by Shea Christian Reinke
The Intimidation Skill
Did you know that there is an Intimidation skill in Dungeons and Dragons? I ask because, in my experience with the D20 system this particular skill has been used by one, and only one, player or dungeon master, me. In the some dozen or more games that I have played in since D20 came into the world I have been the only person in my playgroups that has ever taken a turn to Intimidate an opponent. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but never have I felt that it was a waste of my time to try Intimidating.
After a while, I decided to ask the people that I play with the same question that I asked you, "did you know there is an Intimidation skill in the game?" and I was surprised by the answers that I received. A couple of players did, in fact, answer "no" they were not aware of the skill. They were not aware of how it worked, what it did, or when they should try and use it on an opponent. One person, a fellow experienced dungeon master, said that he was aware of the skill, but "it doesn't ever work". The most common answer I received, however, was that "yes I know that Intimidation is a skill, but it works funny".
In this article I will explain that there is an Intimidation skill, how Intimidation works, when Intimidation works, and why it is not funny. I will also suggest a couple of optional rules, feats, and equipment for Intimidation that may make the skill more useful to any one that feels that the skill is underdeveloped. First I will respond to some of the answers I received directly.
"I didn't know there was an Intimidation skill"
Well there is one. Its right there between Hide and Jump on your character sheet. It is a class skill for the Barbarian, the Fighter, and the Rouge class, and you receive a +2 bonus on Intimidation checks if you have the Persuasive feat. Intimidating your opponents can be very satisfying. It can be used in and out of combat, and it is a skill that you can use untrained. You should give it a try the next you play.
"Intimidation never ever works"
I can tell you, from experience, that Intimidation does work. All the time in fact. You just have to ask yourself one question before trying: Am I Intimidating enough? Intimidation will not work on every opponent, but if you know a little bit about the skill, a little bit about your opponent, and if "you feel lucky punk" you can make Intimidation work for you most of the time.
"Intimidation works funny"
Alright! I admit that Intimidation is one of the more unique opposed roll functions in the D20 system. Intimidation is a skill check that is opposed by a modified level check. No other skill or action works the way that Intimidate does, but that is no reason to ignore the skill. Craft is the only skill that works the way that it does, and that doesn't stop any one from Crafting.
The Intimidation Check
First ready a weapon, a natural weapon will do, and position yourself so that your intended target is within your reach. Then roll 1d20, add you Charisma modifier, your ranks in Intimidation, and any bonus or circumstantial modifiers. Your size category is the most important circumstance modifier in your Intimidation check, similar to grappling, you have a +4 modifier for every size category larger, and a -4 modifier for every size category smaller, you are than your target. Simple, similar to any other skill check; you have the basic check and a circumstance that always applies. The unusual part of Intimidation is in the way that the check is resisted.
You, if you are the target of Intimidation, or your target rolls 1d20 and adds their character level (or Hit Dice if greater), their Wisdom bonus (not penalty), and any special modifiers against fear. Characters, or creatures, that are immune to fear are immune to Intimidation. The result of failure, like many skill checks, is that nothing happens. The consequences of success are different depending on whether you are in or out of combat.
Out of combat Intimidation can only be used on NPCs, and has similar results to Diplomacy. Like Diplomacy out of combat Intimidation requires at least a minute of interaction. Unlike Diplomacy, however, Intimidation is an opposed check. If you succeed, you target will treat you as friendly until they manage to escape your presence. That is not to say that they will like you. In fact, soon after you leave they will rapidly turn to either unfriendly or hostile, depending on their attitude initially. As I said earlier winning an Intimidation check has consequences.
This is important to remember, even though the NPC will treat you like a friend for the duration of your interaction; Intimidation, unlike Diplomacy, does not make you any friends. 1d6 x 10 minutes after you leave an NPC that was neutral (or friendly, though it is very mean to Intimidate friendlies) will become unfriendly. More often though, you will be Intimidating NPCs that were unfriendly to begin with. These NPCs will become hostile within an hour after you leave. Intimidation doesn't make you any friends, but it is a great way to make enemies.
Out of combat Intimidation is probably the most useful when trying to get in and out of guarded areas. Most city guards are low level, and if you have any ranks in Intimidation they will be pushovers for you. Intimidation is also great for getting that "friendly discount" at local shops. The more ranks in Intimidation you have the better equipment you can get on the cheap. Or, if you are Barbarian that has been told that you don't meet the dress code of the local fine diner, an Intimidation roll will have the maitre d' offering the finest wine, the best seat in the house, and the fastest service rather rapidly. Warning! Doing this will eventually result in some sort of organized retaliation. Assassins also have Intimidation as a class skill by the way.
In combat Intimidation veers away from any similarities with the Diplomacy skill. There is no penalty for performing "rushed" Intimidation, and the results are decidedly different than out of combat Intimidation. As a standard action you can demoralize your opponent, or be demoralized. Theoretically you could demoralize your fellow PCs, but, as I said above, Intimidation does not make you any friends. A demoralized opponent is shaken, suffering a -2 morale penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. This use of Intimidation works wonders on opponents that are already slightly below your level, particularly henchmen, goblins, and, later in levels, the ever so common orc marauders.
In a number of games I have used the demoralize function of Intimidation on an opponent I wanted to get information out of. The first successful Intimidation reduces my opponents ability to resist successive demoralize attempts, and after ten rounds of repeated Intimidation my dungeon masters have allowed that I met the requirements for out of combat Intimidation and shifted the target's attitude to that forced friendly I spoke of above. Unfortunately, since Intimidation is a standard combat action, doing this restricts your character from making actual attacks (I will get back to this later). Usually this tactic is best for the cleanup period of combat; after your Barbarian rage has worn off (fatigue does not effect Intimidation), when you are otherwise prevented from attacking, or after the big scary is already defeated.
"Am I Intimidating enough?"
This is an important question to ask yourself. If you have no Intimidation ranks, the answer is usually "no", unless you are large or larger. If you have no Intimidation ranks then you should probably reserve your Intimidation checks for dealing with opponents that have fewer level/HD than your Charisma bonus. Or, goblins, kobolds, halflings, gnomes, small animals, and annoying things like pixies. If you are a dungeon master, however, you should ask yourself this question slightly differently. Trolls, ogres, dragons, and any number of other classics are most often larger than the PCs, particularly pesky halflings. Bigger creatures also have a longer reach so they can threaten the PCs at a farther distance than the average NPC antagonist with character levels.
Expanded Intimidation Rules
For those that find the Intimidation rules lacking I offer the following optional rules:
Favored Enemy: It seems reasonably to me that a Ranger's favored enemy bonuses should apply to Intimidation as well.
Perform, Diplomacy, and Bluff as Intimidation: These skills are the arts of social manipulation. Not to negate the utility of the Intimidation skill, but the right kind of show, negotiation, or trick can scare the bejeebies out of me. For game balance purposes I recommend a -10 penalty (not stacking with the rushed Diplomacy penalty) when attempting to use these skills to Intimidate your opponent.
Amazingly Demoralizing: If, when you demoralize an opponent in combat your Intimidation check exceeds their resistance roll by ten or more, then that opponent is shaken for ten rounds instead of one. I said I would get back to this.
Interrogation: Interrogation allows you to extract information out of an unwilling opponent. Interrogating a target takes at least ten minutes of interaction. The target must be restrained from leaving, already Intimidated or bound, and they receive the same bonus to resist that they would receive on a Sense Motive check to resist a Bluff: +5 if revealing the information would put them at some risk, +10 if revealing the information would put them in significant risk, and +20 if their very life depends on the secrecy of the information you want to know.
Negative Charisma Modifier: In the art of Intimidation ugly can be a bonus. Apply a charisma penalty to Intimidation checks, and Intimidation checks only, as though it were a bonus of equal numeric value.
Demoralize as an attack: Instead of demoralize being a standard combat action it is an attack action. This would let you switch out that last melee attack in a full attack action (with that less than amazing bonus) for a demoralize check.
Attack bonus to Demoralize: Add you base attack as a bonus to your Intimidation check to demoralize an opponent. This option works particularly well if you use demoralize as an attack.
Caster level to Demoralize: If, you use the demoralize as an attack option and add base attack bonus to demoralize checks, then adding your caster level as a bonus to you Intimidation check to demoralize an opponent instead of your base attack when Intimidating a target with a magical effect is also an option.
Intimidation Feats
The Intimidation skill is somewhat lacking in feats (Persuasive, and Skill focus are the only ones), so here are a few to consider in your games.
IMPROVED DEMORALIZE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Combat Reflexes.
Benefit: You can make an Intimidation check to demoralize an opponent as a move equivalent action.
Normal: Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
A fighter may select Improved Demoralize as one of his fighter bonus feats.
GREATER DEMORALIZE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Cha 15, Combat Reflexes, Improved Demoralize.
Benefit: You can make an Intimidation check to demoralize an opponent as a free action whenever you perform a full attack action against a single opponent.
Normal: Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
A fighter may select Greater Demoralize as one of his fighter bonus feats.
SUPREME DEMORALIZE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Cha 17, Combat Reflexes, Improved Demoralize, Greater Demoralize.
