Intimidate in combat: viable?

[timbannock]

I don't see how any argument can be made over the specifics of the word "surrender." I mean, the enemy gives up.

Until there's an opportunity for them to get away/kill the PCs in their sleep.

What DM wouldn't do it this way? Are we supposed to coddle our players that much now?

Regardless, great ideas on possible circumstantial modifiers. Nowhere does it say a DM can't add in circumstanstial modifiers. In fact, the DMG constantly says that the DM SHOULD be adding in these situations to change things up...make sure you don't ALWAYS hand out penalties, and you'll be playing fair (enough).

 

[Nail]

I don't see how any argument can be made over the specifics of the word "surrender." I mean, the enemy gives up.

And what - specificly - does an enemy do that is "giving up"?

If you "give up" on eating a huge ice cream cone, does that mean you lie down on the floor and let it melt on you?

But this is all beside the point: An intimidated bloodied enemy doesn't have to surrender. It could just give up a secret against it's will.

 

[Flipguarder]

Pc at bloodied foe: I WILL DESTROY YOU!!!!!!

Bloodied foe: .... OK! OK! my uncle used to beat me with his belt of ogre strength until I told him he was a pretty girl! YOU HAPPY NOW!?

Pc: ohh........ ummm....

Bloodied foe: *soft weeping*

 

[Nail]

<chuckle>

Last meeting, our bard literally insulted a monster to death. So it can happen.

 

[renau1g]

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.

This point, you can deal non-lethal damage with any blow now so you choose whether to leave an enemy alive at the end of a fight or not.

Personally, I'd allow this, but only for non-BBEG/elites/solos/first guy bloodied in a fight. So it let's you finish the fight sooner and moev the game forward quicker than passing the at-will attacks around the table one more round. I'd let you take down the last monster this way in a fight that has an inevitable outcome and the grind is starting to wear on people.

That being said, just watch out for abuse, as a DM I house-rule portions of the game that become un-fun for other players.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

And what - specificly - does an enemy do that is "giving up"?

If you "give up" on eating a huge ice cream cone, does that mean you lie down on the floor and let it melt on you?

But this is all beside the point: An intimidated bloodied enemy doesn't have to surrender. It could just give up a secret against it's will.

I don't think that line is meant to be read as the DM decides what something's reaction is to being successfully intimidated. It's there because it is a social skill and the players can be trying to Intimidate a creature(s) into doing a number of different things. The response depends on what they were using intimidate for. You'd get a piece of information if you were using intimidate as part of an interrogation. A surrender because you were trying to scare the goblin into putting down it's sword. A push 1 because you were trying to make a noble's guard nervous enough to shift a square and stop blocking the doorway.

 

[tmatk]

I don't think that line is meant to be read as the DM decides what something's reaction is to being successfully intimidated. It's there because it is a social skill and the players can be trying to Intimidate a creature(s) into doing a number of different things. The response depends on what they were using intimidate for. You'd get a piece of information if you were using intimidate as part of an interrogation. A surrender because you were trying to scare the goblin into putting down it's sword. A push 1 because you were trying to make a noble's guard nervous enough to shift a square and stop blocking the doorway.

I'm pretty sure a DM gets to make decisions like that!

The "rule" seems to written intentionally vague, so DMs can interpret on a per situation basis. Intimidate is not an at-will automatic insta-kill on a bloodied enemy.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

So obviously this tactic would not give you experience.

Wrong. If you overcome a challenge, you get experience points. It doesn't matter if you roll Intimidate, beat them to death, or they run away on their own.

Hee, hee, hee!

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

No, because "new Skill Challenge mechanics" are just as bad, but the other way.

But this is all beside the point: An intimidated bloodied enemy doesn't have to surrender. It could just give up a secret against it's will.

Yes it does. "Success: you force a bloodied target to surrender".

Intimidate is not an at-will automatic insta-kill on a bloodied enemy.

Nope! It just makes them surrender.

 

[Nail]

Yes it does. "Success: you force a bloodied target to surrender".

Is that the entire rules text, or just the part that interests you?

The text says:

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.

Who gets to decide which of those three actions a target will take?

 

[Flipguarder]

Who gets to decide which of those three actions a target will take?

Obviously the player, since that give the skill option the most power.