Intimidate in combat

[JustaPlayer]

How do you use this? I mean as a standard action it's bogus. I can either Intimidate or attack? That doesn't make an iota of sense. The effect only last one round so you are giving up a melee attack to "possibly" make a foe -2 to hit for 1 round. And adding the feat to make it a move action is just as bogus.

Who can't make guttural menaching demands while swinging a sword. I mean I can't say something like "Prepare to taste my steal," while giving a menacing face and swining a sword or axe?

My question is, what is the most popular way of fixing this? I'm toying with calling it a swift action.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How do you use this? I mean as a standard action it's bogus. I can either Intimidate or attack? That doesn't make an iota of sense. The effect only last one round so you are giving up a melee attack to "possibly" make a foe -2 to hit for 1 round. And adding the feat to make it a move action is just as bogus.

Who can't make guttural menaching demands while swinging a sword. I mean I can't say something like "Prepare to taste my steal," while giving a menacing face and swining a sword or axe?

My question is, what is the most popular way of fixing this? I'm toying with calling it a swift action.

There are many solutions, and I don't know if there is any consensus about it.

My suggestion: Keep it a standard action, and have it last the full encounter/1 minute.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

Intimidating Strike feat (PHII, p.79): You make a display of your combat prowess designed to strike terror in your foe.

 

[Cobblestone]

Intimidate in Combat

It's a social interaction rule that happens to have combat consequences. In a situation where you want to kill something, no, strong words are not the best option. But when there's just one goblin left, it's often best to pull a Wesley and say "Drop your sword" (so you can find out where the treasure is--or the traps if your DM is that kind of DM). The shaken bit is just the kicker.

Peace

C-Stone

 

[Zerakon]

I admit that as worded, the option is rather weak in most situations. But considering Intimidate is useful as a non-combat skill, does it really need to be a solid combat option? I see the Demoralize Opponent ability as a combined force helper option, where you can demoralize your target just before your wizard friend is about to cast a critical spell on it, possibly giving the target a -2 to its saving throw.

 

[Ilium]

If you compare it to the Feint use of Bluff, then Amaril's mention of the Intimidating Strike feat is comparable to Improved Feint, right? Normally a feint is a Standard action, just like an Intimidate check, but with the feat it becomes a Move action.

Seems like a reasonable parallel.

 

[JustaPlayer]

Intimidating Strike feat (PHII, p.79): You make a display of your combat prowess designed to strike terror in your foe.

This seems to be a good option, but only because it lasts for the entire encounter.

As far as the feat that makes it a move action, it's still weak. You as a player would be losing your recursive attacks to gain just one round where the NPC is -2. If he uses his recursive attacks he still has a good chance of hitting you multiple times.

 

[Folly]

I always found the original rule for intimidate rather pointless, but having had more experience since the last time I reviewed them, they are not as bad as I thought. The catch here is who is using the rules. Consider how often a character ends up aiding another because of either the character build or the type of combat. For example a skills rogue might opt to stay in back and using his wit to intimidate the opposition. There by achieving a greater effect than aiding would, and puts himself in less danger. And to the argument that he could still swing with all his sneak attack a 10 STR rogue with no finesse (feats spent on skills) can't hit most opponents.

I can think of a number of other builds that would see this as a valuable addition to the party in combat at the cost of 1 skill point per level.

 

[Kerrick]

There are many solutions, and I don't know if there is any consensus about it.

My suggestion: Keep it a standard action, and have it last the full encounter/1 minute.

That's what I'm doing. I'm reworking Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate so they use the same base system (Speechcraft), but are still separate skills with separate uses. Intimidate would be a standard action that works against one opponent for the rest of the combat, or for 1d4+1 rounds after the opponent flees.

Consider how often a character ends up aiding another because of either the character build or the type of combat. For example a skills rogue might opt to stay in back and using his wit to intimidate the opposition.

First off, how is someone going to use "wit" to intimidate someone? I could maybe see it if the opponent were smart enough to realize he were being insulted, but that doesn't really apply for 90% of situations. Second, how could someone in the back of the party intimidate opponents? Let's use some common sense here - the character should be in melee combat with, or close enough to reach, the opponent he wants to intimidate.

 

[MrWildman]

Intimidate to demoralize opponent doesn't specify whose opponent.

I used it as a 1st. level dwarf (with 4 ranks and no Cha bonus) against a goblin (1 hit die+9 wisdom equals a +0 modifier) who was about to attack another party member. My companion was thankful for the goblin's shaken condition, I can tell you! I roleplayed it something like: "When I get over there I'll have yer garleymarples fer me garters!"

Characters with high charisma may think of it as a ranged attack! You can weaken a foe from across the room! It may not happen all that often, but it's a neat cinematic moment: the foe desperately trying to dispatch the weaker hero as the stronger one lumbers to the rescue.

Wow, I just made all that up. On the spot.
Good coffee.
Peace.