Benefit: Every round that you are in a combat situation you may make a free action Intimidation check to demoralize any opponent you would normally be able to demoralize.
Normal: Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
A fighter may select Supreme Demoralize as one of his fighter bonus feats.
DEMORALIZING PRESENCE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +6, Skill Focus Intimidation.
Benefit: You can make an Intimidation check to demoralize an opponent that is within one movement action of you.
Normal: You must be within reach of an opponent to make an Intimidation check to demoralize them.
A fighter may select Demoralizing Presence as one of his fighter bonus feats.
SUBTLE INTIMIDATION [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Intimidation 5 ranks, and either Diplomacy or Perform 5 ranks.
Benefit: 1d6 x 10 minutes after you leave an NPC that you have successfully Intimidated into behaving friendly they return to their initial attitude.
Normal: 1d6 x 10 minutes after you leave an NPC that you have successfully Intimidated into behaving friendly their attitude changes to unfriendly, or hostile if they were initially unfriendly.
POTENT DEMORALIZE [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Intimidation 5 ranks, Skill Focus Intimidation.
Benefit: When you successfully demoralize an opponent they become frightened for one round.
Normal: When you successfully demoralize an opponent they become shaken for one round.
A fighter may select Demoralizing Presence as one of his fighter bonus feats.
EXTREME DEMORALIZE [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Intimidation 10 ranks, Skill Focus Intimidation, Potent Demoralize.
Benefit: When you successfully demoralize an opponent they become panicked for one round.
Normal: When you successfully demoralize an opponent they become shaken for one round.
A fighter may select Demoralizing Presence as one of his fighter bonus feats.
Intimidating Equipment
Last but not least I will suggest some items that can be used to grant some circumstance modifiers to Intimidation.
Mundane Equipment
------------------
War Mask
| 25 gp | 3lb |
Beast Musk
| 50 gp | 1lb *1|
Dragon's Musk
| 100 gp | 1lb *1 |
Battle Paint
| 1 gp | 3lb *1,2 |
Scary Costume
| 2 gp | 5lb |
Interrogation Kit
| 50 gp | 5lb |
------------------
--*1 - Has no weight after it is applied
--*2 - Battle paint weighs only 1lb after one facial application.
------------------
War Mask: This frightening mask gives you a +2 tool bonus to Intimidation checks. A masterwork war mask grants a +4 tool bonus.
Beast Musk: The extract of a beast's musk gives you a +2 circumstance bonus to Intimidation checks against any creature that has the ability to smell.
Dragon's Musk: The extract of a dragon's (or any monster with the frightful presence trait) musk gives you a +4 circumstance bonus to Intimidation checks against any creature that has the ability to smell.
Battle Paint: Brightly colored body paint that takes ten minutes to apply. You must have a significant amount of exposed skin to receive the full benefit of battle paint. Battle paint grants a +6 tool bonus to Intimidation checks, +3 if only your face is painted. Battle paint is only good for one application, two if you only paint your face.
Scary Costume: This suit of clothing is intentionally designed to strike fear into the heart of your enemies. This outfit grants a +3 competence bonus on Intimidation checks.
Interrogation Kit: The kit is the perfect tool for interrogating and provides a +2 circumstance bonus on Intimidation checks to Interrogate.
Magical Items
Frightening: A suite of armor or shield with this property is covered in images of monsters. The armor grants you a +5 competence bonus on Intimidation checks.
Faint Necromancy [Fear, Mind-Affecting]; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, cause fear; +3,750 gp
Frightening, Improved: As Frightening, except it grants a +10 competence bonus on Intimidation checks.
Moderate Necromancy [Fear, Mind-Affecting]; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, cause fear; +15,000 gp.
Frightening, Greater: As Frightening, except it grants a +15 competence bonus on Intimidation checks.
Moderate Necromancy [Fear, Mind-Affecting]; CL 15th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, cause fear; +33,750 gp.
Fearful: A fearful weapon allows you to make an Intimidation check to demoralize an opponent as a free action whenever it successfully deals damage. In addition the wielder of this creepy looking weapon is granted a +5 enhancement bonus to Intimidation checks. This bonus applies to any Intimidation check the wielder makes while he has the weapon ready.
Moderate Necromancy [Fear, Mind-Affecting]; CL8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, cause fear; Price +2 bonus.
In conclusion, I hope that I have effectively described how and when to use the Intimidation skill to its full effect. I hope that you find the optional rules to be acceptable, the feats to be to your satisfaction, and the equipment to be worth the price. And most importantly I hope that I have convinced you that the Intimidation skill does exist, that it is simple to use, and most of all it is anything but funny.
Intimidate is a good skill for sorcerers or any other class that has a high CHA bonus. Your DM might even give you a +2 situation bonus to Intimidate the prisoners since you just blasted their friends. :D
But, If I sent this article to Paizo... :lightbulb: wait you said editors, as in WotC editors..
hmmm... 
anyway, Paizo's submission guidelines say to send queries first, don't use "I" language, few other bits I've broken here. I've never gotten any feedback, even a form refusal from them.Please, anyone with critical review hit me! I take critique well, so most have said.
Question: I have two ideas in mind for my next article - Initiative or Knowledges, any requests? votes? Or I could go this way - how about a "one_true_shea" social skills set? that being diplomacy, bluff, perform, and sense motive, already did intimidation. One article each. A perfect exercise for my planned Command System Rules, but I bet ya'll might like tidal initiative rules. My bro "darlak" wants me to talk about my Knowledge house rules, but thats waaaay wackiness.
There are roleplayers, rollplayers, and ruleplayers (I do all 3)
I've been waiting for something like this. I've always tried to encourage my players to take advantage of this skill, but I must confess I didn't know it could do a lot of this stuff either. The feats and items are excellent additions, and definitely worth looking into.The one problem I have in the article is that I'm a bit leery of the bit on making the intimidate check as an attack action and adding your BAB. While it's true that the manner in which a warrior fights can be intimidating by itself, this doesn't need to be done with an intimidate check necessarily; if an intelligent opponent is getting carved up, he doesn't need to fail a check to know it might be best to get out while he still can. To me, intimidate works better as an action in its own right (a bloodcurdling yell, banging your sword on your shield, etcetera) with the intent of unnerving an enemy that would otherwise not have any qualms with fighting you. The intimidation takes the edge off his skill; he originally thought he could take you, but now he's not so sure, and he's not fighting as well as he could be out of concern for your crazy self.
You also mentioned adding caster level to intimidation. I don't think that really works, seeing as caster level doesn't determine necessarily how intimidating your spells appear, but I think the idea of spells (or perceived spellcasting) being intimidating is very interesting, and deserving of some exploration in its own right.
That may have been a mistake, but I would have preferred to have an entire table of circumstances that gave bonuses to Intimidation, Diplomacy synergy among them. Then, I would have had to differentiate between the source circumstances and my suggested ones. I have never gotten that "whaking bonus" from a GM, nor given it actually, so I didn't include it as an option.
Mithridates I have a confession to make, the Demoralize as an attack is the way I thought the dang skill worked when I first looked at it, and the way that I used it the first couple of times. I even convinced the group to playtest the BAB/CL thing before realizing what I was doing wrong.
My take: It should be changed one of two ways
Demoralize as an attack, or
Demoralize as a social IF.
A social IF doesn't take an "action" it takes "interaction", anytime you perform an interaction that is sufficiently Intimidating (like say "Im gonna run up on the guy screaming and try to hit him") you just get a free check for that round.
I think that might have been a good one for the piece.
Adding your BAB/CL works if you like to have people succeeding a lot more often ("Kobolds, just keep telling them to leave and they eventually go away.") but means that the class skill bonus is only an edge you can have, not an inherent faculty.
In a number of games I have used the demoralize function of Intimidation on an opponent I wanted to get information out of. The first successful Intimidation reduces my opponents ability to resist successive demoralize attempts, and after ten rounds of repeated Intimidation my dungeon masters have allowed that I met the requirements for out of combat Intimidation and shifted the target's attitude to that forced friendly I spoke of above. Unfortunately, since Intimidation is a standard combat action, doing this restricts your character from making actual attacks (I will get back to this later). Usually this tactic is best for the cleanup period of combat; after your Barbarian rage has worn off (fatigue does not effect Intimidation), when you are otherwise prevented from attacking, or after the big scary is already defeated.
Even intimidated, why would the character stop fighting and be forced friendly, rather than run away or surrender? If an opponent can get to Frightened or Panicked then I would see the ending of Combat, otherwise he just fights Shaken, and your buddies wail on him.
For those that find the Intimidation rules lacking I offer the following optional rules:
Perform, Diplomacy, and Bluff as Intimidation: These skills are the arts of social manipulation. Not to negate the utility of the Intimidation skill, but the right kind of show, negotiation, or trick can scare the bejeebies out of me. For game balance purposes I recommend a -10 penalty (not stacking with the rushed Diplomacy penalty) when attempting to use these skills to Intimidate your opponent.
