After much communication with my DM, he has still refused to allow us PC's who choose to use the "Intimidate", as a skill in combat.
For example, i showed him the gladiator article where "bloodthirsty mien" is found. This gives the PC a +5 to intimidate checks for every natural 20 they roll in an encounter. Note the +5 is for this encounter only. After he read the pdf, he said he will not allow that. I would only get a +5 total.
So, what does a PC do when a DM refuses to allow things like this, or when communication fails.
Will my Half-Orc at 11th level with the Bloodfury Savage Paragon Path, who is from Impiltur with the New Sarshel Enforcer Feat, and has a Flensing Weapon which on a hit makes the monster "considered" bloodied, which also in total allows 4 d20 rolls, pick the highest for an Intimidate Check never be allowed to play because he can kill or in this case Intimidate out of combat a full hit point monster or dragon for example at 30th or above level in one hit ?
Or am i the PC trying to use too much cheese to remove monsters from combat more efficiently then long drawn out combat encounters.
It is cheese and will likely make combat a lot less exciting... BUT, if combat remains secondary to the story, then it'll be the GMs best friend by skipping the unnecessary combat and in suitably dramatic moments, the NPC might be immune to Intimidate (as is stated in the DMG).
Furthermore, remind the GM that he is encouraged by the DMG to modify the Intimidate DC according to the situation by the DMG itself! Surely, that holy tome cannot be wrong? :P
If Orcus suffered a paltry 100 damage in a single blow from some self-important half-orc, even if it felt horribly effective, he wouldn't give up. He might call for reinforcements, withdraw from melee with you and engage you in ranged combat or redouble his efforts at destroying you.
All this is RAW (Rules as Written), RAI (Rules as Intended) and RASB (Rules as Should Be).
If I were your DM, however, I'd be sure to throw things at you that don't scare or bleed too easily. I'd want you to use that savage combination of bloodthirsty goodness, but I wouldn't make it a cakewalk.
As for actually introducing the feat into the game, are you willing to work with the DM to make something you're both happy with, or will you only be satisified with the feat as written in the article (or perhaps just the way you're interpreting it)?
It sounds like the DM is at least willing to meet you halfway, offering to allow the feat with a single +5 bonus rather than a cumulative +5 where as he could have simply disallowed the feat altogether. You should be willing to do the same.
Some other possible compromises:
1. The +5 bonus cumulative per CH only applies to creatures that are actually struck by the CH.
2. The +5 bonus cumulative per CH only applies to natural 20's.
3. The PC has the option to forgo critical damage on the CH (just roll normal damage) to gain the +5 cumulative bonus.
And everything else aside, would you really be having fun if almost every combat encounter ended with your PCs use of the Intimidate skill? How would your fellow players like just being the sideshow to your starring role? Remember that first and foremost you should be having fun and feel challenged, or why bother playing in the first place?
The wording on the feat description is vague. It can be interpreted either as a single +5 bonus after any CH, or a +5 cumulative per CH. My view on it would be the latter, but an argument could be made either way.
As for actually introducing the feat into the game, are you willing to work with the DM to make something you're both happy with, or will you only be satisified with the feat as written in the article (or perhaps just the way you're interpreting it)?
It sounds like the DM is at least willing to meet you halfway, offering to allow the feat with a single +5 bonus rather than a cumulative +5 where as he could have simply disallowed the feat altogether. You should be willing to do the same.
Some other possible compromises:
1. The +5 bonus cumulative per CH only applies to creatures that are actually struck by the CH.
2. The +5 bonus cumulative per CH only applies to natural 20's.
3. The PC has the option to forgo critical damage on the CH (just roll normal damage) to gain the +5 cumulative bonus.
And everything else aside, would you [i]really[i] be having fun if almost every combat encounter ended with your PCs use of the Intimidate skill? How would your fellow players like just being the sideshow to your starring role? Remember that first and foremost you should be having fun and feel challenged, or why bother playing in the first place?
Actually, would it be culmulative? Since its a bonus from a feat, it wouldn't stack since bonus of the same kind don't.
Also, it works against the mobs Will. Orcus has a Will of 49. And I think he could be considered Hostile, which gives him a +10 bonus. So, the player would have to beat a 59. Lets say he rolls a 20 on his intimidate check.
He's 11. So that's +5, he's trained, that's +5, lets say his Cha gives him another +5, and +5 from a CH, and I have no idea what else.
Even then, all this only adds up to a check of 40. he needs 19 more points. That's a lot of points.
Even against say a dragon, who has around 40+ will.
Not to mention the DM may decide to set a DC instead.
Actually, would it be culmulative? Since its a bonus from a feat, it wouldn't stack since bonus of the same kind don't
Even though the bonus is coming from a feat, the description of the Bloodthirst Mien Feat doesn't describe the bonus as a "Feat Bonus" (See the difference between Two-Weapon Fighting and Weapon Focus). If there's no description of what the bonus is associated with (Feat, Power, etc), then it is an unwritten bonus, and all unwritten bonus stack with any other bonuses, including other unwrittens.
I think you're out of options. Your DM made a call. You may not agree with it, but hey, the world's not perfect. Not everybody gets what they want all the time.
Considering you already applied 'much communication', your options of convincing your DM are limited. The two of you don't agree. When it comes to allowing stuff in a game or not, it's the DM's call. He made that call. He was courteous enough to give you a chance to plead (as he should), he listened (as he should), and he still decided otherwise (which he can). He could have been picture-perfect if he explained to you why he wouldn't allow it. You might want to ask him about that. You may still not agree though, and it will still be his call.
You have, of course, the right to vote with your feet. Seems like a bit extreme in this particular case.
It sounds like you have had a good dialog with your DM. Right now, you have no evidence to change his mind. Gathering some data after a few sessions and presenting it to him may sway his opinion.
Or am i the PC trying to use too much cheese to remove monsters from combat more efficiently then long drawn out combat encounters.
Probably. A DM is not being unreasonable if he doesn't want to deal with that.
So, what does a PC do when a DM refuses to allow things like this, or when communication fails.
Play a different concept. The culpability in this particular scenario appears to be yours.
Sooner or later, the DM is going to get tired of every fight ending halfway through and start adding in immunities, high will/DC checks. And it might come down to a ******* contest about how often you can actually use your character effectively.
I once built a character with great disarming abilities, and seldom got to use it, because we ended up fighting alot of monsters, and you can't disarm claws. Thankfully he had a high to hit score, and a high damage score, was still effective.
So, try and avoid that trap, of being so specific, you end up sucking every where else.