Handling Intimidate when Powerful-yet-untrained characters threaten violence?

[LostSoul]

Conflict 1: Johnny says, "Do what I say, or I'll kill you." Mr. Peasant Merchant doesn't want to.

Resolution: Intimidate vs. Will. The result is a failure for Johnny. Mr. Peasant Merchant says, "Hell no, nerd."

Conflict 2: Johnny blasts Mr. P.

Resolution: Attack vs. Reflex. The result is a success for Johnny. Mr. P gets his leg blown off.

This may lead into another conflict: will Mr. P do what Johnny says? Whoever is playing Mr. P gets to decide that. If Mr. P does, there's no conflict, but if he doesn't, Johnny may have to do something else.

The only thing I'd note is that Mr. P still just sits there in the second conflict; he could have run away or punched Johnny in the face or something. Resolution there might mean some kind of opposed roll, or rolling Initiative and using the combat rules.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

You could always just Page 42 it. Because, you know, that doesn't have to apply to just combat.

 

[aboyd]

I haven't quite read the responses, although I skimmed a bit. I wanted to try to write what I'd do without being influenced by other posts.

Basically, if I think an 8th level wizard has blown his intimidate against a low-level merchant, I'm going to take it one of two ways. Either the merchant doesn't understand the predicament he's in, or the merchant fully understands and already has a revenge plot cooking.

So if the merchant doesn't understand the danger, then he's really going to get hurt. If he lives, there is no more need to go by the intimidate roll -- he's been attacked and can gauge how long he has left to live, and make some decisions. If there is any variable that might cause the merchant to remain stupid, it would merely be a low wisdom score. Otherwise, up against a show of force, he shouldn't be so doggedly unintimidated that he just dies from bullheadedness.

However, if the merchant does understand the danger, then what's happening is that he's willing to capitulate at the moment so that he can utterly slaughter the wizard later. Perhaps he's friends with the local level 20 mage and knows that said mage will happily disintegrate the wizard on the merchant's behalf. Or perhaps something more mundane will happen -- perhaps that merchant sits on the local council, and after the wizard leaves, every seller in town will know to claim that they have nothing to sell but the lamest goods. An alchemist will suddenly have only 4 acid flasks left, sorry. No alchemist's fire flasks at all. A blacksmith will suddenly have no magical items appropriate for an 8th level character, but hey, he's still got a cheap masterwork mace. And so on.

Or perhaps the merchant has just done something similar to what some of the weaker NPCs did in the Baldur's Gate 2 video game -- have a group of assassins on retainer as paid protection, and once the wizard leaves, he's a hunted man. Maybe all the wizard's items are secretly stolen and returned to the merchant (including things the merchant never owned), or maybe the wizard is outright killed. What would be awesome would be to steal back all the stuff and replace it with cursed items, so that the wizard blithely continues using the (now dangerous) items.

Anyway, the point is that while the merchant will behave intimidated, he's really not. He's willing to go to the police. He's willing to describe his attacker. He's willing to sit in a courtroom and point out the lawbreaker for everyone to see. He'll stand up to the wizard, it just might take some plotting.....

 

[roguerouge]

aboyd is why you max out your social skills as a PC. Because you want to minimize your chances of exactly that happening. Yeah, they're just mooks, but it's a slippery road to a bunch of paladins and clerics hunting your unlawful smite-worthy butt down. It's yet another reason why diplomacy and bluff rock and intimidate is a bad idea.

 

[Snoweel]

If it were me (and thankfully it is not; I've never been fond of the Knights of the Dinner Table approach to NPC interaction), I would probably say that in such cases, the difficulty for Intimidate might be appropriately low, much as the difficulty of killing a peasant is appropriately low.

In this specific case, I'd probably rule that since Johnny is no good at making people fear him. They fear his magic missiles, yes. But he comes across as a crackhead with a gun, wherein the gun is the dangerous thing and not Johnny. This brings to mind scenarios wherein people are openly "tamed," quite subservient, but plotting all the time for a perfect time to murder Johnny in his bed and hopefully blame it on someone else. Whereas if Johnny were charismatic and trained in Intimidate, their fear might be genuine enough to keep them in line.

