What good is Intimidate?

[candidus_cogitens]

First, an observation: It has been widely observed that Intimidation could be determined by a PC's strength rather than a charisma based skill. Shouldn't the same reasoning also apply concerning the PC's level? The intimidate rules specify that the DC is 10 plus the hit die of the creature you are trying to intimidate. If higher-level NPCs are harder to intimidate, wouldn't it also be the case that a higher level PC is more intimidating? Shouldn't a more powerful character be naturally more intimidating, without special training in the skill?

Second, a question: what does the skill actually allow you to do? If my PC succeeds in intimidating someone, does that mean he can get the NPC to do whatever he asks, or tell whatever he wants to know? Perhaps you will say some judgment on the part of the DM is called for. But doesnt that amount to saying that the outcome is determined exactly the same way as if you didn't have any ranks in the skill at all? I mean, the bottom line is that the NPC is going to do what is reasonable for him to do when he is threatened by the PC, right? So, perhaps you would say that the Intimidate skill allows you to push the NPC a little further than he would normally go. Okay ... but let's look at an example.

Quendilon the bard threatens a guard, "Tell me where the priest is being held, or I'll kill you right now." If it's true that Quendilon could probably kill the guard, then the guard will probably figure out that it is wise to comply, regardless of whether Quendilon has stated his threat in a particularly persuasive way. If it's NOT true that Quendilon could easily defeat the guard, then the only way the guard would comply is if Quendilon manages to APPEAR tougher than he actually is. If that is the case, then what's the difference between Intimidate and Bluff?!?

In other scenarios, Intimidate is likely to overlap with Diplomacy.

 

[Crothian]

Well, people want charisma to be the dump stat, so they dislike that intimidate uses their dump stat.

What actually happens id upo to the DM. That's why he gets paid the big bucks. Same with what skill to use when. May of the social skills overlap. The DM just needs to be consident in his rulings.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

It makes much more sense to me to base Intimidate on Charisma than on Hit Dice. And to base resistance to intimidation, at least partially, on Hit Dice. The target knows (or at least has a good idea) how powerful he is; he often only knows how powerful the intimidating character is to the extent that that character can convince him.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use their will save somehow, rather than just their hit dice?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

CHA is the correct stat alright: if you're strong-willed, you can appear intimidating.

A level bonus to the intimidate skill would be nonsense: you cannot see what level the other is, so he won't intimidate you because of that. A Wiz20 looks just like a Wiz1.

At your DM's discretion, you can give the victim a display of your power (use a STR check to bend a horseshoe, make an attack roll to hack something to pieces, cast a spell to blow something up real nice, or just kill one of the victim's comrades to show him that you really mean it!) to get a bonus to the intimidate check.

Of course, many want to make intimidate checks with another stat, or get rid of (most of the) charisma-based skills, because "you have to roleplay them." In truth, they don't want to put anything into CHA and give this stupid explaination (you don't punch the DM in the face to "roleplay" your attack roll). Also, using player charisma instead of character charisma is like using player knowledge instead of character knowledge: you circumvent a disadvantage the character has and it's unfair to those who don't have as much of it but had their character get the in-game versions of it.


Personally, I think that the DC of the roll should not consist solely on your level, but should be an opposed roll (maybe against cha, intimidate or a will saving throw). I don't like it if I can be manipulated and can make nothing against it (spells usually allow saving throws).

Also, it clearly depends upon the severity of the thing you demand of the target: Getting the stranger-mistrusting peasant to tell you the way to the next inn should be far easier than to get a fighter to turn over his magic weapons and armor, or to force a maiden to bed you (if you're really ugly or a demon, or both).


Intimidate's clearly one of those skills the DM has to work out the exact effects.

 

[Al]

I use an Intimidate check opposed by a (Will save + level). This does mean that it becomes harder to intimidate people of equivalent level as you get higher, but this is intentional. A low-level bard is (IMO) more likely to be able to intimidate a green soldier than a high-level bard an archmage.

As for adding class, this is unnecessary. Intimidate is the ability to scare people using words and not actions. If your 20th level barbarian is having trouble scaring the old ladies, he needs only to chop a bystander into small chunks for people to get the picture.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If you read Salvatore, you can see Artemis Entreri intimidate someone very effectively. Artemis is very short, and the people who he intimidates don't always know who he is. For instance, see the Silent Blade.

 

[Marshall]

If you read Salvatore, you can see Artemis Entreri intimidate someone very effectively. Artemis is very short, and the people who he intimidates don't always know who he is. For instance, see the Silent Blade.

Ooh! New feat idea!

Presence
People are naturally in awe of you

Prereq : CHA 13+, BAB 1+

Benefit : You are considered to always be 'Taking 10' on Intimidate. Those who are affected by this are moved on sterp farther to friendly on the reactions chart.

 

[spunky_mutters]

I'd give players a +2 if they crushed their metal ale mug or shredded their mail shirt solely by rippling their muscles.

Likewise, if they used INT to prove something to the player that he didn't really want to know, or if they performed a skill of some sort related to the type of intimidation they were trying to pull. It comes right down to convincing the NPC that you're not someone to be trifled with, for whatever reasons you think work best. Using STR to show your might is just the simplest way people can think of. Whatever happened to pinning his cloak with a thrown dagger?

 

[Larcen]

The biggest argument for using STR instead of CHA for Intimate, at least in some cases, is the half-orc example.

That is, because an average half-orce gets a -2 on CHA, he is actually LESS intimidating than the average old lady crossing the street who gets no such penalty. Seems stupid. Heck, if anything, half orcs should get a BONUS for Intimate, IMO.