I went out and calculated it, too. As the rules stand right now, forcing surrender of anything higher level than you are is basically already hopeless.
I demand more utility for intimidate. Surely everybody else who plays angry smash brutes is the same.
Unkindlieness
There are 2 ways to deal with an uncaring world: you can seek comfort in close companionship, or you can decide to give as good as you get and the world can (edited) off.
Prerequisites: Trained in Intimidate
Benefit: Using Intimidate in combat is a move instead of a standard action. Additionally, rather than forcing it to surrender you can attempt to demoralize 1 bloodied target once per encounter. Roll the check as normal (no penalties for enemy hostility); on a success the enemy grants combat advantage to attacks against it until the beginning of your next turn.
It's fairly balanced, I think, and gives you a solid feat to take rather than the bland skill focus feat.
I demand more utility for intimidate. Surely everybody else who plays angry smash brutes is the same.
Well, it's a tricky balance. Trying to force surrender gives a DM a lot of problems. Parties that rely on enemies surrendering generally have a very important reason for doing so. Otherwise, things get out of hand.
I once played a cleric in a group of exalted heroes who believed that every enemy deserved mercy. Dungeons quickly became very difficult. We would lead entire chain gangs back to town after clearing out kobolds or goblins from a mine or keep. Feeding and housing them became an issue. Also, it was difficult to sort out the penitent and the phonies. Then someone suggested we all play Vecna cultists and we started a new campaign.
While you should be able to force a surrender when you need to, it's something you should only do occasionally, and not in every single fight. That's just my recommendation. You can play however you want to.
While you should be able to force a surrender when you need to, it's something you should only do occasionally, and not in every single fight. That's just my recommendation. You can play however you want to.
Commonly overlooked rule: in 4th edition when you reduce an enemy to zero HP, you may choose whether you have killed the enemy or merely subdued them.
No hero ever has to kill anyone. Nice change, very sensible. Intimidating foes into surrender is only useful for taking them out early, rather than being a necessity if you want to spare their life.
Its not 100% their fault, but why is intimidate useless in nearly every skill challenge
I'd generalize this as "why do skill challenges try to presume to know exactly how players might try to use skills, and therefore judge whether or not it automatically fails".
There were a few premade encounters we ran through as players and had some creative ideas for skill uses that auto-failed, which was frustrating to no end and eventually just led most of us to say "I using [obvious skill]" because trying to be creative was too arbitrary by the book.
1) Bash an opponent to bloodied.
2) Intimidate: "I'm gonna kill you if you don't surrender! you've just had a taste of my power! rawr!"
3) Roll intimidate, pass.
4) Opponent surrenders.
If the monster is getting the crap kicked out of it then certainly the intimidate check would work.
However... if the monster was winning the fight and say had brought 2 party members to negs, and severely injured the others THEN was just barely brought to bloodied. Umm, no. The monster is still winning. Why would he surrender now?
Its not 100% their fault, but why is intimidate useless in nearly every skill challenge, and why are there so many people posting on how they raise the DC for forcing a surrender from a bloodied monster when even a completely specialized character (who has taken pumping items over 'better' items, maxed CHA, and taken skill focus and training) if lucky if they have a 50% chance of success?
I went out and calculated it, too. As the rules stand right now, forcing surrender of anything higher level than you are is basically already hopeless.
I demand more utility for intimidate. Surely everybody else who plays angry smash brutes is the same.
First off, Intimidate shouldn't be useless in nearly every skill challenge; if it is, the DM is "doing it wrong" so to speak. They should go for a variety of skills in challenges. This is a DM-specific problem.
Secondly, a character who tries to abuse Intimidate has a 100% chance of succeeding on it if they abuse it well enough, and moreover, anything more than a 0% chance of success is unacceptable. In short, it is a SoD power, which is broken and it deals far too much damage to exist (consider you can make Orcus surrender over half the time when he's bloodied, effectively dealing 800 damage with it).
Basically, Intimidate shouldn't allow you to force a bloodied foe to surrender at all, because it is broken in half.
It isn't "DMs unfairly nerfing Intimidate". It is "DMs making the game function properly".
First off, Intimidate shouldn't be useless in nearly every skill challenge; if it is, the DM is "doing it wrong" so to speak. They should go for a variety of skills in challenges. This is a DM-specific problem.
Secondly, a character who tries to abuse Intimidate has a 100% chance of succeeding on it if they abuse it well enough, and moreover, anything more than a 0% chance of success is unacceptable. In short, it is a SoD power, which is broken and it deals far too much damage to exist (consider you can make Orcus surrender over half the time when he's bloodied, effectively dealing 800 damage with it).
Basically, Intimidate shouldn't allow you to force a bloodied foe to surrender at all, because it is broken in half.
It isn't "DMs unfairly nerfing Intimidate". It is "DMs making the game function properly".
QFT
First off, Intimidate shouldn't be useless in nearly every skill challenge; if it is, the DM is "doing it wrong" so to speak. They should go for a variety of skills in challenges. This is a DM-specific problem.
Secondly, a character who tries to abuse Intimidate has a 100% chance of succeeding on it if they abuse it well enough, and moreover, anything more than a 0% chance of success is unacceptable. In short, it is a SoD power, which is broken and it deals far too much damage to exist (consider you can make Orcus surrender over half the time when he's bloodied, effectively dealing 800 damage with it).
Basically, Intimidate shouldn't allow you to force a bloodied foe to surrender at all, because it is broken in half.
It isn't "DMs unfairly nerfing Intimidate". It is "DMs making the game function properly".
Quoted for untruth.
Try calculating how high you can pump intimidate? At maximum min/max you only have a 50% chance of making Orcus surrender. Not 100%.
Surrender isn't the same as kill btw. Annnnd if you are going to kill him he's not going to surrender.
Its not 100% their fault, but why is intimidate useless in nearly every skill challenge, and why are there so many people posting on how they raise the DC for forcing a surrender from a bloodied monster when even a completely specialized character (who has taken pumping items over 'better' items, maxed CHA, and taken skill focus and training) if lucky if they have a 50% chance of success?
