Teflon Billy
Explorer
Crothian said:
To intimidate other NPC's maybe?
Is Intimidate broken?
- Thread starter Renaissance Man
- Start date
To intimidate other NPC's maybe?
First off, I rule that Intimidate is an opposed roll. Your Intimidate, against their Will save + their Hit Dice. Well, it does say add all modifier to save against fear- and Will is a modifier against fear 
.
Why a Will save, rather than a straight 10?
Three reasons:
1. A straight skill check against 10 + Hit Dice is farcically straightforward. With maxed-out Intimidate and a respectable (+2) Charisma, you need to roll a 5 to intimidate someone of your hit dice (check=Hit Dice +5, DC=Hit Dice+10). You have a 50/50 chance of intimidating someone 6 levels higher than you. With a 'high-level' Charisma (+6), a synergy bonus from Bluff and an Intimidate-buffing feat (say Persuasive), the check becomes a joke. A roll of a *2* can intimidate someone with 5 levels more than you, and you have a 50/50 chance of intimidating someone with 14 more levels than you. In laymen's terms, a 6th level bard has a 50/50 chance of intimidating a 20th level character as written (9ranks +2synergy +6cha + 2feat vs DC30, needs 11), even though the wizard could slaughter/dominate/feeblemind/polymorph the bard as he sees fit in the course of a few seconds.
2. Higher level Intimidations should be higher. Even amongst characters of equivalent hit dice, it should get tougher to intimidate as the foes become stronger. When Barry is a 1st level bard, he should have a fair pop at intimidating Jim the 1st level fighter; but when he tops 20th level he should not have the same chance (or probably much easier, due to Cha upgrades and feats) of intimidating the archwizard. Intimidation seems less of a feature of a high-level game: when you've fought legions of baatezu, been dead and back thrice and have more magical booty than a small nation, you're not going to be that easily scared, even of someone of equivalent power.
3. Joined-up playing. Sounds jargony, but it isn't really. With any 'special effect' type of attack, there is an opposed roll, or at the very least the 'defender' gets to roll. The only exception is AC, but this is pure damage. Trips, disarms and the like are opposedl; Bluff is opposed (and is the closest to Intimidate); spells usually allow a 'save' (particularly mind-affecting ones). Why does Intimidate not allow a 'defence': it is unique in this respect. And a static DC is perhaps not indicative of the fluctuations in a character's willpower: a cliff is the same cliff if you climb it 100 times, whilst 100 1st level characters are not going to be exactly as 'intimidatable' all the time.
Regarding other aspects, I do play circumstance bonuses. Numbers should definitely give a circumstance bonus, although other factors should play a part.
As for 'roleplaying' intimidate, intimidate means just what it says it does. The characters intimidated are afraid of the intimidater. They won't instantly flee or whatever (they might, but just not necessarily) but they're definitely scared.
As for using on PCs, I do use Intimidate on PCs, and I expect them (in character) to react appropriately. It's all very well saying that the PCs must roleplay according to what they think, but if their character IS scared, and they roleplay as though he/she ISN'T, that's poor roleplay.
.Why a Will save, rather than a straight 10?
Three reasons:
1. A straight skill check against 10 + Hit Dice is farcically straightforward. With maxed-out Intimidate and a respectable (+2) Charisma, you need to roll a 5 to intimidate someone of your hit dice (check=Hit Dice +5, DC=Hit Dice+10). You have a 50/50 chance of intimidating someone 6 levels higher than you. With a 'high-level' Charisma (+6), a synergy bonus from Bluff and an Intimidate-buffing feat (say Persuasive), the check becomes a joke. A roll of a *2* can intimidate someone with 5 levels more than you, and you have a 50/50 chance of intimidating someone with 14 more levels than you. In laymen's terms, a 6th level bard has a 50/50 chance of intimidating a 20th level character as written (9ranks +2synergy +6cha + 2feat vs DC30, needs 11), even though the wizard could slaughter/dominate/feeblemind/polymorph the bard as he sees fit in the course of a few seconds.
2. Higher level Intimidations should be higher. Even amongst characters of equivalent hit dice, it should get tougher to intimidate as the foes become stronger. When Barry is a 1st level bard, he should have a fair pop at intimidating Jim the 1st level fighter; but when he tops 20th level he should not have the same chance (or probably much easier, due to Cha upgrades and feats) of intimidating the archwizard. Intimidation seems less of a feature of a high-level game: when you've fought legions of baatezu, been dead and back thrice and have more magical booty than a small nation, you're not going to be that easily scared, even of someone of equivalent power.
3. Joined-up playing. Sounds jargony, but it isn't really. With any 'special effect' type of attack, there is an opposed roll, or at the very least the 'defender' gets to roll. The only exception is AC, but this is pure damage. Trips, disarms and the like are opposedl; Bluff is opposed (and is the closest to Intimidate); spells usually allow a 'save' (particularly mind-affecting ones). Why does Intimidate not allow a 'defence': it is unique in this respect. And a static DC is perhaps not indicative of the fluctuations in a character's willpower: a cliff is the same cliff if you climb it 100 times, whilst 100 1st level characters are not going to be exactly as 'intimidatable' all the time.
