Intimidate in combat: viable?

[Saeviomagy]

I agree with this. Instead of the DM increasing the intimidate DC to make it impossible to intimidate the Big Bad, have it easier to use but have less effect. So if the big bad has a -1 to attacks for the encounter, or a bigger but briefer penalty or something of that note.

Well, interestingly enough, making it a damage power as I put above allows you to do interesting things, like take psychic lock to add a -2 penalty for a round to anyone you hit, or take damage boosters for it etc etc.

Now... if only it had an ongoing save-ends effect so doomsayers could get some use out of it...

 

[shadowoflameth]

Actually, you can do it to multiple opponents with one Standard action. You just have to roll separately for each. And the mask is only a level 5 item. I'm a level 4 PC. I've also got the Staff of Ruin +1, and magical armor and neck slot. I pull my weight by being the only striker in the group and putting out a lot of damage through multitarget spells.



Then that's the wolverine's fault for failing its check, I guess. If I bomb a check on a red dragon, do you know what I just did? I made it easier for the dragon to kill us all because I didn't peg it with damage or status effects, or do something useful.



More like "it's supposed to be an impossibility, but proposing to make it an "I win faster" button that ends about 25% of fights earlier than planned". Seriously, have you ever tried this skill without maximizing it? It's freaking impossible. The only time my party used it, they had to spend all their standard actions using Aid Another on the guy with the highest check (which I believe according to RAW doesn't even work) and he STILL had to roll a 15 to pass. Luckily for him, he did. It flew in the face of "logic" because the party was losing the fight, but it was hilarious, climactic, and relieving. Everyone loved it.



Well, I'm not going to, because there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not using illegal sources or crazy builds. I just stacked a few feats and items together, like most any character does. Why the hell would fellow players get mad at me for making an encounter easier to win? Nobody gets mad at you for stacking on piles and piles of damage, and effectively doing the same thing via attrition, instead of all at once with a single check.

My mistake for answering off the cuff instead of referring to the rules on pg. 186 of the PG. Still, the result is pretty much as I would anticipate.

You can roll seperately for multiple foes, but intimidating a foe into surrendering, giving a clue or taking some other action is a skill check vs. will. At level 4 with a +2 ability mod (which is not at all uncommon), the creature might have a 14-16 or so will, but then there is -5 to your roll for no language in common (which will likely happen a lot), and the creature would get a +10 bonus to will for already being hostile.

so it has an effective will of 24-26 against your roll with a total of +16. so, an 8-10 vs. each foe to succeed.

This seems pretty fair as it approaches a 50-50 chance at like level foes with ordinary abilities. The same rules on the same page though are specific that the DM can set a DC instead of the will defense.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Now... if only it had an ongoing save-ends effect so doomsayers could get some use out of it...

Here's a fun thought... if you are using intimidate to apply a penalty other than "surrender", have that penalty persist until the intimidated target succeeds at a hit. Once your confidence is shattered, only a success can restore it.

 

[Tenniel]

The DM could also interpret the the rules this way: If you succeed with your Intimidate vs Will, it is up to the DM what happens next:

Success: You force a bloodied target to surrender, get a target to reveal secrets against its will, or cow a target into taking some other action.

It does not specify whether it is the player or the DM that specifies the action taken. In some circumstances, the DM might get the target to do something (e.g. switch to another target, take defensive action for a round or two, temporarily drop its guard, wet pants).

 

[77IM]

Another thing you could do is use penalties to influence decision making. It's similar to the -2 penalty for being marked; it doesn't force the creature to attack a particular target, just offers some encouragement.

For example, maybe the Intimidate works like this:
Success: The target suffers a -5 penalty to all attacks and defenses (save ends, with a -2 penalty on the saving throw). Aftereffect: The target suffers a -2 penalty to all attacks and defenses (save ends).

So that doesn't force the creature to flee or surrender, but may influence his decision to do so, based on whether he has allies in the fight that can protect him for two rounds, is a solo, etc. If he chooses to stand his ground, the players still get considerable advantage over him. In this way, the PC's can't dictate NPC behavior, but the DM can't negate the PC's ability, either.

