Intimidate in combat: viable?

[Lancelot]

In my campaign, a successful Intimidate on a bloodied monster causes it to believe that to fight on is hopeless and certain to end in its death. How the monster reacts to that belief depends on the situation and the monster; it does not always equal surrendering and being out of the fight. Frequently it will. But not always. The monster's intelligence, culture and motivations; the PC's actions, demeanor and reputation; the preceived likelihood of survival if the monster surrenders, pretends to surrender, flees, bluffs or feigns death may all play into the result. A successful check will always give the party some benefit, but it may not be a surrender.

In my DM'ing experience, I'm something like this as well. However, I apply the ruling that some monsters simply can't be intimidated.

Although the rules don't say as much, you can't intimidate an ochre jelly. Or a zombie. Or a starspawn of hadar. Some creatures are so mindless or utterly alien they simply don't understand the concept of intimidation.

I'd also DM fiat to prevent intimidation in an encounter which is specifically designed for story reasons. For example, the final uber-battle against the Big Bad.

I'd allow Intimidation to work in most other encounters as long as it wasn't being abused. I'd even encourage it in some circumstances, because I agree with the original poster that it's a great way to end combats before they become boring, and live enemies are more interesting than dead enemies.

I also think that if a player came to me with a munched out Intimidate build and expected that it would work for *every* encounter that he wanted (as long as he rolled a number on a d20), I would hope that he talked to me first. I could give him some references for other gaming groups to try out.

 

[Stalker0]

Even without maximizing the skill, trying the tactic is still useful in situations when a lot of enemies are bloodied, as you can try it on all of them at once. I've done that a few times with my previous character to good results.

I think the regular DC is fine for most monsters, and its fine for the DM to have his boss monsters be much harder to scare down. Its all RAW, and its all good.

 

[Legildur]

I like the tactic. Mind you, it's not always a suitable tactic to employ.

What do you do with a surrenderered enemy? You can't keep just killing them afterwards.

What happens mid combat if one enemy surrenders when you turn your attention elsewhere? Do they resume fighting or perhaps slink away?

 

[Chris Knapp]

I have used Intimidate a few times, and seen it used by others at the table, but we all have failed; haven't seen a success yet so haven't seen how my DM's handle it. Personally, its just asking for an errata since its the only skill with an opposed check versus a defense. All other opposed checks are against other skills. Moreover, the very nature of an opposed check indicates that the opponent is supposed to roll too: Stealth vs. Perception, Bluff vs. Insight, etc. Not so with an in-combat intimidate check. Its really a form of basic attack as written. This becomes a huge problem when a level 4 character can achieve a +30 to their "attack roll." The skill description text that states it targets will or a DC set by the DM is also confusing. I believe it is summarizing the 2 situations where its used: either in combat where its straight Intimidate vs. will, or in a skill challenge where its intimidate vs. a set DC. I don't think RAI was to target a DC in combat.

All that said, if I was DM'ing a PC that tried to max out their intimidate, I'd let the other players police the game. If they didn't like it but failed to stop it I'd be tempted to get all passive/aggressive by throwing out a monster with a fat charisma and trained in intimidate and let it try to intimidate one of the players. "I'm sorry, your warlock has just crapped his pantaloons and has surrendered." What's good for the goose is good for the gander. . .

 

[Tuft]

I just felt like trying something a bit different than "do as much damage as possible" with a striker.

I can very much understand that argument...


I dont know if you've realized that, but Minions are always going to be immune versus this tactic, since they never can become blooded... You cannot scare away those guys, no matter how supernaturally scary you are.

 

[CapnZapp]

No.

You don't just say "well, the DC is 45 because I said so". That's horrible, awful DMing. Going after someone's Will +10 at level 4 is already a DC 25+ check. That's normally hard for a level 4 character already (without ridiculous ad-hoc DM metagaming), it's juts that I powergamed the heck out of my skill bonus. You don't suddenly change someone's AC just because you discover the fighter has +4 more attack bonus than you thought, so anybody worth salt isn't going to do it for a skill check.

Hell no. You don't get to dictate what the DM rules. That kind of thinking is the worst D&D could foster (the inclination to replace DMs with rulebooks and computers to ensure minmaxing isn't opposed).

At best, you get to choose which DM you play with. But an attitude like that would get you booted from my game in two seconds flat, so you wouldn't even get to make that choice yourself.

Cheers,
Zapp

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

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.

I think you're asking two different questions:

1) Can I do this, by the rules?
2) Should I do this?

For me, the answers are as follows:

1) Yes, you can, and it'll be successful.
2) Like any character build, it's normally good gaming etiquette to run this kind of thing past a DM first, to give them some idea about it. Otherwise, you're likely to be playing a different kind of game to the DM, which can cause all sorts of problems.

Still, it's up to you how you play the game, and how the DM runs it. Personally, if a player came into my game with this schtick without telling me and used it in every combat, I'd want to talk to them about it after the first session because it messes with a fairly basic assumption of D&D (that the monsters die at the end of the combat).

By pulling this as a surprise on the DM, you're not exactly stacking up the likelihood that they'll react well to it, which is (I think) what other people in the thread are trying to say.

