Intimidate!

Celebrim said:


Fine with me. Just so you understand that the NPC isn't going to buy the same line even when you do roll a 40 for your bluff check either.

But that is the way it should be. Some NPCs won't be intimidated no matter what you do. For example, I can't hardly think of any situation where a PC could intimidate an NPC lord to relinquish their thrown over to the PC. No matter if the PC rolled a 50 for intimidate and if the NPC rolled a 1.

Then why even bother? Because then you at least know if you have a chance to intimidate (or bluff, or use diplomacy). If you actually get a 50 on intimidate and the NPC got much lower, you know that although you were very menacing and believeable the NPC isn't going to give into your intimidating attempts, no matter what you say or do.

Now when an NPC tries to intimidate us (the PCs), we take the roll into consideration. We are never forced or expected to react and roleplay according to the result, but we are encouraged to.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim said:


Fine with me. Just so you understand that the NPC isn't going to buy the same line even when you do roll a 40 for your bluff check either.

Um, no. Under the description of Bluff, that's exactly how it works. The rules aren't the same for PCs and NPCs regarding Bluff and Intimidate. You seem to want them to be the same--which is perfectly fine--but I don't have a problem with it personally. :)
 

I agree with you totaly LP. Although the interesting thing is if you get down to it the rules do almost end up being the same in a way...simply because of course an NPC getting a high skill check isnt going to force a player to make there character do anything the player doesnt feel he would do...and a PC getting a high skill check isnt going to force most DMs to make there NPC do something they dont think they would normaly do.
But I agree the players always choose there PCs actions unless the are being compelled(supernaturaly) rule is inviolate.
 

Celebrim:

Interesting house rules, but I disagree about the size modifiers. In worlds where creatures can call forth blasts of lightning from their hands, or turn others to stone with a gaze, would how big you are really have any more of an effect on how intimidating you are?

I certainly don't think a Vampire would have any more trouble Intimidating a Stone Giant than some other creature, irregardless of it's size.

The other rules you have seem well thought out, however. As for whether or not Intimidate and other such skills can affect players, I always assumed the reason for the rule against that is abuse by other players. Imagine a Bard or Rogue who maxed skill ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate (and Sense Motive, so this couldn't be done to them) and bought the relatively cheap skill enhancing items (which I would ban, personally). They would easily take over and dominate the party if they chose to do so.

Even without the skill enhancing items, they would be able to manipulate the rest of the party with conssumate ease, and in a metagame perspective, that can really lead to a lot of conflict and resentment between players. Personally, I think that is just reaping the benefits of building such a character, and paying the price of being without Sense Motive (which sooooo many characters don't have, because of the restricted skillset and lack of overall usefulness), but I can understand why it would be a problem.
 

RigaMortus said:


But that is the way it should be. Some NPCs won't be intimidated no matter what you do. For example, I can't hardly think of any situation where a PC could intimidate an NPC lord to relinquish their thrown over to the PC. No matter if the PC rolled a 50 for intimidate and if the NPC rolled a 1.

This is true: you should not be able to intimidate throne and crown from a mighty king. Nor should you be able to intimidate house and wife and whatever from a simble man. But that's not because some NPC's should not be intimidated (which I'd only consider if the NPC in question is immune to fear, for NPC's should obey the rules, and the DM should have better ways than the old "doesn't work" trick), but because you can only gain so much from intimidate, and turning over all his possessions or getting himself in danger are things the victim just won't do, whoever the victim is.


LuYangShih said:
Interesting house rules, but I disagree about the size modifiers. In worlds where creatures can call forth blasts of lightning from their hands, or turn others to stone with a gaze, would how big you are really have any more of an effect on how intimidating you are?

In d20 Modern, the size modifiers are no house rule, and I'm quite sure that's how intimidate will work in the revisions for D&D as well.


I certainly don't think a Vampire would have any more trouble Intimidating a Stone Giant than some other creature, irregardless of it's size.

Why, if there was a thumb-size vampire standing in front of me threatening to suck me dry of blood (like it would fit into him), I'd just flick him away with my index finger...


Lord Pendragon said:
I also agree that Bluff can be used to color the information a PC gets from an NPC. However, if you look under the Bluff description in the PHB, it states that with a high check the PC could state incredibly crazy things, and get the NPC to believe them. I object to the NPC making a crazy claim ("the red dragon is only an illusion! The same wizard created the illusion of the dead bodies and horrible stench of burning flesh!") then rolling a high Bluff check, and the player being forced to play his PC as believing it.