Why allow other skills to be used instead of intimidate? Having ranks in Profession (Merchant) does not allow a character to substitute for Craft (Trinket) even with a negative modifier. The synergy from Bluff is used to represent what you are intending. Additional synergy with Diplomacy and Perform would be more in keeping with precedent. I don't feel it is necessary to have additional synergies, but rule zero is always in effect, right?
Amazingly Demoralizing: If, when you demoralize an opponent in combat your Intimidation check exceeds their resistance roll by ten or more, then that opponent is shaken for ten rounds instead of one. I said I would get back to this.
How about a slight modification? If the Intimidation check exceeds the Resistance roll by 20 or more, then the opponent is frightened. If the opponent is already shaken or frightened, then he goes to panicked. The 20 point spread reduces the impact of luck on this effect. A 10 point spread between even combatants is just an unlucky roll of the dice. Overcoming a 20 point spread is mastery of the style. Characters of similar levels will have a difficult time exceeding Shaken, but a very skillful intimidator versus a low level opponent has a pretty good chance of getting the increased effect.
Interrogation: Interrogation allows you to extract information out of an unwilling opponent. Interrogating a target takes at least ten minutes of interaction. The target must be restrained from leaving, already Intimidated or bound, and they receive the same bonus to resist that they would receive on a Sense Motive check to resist a Bluff: +5 if revealing the information would put them at some risk, +10 if revealing the information would put them in significant risk, and +20 if their very life depends on the secrecy of the information you want to know.
This addition to the Intimidate skill helps further define how the skill interacts in the world, and really splits it apart from Diplomacy. Diplomacy is the art of both parties agreeing, Intimidation is the art of getting what you want regardless of the other side's feelings. The omission of the use of torture in the description also allows good characters to use this skill and not violate alignment. While it could be argued interrogation should be a separate skill, the frequent usefulness of such a skill is doubtful, and adding further depth to an existing skill to increase its relevance in the game is preferred.
Negative Charisma Modifier: In the art of Intimidation ugly can be a bonus. Apply a charisma penalty to Intimidation checks, and Intimidation checks only, as though it were a bonus of equal numeric value.
In life, most dorks (low Charisma types) when angry look like clowns as they scream with the wrong tone, words, and/or body language. Sometimes, they will actually look intimidating, but that happens in spite of the negative modifier, not because it was enhanced by their low charisma. Ugly does not necessarily mean low Charisma. Freddy Krueger from Nightmare on Elm Street was all burned and ugly, but he definitely has Charisma.
Demoralize as an attack: Instead of demoralize being a standard combat action it is an attack action. This would let you switch out that last melee attack in a full attack action (with that less than amazing bonus) for a demoralize check.
Attack bonus to Demoralize: Add you base attack as a bonus to your Intimidation check to demoralize an opponent. This option works particularly well if you use demoralize as an attack.
Caster level to Demoralize: If, you use the demoralize as an attack option and add base attack bonus to demoralize checks, then adding your caster level as a bonus to you Intimidation check to demoralize an opponent instead of your base attack when Intimidating a target with a magical effect is also an option.
These three suggestions change the skill too much from the source material. Even bluff doesn't let the attacker use his attack bonus on the skill, it is used for the defender's opposed roll. Your suggested three Feats to increase the use of intimidation in combat are better balanced. If I can just substitute my poor attack to perform an intimidate check why take the improving Feats at all? Keep intimidation checks in combat as a standard action so the benefit of taking the feat is worth the opportunity cost.
Intimidation Feats
The Intimidation skill is somewhat lacking in feats (Persuasive, and Skill focus are the only ones), so here are a few to consider in your games. . .
I like all the feats and equipment you have listed.
I meant clean it up for submission to the Dragon editors. I apologize for being unclear in my first post.
My suggestion for a second article is one on Sense Motive. Other than opposing a Bluff/feint skill use, there isn't much reason to take more than five ranks in it {synergy with Diplomacy}. With further 'offensive' options of skill use, it could become more relevant in D&D. Being a defense is a great side effect, but it also needs to have an active use, preferably something social and combat related. Maybe by studying the fighting style {Sense Motive opposed check against bluff +attack bonus} you gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC. The social stuff is OK as written, but could use additional crunch and fluff as well.
While some of your options I disagree with, they are great ideas nonetheless. If you'll permit me though, I'll go on a little soapbox about one thing you mentioned because I feel that it is a common mistake made by a vast majority of D&D players:
Low Charisma = Ugly
You mentioned adding the penalty to a low charisma to your intimidate check instead of subtracting it, and I wholeheartedly disagree. It is a popular notion to consider Charisma as a trait of physical appearance. This went far enough to introduce Comeliness in the old Skills & Powers in 2nd ed AD&D, which was a subset of Charisma. But that is not what charisma means at all. Charisma is personal presence, whether through physical beauty, force of will, otherworldly power, etc. Someone can be ugly and have great personal power and persuasiveness. It matters little that you're ugly when it comes to intimidation–personal presence is what matters.
Intimidation is handled by different people in different ways, and that really is what ranks in the skill means. If you have 10 ranks in Intimidation, you are assumed to be well-versed in using body posturing, body language, and your own assets in doing so. A comely baroness with 10 ranks in intimidate would use her beauty, confidence and social status to coerce, just like an unruly thug with 10 ranks in intimidate would use strongarm tactics and brandished steel to unnerve.
But does this thug have a higher charisma than the comely baroness? He very well could, and that is the idea that a lot of RPers have a tough time grasping. A lot of roleplayers use Charisma as a dump stat, citing 'ugliness' or some other physical or social shortcoming as the reason. Truth is, whether you're ugly or not, a low charisma means that you are meek, not that you are ugly. Few will pay attention to you and fewer still will be awed by your presence.
This meekness can come from many factors and take many forms. The half-orc barbarian may have a low charisma simply because he is not intelligent enough to use his size and strength to intimidate, or he may be so chaotic and disagreeable that his opinions are generally viewed with disdain. Even in an untrained intimidate roll, he may jeer and grunt while beating his chest, but other fighters may see this as mad instead of intimidating.
Those are my thoughts. I hope they help you and other D&D players. Everyone plays their own way, but the charisma matter is a core concept much misunderstood.
Charisma isn't just looks, it's also force of personality and things like that, isn't it? Therefore wouldn't a negative charisma modifier -be- a negative? If one isn't confident in themselves most likely someone else would see that and it would be a negative, other then that, I like.
I'm collecting all kind of stuff from this forum (classes, PrC, feats, etc), translating them (my players are stupid ) and printing to use as an extended PHB in my campaign. It's already 50 pages long, this post will surely be there as well. ;)
Hmm, I need to play a character that is "very attractive" yet has a low charisma... hmmm the RP value of that is ripe.
Souza the CL to Intimidate should only be used in place of BAB when you are adding BAB to Intimidate already.
Guardian5 brought up a number of issues:
1 minute (10 rounds) of Intimidation, like 1 minute (10 rounds) of Diplomacy, is necessary to make a non-combat Intimidation/Diplomacy check. 10 consecutive, successful, in-combat Intimidation checks has been substituted for a successful non-combat Intimidation check in a couple of my games. It seems to work out, particularly seeing as how you either start and finish the combat that way, or you only get to that point in the cleanup rounds of combat.
I don't know about y'all, but in my Hack N Slash games we stay in combat rounds to divvy treasure, ransack bodies, search the rooms, and play little cat and mouse games with NPCs. We can also get a little overzealous as far a interparty conflict; I have intimidated my party members, picked their pockets, both started and resolved lethal and non-lethal combat amongst the party members, and this is all just in character. Had my friend Kenny tell me, "Are you gonna let me get away with that?" my answer in that case, as always, was, "Heck no, lets roll!" A couple of players (thieves) like to just periodically tell the other players "Spot, sense motive" cause they have already passed notes to the GM stealing your stuff.
Off topic, anyway.Other Skills as Intimidation
I stand by the ability to perform an Intimidate with or without the penalty. The penalty is just inspired by the idea of using Diplomacy to Intimidate. I have a problem in that some Intimidations are really Bluffs. Particularly if you are indicating somewhat believable stuff like, "I killed Trogdor the burninator and now I'm gonna kill you." You have two options: Force a free action Bluff check into the action, or let the Bluff skill get used to Intimidate. That is if you believe that what is said has anything to do with how well an Intimidation check works, technically it doesn't. Further, the idea is get the Intimidation Function more use by opening it to other skills.
Amazingly Intimidated
Umm, I don't like the fear rules. I think that forced flight is sorta a weak play
, but that's just me. If you like the idea of stacking the fear penalties, go for it. I just think that an extended duration of penalty affect is more effective and doesn't "cheat" you out of the opportunity to use that penalty against the opponent. Besides I threw a feat for fear level stacking "potent and extreme demoralize" otherwise you might want to think along the lines of "Epic Uses for Intimidate" 30/60 over for frightened/panicked probably works.Also, fear effects already stack. Technically using the rule as I writ' down you can do what you are wanting to do without the 20 point spread. First check puts them at shaken, amazing for a minute. Second check, two rounds later, succeeds amazing for a minute meaning that they go into frightened for 8 rounds then go back to shaken for 2, likewise for panicked. Using the extended duration on amazing demoralizations lets you use the function in combat tactically, not win every fight without swinging cause you dropped points into the "all mine enemies run screaming from me" skill. Besides, what's so productive about an enemy being panicked for a single round? It's just you both loose your turn (stand next to each other and chat?), if the initiative steps work right for you. Sorta Barbarian Stunning Fist.