 

[jbear]

Ok, well... seems the discussions is a bit touchy, and I don't know if my answer to your question will seem useful, but here goes anyway...

My players are big fans of using Intimidate. I believe it was errata'd to a minor action, so you can use it once an encounter without blowing an attack.

Edit: errr... don't know why I thought I read that somewhere. Not the case... Ok, standard Action.
Well, In my game my players enjoy intimidating so much that it's staying a minor action. Anyway...

I rule it the following way (obviously completely my own personal ruling): If the fight isn't clearly in the favour of the PC's and the leader is still alive then PC's can use intimidate to penalise all bloodied enemies that can see the person intimidating with a -2 to attack rolls until the end of the PC's next turn. Non-stackable with other people intimidating, so best to take turns. If the leader is bloodied but he still has the majority of his troops still up and fighting strong... same deal.

If the leader was dead, then any bloodied creatures would surrender... the fight would be over. If the leader was bloodied and his troops slaughtered, he would most likely surrender too (under most normal circumstances).

I prefer it this way because the skill can be useful mid-combat before the fight enters the 'lapping up the left-overs' stage and end a fight when the outcome is decided without grinding it til the last man falls. My monsters also use intimidate on bloodied PC's to inflict the same -2 penalty. Seems a lot fairer than forcing their charcter to surrender just because that's what is implied in the rules.

I imagine you wouldn't like your character to be forced to surrender as soon as he was bloodied, just before you took one of the 10 healing potions on your belt or your leader used one of the many healing powers he has left to get you back to full HPs, just because the enemies acted first. I wouldn't rule this as fair. The same goes for the monsters. Hence my house ruling described above.

I'd enjoy your character in my game I'm sure. And he would have many opportunities to shine with his incredible aura of pure fear that surrounds him. But it would have to be used appropriately. I wouldn't increase DC's on you, I would just reduce/change the effect it had on those you are intimidating if I deemed it impossible to achieve surrender given the circumstances.

Anyway, that's what you'd be dealing with in my game. But hey, that's just my game. Best person to check this out with is your DM.

 

[Aran Thule]

To echo what others have said, i would definately run your idea past the DM first, otherwise you run the risk of alienating them and possibly the other players.

I agree with On Puget Sound as to how they might react, here are a couple of possible responses:
Run away to get reinforcements and regroup. This will give foes time to prepare and increase their numbers (had this happen last session and it could have caused the death of some of us)
Surrender. You now have a prisoner


What do you plan to do with those that surrender, i would have a few ideas if i were DM.
do you disarm them and lock them in a room. Could have a lurker free them later and then you have a group made up of prisoners that could flee the area or go looking for revenge on you.
I would increase the differculty if you tried to intimidate something again or possibly if they had warning.
The reputation you form will have a big effect, after clearing a dungeon what do you do with the prisoners, a good DM could put that to good use.
If you are killing everything after surrender and news of this gets out then even as scary as your character is creatures would not surrender as they know they will die anyway.

You could also be digging you own grave.
in a party a b C d e f , when C is the big scary then you could well find yourself as public enemy number one and main target, again if they have seen you bloodied or dropped i would increase the DC to intimidate.

 

[Tuft]

You don't just say "well, the DC is 45 because I said so". That's horrible, awful DMing. Going after someone's Will +10 at level 4 is already a DC 25+ check. That's normally hard for a level 4 character already (without ridiculous ad-hoc DM metagaming), it's juts that I powergamed the heck out of my skill bonus. You don't suddenly change someone's AC just because you discover the fighter has +4 more attack bonus than you thought, so anybody worth salt isn't going to do it for a skill check.

Hell no. You don't get to dictate what the DM rules. That kind of thinking is the worst D&D could foster (the inclination to replace DMs with rulebooks and computers to ensure minmaxing isn't opposed).

It's the DM's job to keep up the appropriate appeareance of a threat against the party.

That means that he most probably adjusts the monsters to fit what the party can do. For example, I've had a DM that changed the 3.5 "always hit on a 20" rule into "always hit on a 19-20", just because members of the party had too good AC. With another GM in a 3E Shadowrun game, the combat prowess of the opposition changed noticably during a single round of combat.

That's the problem with hard-line optimization; it is self-defeating. The DM will react to it, and he will change the threat level to compensate. Different DMs react quicker than others, but if you press hard enough, you will force the reaction. That goes for single skill checks, as the OP describes, as well as pure damage output. Now, if you concentrate on optimization, you most probably sink a lot of resources into it (feats, build points, skill points, etc, depending on system); recources you could have spread out on other things. When you force the DM to react, he restores the balance so that you are back where you would have been without the optimization - but you are still out of your spent resources. That's the self-defeating part.

The other part is that you are actually worsening the odds for the members of the party that are not on the arms race train, not improving them. If the DM selects or designs monsters to fit your optimized character, they will very probably be a much higher threat to the non-optimized ones.


CapnZapp talks above about "computers [...] ensure minmaxing isn't opposed". The interesting part is that it is not true; minmaxing is opposed even on computers. If enough players in an MMO employs a specific optimization, the game will change - the developers will employ the dreaded "nerf bat". The MMO developers may react slower than a PnP DM, but they will react...