Intimidate - broken?

[Renaissance Man]

Surely this has been brought up before. (Actually, I think I brought it up before...) How do other DM's adjudicate attempts by monsters and NPC's to Intimidate the player characters? Do the players feel usurped of the right to dictate their characters' actions?

Conversely, what level of control do the player characters enjoy over Intimidated monsters and NPC's? Does this provide a non-magical means for acheiving effects similar to those of cause fear or suggestion ?

 

[demon_jr]

I'm not exactly sure where it is mentioned, but I believe that players are not able to "intimidated" by the intimidate skill, in the same way as the "diplomacy" skill does not work on players. I believe this can be found in the DMG under adjudicating encounters.

Hope this helps.

 

[shilsen]

What demon_jr wrote. The DMG, pg. 149, says that "NPCs can never use a Charisma check to influence PC attitudes. The players always decide their characters' attitudes." What I usually do, if a situation comes up where an NPC would try to intimidate a PC, is roll the Intimidate check. If it succeeds, I just play up the threatening aspect of the former in my portrayal of the NPC, and let the PCs react as they will. So far, it's worked quite well.

 

[Renaissance Man]

There's a passage in the DMG which states that NPC's can't use Charisma checks (nor, presumably, Diplomacy or Intimidation) to influence PC attitudes. It goes on to say that players always decide their characters attitudes. But we know the latter part is not always the case - many spells manipulate the PC's against their will. So why then are they immune to more mundane forms of manipulation? Are the mind flayer's ranks in Intimidation there just for flavor?

 

[mmu1]

(...)Conversely, what level of control do the player characters enjoy over Intimidated monsters and NPC's? Does this provide a non-magical means for acheiving effects similar to those of cause fear or suggestion ?

I generally try to keep it a lot more limited than that, especially since the mechanic in the PHB (DC of Intimidate = 10+target's Hit Dice) is laughably low. Basically:

1. Use it for strong-arming characters into divulging information or doing something for the characters, but instead of rolling against 10 plus their HD, make it either opposed by their Will Save, or the Intimidate check of the person who'll do very, very bad things to them if they spill their guts to the PC's.

2. If used in combat, give enemies who fail their checks a small penalty to attack the intimidating character, or possibly make them choose another target.

3. Generally allow it to work only in situations where the NPC's need a nudge in certain direction, like running early from a battle that's not going too well, etc. - never allow it to even come close to what mind-affecting spells or magical abilities can do.

 

[Fast Learner]

I do essentially the same thing shilsen suggested. If the NPC makes a good diplomacy check, I roleplay the NPC as friendly and accomodating to the PCs -- they see the NPC as very diplomatic. Similarly if the NPC rolls a lousy diplomacy check, I roleplay the NPC as grouchy, disagreeable, and when possible, subtley insulting.

With a good intimidate check I make the NPC seem very fearsome and powerful, and with a poor check (assuming the NPC is trying to intimidate) I play up the NPC's weaknesses and foibles.

If you do all of this subtley, it's extremely effective and the NPCs DO get to make checks.

 

[The Souljourner]

I like the opposed intimidate check, that's very clever. I might give a slight penalty to the result the original intimidator got, since he's not right there, so the threat isn't as immediate. Still, cool idea.

But yeah, basically you can't intimidate the PCs. You can describe how NPCs act, and whether or not their characters seem to think the guy is lying (through sense motive or whatever), but in the end, they can do whatever they want. It's ok, it makes the game more heroic

-The Souljourner