The only other way I've seen interrogation done is through RP and Diplomacy. The Diplomatic "negotiation" of interrogation...
. And RP, like you said, creativity abounds.The BAB, CL, and Demoralize as an Attack. Like I posted last time, Ive played with them some amount. I actually like the as an attack thing. BAB makes the skill work for more people, and really work for characters that actually have the skill. It also balances the HD value in the equation, if that's what you want to do. CL, umm magic is scary, at least as scary as the sword swing so deftness in either is in my setting the same thing.
The way I play D&D can get a bit wacky
Tree people and flying fish man! And when I play rule play games I usually let my players get away with a few things 
Its their party. But I can see where the tested rule breaks through to many other rules
Then I make a feat.
- off of training time and back into real work, :fight!: this time for real 
"customers" their on the other end of my phone 
beep!One thing I want to pop in about the negative charisma modifier:
Charisma isn't just looks, it's also force of personality and things like that, isn't it? Therefore wouldn't a negative charisma modifier -be- a negative? If one isn't confident in themselves most likely someone else would see that and it would be a negative, other then that, I like.
Personality and confidence adds to charisma. Looks is one thing but I believe that personality plays just as an important parts as looks.
Expanded Intimidation Rules: I love the Interrogation section, and will add it I think. I also like the Favoured Enemy idea, and would probably use it at well, should that come up. That's about it though, although I have incorporated a version of Amazingly Demoralizing in the two feats I've created (see below). The rest of it either doesn't fit, is too powerful, or too...clunky.
Intimidation Feats: Why Combat Reflexes as a prereq for a lot of these? I don't get it. What's that got to do with demoralizing an opponent? Most of your feats are unbalanced, either too powerful or too weak. There's also too many; only a fighter would really have a hope of becoming a true demoralizer. And a caution: the way you've worded Greater Demoralize, the char could full-attack one target, and demoralize a totally different one.
Here's what I've come up with for Intimidation-based feats, that I think are balanced without being overpowered. I'll be adding these to my feats list, assuming they pass the feedback-gauntlet. (And, incidentally, I would then also be altering the almost-never-taken Improved Feint to become similar to Improved Demoralize...: )
Demoralize, Improved [Combat]
Source: Heavily adapted from the_one_true_shea’s post, Regdar’s Repository, Wizards.COMmunity Boards.
Prerequisites: Intimidate 4 ranks.
Benefit: You can make an Intimidate check to demoralize an opponent in combat as a move action, or as an attack action. You gain a +4 bonus to your Intimidate checks to demoralize in combat.
Normal: Demoralizing an opponent in combat is a standard action.
Demoralizing Presence [Combat]
Source: Heavily adapted from the_one_true_shea’s post, Regdar’s Repository, Wizards.COMmunity Boards.
Prerequisites: Cha 13; Demoralize, Improved; Intimidate 10 ranks.
Benefit: You can make an Intimidate check to demoralize an opponent against any valid target within 30 feet, taking a –4 penalty to your check if your target is outside your threat range. If your demoralize opponent check exceeds your target’s resistance roll by 20 or more, your opponent becomes frightened for one round, then shaken for one round.
Normal: You can only demoralize a target within your threat range. Demoralize opponent only causes the target to be shaken for one round.
Intimidating equipment: Flat-out hate this section, sorry. You do realize that with the way you've named your bonuses, it's easily possible to gain a PLUS NINE (!!!) bonus to your intimidation checks through your equipment list, without even resorting to magic? Umm...no. I would, however, allow a person to gain a +2 bonus to Intimidation through the right equipment (face paint, mask, whatever). Minor circumstance bonuses depending on the situation as well.
Intimidating magic items: The skill bonuses on the armor would be fine, so long as they're calc'd properly. (I didn't bother to check that.) Fearful weapon ABSOLUTELY NOT! Not only is it incredibly powerful, especially with all the bonuses you've given to the intimidation skill--it would also be a major pain in the butt to play out. Every...single...hit...would require a contest roll? Ummm, no. Thanks. : )
Overall though, some really good ideas, some of which I'm incorporating into my own campaigns. Thanks, and I can't wait to see your posts on other skills!
The first example is of an opponent of higher level then the PCs that I either don't want them to fight, or know that they will be slaughtered if they do. The second example is of an opponent of lower or same level as the PCs. Both examples use the following rule:
If the character/s succeeds the DC ## “d20 + HD + Wisdom bonus + saves against fear” check by 5 or more, the first option will be read. If he succeeds, the second option will be read. If he fails, the third option will be read. If he fails by 5 or more, the fourth option will be read.
1: The wizard is trying to frighten you. He doesn’t look scared, more so bored with having to deal with you.
2: The wizard is trying to frighten you. You can’t tell if he is scared of you, or bored of you.
3: You are suddenly aware of how frightening the wizard truly is.
4: The wizard appears to be much, much stronger than you. His words seem very accurate.
-Me
I *love* a lot of this article, Shea. Some I'm *yoink*ing for my own campaigns, some I'm saying no to. Here's my thoughts:
:bounce:Ahehehhm,
I was pretty sure the interrogation option was golden, I could swear I've seen some or another interrogation methods in netbooks my friends have, maybe a feat, but I don't think this one matches up with any. You are verbose, please continue with any particular clunks you see.
"Why Combat Reflexes as a prereq for a lot of these?" - its the prereq for Imp. feint, I take it to imply that those free actions are a symptom for general presence and control of oneself in combat - confused people aren't scary.
"Most of your feats are unbalanced, either too powerful or too weak."
yipe! I liked them, uh, I'm guessing that supreme was too powerful and improved was too weak. Subtle Intimidation? how about a different one for the stacking?
Lasting Impression[GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Improved Demoralize, Intimidate 8 ranks.
Benefit: When you demoralize a target in combat that target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to your Intimidation ranks. Shaken is the first of three levels of fear. When a character that would become shaken is already shaken they become frightened instead, and when a character would become shaken is already frightened they become panicked instead.
Normal: The fear effect of demoralize lasts for one round.
"the char could full-attack one target, and demoralize a totally different one."
Yep yep, "I'm cutting your friend to ribbons but I'm looking at you boy!"
"almost-never-taken Improved Feint"
Hey! I give that to lots npcs it’s a great feat. I royally controlled some combat scenarios with Garn Drall human, 1st sorcr, 4th rogue, 4th fight. Nobody ever knew what hit them, then he drowned - pooled the points into bluff not swim.
Benefit: You can make an Intimidate check to demoralize an opponent in combat as a move action, or as an attack action. You gain a +4 bonus to your Intimidate checks to demoralize in combat.
Sorry IndyP, but feats in the srds don't give that many bonuses in one package. Either an action alter or a skill bonus. Ok, the run feat, but anyway this bonus is like skill focus (-1) and the improved feint feat (+1) applied to Intimidation. With a skill req that puts it into 1st level hands. 1st levels shouldn't be that scary. Add skill focus (Intimidate) maybe, still in dedicated 1st level human hands?
Benefit: You can make an Intimidate check to demoralize an opponent against any valid target within 30 feet, taking a –4 penalty to your check if your target is outside your threat range. If your demoralize opponent check exceeds your target’s resistance roll by 20 or more, your opponent becomes frightened for one round, then shaken for one round.
Ok, this one I like but without the 20 point over. Again, double ups on one feat. SRDs have mostly singular benefit feats, a lot of the supplements that a lot of players avoid regularly have two and three function modifications per feat. The -4 outside of threat range is good, you can always ad penalties. Might do a little *yoink*ing myself ;)
"You do realize that with the way you've named your bonuses, it's easily possible to gain a PLUS NINE"
Really? cool, umm why is that bad? What if you are playing in a non-magic world. I wanted to give an example of the different items with different type bonuses, oh and I checked (dragons musk, full body woad, and interrogation kit will net you a +12 on interrogations, +10 general). I like it when my players use things to do things. Remember hardly any classes gets Intimidate as a class skill, and HD just keeps going up.
"Every...single...hit...would require a contest roll? Ummm, no. Thanks. : )"
Actually on second thought your right about that one, if anything it should be just a will save vs whatever appropriate DC, ... But then it wouldn't be Intimidation... hmmm think about it in a bit. Nobody Interested in posting to my other article? Well now there shall be three: Intimidation, Initiative, and then there was Diplomacy. :D
Guardian5 I made sure to talk a little about sense motive too you'll see. Its cool really, umm tell me what you think.
I think I have decided, I'm going to do all the social skills but I'm gonna intersperse them with discussions of more abstract functions of rules like initiative, fear, synergy bonuses. If the plan works and the dice roll right on my other performances (work) I will be able to keep the weekly article thing going.
Question, Modern? Is Redgar's not the proper place for Modern talk? Or are the majority of the articles D&D 'cause of, ya know, momentum? I haven't located a similar venue in the modern section.