I went out and calculated it, too. As the rules stand right now, forcing surrender of anything higher level than you are is basically already hopeless.
I demand more utility for intimidate. Surely everybody else who plays angry smash brutes is the same.
The problem is that intimidate against a set DC means "you surrender because I made my skill check" - disregarding all factors aside from the creature being bloodied and the intimidate roll.
No taking who outnumbers who into account. No consideration for who has the obvious advantage over the other. No consideration for the creature's level of motivation (if you just killed that dragon's baby I don't see it surrendering for anything).
Basically intimidate to force surrender shows complete disregard for circumstances.
As for skill challenges, well, that seems like a very clumsy mechanic in general. Other posters have mentioned so many skill challenges having their design stifle creativity.
Try calculating how high you can pump intimidate? At maximum min/max you only have a 50% chance of making Orcus surrender. Not 100%.
I'm a level 30 warlock with a +2 racial bonus to intimidate, 30 charisma, skill focus (Intimdiate), skill training in intimidate (obiviously), linguist for every language, a magic item which gives me a +6 item bonus to intimidate, and an ally with 30 wisdom and Crucial Advice.
I have a +41 bonus base (+15 level + 10 attribute + 6 item + 5 training + 3 feat + 2 racial). My ally adds +10 power bonus to my reroll, for a total of +51. I need a 59 to intimidate Orcus, so I intimidate him on an 8+, or 65% of the time. And given I got a reroll, its actually higher than that.
Surrender isn't the same as kill btw. Annnnd if you are going to kill him he's not going to surrender.
Not per the RAW. And surrendering is effectively the same as killing, as it removes them from the encounter.
The mechanic is inherently broken, as SoDs are inherently broken, and it deals far too much damage.
My character is unaligned anyway, so he doesn't worry about having to deal with the enemy a second time (not his problem).
Its great to use for soldiers, and lackeys though.
SoD's should give 50% experience. Easy way to handle it.
Of course as for being unfairly nerfed... That I have no clue about.
I apply it to humanoid enemies and those smart enough to understand it. BBEG's and Bosses are immune to it in general.
Its great to use for soldiers, and lackeys though.
This. I can see Orcus being immune, but what's wrong with crappy soldiers or even a midboss (especially humans or intelligent creatures who see they are going to die).
Anyway, the guy above mostly just proved my point. It's only "broken" if you have a 30 WIS helper and you min/maxed to the max.
This. I can see Orcus being immune, but what's wrong with crappy soldiers or even a midboss (especially humans or intelligent creatures who see they are going to die).
Anyway, the guy above mostly just proved my point. It's only "broken" if you have a 30 WIS helper and you min/maxed to the max.
No. I proved you wrong. And its probably possible to get higher than that. I didn't bother to dig through the AV to find something that would do it better.
Its broken regardless.
Why? It deals too much damage.
How much damage do you do with an at-will attack?
This is an at-will ability, so it shouldn't do more damage than an at-will attack does.
Unsurprisingly, this does massively more damage.
Ergo, it is broken.
PS. My monster makes an intimidate check against you while you're bloodied, and succeeds. Wasn't that fun?
Didn't think so.
No. I proved you wrong.
Hey, hey, tone! You didn't prove anyone anything, you made a compelling argument that you are right. Your maths are good; I poked at them but couldn't find a flaw. Thanks for bringing that to the discussion, it's appreciated.
However, RAW state that the DM can substitute a DC of his own devising, at his complete discretion, on any Intimidate attempt. There's an argument to be made that that wasn't intended to apply to Intimidate used as a combat action, but RAW are RAW. (I'm reading from the Compendium entry for Intimidate, which I assume to be the most current version of those rules.)
I'd say a character who completely specs his character towards Intimidate generally deserves to get the benefit of that; in the majority of situations, taking an enemy down from bloodied in one action is a good compensator for the woeful defences, horrible damage output, and lack of versatility that the character will have acquired by way of trade-off. It's only those adventure-breaking ridiculous scenarios like "intimidating Orcus" that really have us worried, and that's where it's the DM's job to step in, certainly in any home game, and even, as below, under RAW.
Quote:
Your Intimidate checks are made against a target’s Will defense or a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC.
This. I can see Orcus being immune, but what's wrong with crappy soldiers or even a midboss (especially humans or intelligent creatures who see they are going to die).
Anyway, the guy above mostly just proved my point. It's only "broken" if you have a 30 WIS helper and you min/maxed to the max.
To be honest I could certainly see Orcus not being immune to an intimidate surrender check as well, just how many times do you think someone like Orcus gets taken to bloody state for example. When a big bad is already halfway to being dead and if the party looks like it is in a reasonable state of capability I could see him run calculations in his head and figure he might (and if he is bloodied that is already a very big maybe) be able to finish them off, if he cant his immortal existence ends.
Even if he wins he will be even more bloodied and might suffer a coup attempt by other demons nearby or an attack by yet another high level entity aware of his current weakness and taking the opportunity to finish him off.
For example lets pretend that the intimidate build for the warlock posted above was for a demigod who was assigned to the task of defeating Orcus by the Raven Queen. Even if win the fight at that point his lair and himself maybecome weakened enough that he would have to fear for a quick assault by the Raven Queen or her other agents once the party dies and their souls return to her.
This is an at-will ability, so it shouldn't do more damage than an at-will attack does.
This is not an at-will ability. Go read the PHB. You get one try per encounter.
I revise - its probably OK for Orcus to surrender. As the above guy said, he's not the only powerful demon, and demons aren't especially loyal.
And considering how much less damage you'd do through all 30 levels by pimping out with intimidate-pumping equipment, being able to make Orcus surrender should be a caveat.
And considering how much less damage you'd do through all 30 levels by pimping out with intimidate-pumping equipment, being able to make Orcus surrender should be a caveat.
Not a whole lot less. I mean, it's one item that grants a +6 item bonus and two feats (three if you're being thorough). Not a bad price for an encounter power that can totally eliminate a [Bloodied] creature, regardless of hit points or circumstances. If you really want to go crazy with it, you could throw in a power bonus (from some Utility power that will inevitably exist if it doesn't already) and untyped bonuses from ill-though-out items in an Adventurer's Vault.
