Intimidate ..too good?

[Derren]

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.

No. Unless your attack can kill one opponent it is better to use Intimidate. Its 4Es Save or Die.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Another suggestion by a WOTC board poster suggested to go with a Drow Warlock. Drow get +2cha and +2intimidate. Going with 22 point buy, 18 cha pre-racial, total of 20 Cha then.

2nd lvl drow warlock +21: +2 racial, +5 (cha), +5 trained, +3 skill focus (feat), +1 (1/2 lvl), +5 beguiling tongue.

Add in a Circlet of Authority (2600gp) for a +2.

Not even a really focused char, just alot of charisma, 1 feat (plenty of em) and 1 encounter power.

 

[Korgoth]

Another suggestion by a WOTC board poster suggested to go with a Drow Warlock. Drow get +2cha and +2intimidate. Going with 22 point buy, 18 cha pre-racial, total of 20 Cha then.

2nd lvl drow warlock +21: +2 racial, +5 (cha), +5 trained, +3 skill focus (feat), +1 (1/2 lvl), +5 beguiling tongue.

Add in a Circlet of Authority (2600gp) for a +2.

Not even a really focused char, just alot of charisma, 1 feat (plenty of em) and 1 encounter power.

So he needs to roll a 6+ on a d20 to defeat Irontooth, or a 4+ with the circlet.

Sounds pretty broken to me.

 

[Zaruthustran]

So he needs to roll a 6+ on a d20 to defeat Irontooth, or a 4+ with the circlet.

Sounds pretty broken to me.

Good grief. Even the rule for Intimidate says "Your Intimidate checks are made against a target’s Will defense or a DC set by the DM." And even if you beat the DC, the outcome is totally up to the guy behind the screen.

D&D is not a computer game. 4E, much more than 3E, has put the Dungeon Master back into Dungeons & Dragons. The DMG takes care to address these kinds of exploits, such as when it says that powers have to be used against credible threats (so no attacking a rat with Cleave, and auto-damaging the adjacent demon with the 50 AC).

If the rule for Intimidate *required* the DC to be a specific, set value, and if the rule *required* success to = surrender (as opposed to listing surrender among one of many broad examples), then you could claim it was broken.

That's not what the rule says.

 

[KarinsDad]

If the rule for Intimidate *required* the DC to be a specific, set value, and if the rule *required* success to = surrender (as opposed to listing surrender among one of many broad examples), then you could claim it was broken.

That's not what the rule says.

The problem is not the rule.

The problem is the math behind the rule.

D20 + Ability Score + Magic + 5 (Trained) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 1/2 level >= DC of 10 + Ability Score + Magic + 1/2 level

means

D20 >= DC 2

No matter how that is sliced, it forces the DM (or WotC) to add something to the 2 DC in order to make the math work.

In this case, WotC added bonuses such +10 Hostile, +5 Unknown Language, etc. +10 and +5 modifiers are HUGE in a D20 system.

So, D20 >= DC 12 or D20 >= DC 17

But it adds a lot of modifiers to the right hand side of the equation, just to balance out the math against a trained opponent.

Sure, a DM can make adjustments to this as you state.

The issue is, he shouldn't have to. Skills versus Defenses should work WITHOUT having to add a bunch of really big (+5 or +10) modifiers to the Defense side of the equation. When one does that, it means that without both Training and Skill Focus, the PC attempting can almost never succeed.

e.g. D20 >= DC 20 (Hostile), DC 25 (Hostile and Unknown language)


Bottom line, the base untrained equation (D20 >= 10) for Skill vs. Defense is bad to begin with (considering the effect of surrender 55% of the time versus untrained, that's a big gain for a single 55% die chance), the bonuses for Trained and Skill Focus are too large (in a D20 system, +5 and +3), and the bonuses for situation (Hostile and Unknown Language, to offset the bad equation and Training) are too large (+5 to +15).

The concept that many (non- to hit) D20 or DC modifiers should be +5 is a really bad design decision. I have not yet read the rules, but I suspect that there are a lot of +5 modifiers in the Skill section.

The vast majority of modifiers in the game system should be +1 or +2, not +3 or +5. Game design Math 101.

For a company who made so many claims about fixing the math, the Skill vs. Defense obviously bad math is a glaring example of the hype not matching the reality. That's not good.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

Finding the most extreme example, mathematically and applying it in a way that the rules clearly do not intend is not a way of demonstrating that the use of this skill is broken. The use of Intimidate vs. Will is a guideline, a rule-of-thumb. There will be players whose fun is had in trying to exploit loopholes in the rules, but in this case the loophole DOES NOT EXIST.

 

[Gargoyle]

Finding the most extreme example, mathematically and applying it in a way that the rules clearly do not intend is not a way of demonstrating that the use of this skill is broken.

Yet this is exactly what some players do.

I can understand where some players would min/max to use this as a tactic in all fights, causing the game to slow down and perhaps some interaction the DM doesn't care for. For instance, I'd rather the PC's simply kill some monsters than to capture and interrogate them.

I don't think intimidate is broken, but I do think it could present more options for the DM.

