Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 4831089" data-attributes="member: 5435">Well, some interesting responses.To those who think that using a social skill to force surrender, however temporary, is too powerful--isn't it also too powerful for characters with Diplomacy to transform potential enemies into friends, or characters with high Stealth and perception to bypass encounters altogether? While 4E may look like it's all about combat, skills are there to provide the characters with an alternative means of handling encounters. If they can't serve this role, they have no place in the game. I don't think using Intimidate halfway through a combat is any worse than using Diplomacy or Bluff before a combat starts.  And this is why the skill description invokes DM fiat! As with Diplomacy and other social skills, only the DM knows all the factors that the NPC will consider when reacting to the skill.A DM who assumes that their prepared combats are inevitable may be justified in complaining that Intimidate ends them early. A DM who prepares encounters that may or may not lead to combat, depending on how the party handles them, is more likely to consider 'combat avoidance' through social skills a viable strategy.Now, having said that, one could certainly make the case that the DC forforcing surrender is too easy.  There was some interesting analysis in the other thread on this subject. Broadly speaking, it is a Cha vs. Will test with heavy bonuses on the PC side (skill training and skill focus can give +8,while the monster has no access to feats that boost their Will save bya similar amount).  Whether those DCs should be modified is a separate issue, but one that can be easily resolved if the DM asks him- or herself how often the tactic should work. Personally, I think it should work quite often (~70%) against intelligent, self-interested opponents.  In a one-on-one duel, any sensible person will take the opportunity to surrender once it becomes clear the combat is going against them.  But this is for an ideal case: the PC is healthy, while the NPC is bloodied and has no backup.  If both parties are bloodied, or the tide of a larger battle has not yet turned, or the NPC is a coward/fanatic, the odds should change accordingly; certainly in some of these cases they should be low enough that only a highly trained PC should have a shot at forcing surrender.  By establishing a handful of benchmark cases for your campaign, it is easy to figure out whether the PC should be targeting Will, Will+5, or some other number.Ben</blockquote>

Verification