I agree with all this but I'd go even further.

The difference between a successful intimidate check and not, is whether the NPC is intimidated into helping vs resentfully complying.

It's quite possible to be bullied into an attitude resembling genuine admiration. IRL it happens all the time - from the psychology of gang identification to the way recruits are socialised into militaries to extreme cases like battered person syndrome.

 

[Snoweel]

Torture and violence do not work that well. Victims subject to these methods will say anything to get it to stop.

The key to torture-and-the-threat-of-violence is the psychological game that must accompany it, and that starts with what the interviewer already knows, and hinges on not revealing the interviewer's information requirements.

Essentially, a key part of any involuntary interview is asking questions you already know the answer to.

 

[delericho]

I try to think of Intimidate not as being just the ability to scare someone, but being the ability to scare someone usefully -- so that you accomplish something. Thus, people with frightening miens, massive muscles and more massive swords, incandescent arcane might, and otherwise clear signs of "I can destroy you" power -- but no real Intimidate bonus -- can scare people. They just don't do it to useful effect some (many) times.

In the shot-off-his-leg situation, I'd have Peasantus Merchantus be terrified of Johnny -- but not usefully terrified. I'd have him be scared out of his wits, more-or-less literally; helpless on the floor, sobbing in fear and pain, begging Johnny to stop, don't kill me, please, oh Zilchus/Pelor/insert-divinity-here. Congratulations, Johnny -- you successfully frightened him -- but not into doing what you want.

This. Or, alternately, the peasant does what the PC wants, but in the most useless, slap-dash manner he thinks he can get away with.

Then, the next time the PC is drunk/asleep/otherwise off-guard in the town, the peasant and his friends (basically, the whole town), throw a bag over his head, knock him out, have a quick (and legal) trial, and burn him at the stake. Sure, the Wizard can easily kill the peasant, but it's unlikely that he can take on the whole village (especially in the 4e universe), and he's just burned his bridges in this community.

 

[N0Man]

I hope that wasn't an example from an actual game...

I have several thoughts on the matter:

* Yes, a wizard should get a bonus to Intimidate. Maybe around 1 point per 2 levels... like everyone else. With 8 Charisma, he'd be just as effective as an untrained level 1 with 16 Charisma, and almost as good as 10 charisma but trained level 1.

* It wouldn't be unreasonable to offer a small circumstance bonus to his intimidate as he used some kind of spell to make himself look more imposing (before shooting the guy).

* Your skills aren't just a list of things you are good at, but they are also partially descriptive of the way your character *chooses* to resolve problems. If he hasn't invested in Intimidate, then it doesn't sound like that's it's something he's either skilled in or *chooses* to use to resolve conflicts. If he wants to be the type of person who wants to be a bully and intimidate villagers, then he *should* have invested in the skill as a means to express that's the type of person he is. The example above sounds like an example of bad roleplay.

* It sounds like a justification for "I'm powerful, I should have the Intimidate skill for free!", which just sounds munchkiny to me.

However, there was a Skill Power in a PHB3 preview that allowed you to have an Encounter Power, with an Arcana prerequisite, where you could use Arcana in place of Intimidate.

 

[ExploderWizard]

IMHO the intimidate skill represents the ability to convey badassery without actually having to display it.

In the original example the nerdy wizard had a tough time threatening the NPC without actually using his power to effect. This is in perfect alignment with the use of the skill. Once Jhonny actually severely injured the other person the intimidate skill becomes irrelevant. The injured party now simply reacts to what has actually happened. The need to convey the fact that Jhonny can deal out a butt whoopin is no longer in question.

So nerdy little Jhonny that looks like he couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag actually has to deal out the hurt in order to be taken seriously. I see this as the skill working as intended.

Once physical punishment comes into play intimidation is superceded by the effects of actual torture.