However, RAW state that the DM can substitute a DC of his own devising, at his complete discretion, on any Intimidate attempt. There's an argument to be made that that wasn't intended to apply to Intimidate used as a combat action, but RAW are RAW. (I'm reading from the Compendium entry for Intimidate, which I assume to be the most current version of those rules.)
Saying "Sorry, you can't intimidate arbitrary enemies because I say so" is to say "No, Intimidate doesn't work this way." There's no difference, really, except how much you frustrate players with your arbitrary rulings.
This is not an at-will ability. Go read the PHB. You get one try per encounter.
You get one try per encounter per creature.
It doesn't really matter though - even as a daily it would deal far too much damage. Consider Orcus at 800 hp. You use this, he's removed. That's 800 hp worth of damage.
He's hardly going to quit if the PCs are bent on killing him. If he surrenders and they attack him, he'll just go back to lowering HP to zero.
Aside from "omg orcus surrender = bad", any objections to intimidate? I already said big bads are probably not going to surrender, and if they do, they aren't going to put their heads down and wait for the axe to the neck. So aside from the game-ending boss, I'd say anybody is fair game.
Surrender isn't the same as kill.
He's hardly going to quit if the PCs are bent on killing him. If he surrenders and they attack him, he'll just go back to lowering HP to zero.
Aside from "omg orcus surrender = bad", any objections to intimidate? I already said big bads are probably not going to surrender, and if they do, they aren't going to put their heads down and wait for the axe to the neck. So aside from the game-ending boss, I'd say anybody is fair game.
So aside from you being wrong, how are you wrong?
I'm sorry, that's not a valid argument.
I already pointed out why it is bad - you deal too much damage with it, effectively, by removing stuff from a fight in this way.
(This quote helpfully rephrased.)
So aside from you being wrong, how are you wrong? I respect your views, but disagree.
I'm sorry, that's not a valid argument. I am unconvinced by your argument.
I already pointed out why it is bad - you deal too much damage with it, effectively, by removing stuff from a fight in this way.
Actually, upon consideration, I've realised that if a player specs entirely into Intimidate and plays through 30 levels that way, and the DM doesn't stop him long before he gets to that point, then the real tragedy is if doesn't get to intimidate Orcus. Way to ruin an epic min/maxing story, DM.
Intimidate is doing, what, an average of 25 to 35 damage on a successful use at Heroic Tier, 35 to 55 at Paragon, and 55 to 80 at Epic. And that's on a character fully specced for this, who can't really do much else. That's a good build, but I'm not convinced it's a game-breaking one.
Titanium's stats assume a CHA of 30; I'm not sure how you even get to that. Legal builds in the Character Builder don't let you start any stat above 18 before racial bonuses, so at level one you can have it at 20 and then it gets a maximum of 8 more points before level 30. Any DM who has concerns about Intimidate should not be giving out Intimidate-buffing items.
So realistically, we're talking a maxed character having a +35 bonus base (+15 level + 9 attribute + 5 training + 3 feat + 2 racial). In the exceptionally unlikely event of having a similarly maxed ally, you'd have a +9 power bonus to the reroll, for a total of +44. Without the RAW intervention of the DM, you need a 59 to intimidate Orcus, so you intimidate him on an 15+, or 25% of the time. Without the helper, you need a crit. And you only get one shot, and only once he's bloodied.
Maxed character at the end of the paragon tier (level 19), without the helper, has 26 (+9 level, +7 attribute, +5 training, +3 feat, +2 racial) to hit a same-level enemy who has a will defence of somewhere between 29 and 34 (judging from the level 19 examples in the MM). So with a maxed build, you're looking at a 13 to 18 to successfully intimidate - at best a 35% chance, at worst a 10% chance. That's assuming you speak their language, and Linguist won't help you if it's a creature that doesn't have a language, such as an animal or abomination, or if it's a mindless creature such as mindless undead.
Sorry Titanium, I'm not convinced it's broken. A 35% chance once per encounter to drop a bloodied enemy, after you've fully specced that way, which a not-insignificant number of creatures are totally immune to, which in exceptional cases the DM can RAW intervene in, doesn't seem to be so terrible as to make the rule broken per se.
One question: why do people assume that "unconditional surrender" is the only way to use Intimidate?
Because we're having a Rules As Written (RAW) argument. The rules say it CAN be used for unconditional surrender, that's clearly a more powerful way to use it than any other way, so is the ability to do that broken?
Of course it can be used a whole bunch of other ways, either by player choice or by DM ruling, and that's presumably the way it gets used in most actual games.
Think of this as a thought experiment. Assuming the mythical DM who plays all RAW all the time, and the mythical player who can stand to take part in that game, is the player going to be so overpowered as to ruin the game if he specs Intimidate?
Answer in my opinion: no.
But yeah the instant surrender is broken, and the instant hostile makes the skill terrible in social situations. Both clauses should be removed and intimidate should be a general purpose tool to make people afraid or docile.
Sorry Titanium, I'm not convinced it's broken. A 35% chance once per encounter to drop a bloodied enemy, after you've fully specced that way, .
I can build a paladin that automatically gets a 61 on his intimidate checks. At level 21. It's not even hard. That will force any monster in the game, not just Orcus, to surrender. You automatically beat Vecna, 100% of the time.
It takes about 4 feats, and somewhat suboptimal PP/ED choices. But not horribly underpowered, either. The character is fully capable of using his str/cha paladin powers at near-maximum efficiency, and hardly sacrifices much at all to do so.
Show
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Intimadatah, level 21
Dragonborn, Paladin, Strong-Arm Enforcer, Reborn Champion
Build: Avenging Paladin
Background: Impiltur
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 24, Con 12, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 24.
Starting Ability Scores
Str 16, Con 10, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 16.
AC: 22 Fort: 30 Reflex: 25 Will: 28
HP: 164 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 42
TRAINED SKILLS
Religion, History, Endurance, Intimidate, Bluff.
