D&D 3E/3.5 (3.5e) Intimidate and Undead

[Theo R Cwithin]

If you feel Intimidate should work on undead, rule that it works, if you feel it shouldn't work, rule that it doesn't. It's that easy!

Ultimately this is true, of course, as it is with any other rule.

But I think HoboGod was certainly justified in being little offended, since it was claimed "(s)he'll always come up with something to argue against" regardless of the argument put forward. That wasn't a contribution to the discussion; it was a silly personal jab. The point of the thread was to clarify a rules issue-- and that requires parsing the rules. Several people have provided their input supporting different views on the matter. I've made up my mind, and I'm sure anyone who cares has made up theirs.

In any event, thanks to everyone for your input!

 

[HoboGod]

Well, that's a valid position. However, why should anyone bother to to do that? Unless you find another 'scholarly person', there's no point.

I for once am a practical person, interested in getting things done. If 'RAW' or 'RAI' gets in the way of DMing a fun game, I choose to ignore it. Debating for debate's sake is an exercise in futility. What's to gain?

Interpreting the rules is _not_ a science. If you feel Intimidate should work on undead, rule that it works, if you feel it shouldn't work, rule that it doesn't. It's that easy!

(and if you're not the DM, good luck convincing your DM of your position!)

I couldn't agree more. The rules lend themselves to multiple interpretations. I felt it was a major discovery that the revised description of Undead type lends itself to an interpretation where undead COULD be influenced by the intimidate skill. However, I felt somewhat slighted when people continued to deny that interpretation by repeatedly pointing to the original description. Not only did it feel like another interpretation could never be considered, it felt like anything I pointed out would be ignored for the wording that favors the opposing argument best.

I understand that near this point, I've gotten very argumentative, rigid, and stubborn in the way I'm arguing. I apologize. Yes, arguing from a scholarly stance hedges out people who don't debate in that way, but it's the only way I know how to argue that doesn't result in extreme bickering.

An analogy, John writes in his blog, “apples taste disgusting.” Two years later, he writes in his blog, “applesauce is good with pumpkin pie.” Knowing that, I want to surprise John with some applesauce. Peter, who didn't know John wrote that, tells me John hates apples. I point out that John likes it with pumpkin pie. Peter says that he couldn't like it with pumpkin pie because he doesn't like apples. At this point, I can start acting childish and demand that I know John better than Peter or I can change the way I argue to a scholarly stance and tell Peter the source of my opinions. If Peter refuses to acknowledge what John wrote in his blog, I must either start acting childishness or remain scholarly and request Peter tell me why Peter's blog doesn't matter before accepting that John wouldn't like applesauce. Would you do differently?

 

[Thurbane]

Rules lawyering and loophole-seeking aside, immunity to fear effects = immunity to Intimidate. Period.

Cast a Fear spell at a Vampire:

"Muahaha! Silly mortal, I am immune to your pathetic attempts to invoke fear!"

...Fighter then rolls an Intimidate check...

"Oh please mighty warrior, stop glowering at me, it's making me ever so nervous!"

...yeah...

 

[HoboGod]

Rules lawyering and loophole-seeking aside, immunity to fear effects = immunity to Intimidate. Period.

Cast a Fear spell at a Vampire:

"Muahaha! Silly mortal, I am immune to your pathetic attempts to invoke fear!"

...Fighter then rolls an Intimidate check...

"Oh please mighty warrior, stop glowering at me, it's making me ever so nervous!"

...yeah...

That's not how I see it at all.

The wizard casts fear, reminding the Vampire of the madness and horror which dwells only in nightmares.
"Silly mortal, that's the stuff I'm made of."
The fighter rolls an intimidate check, reminding him with words that his fists can smash boulders.
"On second thought, I don't want to die. Carry on, adventures."

But, fine, I give up. I'm only human and can take so much. Most people arguing against me don't want to tell me why the entry in Monster Manual IV doesn't hold authority or explain how I'm interpreting it incorrectly. I ask myself: what's the point of sharing an opinion when nobody wishes to examine it? I ask others: what's the point of having an opinion if you'll never let it be argued? If rules lawyering is so horrible, let all rules be decided by the person who argues the longest. I will not be that person, however, I believe you know the type of person that will tend to be.

Here was my full train of thought from the beginning so that I can wash my hands of this thread. I read the SRD for the rules on undead creatures, found it vague, but clear enough to say "undead cannot be intimidated." At which point I turned to Libris Mortis as the definitive source for 3.5 undead creatures, if it said no differently or said nothing at all, then I would take the stance of non-intimidation. Libris Mortis contained no valuable information on intelligent undead creatures but a peculiar wording of undead type. I checked all editions of the Monster Manuals I had, in reverse order, until I could find wording that matched Libris Mortis. Monster Manual IV was a hit and the wording was not a blanket statement like SRD. Assuming that because the wording was not a blanket statement, it was the intent of the authors that SOME form of mind-affecting effects could work. With rather vague wording, I made an assumption that ability could only refer to special ability as per literal definition, it wouldn't make sense that undead are "Immune to mind-affecting strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores." At which point, I decided to change my stance to one that supported intimidation, once unable to find evidence against it, I put it forth to the community as a theory.