The use of Intimidate vs. Will is a guideline, a rule-of-thumb. There will be players whose fun is had in trying to exploit loopholes in the rules, but in this case the loophole DOES NOT EXIST.

Agreed, there is no loophole...it is what it is. But the skill is surprisingly good considering its predecessor and the effect it can have on an entire encounter.

I'd rather the skill present more options than surrender. If it's a monster that the DM has determined will fight to the death, giving it a -2 to hit would be a good option, as is the option to simply run away. I wouldn't want to make the skill useless, but sometimes I just don't think it should be this effective. This may be one of the very few things I house rule off the bat...some opponents may indeed surrender, but I think most will run or take a penalty.

 

[Astros]

The original intent of posting was to gather some constructive criticism on whether or not the Intimidate Skill as listed was overpowered.

Through the discussion here, its quite evident it is not. While it is good, and has the ability to dramatically alter the outcome of a battle, it is not at the moment exploitable nor out of power balance with the rest of the game.

It is interesting to see some people's reaction to it, however. How you handle it in your game is ultimately up to you, as intended.

What I fear, however, is that a large portion of DM's simply wont deal with it. Either house ruling it to flat out not work, or increase the DCs to make it not an option to be used. I find this to be a bit disturbing. This is acceptable when a power or feat is being abused, but be careful about tossing out the nerf stick on Intimidate too early. Sure a player can focus her character to be an intimidator and swing the battle at the last minute forcing surrender or routing enemies. But its not an exploit yet.

I think it would also give characters options, and as a DM I cant wait for my players to try it. Will it become stale after every battle? No, its too situational. Could the BBEG get intimidated to lay down his weapon? Thats drama, thats what the game is about. So many great possibilities can arise from this skill use.

When and if people find a way to make Intimidate a near guaranteed success, then its broken, but until then, with a 55%-80% success rate with a highly focused character for situational results, I dont see a reason any DM cant deal with it.

 

[LowSpine]

How about +5DC for run-off and +10DC to surrender?

 

[WOLead]

Another suggestion by a WOTC board poster suggested to go with a Drow Warlock. Drow get +2cha and +2intimidate. Going with 22 point buy, 18 cha pre-racial, total of 20 Cha then.

2nd lvl drow warlock +21: +2 racial, +5 (cha), +5 trained, +3 skill focus (feat), +1 (1/2 lvl), +5 beguiling tongue.

Add in a Circlet of Authority (2600gp) for a +2.

Not even a really focused char, just alot of charisma, 1 feat (plenty of em) and 1 encounter power.

Huh, I liked the intimidate here, though I was thinking for the RP aspects rather then the possible breaking of the game.

Though for that Drow Warlock? I can't help but think trying to intimidate in the midst of battle would be a major problem for him. To intimidate into surrender, you have to be seen and heard. Warlocks gain Concealment if they move more 3 or more steps, so a Warlock taking cover couldn't simply run out into the open and intimidate opponents on the same turn, leaving the poor Warlock open to attacks.

Though Intimidate seems a Fear type Effect, and there already are monsters that are either immune or have resistance against the Fear Effect(Such as Halflings). Though as a Fear Effect, a Doomsayer Paragon Warlock would get an advantage when intimidating with its 2 saving rolls and take the lesser for opponents in range 10, though I can't help but think that would make sense.

Mah, though if Intimidate is too over powered still, why not add on a little harsher requirements to the target must be bloodied bit for surrendering? Say, the target/s has to be bloodied, and the player himself must not be bloodied and have more HP then the target for a surrender chance to be usable. For the target's response, just have a table ready for reactions depending on how much the player won the role.

For intelligent beings:
1-3)Target/s is/are shaken and attempts to make a deal for his safety if no one else is left fighting. Else, they continue fighting.
4-8)Target/s attempts to run away.
9-14)Target surrenders and follows orders such as dropping weapons and laying down on the ground, even if he has allies still fighting.
15+)Target mind snaps under the pressure. He may break down and cry for his mother, or do somthing...drastic.(DMs choice on what occurs)
I know this is probably not balanced, but its just a quick thought.

Heh, have a problem with Intimidating an opponent into surrendering a tad too well =P. Warrior going berserk gaining temporary hit points, Wizard going insane and regaining a Daily spell at the cost of health or long-term lifespan, a Rogue adrenaline skyrockets him into causing him to gain combat advantage against the player for the rest of the encounter, and such other lovely things a player may not really want happening. They feel cornered like an animal, and get desperate. May give that intelligent npc in a high level fight purposely to have a low will defense, so that a Paladin player attempting to settle things without deaths, who has been successfully doing so in earlier fights, just went and let the cat out of the bag.

Though thats just thoughts on Intimidate being used for causing a target to surrender in a Battle Encounter. Its uses in skill encounters doesn't seem to be causing anyone worries, I think.

For simpler solution, take the players level and subtract the target's level from it. Add this as a bonus to the player's intimidation roll, whether for good or ill. So a 1st level Drow Warlock trying to intimidate a level 5 monster would have -4 added to his roll.