Regarding other aspects, I do play circumstance bonuses. Numbers should definitely give a circumstance bonus, although other factors should play a part.
As for 'roleplaying' intimidate, intimidate means just what it says it does. The characters intimidated are afraid of the intimidater. They won't instantly flee or whatever (they might, but just not necessarily) but they're definitely scared.
As for using on PCs, I do use Intimidate on PCs, and I expect them (in character) to react appropriately. It's all very well saying that the PCs must roleplay according to what they think, but if their character IS scared, and they roleplay as though he/she ISN'T, that's poor roleplay.
CWD said:
Sorry, I just don't see this.
Typically = normally = sometimes it's different = there can be circumstance bonuses or penalties. Right?
One of the obvious adjustments is based on the ability of the skill user to present a credible threat. That could be any of a number of things- for example, physical power, magical ability, or social status. ("Do you know who I am?") If the character can't provide a credible threat, that's going to be at least a -4 circumstance penalty. An obviously overwhelming threat, say, the army of demons behind her, will give a circumstance bonus.
The reason PC's are supposed to be immune to social skill use is that players always decide the actions of their characters, barring magical compulsion. There are plenty of ways for a DM to manipulate perceptions of the players, IMO, without resorting to applying fear modifiers to their actions or taking over the characters. If a PC is played as suicidally agressive, that's that PC's problem (and the player's choice). But unless the DM makes a point of never putting the PC's in any kind of conflict with characters/creatures of a higher power level, that PC is going to use up a lot of healing and resurrection spells ...
Renaissance Man
First Post
Excellent observations, Al, and very innovative solutions. Hats off to you. Now, with regard to the PC's reaction - you expect them to act suitably intimidated - how do you adjudicate? I point out that all magical fear effects have very specific, measurable, defined reactions attached to them (i.e., shaken, panicked, etc.). Intimidation does not. Thoughts?
Al said:First off, I rule that Intimidate is an opposed roll. Your Intimidate, against their Will save + their Hit Dice. Well, it does say add all modifier to save against fear- and Will is a modifier against fear
That sounds like a reasonable idea. The flat +1/hit die is going to be quickly outstripped as levels go up ... Still, I'd like to thing that a character like, say, a fighter might be harder to intimidate than a wizard. On the right track, though, definitely.
Thanks for the compliments.
Renaissance Man:
PCs have to roleplay their intimidation. Since it's not magical, I'm very skeptical as to imposing a flat solution, but that's just my style of play. One solution I have seen is if the characters are Intimidated, they are shaken. If they fail by 10, they are frightened. Fail by 20, and they're panicked. I don't play it myself, but this does seem a good solution.
Christian:
Perhaps, but it would depend on the individual. Will save is just a 'quick-and-dirty' solution: you could add conditional modifier for individual NPCs. I certainly do. As for the fighter/wizard dichotomy, that's unfortunate, but since DnD rules that fighter are more susceptible to magical fear, logic dictates that they should be more susceptible to mundane intimidation.
Renaissance Man:
PCs have to roleplay their intimidation. Since it's not magical, I'm very skeptical as to imposing a flat solution, but that's just my style of play. One solution I have seen is if the characters are Intimidated, they are shaken. If they fail by 10, they are frightened. Fail by 20, and they're panicked. I don't play it myself, but this does seem a good solution.
Christian:
Perhaps, but it would depend on the individual. Will save is just a 'quick-and-dirty' solution: you could add conditional modifier for individual NPCs. I certainly do. As for the fighter/wizard dichotomy, that's unfortunate, but since DnD rules that fighter are more susceptible to magical fear, logic dictates that they should be more susceptible to mundane intimidation.
Al put it perfectly. Another problem i find that has not been brought up yet, and i think some of you have thought of it.
Most if not all parties have a spokesperson, whether it be a paladin, cleric, or the most charismatic person in the party. He will make the intimidate checks for the whole party. So the person being intimidated is going to be intimidated by the party, not just the intimidator.
He may be less intimidated by certain members of the party, but when 1 suceeds the chances of him being bold against the rest if far smaller.
Its just like a brawl or a fight. 1 big guy versus 5 smaller. 1 small guy brings a bat and intimidates the bigger guy. The bigger guy is scared of the guy with the bat, AND of the other 4 because he knows that they are together. So he doesn't try anything.
OTOH, its says that the bonus fear saves gives that bonus to the defender on his save. Does this mean that people who are immune to fear(Paladins)are immune to intimidate.
Most if not all parties have a spokesperson, whether it be a paladin, cleric, or the most charismatic person in the party. He will make the intimidate checks for the whole party. So the person being intimidated is going to be intimidated by the party, not just the intimidator.
He may be less intimidated by certain members of the party, but when 1 suceeds the chances of him being bold against the rest if far smaller.
Its just like a brawl or a fight. 1 big guy versus 5 smaller. 1 small guy brings a bat and intimidates the bigger guy. The bigger guy is scared of the guy with the bat, AND of the other 4 because he knows that they are together. So he doesn't try anything.
OTOH, its says that the bonus fear saves gives that bonus to the defender on his save. Does this mean that people who are immune to fear(Paladins)are immune to intimidate.
Similar Threads
