Intimidate ..too good?

[Dragonblade]

Its simply a RP guideline useful for helping the DM adjudicate whether an NPC surrenders when the DM isn't sure what the NPC would do.

Obviously, NPCs can behave in whatever manner the DM deems appropriate.

I don't see any issue here.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Korgoth : You must not have been that excited in the first place. You have to really want to see the bad and be willing to believe the worst to get cooled off by that kind of things.

OP : The skill clearly says that other situational modifier can occur. I mean, that disclaimer takes about a third of the total word count for the skill!

A DM who bumps the DC by another 5 for each ally the target has who isn't bloodied is hardly unreasonable.

And why not specifically list all these possible modifiers? Because DM are not monkeys and space in the PHB isn't free. DM can make judgement calls. Perhaps Kobold minion allies aren't really worth increasing the DC after all. But perhaps having a Pitfiend ally (leader) still fighting means +20!

 

[Derren]

So intimidate will be the new Bard-Diplomacy minmax...

 

[Astrosicebear]

I dont think theres an issue with Intimidate. Its worded well, and leaves it ultimately up to the DM. Even with 4 people in Cooperation granting a +8 to the check, its still going to be a hard DC with a -15 penalty most of the time.

And most enemies arent all bloodied at once. But combined with a wizard or other area dmg, it could turn some encounters into blast and sass.

I dont see any other way at the moment (besides some magic items) to bump this to unreasonable levels.

Potentially down the line with Bard classes and more skill based feats it could get a few bumps.

I'd like to see some of the skill dependency feats come back, like STR for Intimidate instead of CHA. That could potentially make a fighter a really strong intimidator.

 

[Derren]

I dont think theres an issue with Intimidate. Its worded well, and leaves it ultimately up to the DM. Even with 4 people in Cooperation granting a +8 to the check, its still going to be a hard DC with a -15 penalty most of the time.

And most enemies arent all bloodied at once. But combined with a wizard or other area dmg, it could turn some encounters into blast and sass.

Well, its certainly better than fighting normally against solo enemies.

 

[Korgoth]

So intimidate will be the new Bard-Diplomacy minmax...

Actually, that was my first thought.

3.5:
"Behold, foul Sauron, I am a 5th level bard! Let's be friends and please stop attacking Middle Earth."
"Oh, OK buddy. Whatever you say."

4E isn't that bad... maybe I could just warn people up front not to waste any feats on Intimidate because the DC to intimidate anybody will be at least 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,006 or so.

 

[Derren]

Actually, that was my first thought.

3.5:
"Behold, foul Sauron, I am a 5th level bard! Let's be friends and please stop attacking Middle Earth."
"Oh, OK buddy. Whatever you say."

4E isn't that bad... maybe I could just warn people up front not to waste any feats on Intimidate because the DC to intimidate anybody will be at least 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,006 or so.

You could do the same thing in 4E to prevent the diplomacy exploits, but by the rules (If I understood it right) its just Intimidate vs. Will Defense and not a huge made up number.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I like it. In earlier editions, my fighter-type characters would often yell "surrender or die!" when the fight was won, and the battle was in the mop-up phase (just a few, badly damaged enemy combatants left standing). It just seemed weird that every monster would fight to the death, every time--especially intelligent humanoid monsters. Without any rules to reference, the DM would just make up a DC and have me roll intimidate. It tended to work against mooks who were out of sight of their bosses, and hardly ever work vs. major enemies.

Now there's a mechanic for this, and unlike 3E's intimidate, it's modeled for use in battle.

So yeah, I like the intent, and I like how the rule provides a baseline DC but also explicitly calls out the DM's right to change that DC. So if your party is slaughtered and you've got 1 hp left, and you finally bloody the dragon (leaving it with 96 hit points remaining), you can't just expect to beat the thing's Will defense +10 with a skill check and have it surrender.

 

[Henry]

4E isn't that bad... maybe I could just warn people up front not to waste any feats on Intimidate because the DC to intimidate anybody will be at least 800,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,006 or so.

Korgoth, are you saying that no one would EVER be intimidated into surrender in your games? For me, I would think it more fun to the PCs if some of the minion types were pushed into it once every couple of combats or so -- if it's a fun-killer if the main bad guy of a scene were to be subdued that way, then just rule there's some extenuating circumstances against it, like the excerpt Harr suggests.

To me, though, the thought of intimidation of a foe into absolute submission can be funny to both a DM and the player.

Mal Reynolds of Firefly: Now, this is all the money Niska gave us in advance. You bring it back to him. Tell him the job didn't work out. We're not thieves. But we are thieves. Point is, we're not takin' what's his. Now we'll stay out of his way as best we can from here on in. You explain that's best for everyone, okay?
Crow: Keep the money. Use it to buy a funeral. It doesn't matter where you go or how far you fly. I will hunt you down, and the last thing you see will be my blade.
Mal: Darn.
[Kicks Crow through running engines. Next bad guy is brought forward]
Mal: Now, this is all the money Niska gave us in advance...
One of Niska's Soldiers: Oh, I get it! I'm good. Best thing for everyone. I'm right there with ya.

 

[Korgoth]

Korgoth, are you saying that no one would EVER be intimidated into surrender in your games? For me, I would think it more fun to the PCs if some of the minion types were pushed into it once every couple of combats or so -- if it's a fun-killer if the main bad guy of a scene were to be subdued that way, then just rule there's some extenuating circumstances against it, like the excerpt Harr suggests.

To me, though, the thought of intimidation of a foe into absolute submission can be funny to both a DM and the player.

I understand that, I really do. But once somebody sinks one of their precious feats into it we're headed straight for an argument. In a D20 game I play sometimes, I have a character (9th level, I think, or 10th) that can easily beat a DC 30 just by taking 10... he could beat a 40 if he rolled well. So I know that somebody is going to create an Ultra-Submission Build for 4E that will command all foes into obedience by rolling a 2+. Since I'd prefer not to see the BBEG roll over like a Ford Explorer every fight, I might as well just nip it in the bud.