FEATS
1: Skill Focus (Intimidate)
6: New Sarshel Enforcer
11: Sly Dodge
ITEMS
Ioun Stone of Perfect Language (epic tier), Flensing Longsword +4
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Intimadatah, level 21
Dragonborn, Paladin, Strong-Arm Enforcer, Reborn Champion
Build: Avenging Paladin
Background: Impiltur
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 24, Con 12, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 24.
Starting Ability Scores
Str 16, Con 10, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 16.
AC: 22 Fort: 30 Reflex: 25 Will: 28
HP: 164 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 42
TRAINED SKILLS
Religion, History, Endurance, Intimidate, Bluff.
FEATS
1: Skill Focus (Intimidate)
6: New Sarshel Enforcer
11: Sly Dodge
ITEMS
Ioun Stone of Perfect Language (epic tier), Flensing Longsword +4
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
I can build a paladin that automatically gets a 61 on his intimidate checks. At level 21.
That's one reason intimidate is nerfed.
Hey, for the sake of discussion, can I see the paladin build? I'm not familiar wth how that particular twinking works.
And sorry, are you suggesting there is actually an errata for intimidate? Or do you mean, that's one reason intimidate should be nerfed?
Show
Okay, without trying too hard, I can make a 14th level dragonborn paladin with level-appropriate gear with a flat intimidate bonus of 35, who gets to roll twice and use the higher roll every time he uses intimidate.
+2 dragonborn
+2 raven devotee
+5 trained
+3 skill focus
+6 charisma
+6 strength (implied threat)
+7 half level
+4 dread mask
That's 35. New Sarshel Enforcer lets you roll 2d20 instead of 1 when you make intimidate checks. You pick the higher.
He walks up, swings a few times until the sword hits, spends the daily, target is bloodied. He rolls, has a 99% chance of forcing the dragon to surrender, assuming he didn't, I dunno, do something to reduce its defenses by 2.
Level 14
Spoiler:
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Intimadatah, level 14
Dragonborn, Paladin, Strong-Arm Enforcer
Build: Avenging Paladin
Background: Impiltur
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 22, Con 11, Dex 13, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 22.
Starting Ability Scores
Str 16, Con 10, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 16.
AC: 18 Fort: 24 Reflex: 19 Will: 24
HP: 116 Surges: 10 Surge Value: 29
TRAINED SKILLS
Religion, History, Endurance, Intimidate, Bluff.
FEATS
1: Skill Focus (Intimidate)
6: New Sarshel Enforcer
11: Sly Dodge
12: Raven Queen Devotee
ITEMS
Dread Helm (paragon tier), Flensing Longsword +3
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Heck, let's try him at level 21, again with level appropriate equipment.
He's got a flat 41 intimidate, and automatically rolls a 20, for a 61. Vecna has, I believe, currently the highest will defense in the game. It's 51, for a DC 61 hostile check. This guy automatically makes that 14 levels below Vecna.
At level 21, assuming anyone in the party with a flensing weapon can hit the guy, the paladin can automatically make it surrender. Anything in the game. This is fun how?
Level 21
Spoiler:
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Intimadatah, level 21
Dragonborn, Paladin, Strong-Arm Enforcer, Reborn Champion
Build: Avenging Paladin
Background: Impiltur
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 24, Con 12, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 24.
Starting Ability Scores
Str 16, Con 10, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 16.
AC: 22 Fort: 30 Reflex: 25 Will: 28
HP: 164 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 42
TRAINED SKILLS
Religion, History, Endurance, Intimidate, Bluff.
FEATS
1: Skill Focus (Intimidate)
6: New Sarshel Enforcer
11: Sly Dodge
12: Raven Queen Devotee
ITEMS
Ioun Stone of Perfect Language (epic tier), Flensing Longsword +4
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Ultimately, the surrender "mechanic", if you can call it that when the condition isn't defined, is just broken, and it takes very little effort or cleverness to take advantage of it. If you actually let people do this in your games, you have serious problems.
Okay, without trying too hard, I can make a 14th level dragonborn paladin with level-appropriate gear with a flat intimidate bonus of 35, who gets to roll twice and use the higher roll every time he uses intimidate.
+2 dragonborn
+2 raven devotee
+5 trained
+3 skill focus
+6 charisma
+6 strength (implied threat)
+7 half level
+4 dread mask
That's 35. New Sarshel Enforcer lets you roll 2d20 instead of 1 when you make intimidate checks. You pick the higher.
He walks up, swings a few times until the sword hits, spends the daily, target is bloodied. He rolls, has a 99% chance of forcing the dragon to surrender, assuming he didn't, I dunno, do something to reduce its defenses by 2.
Level 14
Spoiler:
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Intimadatah, level 14
Dragonborn, Paladin, Strong-Arm Enforcer
Build: Avenging Paladin
Background: Impiltur
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 22, Con 11, Dex 13, Int 9, Wis 13, Cha 22.
Starting Ability Scores
Str 16, Con 10, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 16.
AC: 18 Fort: 24 Reflex: 19 Will: 24
HP: 116 Surges: 10 Surge Value: 29
TRAINED SKILLS
Religion, History, Endurance, Intimidate, Bluff.
FEATS
1: Skill Focus (Intimidate)
6: New Sarshel Enforcer
11: Sly Dodge
12: Raven Queen Devotee
ITEMS
Dread Helm (paragon tier), Flensing Longsword +3
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Heck, let's try him at level 21, again with level appropriate equipment.
He's got a flat 41 intimidate, and automatically rolls a 20, for a 61. Vecna has, I believe, currently the highest will defense in the game. It's 51, for a DC 61 hostile check. This guy automatically makes that 14 levels below Vecna.
At level 21, assuming anyone in the party with a flensing weapon can hit the guy, the paladin can automatically make it surrender. Anything in the game. This is fun how?
Level 21
Spoiler:
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Intimadatah, level 21
Dragonborn, Paladin, Strong-Arm Enforcer, Reborn Champion
Build: Avenging Paladin
Background: Impiltur
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 24, Con 12, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 24.
