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)