Intimidate: aiding ally and party optimising

[Final Attack]

I think the idea of intimidating a bloodied opponent into surrendering is an interesting idea, if potentially quite powerful, because of its potential "instant win".

When I play I would be incline to spend a feat to boost this chance as "instant win" > +1 dmg/round. Feats are not exactly rare either.

So, a Paladin, or Warlord Dragonborn focused on STR and CHR (18), and a skill focus feat can have:
2 - racial
4 - attribute
3 - skill focus (cost a feat)
5 - trained

Total of +14 at level one. Now assuming the average low level will save is 17 (white dragon). You'll need a 27 to intimidate the dragon into defeat. this is a roll of 13+ which is a 40% chance. Pretty good.

Next issue the assist ally. Now if a party of 5 all assist this dragonborn. Assuming they are ok at inimidate and they get 2 successes. He'll get a +4 (with the rare potential of +8). That increases his chances to 55% success.

Further to this as the game progresses their are powers that provide + to next skill check and re-rolls. If the party ranger has trained intimidate. Level 2 "crucial advice" will allow any other party member a re-roll a failed intimidate as an encounter power, with bonuses possibly +4.

Their are further ways to buff later. Such as the lvl 6 rogueutility power "mob mentaility" +2 which is again an encounter power.

At level 6 assuming perfect party (not likely but possible) - Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, others (cleric, wizard).

Vs Bloodied Young Red Dragon (lvl 6) at 166 HP or less. Will save 21. Giving DC 31 (+10 hostile)
1. Rogue uses mob mentaility (gives all party +2 intimidate)
2. All party members ready action to assist Paladins intimidate.
3. 2 successes when aided by 4 allies (reasonable result, +4 for paladin)
4. Dragonborn Paladin rolls his intimidate check with a total +2 racial +4 attribute +5 trained +3 skill focus +3 (level) +2 mob mentaility +4 assist
= Total +23, with the option to re-roll. It will require a 8+ which is a 65% chance. With the chance of re-roll its something like 85% (or higher with the +wis added to the next roll.

I agree that this is pretty situational. But even an average situation with the DM disallowing assists. No rogue in party. Ranger and Paladin intimidate combination still will have a higher than 50% chance of success. Which is useable every encounter.

Is it really unlikely a party will optimise to an "bloodied = win" party?

 

[Jhaelen]

I think the idea of intimidating a bloodied opponent into surrendering is an interesting idea, if potentially quite powerful, because of its potential "instant win".

Is it really unlikely a party will optimise to an "bloodied = win" party?

Well, a surrendering opponent doesn't have to imply an instant win. What is the party going to do with a surrendered red dragon? It's not as if there was a 'surrendered' condition that is equal to 'helpless'. Basically, all you're doing is preparing the stage for an opportunity to have some interesting roleplaying and storytelling.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I think the idea of intimidating a bloodied opponent into surrendering is an interesting idea, if potentially quite powerful, because of its potential "instant win".

As with all skill use, allowable use will be determined by DM adjudication. Intimidating an opponent to surrender can only happen if the DM decides that it is reasonable based on the opponent's circumstances, psychology, and the greater situation at hand. In your example, I'd only allow the player to try it on the red dragon if:

1. The dragon was cornered and had no easy path of escape. (Meaning it couldn't just fly away.)

2. The party was actually doing well. If the dragon is bloodied, but it's already dropped 3 out of 5 PCs, it's probably not terribly worried.

3. The dragon isn't fighting for something it values more highly than its own survival. Like, if it's fighting to protect its sick sibling, surrender away. If it's fighting to protect its treasure hoard, death before loot loss!

Given those preconditions, especially #2, I'd be happy to allow the skill use. After all, if the party can look at the situation half-way through the fight and say, "We're almost certainly going to win this," the dragon probably can too.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I prefer to think of monsters/NPCs as gyroscopes (though the analogy is imperfect) -- they move when you push them, but not necessarily in the obvious direction.

In game, this means that you may be able to intimidate the monster into giving up the fight, but whether that means surrender is an open question. The monster may choose to flee, hide, bargain, grab a hostage, or any number of actions *other than* surrender.

So as a DM (which I admit I have not been for a long time) I would allow an Intimidate check, but interpret the result without any great weight placed on the PCs' demand for "surrender".

Ooh, looks like Wolfwood2 kinda said the same thing first. Teach me to process work-related stuff while working on a post!

 

[seusomon]

Good post. Thank you.

I like the idea of enemies surrendering from a roleplaying standpoint too, for situations or characters that have ethical issues involved.

I guess the concern would be if parties did this monotonously, to the exclusion of "fight to the death" battles and the higher sense of drama they carry. Somehow I don't think that would be too big a problem; there are a number of things the DM can use to make the intimidate option less viable.

For example, although I can see this working smoothly against a solo monster, it would be hard to pull off against a more typical assortment of foes. You can't just make creatures surrender one by one and then forget about them. If you turn your attention from them, they will try to flee or rejoin the fight. Tying them up takes time and leaves you vulnerable. In practice, you'd probably end up killing most of the enemies, and intimidating the final one or two (perhaps the leaders) at the end of combat.

To spice it up, the DM could throw in enemies that get some bonus to their will defense, by virtue of being fanatical (prepared to die for their cause), raging/berserk (heedless of consequences), or some other rationale.

 

[silentounce]

I let my guys intimidate a group of goblins* the other night before they even entered combat. I thought is was completely plausible. They outnumbered them, did some good RP, brandished the skull of a known goblin warlord** they had killed a few days before that had relations with this tribe, and, to top it off, they offered them one gold piece each to leave and not come back. Oh, yeah, he also rolled high enough to beat their Will defense by quite a bit. I gave them the experience for defeating the monsters of course. Now, don't get me wrong, they won't be able to do this every time, it just seemed to fit with the story. Besides, I know they won't try this all the time, either.

I haven't decided whether they're really not going to come back yet, but they did leave.

Spoilers for KotS:

Spoiler

*The excavation room on the first level of the keep. Obviously, these goblins realized that they had to at least kill the guards or others to somehow get this far into the keep. Plus they were sick of digging and finding nothing, so I thought it plausible that the intimidation could occur.
**Irontooth, of course!

 

[napoleonbuff]

I agree that this is pretty situational. But even an average situation with the DM disallowing assists. No rogue in party. Ranger and Paladin intimidate combination still will have a higher than 50% chance of success. Which is useable every encounter.

Is it really unlikely a party will optimise to an "bloodied = win" party?

The halfling warlord in my group likes to intidimate his bloodied opponents (scared off one dragonshield kobold and got another to surrender), and I know he's looking to beef his intimidate for this purpose, so perhaps I'll give solos and maybe even elites a +5 vs intimidate.

Plus, I agree that some opponents will simply fight to the death no matter what. I'd warn the player so he doesn't waste his action.