Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 volcanon2 Jul 29, 2009 13:38:09	Seriously, aside from games where I DM, every time I try to use intimidate in a social situation, it goes something like: Me: I roll really well. DM: Ok, the guy runs away. He brings back other monsters, roll initiative. or Me: I roll really well. DM: What you might expect, which would be for something useful to happen, does not in fact happen. Or he doesn't tell you anything, etc. And then there's the overly open little bit in the PHB1 that says "or a DC determined by your DM", on the force to surrender rules. Which seems to always mean "Set the DC to 21 plus your player's intimidate modifier".
#2 sirkaikillah Jul 29, 2009 13:42:22	It sounds like your DM has issues wiht intimidation.
#3 onusbone Jul 29, 2009 14:17:26	Tell him your problem, and ask him whether he thinks Intimidate is worth training in for his campaign. Then ask for a rebuild... Just make sure he knows you have a problem. He might not even know it's an issue.
#4 Arbitrary_Aardvark Jul 29, 2009 14:34:32	Because most of the example social skill challenges (well, all of them that I've read) have Intimidation use be an auto-fail. Personally, I don't like that. I would have some uses of Intimidation be auto-fail. (Trying physical intimidation on a noble in front of his friends, for example) But a more subtle use should at least be capable of being a bonus skill (giving a +2 on a diplomacy check, for example.)
#5 red_tanker Jul 29, 2009 14:47:09	Try describing your intimidate attempt as "I am powerful and can help you, if you help us!" If you intimidate people with "Do what I want or I will kill you!" and they actually have allies, expect them to go get reinforcements, it just makes sense. For intimidation in combat: 1) surround people to make them surrender rather than run 2) treat your prisoners right and get a reputation for it.
#6 nowiwantmydmg Jul 29, 2009 15:05:17	I've removed the social skills from my game entirely (and replaced them with a new mechanic), but it's an upfront house rule. If he's not running it as per core, ask why. Many DMs don't like the auto-win it can provide in combat though.
#7 slyjay Jul 29, 2009 17:45:13	Many DMs don't like the auto-win it can provide in combat though. How is it an auto-win? I mean, you're almost guarenteed a -10 penalty for your targets being hostile and your target has to be bloodied to surrender, so it's not like you can glare at some orcs the first round of combat and expect them to wet themselves and start to cry.
#8 Nyronus Jul 29, 2009 17:55:52	How is it an auto-win? I mean, you're almost guarenteed a -10 penalty for your targets being hostile and your target has to be bloodied to surrender, so it's not like you can glare at some orcs the first round of combat and expect them to wet themselves and start to cry. Except when you have a charisma based character ratchet up the bonuses to auto-succeed and carry around a flensing weapon. Hit once and win. If you though solos were worthless before... For fun, I once made a skill challenge where diplomacy was an auto-fail and intimidate was the easiest way to win. Negotiating with an obstinate coward was an interesting change of pace.
#9 daidojitaidoru Jul 29, 2009 18:11:34	Problem 1: Bad explanation. WotC dropped the ball here. Instead of making Intimidate a useful skill designed to impress people with your own power and use fear as a tool to turn peoples opinions about they stuck with the same lame definitions that made it such a waste in 3rd ED "ME AM SCARY!". Then they reinforced it with poor skill challenge ideas. Proposed Solution: Try to get your GM to make Intimidate the skill it should be. A show of power and knowledge of how to use fear and strength. You should be able to use Intimidate to convince people you're the guys who can break the Dragons face in. To convince others that the only way they can be safe is by asking for your help. To stir worry among the people, and get the peasants to form angry mobs. Not just to look angry and make people **** themselves. There's a reason Bards are good at this, and it's not due to imposing physique (all the time). Problem 2: Bad mechanics Not only does Intimidate have that stupid surrender garbage attached to it, but everything seems to give a bonus to the skill (usually on the RAR I SCARY basis too...) making stupid high Intimidate scores easy to come by. Proposed Solution: Working with your DM to cut down the cheese will probably help keep DCs in the sane range. Also generously allowing the DM to decide what will and will not surrender will grant you a lot more leeway. Also only use it in specific circumstances. In return see if you can get the action loss cut a bit from standard.
