Intimidate: too easy?

[drnuncheon]

This has probably been discussed before, but...

10th-level barbarian. DC to intimidate is 20 (10 + HD).

4th level rogue: 7 ranks, +2 synergy from Bluff, +1 from charisma, average roll of 10.

Doesn't it seem strange that on average a 4th level rogue - who isn't even maximized for intimidating potential - can on average intimidate someone more than twice his level, who could wipe the floor with him?

I have no problem with that happening on a lucky roll...or an equal level rogue being able to intimidate an equal level barbarian...but as it stands the DCs seem way too low to me.

Has anyone else found this to be a problem?

J

 

[Valmur_Dwur]

Why is this a problem? I understand what your saying from a rules standpoint but roleplay it! The reason the Barbarian is possibly Intimidated is that the rogue talks about how when the Barbaraians is asleep the rogue will come and do his thing. Or his friend the 20th level barbarian over in the corner will mop the floor with him. What I'm getting at is the Barbarian really has only one "Bluff", that being I will kick your bleep! The rogue has several unsavory methods of making the Barbarian sweat(based on the history of barbarians in your campaign). This is why IMHO the idea of Intimidate is wonky but effective if you take the roleplaying of it into account.

Cheers

 

[hong]

Why is this a problem? I understand what your saying from a rules standpoint but roleplay it!

From that point of view, social skills wouldn't be necessary at all.

The reason the Barbarian is possibly Intimidated is that the rogue talks about how when the Barbaraians is asleep the rogue will come and do his thing. ...

It's true that you can find a handwave for anything. It's also true that some handwaves are more handwavy than others.

 

[Vaxalon]

I think that people who don't understand how intimidation is different from being scary should probably just not use the mechanic at all.

 

[Mistwell]

I think that people who don't understand how intimidation is different from being scary should probably just not use the mechanic at all.

I think that is a pretty funny statement, given that the dictionary definition of Intimidate is: "to make timid or fearful : FRIGHTEN; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats"

 

[drnuncheon]

I think that people who don't understand how intimidation is different from being scary should probably just not use the mechanic at all.

On the contrary. I understand the difference. But...

I also look upon D&D as a very cinematic game. The higher level you are, the more "bad@$$" you are - that's why your potential skill levels go up, why you have more hit points, why you basically get better at everything: you are a bigger hero.

Conan, for example, is not going to be intimidated by some chump thief who is barely dry behind the ears.

J

 

[1337 h4xor]

it really does make little sense as it isn't opposed by anything... but usually intimidate isn't required if there are current or previous actions there to back it up.

the rogue telling the barbarian that he will kill him in his sleep makes no sense. You threaten the life of someone standing in front of you weilding a weapon 2 times your size and he gets scared rather than just pummeling you into oblivian? uness it's magial compulsion i'm not buying it.

 

[Magic Rub]

From a game perspective I'd be far more leery about picking a personal war with a thief then with a Barbarian.

A Thief is all about playing dirty & winning by any means. A barbarian is a "Stand-up" fighter, "I'm gonna beat you dead, right here, right now". A Thief may have a guild of friends to back him, poisons, magic, ect ect... The Barbarian is all about beating you up & "look at how scary I am". Sure he might have some friends, but from a roll playing perspective "Generally" Barbarians will threaten a person with what they will do to the person not what there friends will do.

"Generally" A thief plays with the psychology of the skill & a barbarian with the physical.

Are you more afraid of the threat of being "Beat-up" & possibly dieing from it.

or

..of being locked in a 10' x 10' (solitary confinement) empty room, in good physical health, but totally alone with nothing but the space & yourself for the rest of your life

Now which would you be more afraid of, & which do you think the thief would threaten a person with.


Of course this is all just my own gross speculation on a rollplaying mechanic. The reality is that it's just how the game works, the designers made a choice, & you can like it or leave it . It will never be explained to your satisfaction, because there is no concrete explanation. It's all about the mind, & based on someone's whim. 2 + 2 cannot = 4 in a question like that.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Has anyone else found this to be a problem?

J

Basically Intimidate is a skill that the designers seem to have not really thought through when putting 3e together. Why not? I don't know. It just doesn't really make sense as written though. It is possible to create a 2nd level rogue optimised for it (18 Cha, bluff 5, intimidate 5, skill focus(intimidate)) who gets +13 to his check, giving him the ability to intimidate a Pit Fiend on an average skill check roll...

Personally I made up a house rule which turned intimidate into a useful and closely defined skill.

Cheers

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Intimidate: too easy?

Basically Intimidate is a skill that the designers seem to have not really thought through when putting 3e together. Why not? I don't know. It just doesn't really make sense as written though.

Personally I made up a house rule which turned intimidate into a useful and closely defined skill.

Whew, I was beginning to think I was the only one. Got that written up somewhere I can see?

J