[Regdar says, this forum was a test case, so it is D&D only. If Modern wanted a similar forum, that might be arranged.]
You mentioned adding the penalty to a low charisma to your intimidate check instead of subtracting it, and I wholeheartedly disagree. It is a popular notion to consider Charisma as a trait of physical appearance. This went far enough to introduce Comeliness in the old Skills & Powers in 2nd ed AD&D, which was a subset of Charisma. But that is not what charisma means at all. Charisma is personal presence, whether through physical beauty, force of will, otherworldly power, etc. Someone can be ugly and have great personal power and persuasiveness. It matters little that you're ugly when it comes to intimidation–personal presence is what matters.
Just what I wanted to say. Let me point out however that Comeliness actually goes back as far as 1st edition. ;) It was a seventh stat found in the original 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. It was even derived a bit differently than the others. The subsets of Charisma in Skills and Powers were Leadership and Appearance. Other than the use of a Charisma penalty to be used as a bonus for intimidate, I really liked this article.
The problem with demoralize is that it only last one round. Thus, if you demoralize someone, when your initiative rolls around again, they are no longer shakened. Demoralizing indefinitely is a losing proposition.
1: The wizard is trying to frighten you. He doesn’t look scared, more so bored with having to deal with you.
2: The wizard is trying to frighten you. You can’t tell if he is scared of you, or bored of you.
3: You are suddenly aware of how frightening the wizard truly is.
4: The wizard appears to be much, much stronger than you. His words seem very accurate.
In general rule play I, like you, take the magnitude of success into account when describing to the players. RAW, and whats not, was considered carefully when I wrote this article. I think that 5, 10, and 20 over and unders should have a play ramification all the time. Only a couple of skills have over and under rules codified, like balance, but every skill could, perhaps even should, have them.
I was at a five, now I'm at a four, 
If I hadn't had the negative charisma thing do you think it would have stayed at a five?
Four is Good! Four is Great! 
Shea should learn to Appreciate! 
Intimidation doesn't have to be about you, it can be about the people you know and the connections you have. That's why I wouldn't place intimidation on appearance, if a Hulking Warrior can be nullified by Hold Person, wizards not scared. If hulking Warrior knows people who won't be so easily quelled - wizards scared.
Note: aid other is referenced in my gather information check a number of times. :D Probably why I am so surprised I forgot it in this one. My best explanation is that I was focusing so much on the individual, "Am I intimidating enough?" thematic element that group intimidation, probably the most useful and realistic method, was neglected.
IRL numbers are the number one factor, "You and what army?" is part of an intimidation check, and that makes leadership very intimidating.
Anyway, I like the feats that you included, but have to mention:
"Why Combat Reflexes as a prereq for a lot of these?" - its the prereq for Imp. feint, I take it to imply that those free actions are a symptom for general presence and control of oneself in combat - confused people aren't scary.
It's actually Combat Expertise, not Combat Reflexes...which is a lot more appropriate. A lot of my players confuse them as well. Combat Expertise implies that you have the intelligence and thought to continue to defend yourself and keep track of attacks headed your way while doing something else.
I'm not sure I like the optional rules, esp. the one about adding your BAB or CL to the check. Remember, your max ranks are based on your hit die, so anyone maxing out the skill would essentially be doubling your HD vs another creatures. That is excessive against a modified HD roll. When they do things like Caster Level checks (which IMO is the closest thing to intimidate's HD check), there's not much room for error. Plus it gives kinda an unfair advantage to pure casters and pure fighters. Really, Monks, Rangers, Rogues, and cross classed creatures shouldn't be picked on just because the others have either full BAB or full CL. The CHA penalty thing has been beaten to death.
For the items, I think one item (something like "MW intimidation kit") can have a +2 bonus, just like MW tools for other skills. That's even listed in the PHB (last item on pg 130) That item can represent the mask, the makeup, etc. and can be RP without too much difficulty, or without unbalancing it too badly.
The equipment I like except for the fearful weapon. I think maybe limit that to critical hits instead of any hit that does damage. That's more in line with other items of its price range, but doesn't negate the ability completely.
[Quote = pawsplay]The problem with demoralize is that it only last one round. Thus, if you demoralize someone, when your initiative rolls around again, they are no longer shakened. Demoralizing indefinitely is a losing proposition.
Well, it is if you only do it for one round. That's why I like some of the feats that extend the time. Also, that is a -2 to ALL their stuff. That includes their attacks on you which could be the difference between them hitting you and missing you.
Plus, think of the rest of the party. They will always go between your turn and your next turn and they can reap the benefits of penalties for a round as well.
Yeah, I agree. Besides, making low charisma a bonus instead of a penalty for a warrior type just seems unbalanced to me. I like the warrior having a need for charisma from time to time. If you want to represent the "ugly is a bonus" idea, you would need a 7th ability score: beauty (or comeliness, as they called it in the Unearthed Arcana of 1st Edition). Low beauty would give you big penalties to social interactions and such, but a bonus to intimidate, while high beauty would give you bonuses to social stuff, but no penalty to intimidate.
It's actually Combat Expertise, not Combat Reflexes...which is a lot
more appropriate.
You're telling me
... why did nobody point that out? That is what I get for writing this over the span of an evening. I didn’t confuse them, I, like, got turned around and distracted, and I have no excuse for mistaking a feat I've given my characters like three times, and my NPCs all the time. Sheesh! No wonder Indyp didn’t respond to me! Completely blatantly wrong answer, ok, so they are supposed to say combat expertise ok. Replace reflexes with expertise – that is the way it should be. The idea isn’t to use the multiple attacks concept but to mirror improved feint. [grumble] cut and past ... drat! [/grumble] That was a good bluff of a response though, don’t ya think?The HD/BAB/CL/Balancing thing. My problem, or provocation if you will, is that even though you can demoralize untrained you are very unlikely to succeed. Unless you max your ranks in Intimidate the skill rarely succeeds. If the demoralize function is going to see more play time it has to be both achievable and useful. Adding you BAB to the check, when you are actually threatening someone with physical violence (basically threatening to attack the target) means you are more likely to succeed. The same goes for adding your caster level when threatening a character with a spell. Those are not intended to be constant bonuses, but circumstantial modifiers.
The process could get more complicated, but more realistic - add the difference of your BAB/Caster Levels as a bonus (or penalty! ) when threatening with the appropriate mode. In case your curious, social threats, and just plain bluster without the threat of violence would not add your BAB/caster level to your demoralize check (or your non-combat intimidations either). Proficiency with a deadly weapon is simply (actually: (sorry) no argument or special training necessary) Intimidating. I think the same would hold for magic: "Do you realize how big this fireball is going to be? Can you even conceive of the reflex DC?"
See what I’m saying?
You don’t have to have max ranks to climb a wall. You don’t need max ranks to Knowledge something, you shouldn’t have to have max ranks to have a chance to demoralize a reasonably challenging opponent. The way the rules are written Intimidation is only worth attempting on targets smaller, and lower level than you, and that is if you have max ranks. I want to play a game where my halfling fighter can browbeat an equally leveled minotaur, cause he is just plain good at being scary. I want having max ranks in intimidation to hold the same awe of utility as having max ranks in jump or tumble, perform or bluff, how about use magic device or heal.
That neg CHA thing is a little sore now isn’t it? As for the fearful weapon, yeah I see that "too many dice rolls" thing now but I still cant think of a good way to make intimidation into a weapon. Unless its something like "this weapon gives you +5 to demoralize an opponent, and allows you to target an opponent up to 30' away from you regardless of your threat range." That might be something there.
And the kit? Umm, the musk may be a bit much but the mask is good. Really, it's a good item. It’s a real world item that is used by Bushmen and Samurai. It should be kept a separate item so that it may be MWed on its own, become the coveted item of a well played character, or can be used as the base to create items similar to hunting masks and crowns of command, how bout a "crown of blasting" crafted into a war mask instead of a crown... hey! I should have added "crown" to my nonexistent list of items for aiding diplomacy. ... Yeah, amazing the things you forget when you put yourself in a rush. Hence practicing: deadlines.
Umm, yeah I think the most important rule variants presented here are the ones that extend the duration of the demoralize effect (remember fear states stack inherently), adding duration allows you to use the function tactically. I agree (mildly ... threat range?) that teamwork can put the RAW demoralize rules to use in combat (“me and that army”), but.. I don’t think there is any unbalance in adding duration to the demoralize effect. IMnsHO, its inbalancing. No matter how you slice it a single six second round of –2 morale is not much of anything, when considering that you are spending your standard action to make the attempt. Its not a winner of a tactical action, no matter how you use it SO in a combat simulation game it could probably use some beef.
Ok, ''no matter how you use it" might be over strong, but the only real way to win with intimidate is with max ranks, enlarge(sp), and leadership. Then you win every time, every round, round after round, as you waste actions that could be spent damaging your opponent yelling at them instead, but hey they are at a - 2 to hit you, and they are standing right next to you. That is the other thing that has gotta go. You should be able to demoralize people that are farther away than in your threat range. What about the archer? Does a ready arrow threaten enough to intimidate, Umm, not in D&D melee.. but in real life an arrow drawn on me will scare the stars out of me (specially those funky tri-blade hunting arrows my cousin has), and that is from more than 30' feet away.