#10 paintknight Jul 29, 2009 18:25:53	This was a great thread and I think you all had some great takes on this. Myself, I really would like to see there be more application for this myself. I think part of the failure is player-side, as stated above. We, as players, have got to be more creative with our use of intimidate. Secondly I think it might be partially Wizard's fault in giving poor explanations as well as presenting it with some possibly not-so-great examples. Anyways, I hope you can talk with your DM and work something out; perhaps figuring out a way where intimidation doesn't destroy his story or what he'd like to have happen and also have it be able to give you and your group a leg-up. You should be able to use all the tools in your toolbox and if intimidate is one of them (one of my faves, personally) and it's being negated, it's definitely worth a sit-down with your friendly neighborhood DM. Best of luck to you!
#11 Nyarlathotep Jul 29, 2009 19:23:56	I think the problem is that Intimidate is one of the things that got oversimplifed. I understand the concept, if you hurt the monster it makes sense that you should b able to scare it off. But it doesn't take into account how how hurt the party is at the time. If you are fighting a monster and it is bloodied and yet the party still looks healthy, by all means intimidate away (if you make it, you are saving everyone from a long slog of a combat with a foregone conclusion anyway). On the other hand, if you have just barely bloodied the monster but it's already taken down half the party and you don't look so great yourself, well..good luck with that intimidate attempt. In my games at least. I think that if they had made the Intimidate check a little more comprehensive, you would hve fewer DMs nerfing it into oblivion.
#12 Hippolyte Jul 29, 2009 20:14:56	Double post
#13 Hippolyte Jul 29, 2009 20:15:32	My supervisor uses Intimidation all the time: she never uses Diplomacy. We hate her, but it works for her. People either quit or get in line. So, yes, Intimidation should be effective in Dungeons and Dragons as well. It is not all about physical threats.
#14 lotusblossom Jul 29, 2009 20:18:18	Tell your DM that anyone can be scary and make people run away, but a successful Intimidation check means you're scaring people into doing what you want them to do. Remember, in the good-cop-bad-cop scenario, the good cop is the one making the Intimidate check.
#15 gregt_314 Jul 29, 2009 20:23:25	Why do DMs downplay the potential of intimidate? Because of this. Kaldric's Intimidate Build Level 21 - Forces Vecna to surrender in first round of combat on any roll except a 1. Hit the "show" button for details. 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.
#16 Krusk Jul 29, 2009 20:29:36	I just request my players upfront not take diplomacy, bluff or intimidate unless they really want to. I then explain that they can usually cover that stuff by simply roleplaying it out and train the skill elsewhere. Intimidate in combat is specifically the only thing I have had to ban in 4e. I tried working out an acceptable solution with my players, and we came to the conclusion that it was easier to just ignore the mechanics, and if a PC offers surrender and it seems legit or like a decent option some monsters might. Others also will randomly flee the fight, if things look sour. I had players asking for monsters to flee and surrender, looked at my DM style, and realized no monsters had ever done that, and made an effort to include it. Now people don't need to burn a skill on it, and things seem more ~real~.
#17 1red13 Jul 29, 2009 22:27:59	It seems to me that some players want to over use intimidate and some dms want to all but ignore intimidate while still allowing it as a skill. One using it to be a near magical cure all for any social situation while the other comes up with a host of reasons why intimidate is all but useless in a given situation. Krusks solution is as good a solution as any. I can see where each of these skills can be more hassle than they're worth when abused.
#18 Arcane_Guyver Jul 30, 2009 1:09:08	This is one of those examples of a DM seeing something on the boards (see three posts above for theoretical build) and then nerfing the skill into uselessness without telling the players beforehand. This is especially bogus if the PC hasn't put any more effort into boosting the skill than Charisma as a primary stat and basic skill training. The rule could use the same amount of reworking care as the Stealth skill, sure, but I also think DMs are collectively too worried about worst-case scenarios and not thinking from the player perspective. If WotC isn't going to fix the skill, how about at least a DDI article explaining fair usage of the rules? How about a clear cut answer if the 'DM makes up the DC' is meant for skill challenges (which would make perfect sense) or indeed is meant to keep level 35's (and apparently everyone else...) from raising a white flag at the first sign of trouble? Edit: In fact, if I get a chance to interact at any length with one of the game's developers at GenCon, the Intimidate skill and how it's meant to be implemented will be my first question. Regardless of the answer's content, I'll post it here.
