf the line "Changing another’s behavior requires 1 minute of interaction" to read "Changing another’s behavior outside a combat situation requires 1 minute of interaction".

If that's what it takes to make it a useful skill, do it. It's your game, after all.

If the 1 minute requirement bothers you, just add the same rule that Diplomacy uses - make a Rushed check as a full-round action for a -10 penalty.

That seems perfectly fine to me. To use your Batman analogy, sure he can intimidate the low-level punk with a couple of punhces and a menacing loom, but generally speaking, against more effective opponents he at least has to take a minute or two to dangle them off a tower block before they crack.

 

[buzz]

Taking a minute to intimidate someone is just silly in most situations, I agree. The only exception would be in an interrogation room or other other high-stress confinement situation. It's an immediate gut response not a reasoned argument, ferchissakes. Picking up the Batman analogy. He appears, stands there looking all dark and malevolent. He rolls Intimidate with fabulously high bonus. Poor crooks are Shaken, at -2 and try to flee. That's round one. Round two, Batman picks up one of the gooks and asks where the Joker is hiding. They tell him. That is Intimidate in action.

It's actually greywulf's houseruled Intimidate in action. You're waiving the 1 minute requirement, using rounds outside of combat, and upgrading Shaken to "wanting to flee". All of this goes beyond what's in the books. Ergo, sure, in your game Intimidate could be pretty useful; as-written, it's not.