Starting Ability Scores
Str 16, Con 10, Dex 12, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 16.
AC: 22 Fort: 30 Reflex: 25 Will: 28
HP: 164 Surges: 11 Surge Value: 42
TRAINED SKILLS
Religion, History, Endurance, Intimidate, Bluff.
FEATS
1: Skill Focus (Intimidate)
6: New Sarshel Enforcer
11: Sly Dodge
12: Raven Queen Devotee
ITEMS
Ioun Stone of Perfect Language (epic tier), Flensing Longsword +4
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&DI Character Builder ======
Ultimately, the surrender "mechanic", if you can call it that when the condition isn't defined, is just broken, and it takes very little effort or cleverness to take advantage of it. If you actually let people do this in your games, you have serious problems.
Intimidate as currently printed in the Compendium doesn't let you add Strength bonuses but you may be referencing another rule there that I'm not aware of. Also, I suspect Sarshel Enforcer may be more of a problem than Initimdate itself.
But IF you were going to nerf Intimidate - and in the vast majority of games with the vast majority of characters, it works just fine - a couple of fair and flavour-appropriate ways to do it would be to say that:
* you can't force surrender while any enemy on the battlefield is unbloodied and/or
* you can't force surrender from solos or elites and/or
* you can't force surrender while a Leader enemy remains on the battlefield.
EDIT: It doesn't really matter what "surrender" means, providing we're all agreed that it means they go non-combatant for the current combat. We're less worried here about campaign balance than we are about balance on a combat-to-combat basis.
And the build I made, which will work 100 percent of the time, was made by opening up the compendium and typing in "intimidate" and taking all the feats, items, paragon path and so on. It wasn't even clever. It's easy. The problem with having a skill check be so important in combat is that it is ridiculously easy to jack a skill check up into the stratosphere, and there's an ED that lets you get an auto-20 on skill checks three times a day.
It's an encounter power from the Strong Arm Enforcer PP. Lets you add your strength to your intimidate checks for the entire encounter. So... all the time, really.
Okay, fair enough. So it's definitely possible to build a character that breaks Intimidate. You've won me over, let's put it up there with Blood Pulse as something that needs some official errata.
EDIT: It doesn't really matter what "surrender" means, providing we're all agreed that it means they go non-combatant for the current combat. We're less worried here about campaign balance than we are about balance on a combat-to-combat basis.
I think that's the entire issue, honestly.
This discussion kind of reminds me of this line I once heard allegedly spoken to a WWI German soldier to his son, who was about to go and fight in WWII: "Fight well, be brave, and surrender to the first American soldier you see." A character who can force almost anyone to surrender. . . word is gonna get around. Some people are going to start using mindless automatons incapable of surrender or retreat. Others are going to try to parlay more, instead of fight. That red dragon whom the PCs convinced to leave them alone might get mocked by the other dragons and not allowed to play in dragon games: he might wind up with a vendetta against the PCs and making their lives miserable. The PC might get a reputation for being weak: after all, he doesn't have the stomach to kill a man. Someone's gonna call his bluff eventually. DCs can be modified accordingly.
I dunno, I think a player who puts in the time and effort to create a character with this kind of a creative build should be rewarded for it. They shouldn't be allowed to run roughshod over the campaign, but it's better than being railroaded and told that their fun is bad fun. It's better than the guy who argues that he was totally justified in attacking the beehive with an axe while the rest of the party went around it because, "You told us to roll for initiative so that means killing it was the only option."
So in the end, I'd argue for a middle ground: I don't think Intimidate needs to be nerfed, but I think that the DM needs to make sure that there are consequences for every choice the PCs make.
And the build I made, which will work 100 percent of the time, was made by opening up the compendium and typing in "intimidate" and taking all the feats, items, paragon path and so on.
This is strangely depressing.
Reminds me of Diplomacy in 3e.This is strangely depressing.
That's because it more or less does the same thing.
Because intimidate can go something like:
1) Bash an opponent to bloodied.
2) Intimidate: "I'm gonna kill you if you don't surrender! you've just had a taste of my power! rawr!"
3) Roll intimidate, pass.
4) Opponent surrenders.
Sounds more likely to make them flee than surrender. If a humanoid monster is going to surrender, they (like us) are probably a little scared they might be killed anyway after dropping their weapons. I know we've all had PC's or parties that did this.
If the party wants to try to force surrender constantly then you'd better be sure I'll be using it on them as the DM as well . It would be so fun
. I'll say something to the party like the Kobold minion runs up to you and makes an untrained intimidate check to force you to surrender. I rolled a 20!!! You surrender !!!.
Orcus has a +31 to his intimidate skill. What is an optimal will defense for a level 30 character? 35+ maybe I'll have to look into it.
If the party wants to try to force surrender constantly then you'd better be sure I'll be using it on them as the DM as well . It would be so fun
I'll say something to the party like the Kobold minion runs up to you and makes an untrained intimidate check to force you to surrender. I rolled a 20!!! You surrender !!!.
Sure, if laughing so hard you drop all your stuff is considered surrender.
I'll say something to the party like the Kobold minion runs up to you and makes an untrained intimidate check to force you to surrender. I rolled a 20!!! You surrender !!!.
I'm pretty sure this would lead to a perfect case of RPG related justifiable homocide.
Its not 100% their fault, but why is intimidate useless in nearly every skill challenge, and why are there so many people posting on how they raise the DC for forcing a surrender from a bloodied monster when even a completely specialized character (who has taken pumping items over 'better' items, maxed CHA, and taken skill focus and training) if lucky if they have a 50% chance of success?
I went out and calculated it, too. As the rules stand right now, forcing surrender of anything higher level than you are is basically already hopeless.
I demand more utility for intimidate. Surely everybody else who plays angry smash brutes is the same.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way.
Think of it as your specialized character basically gets to roll a Save vs. Death attack vs. your enemy every encounter, and it has approximately 50% chance of working, as a failure means the battle's over.
That's freakin *ridiculous* - I would probably nerf that in my game too.
