Why do Orcs get Intimidate?

[Stalker0]

While I agree there's no rule that orcs can't intimidate the players into surrendering, I think it just a bad idea. I've heard of what noble npcs can do to a party in star wars saga edition and I'm not looking forward to seeing that in 4e.

As for intimidating being hard to do in 4e, remember this:

1) Its an autowin. Fighting big bad dragon. If you win with intimidate, the fights over, even if the dragon has 100 hp left.
2) It hits multiple people at once. Use it when there are a lot of bloodied creatures, and even with the hard check you are likely to get one or two. That can still be pretty significant.

 

[erik_the_guy]

Many posters have assumed that when someone intimidates you to surrender you are out of the combat. If you surrender you do not lose control of your character. You couldn't attack that round, but you probably would try to run away if the orc turned to fight your allies, or try to kill him if your allies started to overpower him.
Unless the monster chooses to focus only on you and drag you away from the combat as his prisoner, the intimidation will probably only prevent you from attacking for a turn or two. If the enemy tries to do this, and manages to without getting killed by your allies, this is pretty balanced.
The powers that wizards etc get that CAN actually remove someone from the combat without the wizard having to constantly worry about them. They are much better than intimidation.

 

[James McMurray]

My opinion is that Orcs have initimidate to bully their minions into obeying orders. I would say that Orcs lack the subtlety required to use this skill to manipulate people in other ways (PC or otherwise), in play this would simply be reflected in how the DM played these monsters.

Would you prevent a PC (Orc or otherwise) with Int 8 and Cha 9 from using the skill except on minions?

 

[Tenniel]

Would you prevent a PC (Orc or otherwise) with Int 8 and Cha 9 from using the skill except on minions?

Nope, I would play Orcs as I imagine Orcs would act, as players would play their Int 8 Cha 9 PC as they would think those PCs would act. If they had ranks in intimidate that would reflect some aspect of their PC's background and/or training. I am simply assuming in the case of Orcs that intimidate was used for bullying underlings, which is how I imagine an Orc's background would indicate; my opinion however is hardly the definitive canon on Orc behaviour. People can play Orcs how they like, I was simply providing an opinion on "Why Do Orcs Have Intimidate". Personally, if I was designing Orcs I wouldn't have given them this skill (same with Barbarians/Fighters in 3.5).

 

[Kzach]

The very simple fact of the matter is that dictating courses of actions to your players is not a good idea. Mind control powers are a completely different kettle of fish. You can argue till the cows come home and yet this is really just common damn sense.

Either work to the letter of the rules and find you have no players in short order or foster a fun game for all and have many years of RPG goodness. Your choice, really.

 

[Nightson]

Ugh, what a horrible way to write the Intimidate skill.

 

[generalhenry]

Many posters have assumed that when someone intimidates you to surrender you are out of the combat.

When you intimidate a monster it's out of the combat, ergo when a monster intimidates a player, he's out of the combat.

I don't think that's at all an odd rules interpretation.



The problem is normally the best a monster can do to a player is reduce him to dieing. It's very hard for a monster to actually kill a player.

So it might be better to treat intimidated like dieing. You get saves each round and a 20 breaks it. Also let other players actions (diplomacy check instead of a heal check) break the character free.

 

[hong]

Where does it say players can't be forced to surrender via the intimidation skill?

The bit where your players might throw dice at you if you try to pull this trick.

 

[Snotboy]

It's bad enough for players to say, "The rules don't say I can't". It's no different, worse even, for a DM to use the same reasoning.

It's been a rule in previous editions that players are not subject to morale checks, that they are explicitly in control of their characters unless magically coerced to act against their will. Players were not subject to morale checks, either.

 

[Jhaelen]

The very simple fact of the matter is that dictating courses of actions to your players is not a good idea. Mind control powers are a completely different kettle of fish. You can argue till the cows come home and yet this is really just common damn sense.

Hmm. I think what is missing is a condition called 'intimidated'.

I guess it should be similar to 'dazed'. Maybe a second successful Intimidate vs. Will (or a failed save?) would allow you to dictate a single action like 'dominated'. If that's too strong it may also do something like being 'marked' (in 4E there's no Fear-based condition either, right?).

I might be tempted to let it affects monsters exactly the same way except for story reasons.