Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Intimidate in combat: viable?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 4825654" data-attributes="member: 12377"><p>The more I think about this, the more I realize that the problem isn't with Intimidate specificially, but with the widely divergent skill bonuses between characters. Consider, at the Heroic tier, most weapon-wielders will have an attack bonus within 6 points of one another (ability +3 proficiency +2, <em>vs.</em> ability +5 proficiency +3 class weapon talent +1 feat +1 magic item higher than the other guy +1). So enemy defenses tend to cluster within that range as well; a first level foe with AC 19, for example, will be hit by the lousy guy 35% of the time and by the awesome guy 65% of the time. So as long as the guy hitting half as often is also doing more damage (or having some other effect) it should work out over time.</p><p></p><p>But with Intimidate, and other skills, the gap at 1st level can be as high as 19 (ability -1, <em>vs.</em>ability +5 trained +5 racial +2 feat +3 background +2 item +1). It's even worse for skills with armor check penalty. This makes it very difficult to set a reasonable DC for the skill: at DC 19, the lousy character only succeeds on a 20 and the awesome character can't fail; at DC 20, the lousy character can't succeed and the awesome character only fails on a 1. So if the awesome guy has any chance for failure at all, the lousy guy can't possibly succeed. If you consider a reasonably average guy (ability +3 trained +5; or ability +4 racial +2; or something, let's just call it 7), he's still 11 points behind the awesome guy. So a DC 23, the average guy succeeds only 25% of the time, and the awesome guy succeeds 80% of the time. For something as powerful as taking an enemy out of the fight instantly (which is the strictest reading of Intimidate), that's a huge probability gap. It's like the old 3e bard who could Diplomacy a dragon into surrendering.</p><p></p><p>I don't know how to fix this problem without house rules. It's worse because it only appears when you have a certain type of min-maxer (for example, there is a guy at my table whose Perception and Stealth are through the roof -- fortunately he is an eladrin wizard so that curbs some of the excess). I've already house ruled that the +2 background bonus can't apply to trained skills (the last thing I want is people selecting the background that allows them to increase a maxxed skill), and it looks like I might do something similar to familiars (or maybe make it a feat bonus).</p><p></p><p> -- 77IM</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="77IM, post: 4825654, member: 12377"] The more I think about this, the more I realize that the problem isn't with Intimidate specificially, but with the widely divergent skill bonuses between characters. Consider, at the Heroic tier, most weapon-wielders will have an attack bonus within 6 points of one another (ability +3 proficiency +2, [I]vs.[/I] ability +5 proficiency +3 class weapon talent +1 feat +1 magic item higher than the other guy +1). So enemy defenses tend to cluster within that range as well; a first level foe with AC 19, for example, will be hit by the lousy guy 35% of the time and by the awesome guy 65% of the time. So as long as the guy hitting half as often is also doing more damage (or having some other effect) it should work out over time. But with Intimidate, and other skills, the gap at 1st level can be as high as 19 (ability -1, [I]vs.[/I]ability +5 trained +5 racial +2 feat +3 background +2 item +1). It's even worse for skills with armor check penalty. This makes it very difficult to set a reasonable DC for the skill: at DC 19, the lousy character only succeeds on a 20 and the awesome character can't fail; at DC 20, the lousy character can't succeed and the awesome character only fails on a 1. So if the awesome guy has any chance for failure at all, the lousy guy can't possibly succeed. If you consider a reasonably average guy (ability +3 trained +5; or ability +4 racial +2; or something, let's just call it 7), he's still 11 points behind the awesome guy. So a DC 23, the average guy succeeds only 25% of the time, and the awesome guy succeeds 80% of the time. For something as powerful as taking an enemy out of the fight instantly (which is the strictest reading of Intimidate), that's a huge probability gap. It's like the old 3e bard who could Diplomacy a dragon into surrendering. I don't know how to fix this problem without house rules. It's worse because it only appears when you have a certain type of min-maxer (for example, there is a guy at my table whose Perception and Stealth are through the roof -- fortunately he is an eladrin wizard so that curbs some of the excess). I've already house ruled that the +2 background bonus can't apply to trained skills (the last thing I want is people selecting the background that allows them to increase a maxxed skill), and it looks like I might do something similar to familiars (or maybe make it a feat bonus). -- 77IM [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Intimidate in combat: viable?
Top