A real life mind game for you:
You stand on a grass green hill. As you look out along the next rise you can see the movement of several hundred men. They are an army. Their red banners fly with jagged leaps in the spring wind. They are moving to attack a city that you have never seen. A chill runs down your spine as you consider what would happen if those men came to your city. Then the sounds of hooves meet your ears. You spin to spot the source of the sounds, and some 30 yards away you see one of those men. A metal killing machine sits atop a horse, and bearing a cruel spear. You freeze. Your heart skips a beat. The army man sees you. That long spear raises its point to draw a deadline straight at you.
What do you do?
I think you should be resisting a demoralize check.
"Can I intimidate him?"
"No."
"Why?"
"Cause you can't"
"Why?"
"Because I said so."
Intimidate isn't a free action thing, you've got to do something imposing. If it's a free action, people could blink and miss it.
Oh and instead of demoralizing for 10 rounds (a minute
), you could make it so that your Intimidate last for 1 round plus one additional round for every so many points you beat your opponents check by. I think 3 would be reasonable.I don't like the BAB/CS bonus to Intimidate, it's just too big of a bonus to be applying to the ability. As far as the feats, if you get the ability to Intimidate as a free action, then that will really mess things up, especially if you can Intimidate everyone around you or even to a range. By the end, you could intimidate everyone within 30 ft. of you without doing anything in your turn.
OK, there are two things here
1 - BAB/CL to Intimidate - Have you run the numbers on the average chance to Intimidate an opponent vs. the average chance to hit in melee?
I have.
When cross-referencing a fighter with a + 2 str mod with MM entries for equivalent CR = the fighter will succeed 90% of the time (I average by assuming a 10 on the roll BTW not some cracky statistics or anything).
Any character (that has MAX class skill ranks in Intimidate, and a + 2 charisma modifier) will still fail an Intimidation check 90% of the time.
I am not exaggerating. Run the numbers yourself you'll see. (use equal LV/CRs)
If you add the BAB/CL to the check (when appropriate) you will get a mild improvement in performance at lower levels (bringing the average on Intimidate success closer to the same percentage as a successful melee attack), and only slightly improved capacity at Higher levels ...
OK, I'll admit after 15th level your average to succeed goes up to about 99%, but If you drop in the differential algorithm I mentioned last post you will get an Intimidate possibility spread about equal to your likelihood to hit with a melee attack and remember we are talking the best of the best here.
2
Intimidate isn't a free action thing, you've got to do something imposing. If it's a free action, people could blink and miss it.
Err, nope. I disagree. Sometimes you Intimidate someone by walking in the room. Sometimes simply learning someone's name panics. Have you ever done that little 2 sec (if it even takes that long) jaw jerk move that you see on movies? A leveled (double entendre!) stare can, and should, be able to "cow" an entire room. And yes, sometimes it passes by before anyone sees - that's what happens when your roll was low. You see?
Maybe a Intimidating Reputation [General] feat is in order? Something to cover that "Dread Pirate Roberts?!?" feel that exists both in literature and real life as well.
Something else, a real life happening, occurred to me - "Intimidating Locations" some places are scary. Give a location a standing Intimidation check that you have to resist or be demoralized while walking around there, eh?
Oh and instead of demoralizing for 10 rounds (a minute
I may have even gone too far with the amazing demoralize. That "Xover concept" (notice how I have to actually define it for use here) however blatantly sanguine with the d20 rules is not used very often in SRD. Just in case you haven't noticed NOT ONE skill in the SRD uses it. No, jump does not use an Xover. The DC is declared before you jump. I'm certain that allot of players game with an "open check" variant of Jump, or allow the "rapid movement" function of the other move skills to be applied post-roll in the circumstance of a massive success, but the only function found in SRD that uses the Xover concept is dada dada .. .Turning! ........................
Hey, I want feedback on this one! Change the Intimidation check to use the Turning table.. turn damage becomes rounds effected, and the command/destroy heuristic becomes the dividing line for massive success that allow you to push a target into frightened. Turning is inherently multi-target too. I might need to restrict the initial range, and then increase it with feats.
Something simply must be done. Intimidation is a skill that promises so much, but delivers so poorly in combat. Really - the enlarge spell is Intimidate's best friend. Too bad the casters don't get Intimidate as a class skill. That bonus from enlarge just about makes up for the deficit. Probably ought to cast it on the fighter anyway, then you might actually scare something for a round without even stunning the opponent! They get to hit you back! You didn't do them any permanent damage and they are still in melee range of you.
The simple answers - some sort of bonus that puts the numbers success percentages into a reasonable place, and some sort of method to extend the duration the demoralization. With those two improvements Demoralizing opponents will be of use, until then Demoralizations are for use against the widdle enemies, and by the DM.
In general rule play I, like you, take the magnitude of success into account when describing to the players. RAW, and what's not, was considered carefully when I wrote this article. I think that 5, 10, and 20 over and unders should have a play ramification all the time. Only a couple of skills have over and under rules codified, like balance, but every skill could, perhaps even should, have them.
I think you just nailed the point I was just about to post. Degree of success should matter for many skills, especially intimidate!
But I still feel that Intimidate in combat is a waste of time. First of all, a standard action means you should get a real benefit from using it. A fighter will be better served attacking an opponent or aiding another 99% of the time rather than use intimidate that MAY cause the enemy to become shaken for a single round. Wow... so I lose an attack just so that the enemy will be slightly poorer at fighting? How swell.
Because of this I've also thought to expand the effects of intimidate by higher degrees of success, although mine are a bit more radical. A successful check causes the enemy to become shaken. That's fine already, not a lot but at least something.
But when you succeed by more than 10 you're really scary... in fact let's say it causes the enemy to become frightened . This means that in addition to penalties, the enemy will disengage and try to move away from the intimidator. If there is nowhere to run, he will fight but will still be shaken.
When you succeed by 20 you're just petrifying. This amount of fear causes the enemy to become panicked . This means that the enemy will flee in terror, dropping any held items and run full speed away from the intimidator (often causing an AoO). If cornered he will be cowering, unable to attack and giving attackers a +2 bonus to hit him.
What do you think? it becomes more worthwhile now doesn't it? Yet there is still an aspect of the skill I feel is severely lacking; Duration. One round is hardly a time at all. Having a enemy run away from you for one round might still be pretty good, but the chances of making such a good check isn't that high, at least not against opponents worthwhile.
In my own game I've simply let the duration last for the remainder of the combat, or until something changes in regard to intimidation. When you've scared away the goblins, you don't see them returning after a few seconds do you? (unless rallied by leader). Of course, things can change this. Reinforcements to your side, the intimidator dropping in combat, leader rallying (or ready to kill you if you flee) can change things quite a bit..
However if you feel that this is too vague and complex, I'd go for 1 minute myself. It's easy to measure (10 rounds) and it corresponds with similar effects such as turning/rebuking undead. And besides, its not that far fetched that after such time you regain some courage.
If you for some reason think that 10 rounds is way too long, especially when it's main villains and worse - player characters that are affected, you could be kind an offer a new check to resist every round (as with 3.5 hold person). The DC would remain the intimidator's original check of course, unless he's trying to intimidate again. This way a poor roll against a SKILL will not result in a lost fight.
In the end I have only one or two issues. First is the part where you have to physically threaten someone with a melee weapon. So archers cannot intimidate well? Why not? I'd think a heavy crossbow aimed at my head would be just as scary as a sword pointed at me. Even worse, does sorcerers and wizards need daggers to intimidate foes? Even after showing themselves capable of killing with spells alone?
In my game you may use intimidate even without weapons at all, if circumstances permit, or even at range. I think the range should be limited to 30', so that arrows can hit precisely, faces be seen clearly, and words understood.
The last issue is numbers. The skill description clearly states that intimidate only works against one foe at a time. But why should there be such a limit? Of course, a single fighter should have a real hard time of causing a tribe of goblins to run away (that's for epic intimidate), but 3-4 goblins shouldn't be so hard, especially when you've already killed twice that number of them already.
My suggestion: Each target of intimidate beyond the first adds a -2 penalty to the intimidate check. That way a fighter would need 18 more on his intimidate check than the enemy to cause 5 of them to retreat. Let's say 5 goblins all roll 10s, that still means the DC is 25 for a fighter to accomplish... quite high IMO. I think you could well lower the penalty to -1 per additional target without unbalancing it.
But shouldn't you need feat x and x2 in order to do these things?
I say no. There are enough feats out there already, and at least two than can affect the intimidate skill. Although there may be some feats that can bring something new to the table (fearful presence etc.), I like to think that the Blackguard that spent all his feats on combat feats such as great cleave should still be able to use his maxed out intimidate skill incredibly well.
Remember that feats are few and far between for most characters, only fighters gets a lot of them, and they usually have to specialize in other tactics than intimidation alone.
