Intimidate ..too good?

[ForbidenMaster]

Now some DM's may rule that certain beasties dont surrender, agreed. But orcs, goblins, humanoids most certainly will. And for each one that surrenders thats gotta add a penalty to the others saves (ala an old morale check).

Certain monster stats say that they will fight to the death and some monsters say that they will flee if it looks like they are loosing, so it looks like there is a basis to the concept of ignoring a successful intimidate check.

 

[Harr]

From 4e PHB.

Success: You force a bloodied target to surrender, get a target to reveal secrets against its will, or cow a target into taking some other action.

I would point out that there's nothing in the rule that FORCES you to surrender an opponent on an intimidate (that's an 'or' I see there, isn't it? and does 'some other action' includes other types of actions aside from surrendering?), but I'm afraid it wouldn't do any good.

Much like your other thread on Cleave, the very fact that you need to take a small phrase out of context, interpret it to its absolute literal letter-meaning, explode it and exaggerate it then turn around and proclaim that this issue is, in fact, The One Issue that will undoubtedly make and break your game when you dare to reveal it before your ruthlessly discriminating players, (all of whom just happen to share the same epic non-negotiable distaste for this one particular twist of the issue), really does more to undo what you're saying than make any kind of point.

You are determined to harp on tiny little niggling details as if they were real issues or problems. Hey, it's fine. That's fun for some people. Have fun.

 

[frankthedm]

The skiill leaves the DM an option to set an impossible DC. Sounds fine to me.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I understand that, I really do. But once somebody sinks one of their precious feats into it we're headed straight for an argument.

Luckily, feats can be retrained.

 

[Derren]

Certain monster stats say that they will fight to the death and some monsters say that they will flee if it looks like they are loosing, so it looks like there is a basis to the concept of ignoring a successful intimidate check.

Or the intimidate check is an exception to the normal behaviour of monsters.
Anyway, I would have never have thought that people would manage to break 4E even before the release date. Now we only need a harm type power which makes enemies bloodied. Or a feat which lets you intimidate normal foes.

 

[Henry]

I understand that, I really do. But once somebody sinks one of their precious feats into it we're headed straight for an argument.

I gotcha.

 

[Korgoth]

Much like your other thread on Cleave, the very fact that you need to take a small phrase out of context, interpret it to its absolute literal letter-meaning, explode it and exaggerate it then turn around and proclaim that this issue is, in fact, The One Issue that will undoubtedly make and break your game when you dare to reveal it before your ruthlessly discriminating players, (all of whom just happen to share the same epic non-negotiable distaste for this one particular twist of the issue), really does more to undo what you're saying than make any kind of point.

Citation needed.

But don't bother (not only because it doesn't exist and you're merely using hyperbole instead of directly accusing me of trolling in this or my own thread... I suppose to skirt around getting modded) because I'll never see it anyway.

 

[Astrosicebear]

From 4e PHB.



I would point out that there's nothing in the rule that FORCES you to surrender an opponent on an intimidate (that's an 'or' I see there, isn't it? and does 'some other action' includes other types of actions aside from surrendering?), but I'm afraid it wouldn't do any good.

Actually I think the word "force" pretty much says it all. The list is not an exception list it is an example list.

If you intimidate a target to surrender, and succeed they must surrender. If you intimidate a target to reveal secrets it must reveal secrets. Etc. Now the interpretation of surrender could be to throw down its weapons, jump on its own sword, or throw itself into a burning pile of pitch, writhe about on fire, get up from the surge of adrenaline and light the entire village on fire in its crazed combustion. But regardless, one action ended his fight.




Im not sure if you are referring to me about Cleave post, but I dont think I posted anything on cleave.

If issues arent brought up then they never get resolved. Id personally rather see a game that is polished and unbroken rather than a min max nightmare like 3.5 was.

 

[divinenathanica]

From what I've heard other people saying, rules for PCs are decidedly different for NPCs, and this example of Intimidate interests me. If I used a monster with intimidate, could I use it to intimidate the PCs?

Also, the buzzword "exception based design" -- this monster is exceptionally difficult to intimidate.

 

[Rykion]

When this was brought up earlier it was mentioned that you could only do this once per encounter. Is that the case? If it is, it really isn't that super-useful. In combat, the target will always have at least a +10 to its Wil defense making even a character built to use the skill need 10+ to succeed. You'd probably need at least 3 bloodied opponents to make trying to intimidate them into surrender a better option than just trying to attack and kill one of them. I would give any solo or elite monsters complete shields or at least another +10 to their defense.