Surrender != death (Forked Thread: Intimidate in combat)

[Nail]

Except that in my experience, dilemmas are when the situation is stacked against the character's preferred choice. I.e. the character doing what they think as right will have Consequences. Doing what they see as Wrong is the easy out.

Agreed.

It's just a lot of fun for nearly everyone when a PC choice to "do right" isn't the easy choice. I've DMed quite a few of those choices, and it's those times that are talked about around the gaming table when we reminisce about old war stories. "Remember when we had to chose between letting the succubus go or letting that town get destroyed?"

And it's totally fair to have negative consequences come from any action. As long as it's not heavy handed DM fiat.

Yep. The DM has to set it up beforehand, though. It takes some "narrative work" and "plot crafting" to get the moral dilemas fit into the campaign.


...which means it's often pretty hard to work in the 4e Intimidate combat mechanic straight out-of-the-box.

 

[Umbran]

. Discuss the topic, not the posters.

Um, you realize the irony of this statement, right? That you are yourself engaged in speaking about the poster, rather than the topic? Pot, kettle, and all that.

Folks, we have a feature that allows you to report posts to the moderators. It is a little exclamation point in a triangle, at the bottom of every single post. If you have a problem with how someone is posting, we strongly request that you use this feature.

We even more strongly request that you not get confrontational and in each other's faces. So, to all of you, back off.

 

[N0Man]

To NOMan:

Personally I'm actually glad KarinsDad pointed that out. Sure it's completely within your right to modify your opinion during a discussion. What is not reasonable for you to do, is to tell me I've misrepresented you when I never did.

Since you never actually stated that you thought it was possible for the act to not be evil, then it's well within the discussion for me to represent you that way. It may not be a big deal to you, but I don't feel great when I find out that I apologized for something I didn't do.

As I said earlier, it was a poor word choice. I was tired, and there had been a small number of statements made during this discussion that I felt either misunderstood , misconstrued, or mocked my viewpoint, and that me feel a tad more defensive than usual.

Looking back, I did say initially I thought it was evil, during the initial shock of hearing that this was as common place as it was. I think I even may have unintentionally wavered on the keyword "evil".

However, during the discussion I began to avoid describing it as evil (universally) and tried to present my opinion that it is *generally* evil (but varying greatly by campaign/setting/scenario). I did on at least one point concede that it din't have to be "evil", but maintained that it was chaotic, non-heroic, and possibly metagaming.

You misunderstanding me was probably a combination of my viewpoint shifting slightly through the course of the discussion and me doing a poor job of expressing myself. I apologize if I came off as implying that any misunderstanding was deliberate on your part.

 

[IanB]

Honestly I think we need to just move on from this alignment discussion rabbit hole we've gone down.

Stuff like that is always very subjective from game to game and thus makes a very poor choice for evaluating the intimidate skill from a game balance/rules perspective.

 

[Regicide]

Stuff like that is always very subjective from game to game and thus makes a very poor choice for evaluating the intimidate skill from a game balance/rules perspective.

Clearly intimidate is unbalanced, expertise doesn't work on it.

 

[N0Man]

Honestly I think we need to just move on from this alignment discussion rabbit hole we've gone down.

Stuff like that is always very subjective from game to game and thus makes a very poor choice for evaluating the intimidate skill from a game balance/rules perspective.

I'd have to agree with that. I originally didn't intend to stir up so much controversy with what was intended as an offhand comment or two. This is probably why they got rid of rules to enforce alignment in the first place. ;-)

So... back on track, I do think that intimidate is valid and legal to use in a combat as it is presented in the PHB (which includes a modifiable DC based on the circumstances and desired results, according to the DM). How the intimidate effects the enemies, and what the players choose to do with the intimidated foes is up to the DMs. Your on your own to figure out the ethical entanglements. ;-)

Personally, I don't like the fact that RAW doesn't account for minions to be intimidated (which seem to be the most realistic candidate to intimidate). I'd personally allow Minions to

For example of different actions and a few DCs one might use based on the intended effects and circumstances (completely pulled out of the air just to show a progression of difficulty, without examing the actual math so don't take them literally).


DC - What the Intimidate is trying to accomplish. Mechanical effect from Success.
+0 - "Stand where you are villain!", Enemy may not perform a move action on his next turn.
+5 - "Run away quick, before I change my mind!", Enemies retreat.
+10 - "By the authority given to me by King Guy the Adaquete, I order you to surrender to be taken for trial!", Enemy ceases combat and expects to be taken prisoner.
+15 - "Surrender now, and I promise your death will be swift!", Enemy ceases combat and expects execution.

I might make Minions easier to intimidate in some circumstances, elites harder, a Solo even harder. Also, some specific story NPCs might be easier or harder to intimidate (based on your story), and there might be other adjustments in *your* game that you feel are valid (Such as a Tarasque or brainwashed cultists).

If players started abusing it and metagaming the encounters, I might pull DM fiat, or at least talk to the players about it, but I don't have a problem with it in general.