And if you make them feats it becomes impossible for a 1st level warrior to scare away a goblin. Now it's just hard (DC 17 by my account, if the goblin rolls a ten. Size does matter!)
About items... ok a scary mask is a scary mask. Perhaps +2 circumstance bonus to intimidate, just like a masterwork kit aids a crafter. The others are redundant or plain unbalanced.
Otherwise, good post Shea.
1d20 + Intimidator's ranks + CHA mod vs 1d20 + clvl or HD + WIS bonus + other mod on save vs fear
If we consider this (very roughly) an equation, then we can subtract parts of it. Let's also assume a sort of "average worst case" scenario, where the opponents are roughly equal to each other.
1d20 can be subtracted from each side of the equation and ignored.
CHA mod and WIS bonus, in most cases, if optimized on their respective characters, will be similar, and can be subtracted from each side of the equation and ignored.
Ranks can go up to clvl +3 = max 23;
clvl or HD can go up to 20;
These are roughly equal and so you can subtract 20 from each side and retain only a slight positive modifier on the side of the Intimidator.
Leaving us with misc bonus to save vs fear;
Paladins cannot be intimidated; Others near a Paladin may receive a +4 save vs fear, thus erasing the earlier higher number on the side of the Intimidator due to ranks.
Though, as a mitigating factor, most characters will neither have a bonus to save vs fear nor be receiving one from another, so this may not factor in terribly often.
What does all this come down to? In summary, assuming all other things being roughly equal, no matter how much you level you're going to only have a 50/50 chance of intimidating someone who is near your level. That's not particularly amazing odds, considering the skill point investment on characters with few skill points (barb, fighter, etc) and its aftereffects (hostility).
In fact, in the end, it's much better to put the points into Diplomacy and wind up having friends; it uses the same CHA mod, *and* it receives many more bonuses from synergy. My interpretation of all of this is that the game designers wanted to allow the possibility of an intimidating character, they didn't want people to look at it as a primary method of negotiation, hence Diplomacy being, by and large, the better option. Higher numbers, more synergies, more pleasant aftereffects.
That's not to say that Intimidation can't be useful; you pointed out that you can use it against many other people who are lower level than you with greater effect. This is true (and some of the Sense Motive rules put forth in the Complete books help you determine the relative "levels" of NPC's); but bear also in mind that many DM's constantly pit you against foes who are your level or greater. So this point becomes a bit of finesse on the part of the player, and requires one to know one's DM well so as to determine when one can use the skill.
Summary: Using Intimidate can achieve results, but seems a bit like swimming upstream.
eudas
It's fitting than these classes have that skill, as it's basically the "diplomacy of the sword." A good fighter doesn't always need to fight, he can just scare people away.
And the d20 rolls does matter. A 1st level fighter with cha 12 and max ranks can intimidate a 20th level cleric with wis 18. It's a long shot, but it CAN happen.
In combat intimidate is basically just to show off. Outside though it can be very useful. The 5th level fighter with maxed intimidate can intimidate a lot of people in a community. A 3rd level expert might not be a challenge in combat, but the person can still make your life difficult unless you put him straight. When combat is not an option, intimidate can be very useful.
1d20 + Intimidator's ranks + CHA mod [vs] clvl or HD + WIS bonus + other mod on save vs fear
This will give you, at level 20, maybe
1d20(10) + ranks(23) + cha(3) 36
[vs]
HD(20)+wis(2)+mod(+4) = 26
This means that a level 20 master intimidator could scare even another level 20character nearly all the time. Now that I think about it though, maybe that's *way* too much with synergies and items... Ok well if you kept the 1d20 roll on opposed and then as you said 50/50 but if you had the gear and some magic gear you could make that 80/20 which is very good for equal-level I think.
About length, maybe make it last for 1 round plus CHA bonus? That would work well me thinks.
I was watching some Akira Kurasoua, (7 Samurai and Hidden Fortress) and I noticed (amusingly to me) that my exact thought experiment presented earlier (a peasant being intimidated by a horseback rider well over 30' away) was the opening scene to hidden fortress - and recurring scene in 7 Samurai.
I can appreciate the vagaries of integrating the Intimidation skill into the combat rule set, but simply put "they got it wrong." Watch a movie, or hit the streets, fights are won and lost through fear. The end. No! seriously. Most fights don't degenerate to killing, never have, and a wound should actually frighten you more than most actions ever could. In many cinematic and historical situations characters have caused physical harm to another character in order to intimidate the target.
This article/piece is nearing the time of legacy, I will be presenting an upgraded version fairly soon. Question, particularly in regards to FreindsoftheDork:
Would a full revision of the skill itself be easier to digest, expanded feats being created off of that revised Intimidations skill? as opposed to the current method of having multiple components (core description, expansion feats for core, expansion rules, feats for expanded rules)?
let me put that another wayWith the amount of "upgrading" involved in this:
1) Do the recommendations for getting the most out of the RAW skill write-up seem out of place? or a nice "intro to the rabbit hole or revisions?"
2) Should I drop the "I rebuilding the skill from the ground up" concept into the piece earlier? Rewrite and include the whole skill?
3) Really the only reason I hesitate from using the following outline (generally) is the consideration of word count, which is a thing to consider when "publishing."
Intimidate 2.0 Heading Outline --
"How to use the Raw Skill"
"What's wrong with Raw"
"Core fix with feats"
"SR&D Intimidation Revision"
"SR&D Intimidation Feats"
"Scary equipment and how to use it"
And I'm gonna ditch the magic items, not that nifty, really really derivative, and not my cupatea when you get down to it.
http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html
This version of persuade is way better than the core rules, for my money.
I'd try and make the mechanics of persuade and intimidate work in ways as similar as possible, though the actual modifiers and results need not be anything like each other.
Intimidate:
Targets of Intimidate add wisdom OR charisma modifier on level checks to resist, whichever is higher. Social intimidation cows target, making them back off or treat you better. Circumstances does apply, an unarmed and shackled barbarian will not intimidate an emperor on his throne well. Victims may become less friendly afterwards, depending on situation and target.
To intimidate in combat you need to threaten the target(s) somehow (missile weapon, spells etc.) but need not be adjacent. The target(s) must be able to see you clearly and recognize you as a threat.
For every creature beyond the first you try to intimidate you receive a -2 modifier to you check. If you beat your opponent(s) by 10 or more they are frightened instead of shaken. If you beat it by 20 or more they are panicked. Frightened creatures flees as best as it can, by any means possible. If unable to do so it fights but still suffers from -2 morale penalty to attack rolls, saves, skill checks and ability checks. Panicked creatures flees heedless of danger and drops whatever it is holding (usually by a run action, causing an Attack of Opportunity). If cornered it cowers instead, taking no action. Creatures attacking cowering creatures are at +2 to attack roll. Intelligent creatures at likely to obey orders if cowering.
What do you think?
Fifty, I've seen those rules before and I think the logic behind "what’s wrong with diplomacy" is a bit off. The current system can work but needs an ok DM and perhaps a clarification rewrite.
As I see it, the problem isn't with Intimidation. the problem is with charisma. As others have noted, low charisma need not mean "ugly", but, truthfully, the game is confused over that, and (further) the game encourages people to use charisma as a dump stat. (This claim, i trust, needs no support; go to the CO boards if you need proof.)
The game allows characters to advance to 20th level, harrow the gates of hell, be sung about as a result, defeat illithid armies invading this plane, return to tell about it, but still to have a "force of personality" below an average human sheep farmer. This of course is not credible. But it is very rare for characters to put their level buffs into charisma, unless they cast with it or turn undead.
That is the problem, and confusion concerning charisma-based skills results. (As indeed, do many fallout consequences.) It's also, I suggest, not going to change until Charisma gives you a non-transferable discount for buying magic items or prevents you from leveling. Imagine how the game would change if you needed a charisma of 13 to get into any prestige class. Prestige, if it is really prestigious, should require force of personality. I know this is tangential to your general point, but it is still germane. Charisma is underused in the game, and remains so.
So you have developed intimidation rules that implicitly acknowledge this problem. Others responding to you suggest that DMs don't know what to make of the skill, and that's probably right too. Here's my insight into how to be more intimidating.
Get bonuses to your roll. (Clever, huh?)
Sure Bluff gives synergy, but (in the right circumstances) Knowledge skills could as well, as could profession.
Then there's circumstance bonuses. Draw a knife, tie up your target, and ask the DM for a circumstance bonus.
If you are a sorcerer, cast a minor illusion of green fire engulfing your hand which you then wave threateningly as if you are about to throw an energy-substitution fireball, and ask for a circumstance bonus. Or ghost sound, or any of several low level spells, and ask for the bonus.
This sort of thing can sell, especially because of the otherwise near-50-50 nature of the opposed check.
Low cha characters will always be considered guilty when suspected of wrongdoings, get higher prices from shopkeepers or innkeepers, get eaten by the dragon first, get less reward from nobles after rescuing their daughters, or simply be ignored most of the time.
Such characters will not be sung about specifically, and no matter how many times he saves the world he will not get much fame and glory. If the party saves the world, the party and their most notable members will be Fampus, the 6 charisma half orc will be considered a henchman at best, like no one knows the drummer of some very famous bands today.