There are cases where the application of torture on one individual can serve as effective intimidation on another by providing a very real indication of threat via example. I would give even an untrained individual a large bonus to intimidate rolls using this technique.

 

[Celebrim]

Intimidate is the skill of frightening someone into doing what you want them to do. It is not in fact easy for the very fact that frightened and angry people are irrational and unpredictable.

A failed intimidate check results in a person who is either not frightened or who is frightened or angry and who is unwilling to do what you want them to do. This can be interpretted in several ways.

1) The target doesn't realize the danger he is in and he mocks the intimidator.
2) The target overestimates his own resources and counters the intimidator with threats of his own.
3) The target becomes so angry and filled with hatred for the intimidator that they will resist to the death out of spite or stubborn pride. This resistance can be stubborn silence, shouting continually, attacking the intimidator, or simply refusing to obey any request.
4) The target goes into a shock and cowers, is mentally dazed, goes temporarily insane, faints, or becomes catatonic, and is unable mentally or physically to comply with any demand regardless of how it is made.
5) The target feigns compliance, but goes beserk at the first oppurtunity.
6) The target simply flees in a panic, too frightened to comply with any demands.
7) The target feigns compliance, but flees in panic at the first oppurtunity.
8) The target feigns compliance, but engages in some act of subterfuge that renders the compliance useless.
9) The target becomes enraged and immediately attacks the intimidator, even if this would be suicidal.

And so forth.

The point is that if you fail an intimidate check, you may well get some sort of behavior, but its not likely to be the behavior you wanted.

So, as for your example:

For example, Johnny the Wizard is 8th level, with 8 charisma and no intimidate training. Statistically, he's a nebbishy geek who isn't even slightly intimidating.

However, being an 8th level wizard, he is fully capable of blowing the average peasant/merchant/whatever into kingdom come.

Johnny is interacting with said average peasant/merchant/whatever, and says, "do what I say, or I'll kill you."

DM rolls intimidate, and Johnny gets like a 7--by the numbers, he's not scaring anyone. Mr. Peasant Merchant says, "hell no, nerd."

Johnny shoots his leg off with a magic missille. Then says, "okay, now do what I say, or I'll kill you."

So far, you've run it pretty much how I would. Here though I diverge.

Johnny has earned an intimidate reroll based on demonstrating the willingness and ability to inflict voilence on the merchants person. He might also potentially be eligible for a circumstance bonus, but in this case I would rule that even though the wizard has shown an extreme capacity for violence he's blown it by inflicting so much trauma that any edge he might gain has been lost due to effect of the pain, shock, etc. on the merchant.

Johnny rolls another intimidate check. If he fails again, the merchant engages in one of the above behaviors as is suitable to the merchant's personality:

#1) This appears to have been the merchants original stance - he thinks the wizard was bluffing. Well, he's clearly not bluffing, so the merchant has been probably removed from this stance.
#2) The Merchant screams in pain and rage and threatens the wizard, "You'll hang for this you bloody witch!"
#3) The Merchant goes into a stony silence, glaring at the wizard and daring him to do anything further. He greets any request by spitting at the wizard or simply doing nothing.
#4) The Merchant goes into shock and cowers. He responds to any request by saying, "Look what you did to my leg.", and otherwise commenting on his own condition. He shows no real awareness of anything the Wizard does.
5) The Merchant pretends to comply with the wizards request, but as soon as he gains his feet and gets within reach of a weapon, he tries to bludgeon the wizard in a beserk rage.
6) The Merchant begins crawling and hobbling away at his fastest possible speed, preferably toward help. He makes no response to anything the Wizard says
7) The Merchant feigns compliance but as soon as the Wizard engages in any other task, he tries to flee in a panic and begins screaming for help.
8) The Merchant feigns compliance, but subtly damages any good that he gives the wizard, poisons the wizard's food, takes longer to perform any task than it should, tries to pass notes to people explaining his need for help, lies to the the Wizard, or otherwise does his best to be utterly unhelpful while appearing to help.
9) The Merchant grapples the Wizard and tries to drag him to the ground and choke him.