I'm not saying 3E is better or worse in this regard (it certainly has plenty of similar flaws) but 3E does have a rule that PCs and their actions can't be straightjacketed by the results of (social) rolls - something that must obviously extend to NPCs as well: players don't get to decide NPC actions based on a simple successful skill check. I'm less familiar with 4E, is there a similar rule in the 4E PHB or DMG as well?
Righteous Rage of Tempus plus Bloodthirsty Mein is +5 for the fight.
Multiclass Warlock and Beguiling Tongue is +5 for one check.
And darnit, the point of making that paladin was to illustrate how intimidate is broken, broken, broken. It's not "awesome" It is twisted, and e-vil, as Obi-Wan would say. ANY use of ANY skill that has a large effect on combat is broken, because it is EASY to get skills ridiculously high, thus warping the scaling of the entire combat system.
In combat, an intimidate focused character basically just halves the hp of any enemy. This can be a godsend in a battle that's bogged down - one where the heroes are obviously going to win, but it's obviously going to take twelve more rounds to get there. In most encounters, though, that's not exactly ideal.
In my own games? Basically, I allow intimidate to be used in some capacity in almost any social encounter.
"Our enemies are trying to open a portal to the Abyss. Do you know what daemons do to people? Do you know what they'll do to your people if we don't stop this? Let me tell you..."
You could easily call that intimidate rather then diplomacy - and it's a completely valid and potentially quite convincing argument for why the king might give your party aid in their quest to stop the bad guys. Intimidate is 'do what I want, or bad stuff is going to happen to you'. It doesn't have to be 'do what I want or I'll hurt you myself'.
Within combat, I tend to play fast and loose with intimidate, rather then following rules to the letter. That said, I do usually follow some of the following guidelines:
-The BBEG cannot be intimidated.
-Mindless creatures cannot be intimidated.
-Creatures cannot be intimidated if they seem to be winning.
-An intimidated creature will flee rather then surrender if doing so seems possible.
-An enemy leader can counter an intimidate attempt with a diplomacy or intimidate check of their own. If they beat the PC's check, the target isn't intimidated.
-Elites and solos gain the same bonuses to will against intimidation that they get on saving throws.
-Penalties are applied to intimidate checks against enemies that are larger then you, or if you don't share a language.
-Bonuses are applied if the character using intimidate has personally contributed to the target being brought below bloodied HP.
-Situational modifiers are applied based on the player's in-character threat - cool or scarry threats get a bonus, lame threats or 'I use intimidate' get a penalty.
So it'd be perfectly okay to say that Orcus in fact doesn't surrender so easily, or that maybe solos won't surrender at all and elites have a big modifier. Similarly, if the PCs aren't doing so well in the battle, the enemy probably won't surrender even if he happens to be bloodied. If the PCs just target one monster and get him blooded and start demanding his surrender while his friends are still beating on them, then the DC should be higher.
Though on minions the DC should probably be lower, it should be easy to bully a minion.
+1000 If the situation, from the monster's perspective, is not pretty much hopeless.
Fixed that problem right up, and it's following the rules. As DM, I modify the will save at my discretion.
The problem is that intimidate against a set DC means "you surrender because I made my skill check" - disregarding all factors aside from the creature being bloodied and the intimidate roll.
This pretty well nails it, there are many factors to consider for a creature to surrender or not beyond just a successful skill roll. It makes sense that Intimidate should only work on creatures that would consider surrendering even without rolling the skill.
-creatures might even attempt to surrender without the PCs trying to intimidate them or even demanding a surrender. Simply because it is the smart thing to do.
-Creature might not believe the characters will let it live, or have nothing to loss and nothing to gain from surrendering. ie a pirate who will only be turned over to the authorities, tortured and then hanged, will not surrender.
-Some might be motivated to fight to the death rather then surrender. They can't be intimidated because the PCs have nothing to threaten the creature with (if it would rather die then surrender then intimidating it by threatening to kill it won't work)
-Creatures who are enraged and beyond reason. You just killed the dragon's baby, loyal guards protecting the queen, etc, they simply will not surrender under any circumstances, a sworn enemy.
-Enemy who is still able to win. hollow threats are hardly intimidating, if they still have a good chance of winning, then being bloodied isn't enough. The dragon has just killed over half the party, and is just barely bloodied, isn't going to surrender to the one standing PC.
MOre importantly is the cost vs reward concept. Intimidate has the potential to give extremely overpowered rewards for little to no cost, and it really should only work where there is a reasonable chance that the enemy would surrender even without the skill roll. Intimidate should be the final push to get the enemy to surrender when it really has no other choice.
Some examples of when Intimidate should work.
-It's obvious that the PCs will win. ie Group ambushes a group of bandits, catching them by suprise in the middle of the night, most of the bandits are thus unarmed and have no armor, they are confused and the PCs have them surrounded. The Bandits have little to know chance of winning, let alone surviving.
-Party has gained the advantage ie killed half the enemy, the remaining enemy is bloodied, and the party is still fairly fresh. The enemy doesn't stand a chance.
Snip
Good guidelines. I'm personally thinking that monsters probably shouldn't surrender unless it's almost certainly going to result iin a lesser punishment from the PCs. Take Orcus, for example....there really isn't any reason for him to surrender, as the only reason you'd fight him is to strip him of his power. And who's going to jail a demon lord?
"Winning" would have to be further defined, so players know what to look for before attempting the check. Outnumbered 4-to-1 by non-bloodied opponents might work.
I don't disallow intimidate, actually. I just have a situational modifier I use, to the monster's will save.
+1000 If the situation, from the monster's perspective, is not pretty much hopeless.
Fixed that problem right up, and it's following the rules. As DM, I modify the will save at my discretion.
This sort of behavior is exactly what made me make this thread in the first place.
Take Orcus, for example....there really isn't any reason for him to surrender, as the only reason you'd fight him is to strip him of his power. And who's going to jail a demon lord?
A powerful witch, just ask Grazzit for example, or ask the various primordials that were entrapped and imprisoned by various deities according to the manual of the planes. In fact I would go so far as to ask most DMs who is going to imprison incredibly powerful and evil entity x because as a general rule of thumb the PCs certainly seem to run across various ancient evils awakening or escaping their "eternal imprisonment" to once again threaten the world.
