Intimidate in combat: viable?

[Flipguarder]

Does anyone have any worthwhile answers to my question?

1. No I have never seen your idea implemented to that degree.
2. Its as viable as your DM chooses it to be.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I've used it before, but I use it sparingly. I pretty much use it in situations where the enemy could give up if given the chance: a major NPC just went down, majority of his fellows are blooded, its by it self. Its pretty much a time saver and then you can question the person afterwards. Being a DM myself, I try to use it against enemies that would make sense (mostly things with intelligence). You are more then likely to use it against other creatures that seem out of character, but I feel that would just piss off your DM. While its with in the scope of the game, its within his scope of the game to crank it up a couple notches too =v).

Yes, but...you already get a further -5 penalty if you don't speak the language. So that Otyugh from before? I have to roll a 34(at 4th level!) to make him surrender. Even with my maximum obscenely twinked out roll, I still have to roll an 11 on the d20. A normal character, even one trained in Intimidate, would find this task literally impossible, having a maximum roll of about 31 or 32. This is what "makes sense". Normal characters cannot do this. But my twinked guy can. Just like wizards can't sneak attack, people who aren't optimized for Intimidate can't do this. I'm giving up attack bonuses and damage bonuses so I can do this neat trick. Why further penalize someone who already has a DC 10-15 higher than a normal skill check?

I guess I don't see why it's so insane to believe a D&D character can be so utterly terrifying that even monsters don't want to fight anymore. Anything with an Int score understands the concept of dominance. And anything with a lower Will + 10 (or +15) than my Intimidate check is dominated (animalistically speaking, not literally dominated as in mind control).

 

[Caliber]

I have both seen this use of Intimidate in campaigns run by me as a DM, and employed it myself as a player. And while its fine for occasional use, I'd probably step on it if you really used it constantly, for many of the reasons above. Perhaps very important to you is this:

Intimidate can be used in combat encounters or as part of a skill challenge that requires a number of successes. Your Intimidate checks are made against a target’s Will defense or a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC.

Bolded part added by me. The DM can decide a creature simply isn't intimidatable by you, and be 100% within the RAW, even ignoring the fact that the DM gets to say what flies anyway.

Edit:

I guess I don't see why it's so insane to believe a D&D character can be so utterly terrifying that even monsters don't want to fight anymore. Anything with an Int score understands the concept of dominance. And anything with a lower Will + 10 (or +15) than my Intimidate check is dominated (animalistically speaking, not literally dominated as in mind control).

The problem here is that in the real world, dominance almost always arises from actually, you know, being dominating. In this case, it isn't that your character is so mighty/powerful/whatever that the creature absolutely knows it has no choice but to submit. It's that you've twinked a mechanic meant to emulate that and created a character who somehow portrays himself as far more threatening than he can possibly be. Why would the bloodied monster submit to you, especially if it still has fully functional allies running about, has a healing word available (did I mention it was an Elite templated Cleric monster?) and the rest of your party is dying?

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Yeah...I'm pretty sure that bit is in regard to trying to get more out of Intimidate than what is outlined in the book, such as "surrender, and also give me all your money, tell me where your rebel base is, tell me the access codes to Zion, and then kill yourself".

It's pretty clear to me that the DC to get a bad guy to stand down is Will + 10, + 5 more if you don't speak the same language. It's literally impossible to do this by yourself with a normal character, I make a character that can do it sometimes, and suddenly the DCs go up. Sounds really stupid to me.

What exactly is so broken or unfun about scaring things into submission? I guess because nobody thinks about the fact that D&D parties are literally wandering bands of thieving murderers, where surrender is infinitely lamer than cutting something's head off and urinating on the corpse.

I, for one, would be glad to have the combat over more quickly, since it takes freaking forever. Plus, survivors are interesting. Corpses are just dead.

 

[Caliber]

Hey, look. You asked a question and I provided my answer. Obviously, you feel this is a tactic you should be able to employ with impunity, and that's fine by me. I'm just trying to warn you to check with your DM first. The rules clearly allow him to increase the DC to any amount he deems reasonable, even if that means your min-maxing here is totally negated. You may want to try to get some kind of pre-approval before rolling in planning on pulling this stunt off.