-- 77IM

 

[Lauberfen]

I have a dragonborn paladin who just finished thunderspire at 8th level- he has intimidate +14. I do occasionally intimidate bloodied creatures into surrendering (although not too much, because I don't kill captives without trial, and I don't want loads of prisoners).

It's entirely subject to DM decision- DC is always as the book, but some monsters (insane/berserk ones, for example) just won't surrender, and monsters will usually not surrrender if there are many other monsters surviving.

 

[timbannock]

Two things I noted:

1. Saying to the DM: "This is RAW, so therefore, it always works this way" is ridiculous. Even in D&D, the RAWest of the RAW, the DM is told they can ignore the rules for the story if they want. Check out the DMG. Not accusing anyone, but this point has been brought up in a couple posts now, and it's worth noting.

2. Remember that RAW works like this: specific beats general. If an enemy is listed in an adventure as "always fighting to the death," then by RAW, they ignore Intimidate's power.

Two more things:

3. Using a power on PCs like this is dangerous. I mean, I understand the whole "what's good for the goose" thing, but being a dick is still being a dick. If you're players do it, let them know it and discuss it. Don't be a 3-year old and just go "Neh-neh-na-neh-neh! I can do it better than you!" Nobody needs a DM to be a doucher.

4. Intimidate may sound good, but indeed remember that circumstantial bonuses and penalties are ALWAYS appropriate, if the DM so wishes. It's also in the RAW. If the DM feels this enemy is particularly hard to initimidate (because it is bolstered by its allies, because it has some item/power that influences the effects of fear, etc.) then by all means, make it a little more difficult. Stick within +5/-5 and you are following the precedents of the rules pretty well.

No tactic should "always" work every time guaranteed...that is the realm of silliness in any game, because it's no longer a game.

 

[Alrethe]

I always DM with Risk vs Reward in mind.

The first time a PC does this (and it has happened) then cool you win. They surrender. Now what are you going to do with the 3 Orcs? "we tell them to go home" this is their home. "Oh, we tell them to screw off or we'll kill them" Hmm ok they run off (and inform other Orc that a crazy powerful band of heroes are just down the way).

The next encounter they tried it again. Ok it works combat ends. I'm 1/2 the xp of any mob that surrendered (risk vs reward). PC said ok as long as we still win.

Next encounter same thing. Ok 1/2 xp again and one guy has magic armor. "cool give me that armor" Orc "over my dead body as it's was passed down from my dad". And he's no longer intimidated by that player.

After a while the players got tired with the game and the number crunching player noticed how much less xp he's getting. So things corrected itself. The easier the fight the less reward you get. I don't care what the books say. DM's rights.

Oh also yes I agree some bad guys just can't be intimidated. If it’s a story plot encounter then no sorry it’s just not going to work. But I’ll say that. If you don’t want to play nice and just have phat loot. Here’s the book, you find a magic chest with 5 copies of everything in the book. You want to play my story? You follow my rules.

But yes you can do it by the rules and it will work in combat. Your DM might not invite you back to the game as it's no fun for him/her.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

[B]The 4th level, +21 Intimidate character![/B]

Oh no, it's Him! Run for your lives!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw]YouTube - Dramatic Chipmunk[/ame]

 

[LittleFuzzy]

Second off, I'm giving up valuable attack and damage bonuses to be able to use this tactic.

And by doing so, you're getting a result equivalent to dealing half the creature's hitpoints, taking it from just bloodied to zero. With an attack that you've made very hard to miss, and which you can repeat the next round. If the DM lets you use it as freely as you seem to want, you are going to completely take over the table, make the other players be little more than your set-up. Using intimidate is fine, I've done it as have many others here, and some of us have done some optimization around it to help make sure it goes through when we want it to, but you can go overboard with it. In which case the DM should be putting up some roadblocks, that's why there's a DM in the first place.

Knapp, on the subject of opposed checks vs defenses, remember using Acrobatics and Athletics to escape from grabs. Intimidate isn't the only skill use that targets a defense.