If these creatures were so prone to fight to the death each and every time no matter how scary that Demi-God Paladin was nor how badly mauled he felt after getting hammered by him or his companions then I fear that the core premise of several campaigns that I have heard about or played in may need to be reconsidered in light of their potentially suicidal tendencies. ;)
A powerful witch, just ask Grazzit for example, or ask the various primordials that were entrapped and imprisoned by various deities according to the manual of the planes. In fact I would go so far as to ask most DMs who is going to imprison incredibly powerful and evil entity x because as a general rule of thumb the PCs certainly seem to run across various ancient evils awakening or escaping their "eternal imprisonment" to once again threaten the world.
But those are all villains jailing such creatures, with no mechanics to back such things up. Unless you've got a good-aligned plot device who has just the thing to imprison [insert BBEG here], PCs usually don't have much of a choice other than taking 'em out.
This sort of behavior is exactly what made me make this thread in the first place.
So, you think it's unfair that monsters won't surrender unless it makes sense?
That sort of behavior is exactly why I made that ruling in the first place.
So, you think it's unfair that monsters won't surrender unless it makes sense?
Well, I can understand frustration from players not having a discernable, cut and dry "trigger condition" for making Intimidate checks permissable. Putting up a houserule that says "You can use this ability when I feel like it" (or, in this cae, "This skill DC will be effectively impossible unless I want it to work") would rub me wrong, certainly.
But those are all villains jailing such creatures, with no mechanics to back such things up. Unless you've got a good-aligned plot device who has just the thing to imprison [insert BBEG here], PCs usually don't have much of a choice other than taking 'em out.
The mechanics could be the same things that are being discussed in this thread Intimidate being used when a Primordial was bloodied by a deity and accepting imprisonment rather that risking final death. Grazt failing a sense motive check against a Witch who specialized in boosting her bluff skill up and laid out a trap. Its not that the mechanics dont exist for such things, but on occasions it would seem that DMs may feel cheated in the fight if the players did something along those lines to his big bad enemy rather than slogging it out to the death.
Rather or not the PCs have such a choice or not is really dependent on the skill DC number that the DM selects and rather or not the DM will accept this as a viable alternative or not to simply killing Orcus outright or can he be defeated using alternative means. Of course it is also somewhat less dependent on the PCs to first arrange the elements together so that Orcus could be defeated by means other than complete and total depletion of his hit points in the first place.
This sort of behavior is exactly what made me make this thread in the first place.
Let me ask you: If you as a player gave an impassioned speech on behalf of your character to convince them of something, and the DM was so impressed with your roleplaying he didn't bother to roll your check, would you be annoyed?
If yes you'd be annoyed you didn't have to roll: well, there's just a different of opinion. You want everything to be well defined numbers, and other people don't.
If the answer is no, you'd be happy the DM didn't leave that kind of RP to chance, then ask yourself: is the problem that the DM isn't allowing intimidate when it doesn't fit the scenario, or is the problem that the DM is only fudging the rules against you rather than both ways?
Well, I can understand frustration from players not having a discernable, cut and dry "trigger condition" for making Intimidate checks permissable. Putting up a houserule that says "You can use this ability when I feel like it" (or, in this cae, "This skill DC will be effectively impossible unless I want it to work") would rub me wrong, certainly.
Meh, truth is, I was being sarcastic. I do have a system of bonuses that I use, and the players are aware of what those bonuses to creature will defense are, but what it essentially boils down to is: If it's a reasonable situation, you have a reasonable chance to succeed.
A reasonable situation is: The monster doesn't have backup. It's not a solo. It's lost half its hit points. It's not mindless or immune to fear effects. It's not glaringly obvious that the party is losing.
The system I use gives the monster will defense benefits for:
Having conscious allies
Being a solo
The PC doing the intimidating being bloodied
Being higher level than the PCs
Having knocked out any PCs
It gives penalties to the monster's will defense for:
Being a minion
Each ally of the monster that's been taken out
Being the last monster of a group
Being at half-bloodied
Let me ask you:
Let me ask you: Would you be happy if you took a skill, then your DM made it useless?
Again, by the book, intimidate only has exactly two uses - interrogation and ending combats. Interrogations are, ime, so rare as to be practically pointless. And the rule proposed: making intimidate in combat completely worthless unless the enemy's situation is totally hopeless, makes intimidate rather pointless in combat as well. It's a classic over-responce. DMs don't want PCs intimidating Orcus, so them make it impossible to intimidate common brigands as a result.
If the enemy's situation is totally hopeless, then they should be looking to retreat or surrender anyway, even without a check.
Again, some simple guidelines.
If it's essential to your plot that a given character not flee or surrender, then don't let them be intimidated. But save this only for very important npcs, don't apply it to every enemy.
If an intimidated enemy can flee, then they flee instead of surrendering. Many powerful enemies have teleport, phasing, or flight with a high move value, making escape generally a viable option. The party gets a break from fighting, but so does the monster, and it can come back later.
Don't let a creature be intimidated if it thinks it's winning. That said, don't prevent it as an option if the fight seems to be in question, and certainly don't prevent it if the PCs seem to be winning, even if it isn't yet totally hopeless for the monsters.
If you only let PCs use intimidate in situations where they've already completely won, then you might as well tell the players when they make their characters that the intimidate skill doesn't exist in your game.
Especially if you follow the 'rules as written' regarding most social skill challenges - namely that intimidate is always an automatic failure. Of course, that's a horrible problem in and of itself, far greater then the possibility of a skill check chopping orcus's HP in half, imo.
Meh, truth is, I was being sarcastic. I do have a system of bonuses that I use, and the players are aware of what those bonuses to creature will defense are, but what it essentially boils down to is: If it's a reasonable situation, you have a reasonable chance to succeed.
A reasonable situation is: The monster doesn't have backup. It's not a solo. It's lost half its hit points. It's not mindless or immune to fear effects. It's not glaringly obvious that the party is losing.
