Intimidate in combat: viable?

[77IM]

Don't forget about this part of the rule:

Failure: If you attempted to intimidate the target during combat, you can’t try again against that target during this encounter.


I think the DM is well within rights to assign a moderate circumstance penalty per failure when attempting to Intimidate other targets, as well. "Well, Bob isn't afraid of the big bad dragonborn, maybe I shouldn't be either..."

-- 77IM

 

[Naszir]

Personally I think the main problem with the current intimidate rules is that they're too binary. There's no power that's going to allow you to roll at stat - 10 vs will and let you kill any bloodied targets within range: it would be far too good.

And yet, as written that's what the intimidate rules do.

Personally I think they should have written intimidate up as a charisma-fuelled aoe damage power with the fear keyword, making it an excellent minion killer and at the same time grounding it in the normal combat mechanics and not making it crazy-good. That would have gone a long way to relieving DM worry about it, and it might actually see some use.

Intimidate
Encounter, standard
Fear, psychic
All enemies within close burst 3
Intimidate skill - 10 vs will
1d6 psychic damage (increase to 2d6 at 11, 3d6 at 21). Does not affect foes immune to fear.

I'm sure it can still be cheezed, but there are better powers to cheeze.

I like this idea Saeviomagy. However, being able to just scare minions to death is not to my liking. If you intimidate creatures I would think what would happen is that they become weakened. Maybe the it could look more like this:

Intimidate (in combat)
Encounter, standard
Fear
All enemies within close burst 3
Intimidate skill - 10 vs will
All enemies affected by this are considered weakened (save ends).

From there maybe a line of feats could be designed to interact with this so that bloodied enemies become dazed or stunned or immobilized.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Yeah...except Intimidate doesn't "kill" anything. Nothing prevents the monster from escaping and ambushing you later. It just stops fighting you.

If the designers didn't intend for this tactic to be able to work, why is it a rule? Why is it when you have a low bonus and roll super lucky once in a while, that's ok, but if you have a high bonus and roll moderately well and it works more often, that's stupid/broken/lame/unintended/etc.?

 

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah...except Intimidate doesn't "kill" anything. Nothing prevents the monster from escaping and ambushing you later. It just stops fighting you.

It defeats the enemy. And it is arguable *and will be argued, at many tables* whether "surrender" allows a creature to escape, find more friends, and come back at you with them, rather than meaning exactly what it says, surrender.

 

[Flipguarder]

Yeah...except Intimidate doesn't "kill" anything. Nothing prevents the monster from escaping and ambushing you later. It just stops fighting you.

So obviously this tactic would not give you experience.

If the designers didn't intend for this tactic to be able to work, why is it a rule? Why is it when you have a low bonus and roll super lucky once in a while, that's ok, but if you have a high bonus and roll moderately well and it works more often, that's stupid/broken/lame/unintended/etc.?

1. There are bad rules in D&D, it does happen on occasion.
2. You yourself noted that you don't even have to roll moderately well.

Its a cool option for a skill that is ruled a little funky imo. Its definitely not intended to be the extreme focus of a character as you have made it.

And btw if you got the belt that makes str your stat for intimidate this build wouldn't even be that bad for a fighter.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have an different opinion:

the DC can be lowered or raised by the DM, but usually it is will + 10

what could change the situation:

making it easier:
- a monster beeing hurt several times in combat by the person
- a wizard displaying tricks with fire against wild animals
- seeing one of his allies beeing chopped in half by tha wicked axe (maybe also take bloodthirsty mien which does spell out tis bonus)
- one of your allies already run for his life
- you are hired for other duties... getting yourself killed was not exavtly in your contract
- you are the controller/leader of the group, your minions are disposable and you getting bloodied was not your intention...

making it harder:
- the enemy is hired as a guard and running or surendering will make him fail his duty
- the enemy fears punishment by is master more than his death
- the enemy is under a spell which simply doesn´t allow him to surrender
- the enemy is simply too stupid
- the enemy has no escape route and has seen you torture prisoners
- the enemy hates you so much he rather dies than let you escape
- you are the only one bloodied and your team is clearly succeding, you are the defender and you know your team will not let you go down...

you have your extraordinary high skill bonus:
- maybe you get to make an enemy flee when it is a bit harder... but when two or more of those conditions arise you may still fail.

Also i would let you allow an insight check as a free action before you try it, and if you use an appropriate tool/power etc. I may still allow it...

example:
- your enemy is cornered, you shift beferoe you start intimidating him, opening that route using prestidigitation to surround your hand in flames, let your eyes glow, intonating a spell formula which involves the names of some known demons...

- having the right timing: don´t immediately use your intimidate check, use it after a series of misses and maybe a solid blow from your axe. Maybe after you used a power which has turned a certain hit from your enemy into a miss, after your enemy hit you too bloodied and you after a minor action recover as though this blow just didn´t happen...

edit: and of course does it give experience!

 

[Nail]

When I first saw the Intimidate skill, I thought the 4e designers made a HUGE mistake. After all, we all know that twinking out a skill is easy to do: people did it all the time in 3.5e, especially with regard to ToB:Bo9S.

...but then I calmed down, and re-read the power. (...and even then, I still think they made a mistake. ) There are two crucial pieces, that I think have been missed by some people here:

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.

and

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.

So, with the text above, answer the following questions:

• Is the DC set only by the target's Will defence?
• If you successfully intimidate a bloodied target, is the only response possible "surrender"?
• What, exactly, does an enemy do when surrendering? How about fleeing? How about stepping back and refusing to attack the intimidator? ...and who gets to determine the target's actions when surrendering?

 

[Nail]

If the designers didn't intend for this tactic to be able to work, why is it a rule?

Hee, hee, hee!

Uhm....if I said "original Skill Challenge mechanics", would that be enough of a hint?

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, with the text above, answer the following questions:

• Is the DC set only by the target's Will defence?
• If you successfully intimidate a bloodied target, is the only response possible "surrender"?
• What, exactly, does an enemy do when surrendering? How about fleeing? How about stepping back and refusing to attack the intimidator? ...and who gets to determine the target's actions when surrendering?

I am of the opinion that no skill use should allow any player (or DM) to actually dictate the reaction of another character. There is magic for that sort of control.

I do think skills such as intimidate should be able to influence behavior to a degree. I like the idea of a variety of results depending on the current situation and what the aggressor is trying to achieve. For example a demand for surrender might result in a temporary combat penalty as uncertainty sets in, an ordered retreat, outright flight, or actual surrender. Depending on how good the roll was, the flight or surrender might last the entire encounter or the target might get a save to return to the fight if the tide starts turning for his side. This would allow for a bit more flavor from the skill and keep it from becoming the dreaded I win button.

 

[KarinsDad]

[*]What, exactly, does an enemy do when surrendering?[/list]

Actually, I have an easy time figuring out what to have the enemy do when surrendering. The tougher question is: "What do the PCs do?".

I had a fight with about 20 humanoid monsters against the PCs a few weeks ago. About 14 of them were minions (it was actually two encounters, but the leader of the first group of monsters was smart and called the second group in).

19 of them were down and it was just the last guy and he dropped his weapon, threw up his hands and said "I give up".

The players didn't know what to do. One PC took one more swing at him and missed. Another player (playing the Tiefling Rogue) started doing the mental gymnastics of "the good side of the Rogue vs. the cruel side of the Rogue".

It was a real dilemma. They didn't know what to do with this guy. Eventually, they ended up questioning him and then just letting him go. They were far from town, so there were no authorities to take him to.

It was pretty amusing watching the desire to just kill him by the players war with the desire to roleplay the mostly good PCs into not just murdering him.