#19 gregt_314 Jul 30, 2009 1:23:16	This is one of those examples of a DM seeing something on the boards (see three posts above for theoretical build) and then nerfing the skill into uselessness without telling the players beforehand. This is especially bogus if the PC hasn't put any more effort into boosting the skill than Charisma as a primary stat and basic skill training. The rule could use the same amount of reworking care as the Stealth skill, sure, but I also think DMs are collectively too worried about worst-case scenarios and not thinking from the player perspective. If WotC isn't going to fix the skill, how about at least a DDI article explaining fair usage of the rules? How about a clear cut answer if the 'DM makes up the DC' is meant for skill challenges (which would make perfect sense) or indeed is meant to keep level 35's (and apparently everyone else...) from raising a white flag at the first sign of trouble? The problem with intimidate is really that it's a one-hit kill. For any character capable of pulling it off, it effectively deals damage equal to a creature's bloodied value (or full HP with a flensing weapon). That makes it straight-up the most powerful ability in the game for neutralising combat threats. If you want to fix it, you simply either: (a) remove the abilitiy to use it in-combat, or (b) make a successful use of it impose the "dazed" and "marked" conditions instead of its current effects (or some other similar combination of effects less devastating than surrender).
#20 Nyarlathotep Jul 30, 2009 14:36:10	I just request my players upfront not take diplomacy, bluff or intimidate unless they really want to. I then explain that they can usually cover that stuff by simply roleplaying it out and train the skill elsewhere. Intimidate in combat is specifically the only thing I have had to ban in 4e. I tried working out an acceptable solution with my players, and we came to the conclusion that it was easier to just ignore the mechanics, and if a PC offers surrender and it seems legit or like a decent option some monsters might. Others also will randomly flee the fight, if things look sour. I had players asking for monsters to flee and surrender, looked at my DM style, and realized no monsters had ever done that, and made an effort to include it. Now people don't need to burn a skill on it, and things seem more ~real~. That's similar to what I do, though I will take a successful intimidate check into account to push the monster toward "surrender" if the monster is iffy on whether surendering seems like the better option or not. Otherwise, I might give them some sort of bonus other than making their opponent run away like a little girl; I might have the foe hesitate for a few seconds (thus granting them combat advantage until the end of the intimidator's next turn) or I might have an animalistic foe simply growl and threaten (i.e. make its own intimidate attempt) rather tha attack. Though it is all very situational, admittedly.
#21 Arcane_Guyver Jul 30, 2009 14:42:38	I could see a sort of skill challenge in forcing a creature to surrender, kind of like multiple Thievery checks to destroy a trap mid-combat.
#22 lonestranger Jul 31, 2009 4:56:16	The thing that strikes me about that skill in combat is...you don't have to kill the creature, it can surrender for once. I was in a 4th game and someone tried to use that skill a couple of times before the "group discussion" effectively rendered it moot. (I say "group discussion" because the GM and the person who agreed with him managed to prevail.) I think part of the problem is some GMs get used to combat happening in certain situations so any other thought of what to do throws them off.
#23 doppelganger Jul 31, 2009 9:11:56	The thing that strikes me about that skill in combat is...you don't have to kill the creature, it can surrender for once. I was in a 4th game and someone tried to use that skill a couple of times before the "group discussion" effectively rendered it moot. (I say "group discussion" because the GM and the person who agreed with him managed to prevail.) You don't have to kill creatures. Reducing them to 0 hp can simply take them out of the battle rather than killing them now (if the player so chooses). If you mean that players don't have to reduce the creatures to 0 hp to take the creatures out of the fight, that's the problem some DMs have with intimidate. The ability to ignore the several hundred hit points that a bloodied elder dragon has left by using a repeatable standard action (not even an encounter power!) can be a pretty big deal for some DMs.
