Intimidate!

[Gunslinger]

Err... How does the 10th level character know who is 3rd level?

He doesn't of course. I just think its wrong that low level characters can intimidate higher level ones with merely an average roll, and said higher level character has absolutely no defense against it.

If you take a 10th level character with 13 ranks, an 18 charisma, 5 ranks in bluff, and item that gives +10 to intimdate he can intimidate a 30th level character on an 11. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the idea of 10th level rogues frightening epic wizards. Every single other action you can take to influence a person's behavior has either an opposed check or save. Why doesn't this?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Intimidation needs to have some sort of opposed save or check when its used against PCs

Intimidate can never be used against PCs. Neither can Bluff. Players always decide how their PCs will react to a given NPC or situation.

Not that intimidation can't be used against the PCs, but specifically the Intimidate skill cannot be used by NPCs on PCs, or by PCs on other PCs.

 

[Celebrim]

"Players always decide how their PCs will react to a given NPC or situation."

I suppose you are excepting suggestion, charm person, cause fear, geas, and so forth, and so forth.

 

[Droid101]

On the surface, it doesn't sound like that circumstance required an intimidate roll.

Actually, they are sort of an elite force of giants. They were going to get help from the wizards in their army because my pc was flying. He wanted to make sure they didn't run off to find the wizards.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

"Players always decide how their PCs will react to a given NPC or situation."

I suppose you are excepting suggestion, charm person, cause fear, geas, and so forth, and so forth.

Certainly. Magic makes the difference. Excepting magic, the player gets to decide how his PC will react to the NPC eating giant brains or bending iron bars etc. etc.

Take a look at the DMG under NPC attitudes. It talks there about ways to shift NPC attitudes (i.e. Hostile to Unfriendly to Neutral etc.) There's a line in there that states this can't be done with PCs, because the player always decides how he'll react to another PC or NPC, regardless of charisma checks. I'd say that skills such as Intimidate, Bluff, etc. fall into the same category.

 

[Celebrim]

Then what he didn't want to do was intimidate them. He wanted to taunt them.

Intimidation would have made it much more likely that they would have thought the best course of action was go back and get the wizards before taking on this dangerous mortal. Intimidation instills fear and respect into the target. You can intimidate someone into doing something cowardly, into failing to stand up for themselves, into looking the other way, into doing nothing, or into submitting to your will if you make it easy for them to do so. But it would be a very odd thing to intimidate someone into fighting you. A critically failed intimidation roll is more likely to result in a deliberate attack than a successful one, and as such I'd pausibly be persuaded to allow someone who knew alot about intimidating someone to deliberately do it all wrong and appear far weaker than they actually are. But really, what that is is a bluff.

So the skill you are looking for here is probably Bluff. In general, use Bluff in place of Intimidation whenever the character has duplicitious intent - whether fast talking or deliberately taunting a foe or otherwise manipulating thier emotions. Use Diplomacy whenever the character is trying to be persuasive with a sincere intellectual arguement, and use Intimidation when the the character is trying to persuade by implying the the alternative is making an enemy of the character.

The skills really shouldn't be allowed to overlap. Otherwise the character will just max out one and ignore the others.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, don't you think it odd though? I mean, we both know why the rule is written that way. You don't want neophyte DM's running the PC's. You don't want neophyte players feeling the DM is running their players. But I personally think it really odd that the PC is allowed to enspell or intimidate the NPC, but the PC is immune only to the intimidation. How is it that you can fail a will save versus the spell, and not possibly lose your nerve when the Hill Giant looks your way and snarls, "Git back, runt. Dis ain't none of yur business."? Aren't they essentially the same thing? If we are willing to tell PC's from time to time, 'Ok, you suddenly realize that the sorcerer has been your life long friend.', then why aren't we willing to occasionally say, 'You really want to do something, but your legs just won't move. You are frozen in horror looking at the blood dripping off the giant's club.' Why _does_ magic really make a difference? Just because it would be useless if it didn't?

Granted, we might not want to overuse such a mechanic, but it is realistic. Heroes become afraid to. Even in heroic fantasy stories, heroes have moments of doubt and hesitation. Maybe heroes don't become afraid as often as ordinary folks, and just like my NPC's I'm going to give them a big bonus on thier opposed roll if the NPC tries to intimidate them into doing something that goes against thier basic nature. If the lawful good ranger has Giants as a favored enemy, and his background says he's a heroic champion of the helpless, and the giant is beating up a friend of his - then the odds of him being intimidatable go down to nothing and I won't bother rolling. But if the character is a CN rogue whose background says he looks out for #1, then a head long charge at the giant is going to be overruled if he can't resist the Giants intimidation.

And it seems to me that this could become a powerful tool. Times when the DM wants to introduce a threat that the PC's just can't handle yet, well, he can draw on the intimidation skill to keep the PC's observers when they are supposed to be. Latter, when they face the giant on even terms, it will be just that sweeter of a victory.

Moreover, there is a de facto exception to the rule that NPC social skills do not decide the PC's course of action. NPC's can still bluff the PC's, and since I roll the PC's sense motive checks they are often left with little alternative than to trust I'm feeding them good information and act accordingly. Afterall, _I_ am a good liar.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Celebrim, you make a really good case. But I think the rule is written as is basically for two reasons:

1. The players have created the PCs' personas. It's their call when the hero hesitates, or his legs turn to jelly. As you rightly said, the DM shouldn't be running the PCs, the players should. If the DM wants to literally control the PCs, he has to use magic.

2. The DM doesn't have time to create detailed personas for every NPC in the game. He won't know whether the shopkeeper would or wouldn't be intimidated by a particular threat. Moreover, the player may not be adept at making a threat. So the shorthand has the PC rolling Intimidate to see whether or not his threat works. But when it's PC vs. PC, then the player gets to interpret the other player's threat himself. Granted, this is disadvantageous to the player who's making the threat if he's bad at it, but it's better than a player putting all his points into Intimidate and controlling the rest of his party with die rolls.

As you say, the DM can Bluff, and he can Intimidate, but in both cases you're presenting information or attitude, and then allowing the player to assess it. I could tell a player that the giant is so overpowering that his knees feel weak, but it's crossing the line rules-wise (and I think rightly so,) to roll an Intimidate check and--if successful--telling the player that his PC can't move or attack.

Likewise with Bluff, you could have an NPC tell the PC that he can sell him the Brooklyn Bridge for cheap, but even with a +100 to Bluff, it should be the player's decision as to whether his PC falls for it, not the dice.

Bluff and Intimidate are nice, but they aren't equivalent to Suggestion or Hold Person, after all.

 

[Droid101]

Then what he didn't want to do was intimidate them. He wanted to taunt them.

Maybe you're right. The thing is, his intimidate and bluff were the same levels, so frankly, it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You can still use Intimidate against PCs - just tell them that they can easily imagine the NPC intimidating could really be a danger for them.

(The 3rd Level character gives the 10th level character the impression that he is actually also 10th level - but if the character decides to oppose anyway, he will see it was just Intimidation. Anyway, he might hesitate to do so, because he doesn`t really know...)