For this reason alone charisma is not always a dump stat in our games, and my last fighter started with 16 charisma, another with 16 also, and the least one (ranger) with "just" 13.
In my drow campaign the Monk has only 10 charisma (minimum with point buy), and thus will be mostly ignored compared to 1 18 cha telepath and one 20 cha Fighter/Blackguard. The rogue in this group started with only 12, but later enhanced it to 16 with a cloak to become more a people-person.
So basically by making the non-mechanical part of charisma MATTER in game you make it less a dump stat. Otherwise if you want to "fix" it I would introduce action or fate points based off charisma, get inspiration from UA, Star Wars d20, or Warhammer FRPG for details on how these points works.
Nice work, though, overall. You did a much better job with the post than I see many people doing.
Some counterpoint on Intimidate, aka, Why Intimidate Doesn't Get Used:
As a social function, i.e., getting NPCs to do what you want, it is often easier to use Bluff and/or Diplomacy. Diplomacy has fixed DCs which don't depend (modulo ad hoc DM circumstance modifiers) on your target at all -- a problem which is the subject of other threads. Bluff is contested by Sense Motive, which many people/creatures don't have, instead of Hit Dice/levels, which everyone does.
Additionally, Diplomacy lets you get what you want without cheesing off the other guy. Bluff may or may not, depending if they figure out you bluffed them. Intimidate automatically makes you enemies, and most PCs are plenty good at that without a game mechanic to back them up ;)
Sure, individual characters (barbarians, fighters) may not have the choice of Bluff/Diplomacy... but generally the party will.
As for demoralization -- you are giving up either an attack action, or possibly a full attack action, in order to attempt demoralization. Even if you were assured of success in demoralization, much of the time you will have a better option, even with a single attack.
If you are a barbarian, it's probably Piles of Power Attack time with a single attack -- you don't have to be conservative to avoid nerfing any iterative attacks you have. If you are a fighter, you probably have some kind of tactical options (e.g. trip, disarm, grapple) which will have a significant impact. (It also doesn't help that Charisma is often a dump stat for many fighters and barbarians.)
If you are a rogue... well, rogues have lots of skill points, but they also have a lot to invest in; many rogues have enough to cover that they never get to Intimidate. The times they are in melee but can't sneak attack are because 1) they are fighting something that can't be sneak attacked or 2) they are waiting for their flanking buddy to move into position. In case 1), many creatures that are immune to sneak attack are also immune to fear; if the creature is immune because of concealment or Fortification armor, fine. In case 2), Intimidating might be a better option than taking a single non-sneak attack. On the other hand, you have to ask what a rogue is doing in melee if they can't use sneak attack (yet)...
I'd agree that probably the most useful time to use Intimidate is in conjunction with some magical fear effect to push a foe into Frightened/Panicked. Another possibility is setting a foe up for the "one shot kill" -- if one (or more!) of your allies is going to launch a "save or die" type spell at your foe, that -2 to save against a spell or spells that could end the combat might be worth losing an attack for.
The suggestions here though offer some interesting ways to make Intimidate potentially useful. And I think Intimidate needs a little bit of help along these lines... right now, under just the rules as written, there are a lot of good reasons not to Intimidate, and only a few times when it is modestly useful.
What does all this come down to? In summary, assuming all other things being roughly equal, no matter how much you level you're going to only have a 50/50 chance of intimidating someone who is near your level. That's not particularly amazing odds, considering the skill point investment on characters with few skill points (barb, fighter, etc) and its aftereffects (hostility).
Hardly worth the investment - that’s the point. Investing skill points should return a benefit. Max class skill ranks gives you at best an even chance to succeed. If the jump skill worked that way it would be considered broken.
Eudas, intimidate is often used to scare those weaker than you. It's not meant to be effective against same level opponents. Also you can't just assume that ability modifiers will be the same for both sides, only a few classes use wisdom as prime, and few others have a lot in it. Also, fighters and barbarians have intimidate as class skill, not diplomacy. So it makes sense to have something in it (preferably maxed).
Even then the fighter is looking at best a 50/50 shot of success, unless of course you are intimidating characters of lower level. I have thought alot about this (obviously) and my best theory at this point is that Intimidate was intended for lower level non-combat antagonists.
-- It is not a skill meant to be used in combat, particularly a fair challenge. Oddly it seems more like a "non-violent" option to avoid a fight that has a conclusion that is not in doubt - ie - when your character should win the fight anyway. If it weren’t for the skill point investment I would say thats fine, but I want something for my skill points. I want something that will serve my character in a fair challenge.
1d20 + Intimidator's ranks + CHA mod [vs] clvl or HD + WIS bonus + other mod on save vs fear
Ok, I like the stable DC - makes Intimidate more like Diplomacy (a skill I think of as more broken than intimidate - see my Diplomacy article for clarification ) a skill most consider more "effective" than Intimidate. Diplomacy definitely works more often, anyway. Setting the DC like this would solve the primary problem (success ratio at max ranks ) but still leaves the skill rather pointless in combat.
Get bonuses to your roll. (Clever, huh?)
check this out
http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html
I found that variant along time ago and what I like the most about it is the modifiers. Risk vs Reward and Relationship modifiers are extremely pertinent to Intimidation, though in the case of Intimidation the more familiar you are with someone the less likely you are to Intimidate - familiarity breeds comfort not fear. Simply adding a set of riising and falling modifiers such as the ones provided for diplomacy there at giants in the playground would also solve the success ratio, particularly the risk reward analysis. And! you don’t need to rip off Mr. Burlew - just use the Bluff table for Intimidate and bueno.
I don't care how scary you can make yourself look, there are individuals who simply aren't going to be afraid of you.
Sorry to be sarcastic but, "Yeah they are called "mindless," "paladins," things with ridiculous numbers of HD, and creatures immune to fear... that’s why there are rules for these things.
What do you think?
I think I like your style ;)
1. Cha or Wis - No... why?
Best I can say if you wanna cross that score boundary go with something more like "Reactive vs Proactive" response. Basically - ask of the target "Are you Intimidating back?"
There could be a "free action Intimidation check" available when you are Intimidated in combat (demoralized ) that replaces your reactive level check - that is whats going on - Active Skill Check vs Reactive Level Check.
2. Clear and present danger - - I agree.
3. A -2 mod per additional target - El Bueno. Combined with the clear and present danger deal you get that situation where the ... lets say terrasque ... stomps the ground roars and checks to demoralize the whole party. Currently the tarassque can only attempt a demoralize from 15 feet, on one character.
One thing to do could be to make a demoralize check a free action, but one that must be triggered by another action - a "scary action." A standard action of "interaction" could of course qualify - but so would an attack. Limit demoralize attempts to one per round if you make it a free action though. That combos a little into the react or proact now doesn’t it... hmmm
Now, here is an idea for ya FotD.
4. Duration, xovers, and fear states.
I don’t know why I didn’t think of this till now but - how 'bout this duration for ya.
A demoralized target remains demoralized until they are able to succeed their (modified level check or... opposed intimidation check! ) at the DC set by your successful result, or the target sleeps. Then you don’t need to go into the xovers (nowhere in the SRD ). Really high DC = yeah they aint gettin over that .. today, and "fear states stack inherently" so it would only take three rounds to really panic someone. Now, three rounds - that’s not even half a minute! And, with this setup you could send that 1st level running "wee wee wee, all the way home"
And the big bad wolf said,
What do you think?
Good stuff. I have more, but this terminal access is terminating. :D
Intimidation Flex
You have learned through experience that people will do what you want if you make them know who is likely to die due to a disagreement.
Prequisite: Str 16+
Effect: You may Add your strength modifier to your Intimidation checks in place of your charisma modifier.
Question: I have two ideas in mind for my next article - Initiative or Knowledges, any requests? votes? Or I could go this way - how about a "one_true_shea" social skills set? That being diplomacy, bluff, perform, and sense motive, already did intimidation. One article each. A perfect exercise for my planned Command System Rules, but I bet ya'll might like tidal initiative rules. My bro "darlak" wants me to talk about my Knowledge house rules, but that’s waaaay wackiness.
Tempting all.... But I think I'd rather see Initiative first, but after that, certainly all of your social skills!
Here a solution to the Charisma-Intimidate "problem." To my knowledge, the following has yet to have been posted.
Intimidating Flex
You have learned that throwing your weight around can help end a disagreement.
Prerequisite: Str 16, Intimidation 5 Ranks.
Effect: You may Add your strength modifier to your Intimidation checks in addition to your charisma modifier.
--> Remember the key issue here is that even when dealing with a positive modifier we are looking at non-combat worthy skill. Additional modifiers are needed - thusly changing it to str + cha instead of having Str replace of Cha.
--> I think the simplest way to fix the issue - have demoralize at range & include the circumstantial modifiers from bluff to push the numbers around.
@Kesuk2k5 - Hello, welcome to the choir! Keep on preachin' my brother.
@ShadowCub.. Oh you’re so nice. Here - gather info I really like this one. - It has a prestige class!