Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dr_Ruminahui" data-source="post: 4828239" data-attributes="member: 81104">I know I'm a bit late in joining this party, but I have allowed my players to attempt to intimidate their opponents.  The first was against a group of kobolds which the party was attempting to capture - having bloodied the remaining kobolds and taken down their leader, the paladin made an intimidate test to force the others to give up.  I think he rolled like crap, but given the circumstances, I had the test succeed.  I think he used a standard action, but I don't remember. More recently, the wizard had a cloud of daggers up in the only way a number of goblin minions had of accessing the chamber.  He then killed one of their allies with thunderwave, but specifically pushed the corpse into the cloud of daggers to be chopped up and intimidate the minions.  With his move action, he moved in behind the cloud, more so for positional reasons, but I allowed him to use his minor for an intimidation check.  Beating their will defence (I didn't impose the -15 for hostile and no shared language), he caused them to run rather than enter the room when the cloud of daggers ended. Now, I imagine neither are examples that Old Gumphrey would be terribly happy with, as in neither case did I actually bother to strictly apply the intimidation rules but instead used rules that worked in the situation for the players and the story. And Old Gumphrey, I think you are attributing to the posters a more extreme position than we are indeed taking.  Never (that I observed) have we said that you shouldn't be able play the way you want to, rather the point has been that you can really only play that way if your DM cooperates.  To which your response has been that you should be able to play that way regardless of how your DM feels. To which Thanlis's comment of "play by the DMs rules or go home" is entirely appropriate.  The rules do not support (as Nail has pointed out) the absolute position you have taken that provided you get an intimidate result of "x", that the enemies would automatically surrender.  Even if they did, this is a game where DM's perogative reigns supreme, with the understanding that the intent is for the DM to excercise that perogative not on personal whim but in such a way that makes best sense for the story he wants to tell and ultimately will be the most fun for the players. Now, from the annecdote you gave, it sounds like the way you are playing it works great for you, your gaming group, and the DM.  Great and more power to you!  I think that's awesome and I hope that your intimidation tactic and build continues to work for you.  I think that all in this thread would agree with me, as I don't think anyone has been saying how your gaming group should run its game. Rather, it has been you that has been stating how we should be running our games, by stating that regardless of the DM your tactic should be allowed, while at the same time inferring that if we disliked your tactic or personally would not allow it that we are a bunch of rules breaking weasels.  Which, even though I had not previously posted, I found kind of offensive.</blockquote>

Verification