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="Dr_Ruminahui" data-source="post: 4828239" data-attributes="member: 81104"><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dr_Ruminahui, post: 4828239, 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Intimidate in combat: viable?
Top