#24 nowiwantmydmg Jul 31, 2009 10:53:57	You don't have to kill creatures. Reducing them to 0 hp can simply take them out of the battle rather than killing them now (if the player so chooses). If you mean that players don't have to reduce the creatures to 0 hp to take the creatures out of the fight, that's the problem some DMs have with intimidate. The ability to ignore the several hundred hit points that a bloodied elder dragon has left by using a repeatable standard action (not even an encounter power!) can be a pretty big deal for some DMs. Precisely. making it an encounter ability, increaing the difficulty 5-10 points and situational (he's not going to surrender if he's winning or a zealot/fanatic for example) and it would probly be fine. A player needs to keep in mind too that if foes do surrender and get executed later for it(by the players) that other foes should be less likely to surrender later.
#25 Arcane_Guyver Jul 31, 2009 13:17:43	Precisely. making it an encounter ability, increaing the difficulty 5-10 points and situational (he's not going to surrender if he's winning or a zealot/fanatic for example) and it would probly be fine. Heh, this sort of reminds me of 3e days again. By RAW, you can only target an enemy with Intimidate once per encounter. Also, by increasing the DC by even 5 points, things are moving back into the old paradigm of "Hard for trained people, impossible for others." The zealot bit is pretty important though; I figure an enemy will only surrender if it considers surrender a viable option. Unintelligent creatures will not back down, and neither will fanatics (religious, prideful, etc) or creatures that understand that surrender will most certainly result in their destruction (vampires, demons, etc). But that's not RAW, just my interpretation of RAI. If a creature's immune to it, the player should be told before he/she wastes their standard action, however.
#26 doppelganger Jul 31, 2009 13:34:20	Heh, this sort of reminds me of 3e days again. By RAW, you can only target an enemy with Intimidate once per encounter. Also, by increasing the DC by even 5 points, things are moving back into the old paradigm of "Hard for trained people, impossible for others." You can only target a specific enemy once per encounter, but you can target each individual enemy one time without number limits. That can make intimidation rather more useful than any other power the party is likely to possess. Often, when DMs disallow things it is because of a perception that the thing is overpowered. It is easy to see why intimidation could be considered overpowered in a combat heavy game.
#27 stealthmarmot Jul 31, 2009 15:34:30	Wow GregT, thank you for explaining that Intimidate is to 4th what Diplomacy was to 3.5.
#28 gregt_314 Jul 31, 2009 22:39:22	Wow GregT, thank you for explaining that Intimidate is to 4th what Diplomacy was to 3.5. Not sure if you're being sarcastic or sincere. I'll assume the most favourable interpretation: you're welcome! Although my understanding of 3.5 is a bit fuzzy; play-wise, I skipped straight from AD&D 2nd Edition to the current ruleset. I'd suggest that any diplomacy ruleset which allowed a player to reliably put any NPC completely at their mercy through a single-action single-dice roll without at least some very compelling roleplaying backing it up would be just as broken as 4E intimidate, certainly.