You know, this is an outrageous lie, resulting in a -40 to your bluff, so it will be incredibly hard to convince anyone of that. And if you have a bluff bonus that you could win that check against the PC's, you're the best liar in the world, and should well get your chance to make the players think that.

Also, you forget one thing: the failed sense motive check will convince the players that the NPC is telling the truth. As he sees it. They could still be on the sure sight (on account that the NPC has been charmed by the dragon).

Pielorinho said:


I dunno: I figure it works a little bit differently. Intimidate provides a stick that you can use to herd NPCs in the appropriate direction. But they've got to have a direction they can go in.

Not neccessarily: how many villains in movies (or books) have pulled that trick on: telling that they die if the don't talk, but neglecting to say that they die anyway. It's not only what you say, but how you say it, there fore intimidate is keyed to CHA, not INT.

I can shout at my enemies, "Surrender, you scurvy mutts, or I'll slit your throats and feast on your entrails!" I've given them a suggested course of action (surrender), and the consequences they'll suffer if they don't (throat slit, entrails turned into halfling-chow). I want them to believe that if they surrender, they've got a better chance of surviving than if they keep fighting. That's an easy sell, if I've killed half their companions in two rounds and don't show signs of injury myself.

Some of them might run away: they've seen me stab, but they haven't seen me run, and I've got short stubby legs. Though I've successfully waved a stick at them, they haven't been herded in the direction I hoped. But if I pull out a bow and shoot one of them dead, the others might decide to stop running: I've closed off one direction for them.

I don't think they might run. Intimidate is not just frightening or a show of strength, or it would be keyed to STR. Intimidate is making it clear to them that running won't help, it's like the effect a snake has to a hare: it freezes them. Sure, the moment you leave them alone they will run like hell, and it won't hold forever, but in that moment, they do what you say (and that moment is enough most of the time)

If two of them drop their weapons and my raging barbarian buddy lops off their heads, the others are suddenly not going to believe my offer of surrender. They'll start running away again, or else they'll fight back.

Well, cutting off heads is not Intimidating, and in that case there are bad circumstances (that would likely give penalties to your roll).

If I capture them and say, "Tell us everything you know about your half-dragon master, and then I'll kill you," I've waved a stick at them, but I haven't given them any direction to go in. They're likely to clam up: if I'm going to kill them anyway, why should they cooperate?

That would equal to a failed intimidate check. Don't forget: you have to separate what the player says and what the character says: either you give penalties or bonuses according to how the player phrases it, or you let him make the roll and roleplay it, or you just ignore what the player said (because he himself is not good at all at intimidating, but that should not get in his way as he has put quite a lot into that skill).

If I say, "Tell us everything you know about your half-dragon master, and then I'll take away your weapons and set you free, and if I ever see you again I'll spit your eyes on my dagger and eat them like olives," then I've waved a stick, and I've given them a direction to go in: if they cooperate, they live, and if they don't cooperate, they'll probably die.

That, again, would be a good intimidate check. (depending on how the character says it)

I think that's what intimidation is all about: you put two stark choices in front of someone, and make the consequences of choosing the wrong way look too horrible to contemplate.

You don't have to give them two choices. You can leave out the good one, because they won't take the bad and take the other one no matter what. Don't forget that you have influenced them, and they have problems keeping their pants dry, and much more to think stright. You could also leave the bad choice out (or even don't tell them any consequences.) and let the threat hang in the air, unspoken, but for your bearing (it's not only about words, but about how you deliver them)
 

KaeYoss said:




Why, if there was a thumb-size vampire standing in front of me threatening to suck me dry of blood (like it would fit into him), I'd just flick him away with my index finger...

:D Well, I hadn't considered it that way. Point taken. Still, I think exceptions could be argued to exist. I find certain insects more intimidating than most other forms of life I've seen, and they're at a -8 to me. I guess they just have max ranks, though. ;)
 

LuYangShih said:


:D Well, I hadn't considered it that way. Point taken. Still, I think exceptions could be argued to exist. I find certain insects more intimidating than most other forms of life I've seen, and they're at a -8 to me. I guess they just have max ranks, though. ;)

Insects? Insects aren't that bad. It's arachnids, especially spiders, that give me the creeps.

But they're not intimidating. They're disgusting, loathsome, repulsive, some of the bigger ones are actually scary (and, for some of the more excitable women, terrifying ;)). But not intimidating, at least not in the D&D sense of the word. You won't find a tarantula standing in front of you, demanding of you to "hand over the password to the secret files, or....." :D

And again, if we had a small arachnid thing that could speak and encounter it in D&D, it would probably get a circumstance bonus to intimidate, especially if your character has arachnophobia.
 

