A quick look at Intimidate: the D&D wunderskill

[LostSoul]

Funny, they get plenty of use in my games. I like it a lot better than, "Get red dragon to do stupid action X on a roll of 17 or better."

It also means that my PCs and NPCs are on equal footing.

I see where you're coming from. I find that, if the PCs want to make the dragon do something stupid, I would rather just say, "That's stupid, the dragon would never do that. Try something else." I think that this would keep the game cool, but it also opens up communication. If you're always saying no, the players might ask you to loosen up a bit.

Your second point is a good one. I don't have a problem having my PCs get Intimidated or Diplomacized, but not everyone likes that. So I'd make sure before hand that everyone was on the same page.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Greywulf, considering your original post included a rules quote, I think my point that 3.5 Intimidate is one of the most poorly written skills I've seen is rather to the point.

Personally, I regard this flaw as right up there with the 3.5 "Brightening Darkness" (Darkness now providing 'shadowy illumination'). In trying to fix a supposed flaw in the rules (the 3.0 uber-intimidate) they broke it in an entirely different, and counter-productive way.

So yeah. It needs to be houseruled. And I do.

And at that point, as others have pointed out, it becomes (even more so than with the RAW) GM/campaign dependent.

If I had to pick an uber-social skill, it'd be diplomacy. At least by the RAW, because in all of my examples, the intimidator would be getting huge bonuses.

But what I really want is a good way to do an EGO attack in 3e. Sigh.

<hijack>
And determining when *melee* combat starts is easy. Knowing when combat in general starts is much slippier.
</hijack>

 

[Machiavelli]

What bugs me is a halfling rogue with a few feats walking up to an ogre chief and being far more successful at intimidating him than, say, a raging barbarian with another creature's blood pouring from his mouth would be.

It's silly. It makes the rules far too obvious and obstructs good roleplaying when the DM has to throw in +/-10 situatinal modifiers, completely independent of any rules, just to make a skill check *feel* right.

Better to start off the campaign with house rules that make sense, written out physically at the game session for anybody to reference at will.

 

[Hussar]

/greywulf claps hands in glee.

I love how this thread is turning out. Thanks for all the input, folks.

The only issue I have with what's been said so far is this:



This is like saying

* "Let's get rid of Longswords+1, because that's like being able to cast Magic Weapon at will."
* "We have to limit the Open Locks skill, because it's even more powerful than Open/Close."
* "The Hide skill is way too powerful. It's like Invisibility, but without the duration!"

You get the idea, I'm sure. Magic isn't the only way to do things, and not always the best.

*snip*

Not in the slightest actually. I'm saying that handing the PC an unlimited use Suggestion power is overpowered. Open locks does entirely different things than Open/Close so the comparison isn't the same. Hide is limited by visibility and various other factors. And, if you think a +1 to hit and damage is on the same power level as unlimited use Suggestion spells, well, we have very different definitions of power. Never mind that with Magic Weapon, I can actually switch the target of the bonus, whereas a magic weapon cannot be changed.

But, meh, I've said my peace. I wouldn't touch this with an 11 foot pole. This is easily one of the most easily abusable rulings I've ever seen.

 

[Felix]

I'm saying that handing the PC an unlimited use Suggestion power is overpowered.

Suggestion doesn't automatically make the target unfriendly or hostile 10 minutes after you leave. This consequence encourages the exercise of caution and restraint when using the skill, lest he suffer the result of everyone hating him.

 

[Hussar]

To be honest though, if the victim of the suggestion remembers what you did, and what you had him do, he's not likely to be friendly afterward either.

But, that's not what worries me. A 5th level character could easily have a +13 intimidate (8 ranks, +2 stat, +3 skill focus) without any magical enhancement. The DC for intimidate is d20+Hit dice+wis. A troll (CR 5) has 6 hit dice and no wisdom. I certainly like those odds for walking over an standard encounter. I get d20+13 vs d20+6. Or, taking it another way, d20+13 vs average DC 16. Ooh, on average, I need a three or better to defeat the encounter.

And that's not even using any enhancements or high stats. I can raise that bonus to the point where I will likely never fail using magic and other feats. I'm not so good with doing that sort of thing, but I'm sure someone could certainly improve my +13.

Now do you see why I say that's too powerful? This would be my first action of EVERY combat encounter. Why not? It's almost a sure thing and if I fail, I lose nothing.

 

[Felix]

Now do you see why I say that's too powerful?

Yes, it can be powerful:

If the opponent is vulnerable to [Fear].
If the opponent is intelligent.
If the PC has the opportunity to speak for 1 minute. [Useless in combat, PCs must control the pacing]
If the PC decides to spend scarce resources on improving this ability. [Skill Focus]
If the PC has Intimidate as a class skill. [not all classes do]
If the PC is immune to the consequences of the Intimidation. [Target was already Hostile / target is thereafter killed / DM ignores repercussions]

When all of those conditions are met Intimidate is a very powerful skill, and I agree with you. Perhaps what we disagree on is how often these conditions are met...?

This would be my first action of EVERY combat encounter. Why not?

Why not? Because Intimidation takes 1 minute. That's 10 rounds of not combating. Unless you're Demoralizing Opponent, in which case I suggest there are more effective Standard Actions to take.

 

[Hussar]

If the PC has the opportunity to speak for 1 minute. [Useless in combat, PCs must control the pacing]

Umm, reread the thread Felix. Greywulf wants to make intimidation a standard action. That's my whole beef in a nutshell. As written, intimidate works perfectly fine. As a standard action, it's insane.

 

[Felix]

That's my whole beef in a nutshell.

No, this is your whole beef in a nutshell.

It's a Standard Action too, so you can approach the Orc guard and Intimidate him in the first round then attack on the second. He's at -2 to attack if you have demoralized him, and the battle is won before it's begun. Alternatively, you could just ask him to open the door and let you through. He is your "friend", after all

Demoralize Opponent is a standard action, so he's not wrong there. When I was reading this, I thought this is where the "Standard Action" descriptor wore off.

"Alternatively" begins the other sort of action, of the not-Standard-Action variety, which takes a minute.

If greywulf does indeed want to do everything in a Standard Action, then that's a house rule, and I'll agree with you; I just didn't think he was applying the Standard Action to both uses; only the one where it is a SA. Perhaps I'm missing one of greywulf's posts further downthread?

 

[TomWhitbrook]

As a DM, my problem with Intimidate, Diplomacy and Bluff is that it is so one sided in the character's favor. Now, if I had some players who would allow their characters to be affected by those skills, then I would e far more lenient with allowing them large advantages by using those.

Instead, most all of my player's characters are Bruce Willis cool, so intimidte doesn't work.

Most of them use the diplomacy-immunity rule inthe DMG to play their characters how they want to.

And finally tend to use OOC info to avoid being bluffed, in all but combat situations.

Frankly, using those three skills as written in 3.x is like lettig the players play regular classes and restricting all NPCs to the expert, spellcaster, warrior, aristocrat and commoner. All of them, even the BBEG.

Big agreement here. Just for this reason, I think I'd be happier with some more specific guidelines on what to expect upon getting a certain score on the social skill check. After all, the purpose of those skills is to represent a character's social skills, rather than having to rely on the player who may be much more or less charismatic. But as it stands, theres no such feature for the DM. He or she personally has to convince the players, not the NPC affecting the characters as it should be.