 

[Flipguarder]

It's pretty clear to me that the DC to get a bad guy to stand down is Will + 10, + 5 more if you don't speak the same language.

What exactly is so broken or unfun about scaring things into submission? I guess because nobody thinks about the fact that D&D parties are literally wandering bands of thieving murderers, where surrender is infinitely lamer than cutting something's head off and urinating on the corpse.

1. How is it clear to you. What about the text makes that clear?
2. Its not that its unfun to sometimes use this option. Its also not that surrender is infinitely lamer than killing, its that this should be an option that pcs can have instead of fighting in certain situations when one of the characters focuses on it. It should NOT be an option in every conceivable conflict because its essentially an ability that says this

-----------------------
at-will ability
target: a bloodied enemy
Roll a d20, if you get higher than 4 that enemy is now out of combat. If you miss with this ability you can't use it again on the same target for the rest of the encounter.
-----------------------

If any class had that ability no matter how much min/maxing it took to get there, it would be broken. You have made it clear that you intend to use this a lot, that's the problem. Its a flavor RPG type option (as most skill options in combat are), its not supposed to be a consistent viable combat option. The evidence for that is the denoted ability of the DM to change the DC. Not proof but I'd say its evidence in that regard.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

The problem here is that in the real world, dominance almost always arises from actually, you know, being dominating. In this case, it isn't that your character is so mighty/powerful/whatever that the creature absolutely knows it has no choice but to submit. It's that you've twinked a mechanic meant to emulate that and created a character who somehow portrays himself as far more threatening than he can possibly be. Why would the bloodied monster submit to you, especially if it still has fully functional allies running about, has a healing word available (did I mention it was an Elite templated Cleric monster?) and the rest of your party is dying?

That's patently wrong. Supernatural arcane power accounts for the majority of my character's intimidation. And it clearly goes a long way, as evidenced by my huge skill bonus. The character "somehow" portrays himself as that threatening because he leaks arcane lightning and thunder, flies around with glowing yellow eyes and a magical skull mask, while further boosted by unearthly charisma and a magical creature. Plus he's just plain good at being Intimidating already.

Wolverines can intimidate bears, why can't a fantasy hero that commands supernatural authority intimidate things that are generally thought to be larger or more tough?

 

[Regicide]

The problem here is that in the real world, dominance almost always arises from actually, you know, being dominating.

Um. In a 4E encounter the players are almost always going to win. They are in fact dominate in every fight except the very very rare one they may TPK in. Most monsters should be running on round 2. Waiting until they're bloodied is usually really toughing things out.

This is a perfectly fine tactic. Most of my monsters would be running around the time you'd be using it anyway. It'd only really be useful on the stupid ones that aren't quite stupid enough to be immune to intimidate, or to peel off wounded ones in the middle of a fight that wouldn't run since they have lots of allies.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

-----------------------
at-will ability
target: a bloodied enemy
Roll a d20, if you get higher than 4 that enemy is now out of combat. If you miss with this ability you can't use it again on the same target for the rest of the encounter.
-----------------------

First off, it's only a 4 or higher if I blow an encounter utility, and I'm using it on an equal level opponent that has approximately 16 Will and speaks a language I know. Second off, I'm giving up valuable attack and damage bonuses to be able to use this tactic. The DM doesn't just add AC and HP because my attack and damage bonus is higher than he thought. You guys are acting like I'm cheating at dice or something because I don't think a DM should be able to ad-hoc a number you can't target just because he doesn't approve of your strategy.

 

[javcs]

I've seen it run that you can't attempt Intimidation until/unless the target is bloodied.
As a DM, I'd usually do that. Also, as a DM, I'd certainly apply circumstance modifiers to attempting this - and those circumstances could affect whether or not you could attempt to Intimidate.

As an opening move, unless you had a truly amazing result, Intimidate won't net you an immediate surrender in my game - if you did well, you'd likely demoralize the target - depending on exactly how you described your attempt and exactly how well you did, the target might get penalties against you or you might get bonuses against it for a varying amount of time.
Now, if you attempt Intimidate once the target is bloodied, then, it's usually going to be easier to get the target to surrender or flee. Again, modified by circumstances.