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

[ExploderWizard]

If the intimidate skill is acceptable as fight ending skill check then what was wrong with spells such as the 3E Hold Person? At the spell rerquired the use of a resource to end the fight for one opponent. Intimidate does not.

 

[frankthedm]

If the intimidate skill is acceptable as fight ending skill check then what was wrong with spells such as the 3E Hold Person? At the spell rerquired the use of a resource to end the fight for one opponent. Intimidate does not.

Well, first off the 3E hold person did not have an official option for the DM to grant the NPC a save bonus of plus whatever DM wishers.

 

[Runestar]

If the intimidate skill is acceptable as fight ending skill check then what was wrong with spells such as the 3E Hold Person? At the spell rerquired the use of a resource to end the fight for one opponent. Intimidate does not.

Isn't such a use of intimidate in 4e tantamount to a virtual save-or-die? Either you waste a standard action achieving nothing (because you failed the DC check) or you spent a standard action neutralizing a foe outright. I thought this was the sort of thing 4e was actively trying to discourage.

 

[N0Man]

I don't see what the problem is. If he wants to build his character to kill more effectively, fine. If he wants to build it to be less lethal but have non-killing options, that's fine too.

Truth be told, it's more heroic to let their enemies think over the situation and retreat rather than forcing your players to fight to the death.

As a DM, there are several questions to ask:

1) Is this individual enemy too important to allow for intimidation, or is there a story reason to prevent it?

2) Is it a type of enemy that intimidation is even reasonable against?

3) What's their reaction? Do they surrender, or run away? (Or even commit suicide to avoid capture!)

4) Do you want to adjust the difficulty due to how many of his comrades are still up and doing well, or that have fallen?

I think it's completely reasonable to adjust the DC based on how many of his allies are either still non-bloodied, bloodied, or dead (and the same for your side).

This is a rules forum, and not a house-rules forum, but you could try creating your own little table of modifiers to make it more dynamic, if you really want to go through the trouble.

Here's an example table with DC modifiers:

+4 per unconscious or dead PC
+3 per non-bloodied Solo enemy in the encounter (including itself)
+2 per non-bloodied Elite enemy in the encounter (including itself)
+1 per non-bloodied Normal enemy in the encounter.
+1 per bloodied PC
+1 per 4 living minions enemy in the encounter.
-1 per 4 minion enemies killed.
-1 per non-bloodied PC
-1 per dead normal enemy
-2 per dead elite enemy.
-3 per dead solo enemy.

Just a thought.

 

[Rechan]

Of the two groups I've ran, Surrender has resulted in the following responses:

Group 1: Players kill the surrendering enemies after they have taken their weapons.

Group 2: Players ask, "What will you give us to make us accept your surrender?"

 

[Nail]

Be honest: a successful intimidate usually ends in death for the monster.

• A PC successfully intimidates a bloodied monster, assuming whatever other foes are (already) dispatched.
• The intimidated monster pleads for mercy.
• The PCs ask the monster some questions.
• The PCs make up some reason to kill the monster.

It's just a prolonged version of a Save-or-Die power, only wrapped into a skill. It's a free, additional At-Will power, far more powerful than any other At-Will power in the game.

I wonder: How would PCs respond if monsters used Intimidate on them, to force them to surrender?

 

[Flipguarder]

Nail thats a great point. Id imagine that the pcs would want a save of some sort.

So I suppose the monsters should get a save as well

 

[tmatk]

My speculation - I think the designers liked the idea of a combat intimidation mechanic, but saw the potential for abuse. The best, or easiest, solution was to leave it up to the DM to make judgment calls, thus "...or a DC set by the DM" was included.

 

[N0Man]

Be honest: a successful intimidate usually ends in death for the monster.

• A PC successfully intimidates a bloodied monster, assuming whatever other foes are (already) dispatched.
• The intimidated monster pleads for mercy.
• The PCs ask the monster some questions.
• The PCs make up some reason to kill the monster.

Of the two groups I've ran, Surrender has resulted in the following responses:

Group 1: Players kill the surrendering enemies after they have taken their weapons.

Group 2: Players ask, "What will you give us to make us accept your surrender?"

Wow... what kind of players do you play with there? I've never seen a game where the players executed surrendered opponents or would only spare them in exchange for a bribe.

That's not very heroic. I'd say it's even an evil act.

In all the games I've played (and ran), when opponents have surrendered, I've never once seen players kill them. I've seen them run off, interrogated, beg for mercy, change allegiance, captured, and even turn over a new leaf... but never just killed in cold blood.

Perhaps allow the occasional witness to the event, which might spread the word of this merciless lot. They might find in the future they might run into enemies that have heard the tales of their dishonorable actions. Maybe a friend or loved one will hear the story and vow revenge.

D&D is NOT a video game, and a DM can and should think of repercussions for the actions of players (good or bad).

 

[Regicide]

Isn't such a use of intimidate in 4e tantamount to a virtual save-or-die?

Seems more like a fail-or-die(in-a-couple-more-hits).