Intimidate on animal intelligence?

[Bagpuss]

My character has Intimidating Strike as a feat. Also a pretty significant Intimidate Skill.

Unfortunately the first time I came to use this ability against a magical beast Digester. The GM ruled that it couldn't be used as it doesn't work against non-intelligent creatures.

From the SRD.

"A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures."

At the time, we played on excepting his ruling but we agreed to discuss it at the end.

I pointed to this from the PHB

nonintelligent: Lacking an Intelligence score. Mind-affecting spells do not affect nonintelligent creatures, nor can nonintelligent creatures benefit from morale bonuses.

Magical Beast, Animals and the like tend to have Intelligence 2 (Digester included). So rather than being non-intelligent that have animal intelligence.

I think the clause in Intimidate is for non-intelligent undead, constructs, oozes and the like.

Animals after all are capable of fear, especially from something threatening.

Anyway he suggested I see what folks here think.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Consider the language in the Bluff skill:

Feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid is difficult because it’s harder to read a strange creature’s body language; you take a –4 penalty on your Bluff check. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2) it’s even harder; you take a –8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it’s impossible.

Note that there's a clear distinction drawn between a creature of Animal intelligence, and a nonintelligent creature.

The Digester is the former, not the latter.

-Hyp.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think he was worried about me intimidating a Huge Hydra later, which would have seemed a little silly but forgot the -8 size penalty I would have to my check.

 

[pbd]

Ever frighten a cat or dog away? Or seen wolves fighting for dominance on TV?

Animals can definitely be intimidated.

 

[nittanytbone]

Agreed, animals can be intimidated. Many are poor at intimidating each other due to poor CHA scores, but say, a large dire wolf "alpha" might be quite effective against a medium regular wolf.

For example, I actually give Camels a +8 racial bonus to intimidate vs. horses to reflect the fact that the smell of camels often panicked horses. To offset I give a -2 penalty to AC vs. caltrops (reflecting a historical liability of camels).

 

[ceratitis]

Agreed, animals can be intimidated. Many are poor at intimidating each other due to poor CHA scores, but say, a large dire wolf "alpha" might be quite effective against a medium regular wolf.

For example, I actually give Camels a +8 racial bonus to intimidate vs. horses to reflect the fact that the smell of camels often panicked horses. To offset I give a -2 penalty to AC vs. caltrops (reflecting a historical liability of camels).

and in that spirit i'd give donkey and mule a +4 to resist intimidation as they will just look at you with that dismissive glare while chewing some straw...
rats should probably be able to intimidate mdern man but i'm no sure about adventurers

 

[Bagpuss]

Turns out my DM was more concerned about the out of combat use, IE: A successful intimidate check makes an animal friendly towards you. Rather than the combat uses that make it shaken. It sort of cheapens the Druid/Ranger Wild Empathy if every Fighter can make animals friendly by growling at them.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Turns out my DM was more concerned about the out of combat use, IE: A successful intimidate check makes an animal friendly towards you. Rather than the combat uses that make it shaken. It sort of cheapens the Druid/Ranger Wild Empathy if every Fighter can make animals friendly by growling at them.

A DM really has to define what the various levels of attitude mean, for abilities like Intimidate and Diplomacy. For Intimidate, my ruling would be that making the animal "Friendly" means that it immediately turns tail and runs, or if unable to do so, immediately engages in whatever submissive behavior is appropriate (rolling on its back, presenting its underside or throat, for instance).

In WotC products, lately, they've been very good about doing this. For example, some NPCs simply will never help against their interests, so a "Helpful" result might simply mean they won't kill you outright, as they otherwise would in 95 percent of cases.

 

[Dross]

In WotC products, lately, they've been very good about doing this. For example, some NPCs simply will never help against their interests, so a "Helpful" result might simply mean they won't kill you outright, as they otherwise would in 95 percent of cases.

This is something that should be clearly stated in the PHB to (potentially at least) give some decent indications of what might happen.

mind you, one of my houserules has this to state:
Sometimes helpful/friendly means a quick relatively painless death, without the hours of torture that their boss demanded.