Initimidate - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Initimidate

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Krusk
Feb 19, 2009 21:28:24 Tired of the following two threads?

Players- I invested tons of stuff into intmidate, and my DM came in and nerfed the crap out of it. This sucks.

DMs- I invested tons of time into this awsome villian, and my PCs come in and intimidate it into surrendering round 1. This sucks.

So am I.

I feel for both sides of the equation, and I think a simple DM houserule can help fix this. (like all house rules, I think the DM should present it before the campaign starts, or allow those it may affect to retrain)

Elite Monsters gain a +5 bonus to Will Defense vs Intimidate. They are simply better. The rest of their stats are proportionally higher, and this should be as well.

Solo Monsters gain a +10 bonus to Will Defense vs Intimidate. They are simply better. The rest of their stats are proportionally higher, and this should be as well.

Additionally, the following can be applied in addition to the above.
+2 Will Defense- Right Hand man to a powerful vengeful entity.
+5 Will Defense- A Powerful Vengeful Entity (IE BBEG)
+5 Will Defense- For each failed intimidate attempt vs that specific enemy ever.
+1 Will Defense- For each ally standing, and opposing the PCs.

Enemies can be intimidated more than once per encounter, if the first attempt failed. This reflects the change in situation. Earlier in the fight, the enemy has an entire team. By the end he is along. The first try failed, but now he might be more willing.

This rule has the following effects. Solos can no longer be intimidated except on an amazing roll, even by the best. The elite gaurd are harder to intimidate than the normal gaurd, but not as hard as the Solo. PCs that are invested in intimidate as a stratigy are still able to use it, but they will no longer auto win fights by eliminating the hard guy. PCs that are super invested in it, are still able to auto win the fight and eliminate the hard guy, just not not every time.
----------
I realize the "The DM can just ad hock bonuses and penalites to the enemies Will Defense for this check" arguement exists. But we all know thats a load of bull, and any player will be upset with a DM who does this. Additionally, a codified ammount decided before hand can seriously limit the complaints by players.
#2
jimmygroove
Feb 20, 2009 5:17:09 One thing to remember is that in combat, the enemy will certainly be hostile. That makes the target number Will +10 anyway. Another thing to remember is that the rules leave it vague as to what the DM has to do when the intimidate success succeeds. Certainly some creatures should surrender, particularly those who have a reasonable expectation of surviving a prisoner situation, such as other not-too-monstrous humanoids. But for other creatures, trying to flee might be more appropriate.

In general, when one of my PCs succeed on an intimidate roll against an unbloodied enemy, I do one of the following things:

The monster will not approach the intimidating figure.
The monster takes a -2 to defenses against all enemies other than the intimidating character, as it worries about him.
If the target monster is significantly weaker than the party, it acts as if it was bloodied.

And if it makes the roll against a bloodied enemy:

It surrenders.
It runs away, only fighting if backed into a corner.
It is so badly shaken that it takes a -2 on attack rolls and defenses.

Of course, other options might be more appropriate in certain situations, like giving up hostages and the like.
#3
Krusk
Feb 20, 2009 12:33:01
One thing to remember is that in combat, the enemy will certainly be hostile. That makes the target number Will +10 anyway. Another thing to remember is that the rules leave it vague as to what the DM has to do when the intimidate success succeeds. Certainly some creatures should surrender, particularly those who have a reasonable expectation of surviving a prisoner situation, such as other not-too-monstrous humanoids. But for other creatures, trying to flee might be more appropriate.

Often times the +10 from hostile means a dedicated intimnomancer will have a chance to fail, not a gaurenteed success. This very quickly ends boss fights or turns an easy fight from challenging to walk in the park.

I agree it is vauge as to what the monster does, but the only thing they make clear is that the monster will not continue to fight the PCs. It could flee, it could surrender, seppuku, whatever. This in turn means the fight that should have been hard is now over.

My goal was to make it so that intimidating was still effective, on the weaker enemies, and then was only possible on super hard enemies through a serious investment. Not simply picking the skill.

Essentially this system was a codified from of the "ad hoc penalties" that I will be applying as a DM to players. This lets them know before hand sp there can be no complaint when it is harder to intimidate a solo dragon, thann it is anyone else with the same will defense. Additionally it makes everything 100% every time between players. No matter if Jims PC is intimidating, or Bills. No favoritism, because it is written down beforehand.

Essentially, see the last paragraph of the OP for a response to your post.
#4
fragsie
Feb 20, 2009 13:26:52 I use the following homebrew rules for Intimidate:

Intimidate vs. Will (standard action Melee)

Result: Push target 1 square, gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn.

If Will defence in beaten by double (i.e. character rolls 26, targets Will is 13)

Result: Target attempts to flee you (not being mindful of OA's from other characters), find cover and use ranged attacks. You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn.

If Will defence is beaten by triple, or target is a Minion.