#29 skalgrimm Jul 31, 2009 23:22:40	Also, WOTC constructed the game so that many monsters have interesting abilities and powers that only come into play once they are bloodied. This means that a good Intimidator has the potential to remove enemies from a fight right as they become more interesting in game play. I don't see this as a problem unique to Intimidation, as there exist many power and build which can "short-circuit" a fight or a monster, and basically throw them out of the encounter. This is a difficult balancing point for DMs, as some players would like to see how different monsters "behave" on the combat map, while others enjoy the tactical exercise of defeating them as efficiently as possible. I think there is a problem with Intimidate that is unique to that skill: In combat, the skill has a mechanical aspect that either defeats the monster, or does nothing. Compare this with Bluff. In combat, you can Bluff to gain Combat Advantage, but only once per encounter (even if the other monsters can't see you!). Bluff gives you a minor benefit, that lasts for a short while, and can only be used once per fight. Intimidate gives you a much larger benefit, that effectively lasts the whole fight (since the opponent surrenders or flees), and can be used multiple times. If Intimidate could be used (in the rules, specifically) for a more minor benefit in combat, I think this would help. Also, if other skills, like Bluff, could be a little MORE useful in combat (again, in the rules), it would also help. Also, the high-difficulty "all or nothing" nature of combat Intimidation isn't very helpful. For the skill to be useful, you need a really, really good bonus on it. Once you've gotten that bonus (and spent all the feats and gold to get it), you're going to be inclined to use it as much as possible. If moderate levels of Intimidation were more useful in combat, I don't think you would see the drive to achieve cosmic intimidation, either. Outside combat, I think Intimidation works pretty well. I don't like it being disallowed in so many "official" skill challenges, because, to my mind, it isn't simply "threatening" the opposition. A wily rogue might make a Bluff check to threaten a dragon that he has no chance of actually defeating, but a cool-headed Dragonborn might nonchalantly clean his nails with a paring knife while addressing the Troll King, showing the monster no fear, and no respect. That's a good use of Intimidate, in my mind. Of course, threatening Vecna with beheading is a pointless intimidation roll, but boldly staring at him, eyes to eye, and not backing down, is Intimidation, plain and simple.
#30 gregt_314 Jul 31, 2009 23:24:18	This means that a good Intimidator has the potential to remove enemies from a fight right as they become more interesting in game play. A good intimidator does it on the first turn; flensing weapon's daily ability lets you treat your target as though it were bloodied, regardless of its HP count. That's really more of an issue with flensing weapon than intimidate, but the principle stands.
#31 stealthmarmot Aug 01, 2009 10:38:42	Not sure if you're being sarcastic or sincere. I'll assume the most favourable interpretation: you're welcome! Although my understanding of 3.5 is a bit fuzzy; play-wise, I skipped straight from AD&D 2nd Edition to the current ruleset. I'd suggest that any diplomacy ruleset which allowed a player to reliably put any NPC completely at their mercy through a single-action single-dice roll without at least some very compelling roleplaying backing it up would be just as broken as 4E intimidate, certainly. Heh, at their mercy? Imagine having a non-dispellable, non-resistable, no saving throw unlimited duration charm person spell that had no negative consequences if it failed. From what I understand you could get that skill up to that level before level 5.
#32 skalgrimm Aug 01, 2009 21:32:25	A good intimidator does it on the first turn; flensing weapon's daily ability lets you treat your target as though it were bloodied, regardless of its HP count. That's really more of an issue with flensing weapon than intimidate, but the principle stands. You are right here. There's a basic problem, and the extra magic items and abilities can just magnify it even more. I know that I have a group which really likes combat and tactics, because they will often pick a fight with something that they could have bribed or duped, because the players were curious as to what it DID. Heck, even when the characters don't want to kill something, the players often feel a bit cheated out of the encounter (and so do I, as I printed out full color maps and full color monster tokens for naught). Sigh.
#33 volcanon2 Aug 01, 2009 22:22:21	So nobody thinks they added in the combat ability because some dev KNEW intimidate would be brutally hozed by everybody :P? More seriously: 1) Aside from the "OMG THE BIG BAD CAN SURRENDER GUARUNTEED" arguements, why does intimidate still get nerfed for minor battles? 2) How about RPing? Every 4th DM I've had has made intimidate basically useless or if I succeed, then something completely different than what should happen, happens (like the cornered human DOESNT give up something he stole from me when I promise to let him go if he does, etc.) At least that one guy on this thread is honest - "if you RP well don't waste skill training on social skills" - I hate it when DMs do this. I had a game last year (the last 3.5 I played, actually), where the social character and the DM's "favorote" was a 3.5 Tiefling with FIVE charisma.
