Intimidate in combat: viable?

[Nail]

Flipguarder nails it in one! Well done!

 

[ExploderWizard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Eric Finley]

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]

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]

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.