Result: If the target believes it may survive (ie taken prisoner), or cannot flee it will surrender. Otherwise; it flees via the fastest avaliable route.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Krusk Feb 19, 2009 21:28:24	Tired of the following two threads? Players- I invested tons of stuff into intmidate, and my DM came in and nerfed the crap out of it. This sucks. DMs- I invested tons of time into this awsome villian, and my PCs come in and intimidate it into surrendering round 1. This sucks. So am I. I feel for both sides of the equation, and I think a simple DM houserule can help fix this. (like all house rules, I think the DM should present it before the campaign starts, or allow those it may affect to retrain) Elite Monsters gain a +5 bonus to Will Defense vs Intimidate. They are simply better. The rest of their stats are proportionally higher, and this should be as well. Solo Monsters gain a +10 bonus to Will Defense vs Intimidate. They are simply better. The rest of their stats are proportionally higher, and this should be as well. Additionally, the following can be applied in addition to the above. +2 Will Defense- Right Hand man to a powerful vengeful entity. +5 Will Defense- A Powerful Vengeful Entity (IE BBEG) +5 Will Defense- For each failed intimidate attempt vs that specific enemy ever. +1 Will Defense- For each ally standing, and opposing the PCs. Enemies can be intimidated more than once per encounter, if the first attempt failed. This reflects the change in situation. Earlier in the fight, the enemy has an entire team. By the end he is along. The first try failed, but now he might be more willing. This rule has the following effects. Solos can no longer be intimidated except on an amazing roll, even by the best. The elite gaurd are harder to intimidate than the normal gaurd, but not as hard as the Solo. PCs that are invested in intimidate as a stratigy are still able to use it, but they will no longer auto win fights by eliminating the hard guy. PCs that are super invested in it, are still able to auto win the fight and eliminate the hard guy, just not not every time. ---------- I realize the "The DM can just ad hock bonuses and penalites to the enemies Will Defense for this check" arguement exists. But we all know thats a load of bull, and any player will be upset with a DM who does this. Additionally, a codified ammount decided before hand can seriously limit the complaints by players.
#2 jimmygroove Feb 20, 2009 5:17:09	One thing to remember is that in combat, the enemy will certainly be hostile. That makes the target number Will +10 anyway. Another thing to remember is that the rules leave it vague as to what the DM has to do when the intimidate success succeeds. Certainly some creatures should surrender, particularly those who have a reasonable expectation of surviving a prisoner situation, such as other not-too-monstrous humanoids. But for other creatures, trying to flee might be more appropriate. In general, when one of my PCs succeed on an intimidate roll against an unbloodied enemy, I do one of the following things: The monster will not approach the intimidating figure. The monster takes a -2 to defenses against all enemies other than the intimidating character, as it worries about him. If the target monster is significantly weaker than the party, it acts as if it was bloodied. And if it makes the roll against a bloodied enemy: It surrenders. It runs away, only fighting if backed into a corner. It is so badly shaken that it takes a -2 on attack rolls and defenses. Of course, other options might be more appropriate in certain situations, like giving up hostages and the like.
#3 Krusk Feb 20, 2009 12:33:01	One thing to remember is that in combat, the enemy will certainly be hostile. That makes the target number Will +10 anyway. Another thing to remember is that the rules leave it vague as to what the DM has to do when the intimidate success succeeds. Certainly some creatures should surrender, particularly those who have a reasonable expectation of surviving a prisoner situation, such as other not-too-monstrous humanoids. But for other creatures, trying to flee might be more appropriate. Often times the +10 from hostile means a dedicated intimnomancer will have a chance to fail, not a gaurenteed success. This very quickly ends boss fights or turns an easy fight from challenging to walk in the park. I agree it is vauge as to what the monster does, but the only thing they make clear is that the monster will not continue to fight the PCs. It could flee, it could surrender, seppuku, whatever. This in turn means the fight that should have been hard is now over. My goal was to make it so that intimidating was still effective, on the weaker enemies, and then was only possible on super hard enemies through a serious investment. Not simply picking the skill. Essentially this system was a codified from of the "ad hoc penalties" that I will be applying as a DM to players. This lets them know before hand sp there can be no complaint when it is harder to intimidate a solo dragon, thann it is anyone else with the same will defense. Additionally it makes everything 100% every time between players. No matter if Jims PC is intimidating, or Bills. No favoritism, because it is written down beforehand. Essentially, see the last paragraph of the OP for a response to your post.
#4 fragsie Feb 20, 2009 13:26:52	I use the following homebrew rules for Intimidate: Intimidate vs. Will (standard action Melee) Result: Push target 1 square, gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn. If Will defence in beaten by double (i.e. character rolls 26, targets Will is 13) Result: Target attempts to flee you (not being mindful of OA's from other characters), find cover and use ranged attacks. You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls against the target until the end of your next turn. If Will defence is beaten by triple, or target is a Minion. Result: If the target believes it may survive (ie taken prisoner), or cannot flee it will surrender. Otherwise; it flees via the fastest avaliable route.