#34 Krusk Aug 02, 2009 10:23:30	I think the biggest problem with trying to use intimidate as your default go to social skill is that no one likes to be intimidated. So gaurenteed you will make the NPC unhappy. "Make an Intimidate check to influence others through hostile actions, overt threats, and deadly persuasion."- phb 1 If you do this, you succeed sure, but it usually means that the first chance to screw you over they get, the NPC will take. The only roleplay reason to take it over diplomacy is that you want your PC to come off as a bit of a jerk, or maybe just mean. No one likes jerks, or mean people, and so the NPCs often will react negativly to it. This is why I don't like social skills in the game. Let me make it clear though, sure if my players RP well I won't ask them to roll a check, but if they are bad at RP, or simply don't know what to say, they can feel free to take the skill and just tell me a number. "I want to bluff my way into the bar, 35" "OK so you tell him ____ and he lets you in" I just prefer they RP it out, and if they can do so in a meaningful way, why do I care what a number on a die says? (If it were up to me there would be no cha stat to begin with, take it for what it means.)
#35 chaosturtle Aug 02, 2009 11:10:12	If its stupid and makes no sense, it wouldn't work...rule 0 it. Manage to whack a mook down from 80 hp to something like 10, and he's one of three injured people left against your still strong party, you can force surrender. If its a dragon that still has several hundred hitpoints, its obviously not going to work, even if technically the rules allow for it.
#36 Arcane_Guyver Aug 02, 2009 15:28:57	Hmm. Maybe if there was an additional caveat to the usage of that skill, "The target must be bloodied and it's hit points reduced to 25% or less."
#37 dragonspirit Aug 03, 2009 3:56:00	Social skills (Diplomacy, Intimidate) should only have application in situations determined by the DM. No, you can't roll a skill check to intimidate the BBEG into foregoing his evil plot. However, the DM should be open to allowing intimidate to work frequently enough that the skill has usefulness.
#38 AaronOfBarbaria Aug 03, 2009 5:02:41	I think Intimidate is perfect as written. ...but then that is because I view the bit that mentions the DC being their will defense, the listed modifiers mentioning hostility as a -10, and the bit about "or a dc determined by the DM." to be a guideline as to how to treat the skill. Last of a band of orcs is bloodied, out numbered, and the oposing force seems tough enough he doubts his ability to kill them all - use his will defense as the DC, and have him flee if possible with attempting to negotiate servitude (and later escape) as a backup plan. One of 5 elementals is bloodied, the rest aren't, and the oposing force has taken a fair share of hits - use a DC high enough to represent his belief the fight is winable, I'd suggest something that is around (highest PC's intimidate modifier) +18... so that if this monster were to be intimidated into surrender it would be because of either an excellent roll at a lucky moment, or because multiple characters worked together (aid another) to achieve this result (which had they all just attacked and hit would likely have killed it anyway) House rules to the social skills in D&D are either a) knee jerk, or b) due to not wanting dice to have any part in social aspects of the game in my opinion.
#39 Arcane_Guyver Aug 15, 2009 21:40:45	So, I asked Andy Collins about Intimidate today. I don't have his exact words written down, but apparently the skill works as it's intended...which is also the way it's written. It's basically there so DMs can let PCs eliminate enemies without beating them up, particularly useful for combats with large numbers of enemies. --- I guess the Will defense is the guideline. If an enemy could conceivably give up, but it isn't likely, the DM can set an appropriate DC. And those who won't surrender, well...it's impossible.
#40 gregt_314 Aug 18, 2009 0:48:41	So, I asked Andy Collins about Intimidate today. I don't have his exact words written down, but apparently the skill works as it's intended...which is also the way it's written. It's basically there so DMs can let PCs eliminate enemies without beating them up, particularly useful for combats with large numbers of enemies. --- I guess the Will defense is the guideline. If an enemy could conceivably give up, but it isn't likely, the DM can set an appropriate DC. And those who won't surrender, well...it's impossible. The only rational response to this is to say that Andy Collins is mistaken, insane, or pulling your leg. Intimidate is all but impossible to pull off for a non-specialised character and flagrantly overpowered for a specialised one. There is no game in which the in-combat application of the skill as-written enriches the game without resorting to the "DM determines the difficulty" clause.