The system I use gives the monster will defense benefits for:
Having conscious allies
Being a solo
The PC doing the intimidating being bloodied
Being higher level than the PCs
Having knocked out any PCs
It gives penalties to the monster's will defense for:
Being a minion
Each ally of the monster that's been taken out
Being the last monster of a group
Being at half-bloodied
I agree and I use a similar system myself, though I just kind of eyeball the situation and apply bonuses and penalties accordingly, rather than having an actual list of things. Still most of the things you mentioned are things I take into account.
Let me ask you: Would you be happy if you took a skill, then your DM made it useless?
Again, by the book, intimidate only has exactly two uses - interrogation and ending combats. Interrogations are, ime, so rare as to be practically pointless. And the rule proposed: making intimidate in combat completely worthless unless the enemy's situation is totally hopeless, makes intimidate rather pointless in combat as well. It's a classic over-responce. DMs don't want PCs intimidating Orcus, so them make it impossible to intimidate common brigands as a result.
Its broken either way, really.
People miss the forest for the trees: its broken because it does too much damage.
Interrogation is rare? You never knock something out instead of kill it? Sounds like a problem with your approach rather than a lack of opportunities. Additionally, its useful in skill challenges, as is diplomacy, and I don't see people whining about diplomacy being useless.
- Harder: The PCs initiated the fight, without apparent provocation.
- Easier: The monsters attacked without provocation.
- Harder: the PCs are demanding major concessions.
- Easier: the PCs are fine with the monsters just running away.
- Harder: The monsters are winning, or apparently outpower the PCs. Bluff can be useful here.
- Easier: the PCs are winning, or apparently outpower the NPCs.
- Harder: the monsters are fighting because of some critically important goal for them (e.g. defending the home, capturing the last bread shipment without which they'll starve, etc).
- Easier: the fight is relatively unimportant to the monsters -- for example, opportunistic robbery, or a decision that the PCs look tasty.
- Harder: the PCs keep attacking after demanding surrender, and before waiting for a response.
- Easier: the PCs have readied actions that look significantly dangerous.
In addition, intimidate isn't a standard action; it's a free action (conversation) that is normally combined with a ready.
Let me ask you: Would you be happy if you took a skill, then your DM made it useless?
No, of course not. I agree with everything you said mostly though I'd also add:
- If *I* were DM, I wouldn't limit any of the skill uses to the brief descriptions presented in the PHB1, but that's just me.
- Does your group really not use social skills outside of skill challenges and combat? That sounds like a bland game and a more fundamental problem.
- And as far as skill challenges with auto-fail intimidate checks, I've posted before that it is clearly stupid. I don't like the format of skill challenges in general, it presumes too much about -how- the player is going to use the skill mentioned and what the circumstances might have become by then.
The part that really gets to me is that our DM keeps insisting that he prefers flavour over rolls, so good RPing gets good results.
This works for the whole party. Except the Rogue.
Example:
We're trying to sneak into a guardhouse in order to bust out the other half of the party because the mayor is dominated and is going to execute them without charge. The Rogue dresses up as some knight commander dude, despite being a halfling, and starts rolling intimidate and bluff checks to get in.
He rolls absolutely crap (we're talking 11s here, at 2nd level), looks like a little kid, and makes up some story about being sent from another town that's three miles away from the guard post (in a town that's twenty miles wide, with the guard post in the middle of it) and the DM gives it to him.
Throughout most of the rest of that encounter, he rolls crappy, comes up with crappy RPing, and gets it anyways.
When the rest of us try, well, that's a different story. We either have to get good rolls and plausible stories, or awesome stories and average rolls.
Now, it occurs to me that the DM could be using this to drive the story, specifically as a way to railroad us via the Chaotic Dick rogue, but even so it's damned annoying.
I mean, I try to intimidate some frightened barmaid into directing us to the back entrance, get a good roll and a good RP, and the DM has her faint and not tell us anything instead. Or has her attack me with a kettle.
Now should Intimidate be the be and end all to skill checks? Absolutely not. But if you're going to nerf it, nerf it across the board. And nerf it logically. Intimidating the bloodied enemy barbarian who knows no fear isn't going to work, even if the mechanics say it will. It'd be like trying to intimidate a Gelatinous Cube.
That said, intimidating an enemy detatchment into surrendering after you've wiped out half their forces, and with the right sort of RPing... that should work. But if you're doing stuff like trying to demoralize them by insulting their doods the DM might take that opportunity to give them a +X Patriotic bonus to resist, and if they roll high enough against your roll, maybe even rally against you.
Nerfing intimidate happens- it happens to all the social skills. In my experience the best way to counter an unfair nerfing is to use a combination of social skills. Rather then just intimidate, using bluff and sense motive and diplomacy can result in achieving the result you want.
And there's always the good cop bad cop routine.
I'm actually having a problem in a campaign that's the opposite to this- the DM is buffing intimidate (and bluff) for the Rogue.
Actually, that's not what he's doing. He's just being biased towards one PC, and a bad DM.
I've actually houseruled (or rather, homebrewed) a power increase for Intimidate in my campaign in the form of a feat.
Unkindlieness
There are 2 ways to deal with an uncaring world: you can seek comfort in close companionship, or you can decide to give as good as you get and the world can (edited) off.
Prerequisites: Trained in Intimidate
Benefit: Using Intimidate in combat is a move instead of a standard action. Additionally, rather than forcing it to surrender you can attempt to demoralize 1 bloodied target once per encounter. Roll the check as normal (no penalties for enemy hostility); on a success the enemy grants combat advantage to attacks against it until the beginning of your next turn.
It's fairly balanced, I think, and gives you a solid feat to take rather than the bland skill focus feat.
Actually, that sounds like a good way to fix Bluff (which already is used to grant combat advantage, except as a standard action, which makes it useless).
So fighting the blaze was a skill challenge. I used intimidate to cause the looters in the area to either help or get the hell out. I instituted a no tolerance policy on looting, and some ruffians cleared out, some joined the bucket brigade.
It's not always useless in skill challenges. You or your DM just has to come up with a clever way to use it.