I have house rules on phobias. Among other things If you are phobic of insects then they gain a bonus of +4 to intimidate you, and you have a -1 on all rolls in thier presence.

However, insects, even the stinging ones, are a classic example of how intimidation is about persuasion not just fear. When a wasp intimidates a human, the likely result is the human finding a book or newspaper or shoe.

LuYangShih: Well, arguably if the inhabitants of the world instinctively feared things based on a magical perception, then it would be ranks in spell casting or equivalent powers that would give you a bonus to your intimidation. But, we have a hard time relating to that sort of world, and moreover it is not clear that most things have that magical perception.

Intimidate doesn't work on the level of logic, or at least it doesn't work primarily on the level of logic. Diplomacy appeals to a characters logic. Intimidate works on the level of basic instincts. I dare say most people who aren't familiar with them find horses and elephants intimidating even when the horses and elephants aren't trying.

It is clear that in D&D most things share this worlds perception of size through vision. In this world, size heavily influences how easily someone intimidates something. If you don't think so, then probably someone bigger than you has never tried to intimidate you. It is reasonable and conveinent to assume whenever we can that the D&D world works alot like the real one. I can gaurantee you that if a 12' tall 2500 pound man tried to intimidate you in the real world, that you'd find him pretty intimidating. A 12' tall man seems like a credible threat. Until he demonstrates otherwise, a 12 inch tall man does not.

Actually demonstrating the ability to harm the person you are trying to intimidate is itself a reasonably good positive modifier, which concievably overcomes the size problem. But you probably don't need alot of convincing that a 12' tall 2500 pound guy has the capacity to harm you.
 

Celebrim said:
I have house rules on phobias. Among other things If you are phobic of insects then they gain a bonus of +4 to intimidate you, and you have a -1 on all rolls in thier presence.

I don't think that +4 on intimidate is necessary for a creature that won't be able to use the skill properly


However, insects, even the stinging ones, are a classic example of how intimidation is about persuasion not just fear. When a wasp intimidates a human, the likely result is the human finding a book or newspaper or shoe.

If that insect succeeded at its intimidate check, the human would not get a shoe, for he would be to afraid to do it.

I think you're confusing intimidate as the day-to-day concept, and Intimidate the D&D skill. You may be "intimidated" (scared) by that hornet, but not as with the Intimidate skill, and it certainly won't tell you what to do. And you will get the shoe and rob it of its third dimension.


LuYangShih: Well, arguably if the inhabitants of the world instinctively feared things based on a magical perception, then it would be ranks in spell casting or equivalent powers that would give you a bonus to your intimidation. But, we have a hard time relating to that sort of world, and moreover it is not clear that most things have that magical perception.

Yes. A 30th-level archsorcerer in plain clothes will probable be as intimidating as your average commoner (by the looks), and a guy in robes could be just that: someone with a bad fashion taste. It's wheir manner, their body language, and the choosing and tone of their words that will do the intimidating in the D&D sense of the word.

Intimidate doesn't work on the level of logic, or at least it doesn't work primarily on the level of logic.

In fact, it barely comes into play. You may *know* that you have this dozen of archers on the rooftops around you, but you *feel* that they won't be able to keep that guy in front of you to get you.

Diplomacy appeals to a characters logic.

Not entirely (or it would be INT based), there's a lot of persuasion in there, and that will override logic in some cases (someone with a high diplomacy bonus could sell a solarium to a drow)
 

KaeYoss:

No, a +4 is necessary to a explain how small creatures are capable of intimidating larger ones. If you fear something on a day to day basis, then it is easier for that thing to use intimidation against you.

If the wasp succeeds in an intimidate check, yes, I agree, the human will be a afraid to get a shoe. But my point was precisely that it was difficult for a wasp to succeed in such a check, because a wasp is not terribly 'charismatic'. It is only an insect, albeit one with an 'armament' that makes it naturally threatening to pretty much all animals - intelligent or not - and which, as a species, it uses to intimidate other species.

We could imagine intelligent (and larger) wasp being quite skilled at intimidating people, in part because humans are often afraid of insects and stinging ones especially - far above a stinging insects actual ability to do damage. Such a wasp like species would have a bonus to thier intimidation checks generally, and against specific insectophobes in particular.

We know that stinging insects can cause pain, and this interfaces with our instincts at a very primal level.

And yes, I agree that Diplomacy doesn't entirely appeal to our logic. Skilled 'diplomacy' makes us want to agree, or at the very least not want to disagree, and depending on how charismatic the other person is and on how wise we actually are, we will find ourselves agreeing on the basis of that desire to concur regardless of our previously held opinions.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top