#41 samprimary Aug 18, 2009 5:11:57	As I am writing a campaign out, I make sure to make a list for every single session that describes what each and every skill can be used for to be helpful that day, and make most skills useful in some parts every day. I also try to make it so that monster knowledge rolls get factored in every day, and ensure that on any given day if you have a skill for the setting you are in (outdoor:nature dungeon:dungeoneering city:streetwise) it's very very frequently helpful. If you don't do this, then many skills become circumstantially useless in the majority of situations and they're only as useful as a player can cadge out of the GM, by continually asking "I'd like to try X, can I make a Y roll for it?" In the case of Intimidate, my recommendation is to suitably customize it to the scenario. Make it useful in some fights. Not all, but some; any conflict where you can announce to the group that a tangible shift has occurred in the enemies' disposition at a pivotal moment. The leader falls, the leader runs, they take losses disproportionate to the damage they appear to be doing to you, they look around and don't see reinforcements, etc. You can announce something to this effect. Here is an example: group remains mostly or wholly unbloodied during a significant encounter, and a group of bandits have incurred losses. They still have potential to at least turn this battle into a stalemate or even force the pc's into retreat now that party heals and second winds are drying up, but due to the non-bloodiedness of the party, appearances have turned against the bandits. The GM notes this and decides to trigger the applicability of Intimidate checks against the still-hostile but now extremely wary enemies. This trigger is made known to the PC's via a verbal announcement. "The remaining bandits look around and seem to lose their mettle. They appear to be severely questioning whether or not they should continue fighting." IN ADDITION, you can go even further and apply Intimidate as a measure of expertise in specifically gauging things like battlefield morale. You could allow a character to make an intimidate roll that acts as an insight roll (with a different modifier, perhaps) in terms of determining that intimidate is now very applicable. In effect: Announce: The remaining bandits delay their forward positioning. Insight 25/Intimidate 27: They appear to have lost their mettle and appear to be severely questioning whether or not they should continue fighting. Insight 30/Intimidate 33: The only person still enthusiastic to fight is the bowman commander at the rear. He's goading them on angrily and appears ready to kill anyone who stops fighting. The only reason the bandits are still fighting is because they're at least as afraid of him as they are of you. Hopefully very little has to be spelled out at this point. Everyone sees an ambiguous delay in their aggressiveness. Insightful rolls determine for a player much more clearly that they've got morale issues and that at this point intimidation is a possible option. With a great roll, they know that taking out the bowman commander will make intimidation rolls a greatly effective option to acquiring surrender from the remaining bandits (by making the intimidation rolls easy to succeed) They can still, of course, chew through the bandits front to back and likely still succeed, but probably with less healing surges left for the day overall and without any surrendered people left who will easily be willing to sputter out which normal looking rocks they've hid their stash under. This is how intimidate and pretty much all other skills should be utilized. Well, maybe Perception has enough mechanical benefit as-is, but you know what I mean. You could recommend that your DM take stuff like this into account when he designs encounters and at least give a half-hearted effort to not completely ignore or invalidate entire skills. And if he doesn't, then ... well, abandon the skill.
#42 erk_ Aug 18, 2009 8:10:48	Regarding its use in skill challenges, I think someone earlier hit the nail on the head when blaming it on the challenge in the book, where intimidating the duke is an autofail. Just for sits & giggles I made a challenge the other day where diplomacy was an autofail (technically not, I don't like the idea of autofails if RPed well, but it was a difficult one to succeed on) and intimidate was the easiest route to success: a juvenile, frightened dragon was trying to decide if it should attack the players or flee, after being teleported in by a traumatic event. Trying to talk to it made it more angry: it didn't like being spoken down to by potential food. Shouting and showing teeth, however, appealed to more primal instincts and was the better path to success. I think part of the problem is that many GMs approach social skill challenges in a very traditional manner, not seeing the potential for them beyond "negotiate with an NPC". As for its use in combat, I'd call the current rules better as a guideline. For a lone or outnumbered group of non-solo npc(s) they are fine. For the rest I'd either run it as a mini-skill challenge or set an appropriate DC based on factors not discussed in the book (how long the fight has taken, how outnumbered the NPC is, how healthy the remaining NPCs are if they are cooperative). The main flaw with the books is that these extraneous circumstances are not considered. They need to be.