Intelligent Undead and Intimidate


Rules Questions


Since, for the life of me, I cannot find any indication that Fear is a mind-affecting effect (except that that specific use of Intimidate is called Demoralize and Undead, as a rule, are immune to moral effects), would it be possible to intimidate Vampires and the like?


no, they are simply unconcerned with mortal fears.

The Exchange

I think so. You can communicate with them (which means you can use the non-demoralize use of Intimidate to improve their attitude) and they're not immune to fear (which means you can demoralize them).


Mojorat wrote:
no, they are simply unconcerned with mortal fears.

A fine arguement, but I'd like a rules clarification. Nowhere does it state that Fear is a mind-affecting effect, which I find strange. That's why I'm asking here.


I think its safe to assume that intimidate is a mind affecting morale effect even if it doesn't explicitly state it. In which case the undead, already having experienced the worse that the character could possible inflict and being incapable of feeling pain or loss is immune.


It is interesting to note that the fear spell itself is listed as a mind-affecting effect.


Yes, but under descriptor it says [Fear, Mind-Affecting], meaning they are two separate effects. That's what buggs me.


Vampires are intelligent and therefore interested in self preservation (as are liches for example, because otherwise they would not go through the trouble of becomming a lich)
As such they don't want to toss away their existence, so threatening one's existence through intimidate (like daylight spells, channeling positive energy etc) they should be able to be fearful of.

The Exchange

For what it's worth, in 3.5, when you improve someone's attitude with Diplomacy to Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, or Helpful, no mention is made of anything being mind-affecting. However, at epic levels, if you improve someone's attitude to Fanatic, doing so is treated as a mind-affecting enchantment for purposes of immunity, etc.

Since you're using Intimidate to only take them to Friendly, there is no mind-affecting stuff involved.

---

The Demoralize use of Intimidate is fear-based. Immunity to mind-affecting stuff does not mean immunity to fear. They're two separate things like you said.

Liberty's Edge

snobi wrote:

The Demoralize use of Intimidate is fear-based. Immunity to mind-affecting stuff does not mean immunity to fear. They're two separate things like you said.

This would mean that you can intimidate (demoralize) even mindless Oozes and Constructs, which strikes me as a bit odd

Sovereign Court

You can't...they are mindless...you cannot make them fear for their existence when they can't think anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Hama wrote:
You can't...they are mindless...you cannot make them fear for their existence when they can't think anyway.

That is what I feel too, but they are not written as immune to Fear effects, though they are immune to Mind-Affecting effects

Sovereign Court

Magical fear is a mind affecting effect. The point is that unless the creature can understand what a threat for it's existence means, it can't be intimidated/demoralized. It just won't get it.


Yes, mindless undead are irrelevant, for this topic, at least. Question is, can you scare a vampire? Through your martial skill, I'd say yes...

The Exchange

The black raven wrote:


This would mean that you can intimidate (demoralize) even mindless Oozes and Constructs, which strikes me as a bit odd

You can't if you can't communicate with them. They don't have a language.

Liberty's Edge

snobi wrote:
The black raven wrote:


This would mean that you can intimidate (demoralize) even mindless Oozes and Constructs, which strikes me as a bit odd
You can't if you can't communicate with them. They don't have a language.

But you can intimidate animals even though they don't have a language per se.

I think that we need clarification on which creatures you can Demoralize and which you cannot.

The Exchange

The black raven wrote:


But you can intimidate animals even though they don't have a language per se.

Good catch...I think I was thinking of Diplomacy.

The black raven wrote:


I think that we need clarification on which creatures you can Demoralize and which you cannot.

3.5 says "A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures." So I think that means everyone else can (unless they have a specific immunity to Intimidate, which I know there are feats for).

Dark Archive

Intelligent undead have a sense of self-preservation. It seems to follow then, logically, that they can be affected by Intimidate.

Magical fear works by placing the emotion directly in the brain, making the subject afraid for no good reason, hence it being a mind-affecting effect and not able to affect undead.

That is how I would rule it, anyhow.

Dark Archive

I think a clear look at the situation is really where a great "Intimidate" roll would come into play (in regards to intelligent undead). If you've got one hand on a stake, you've managed to chain down your favorite Lestat, and he's only inches from the divine retribution of the holy, holy sun.. and you say, "Tell me what I want to know or else..." I'd say, sure, an Initimidate roll is definitely warranted. He might be immune to the magic of lesser mortals, but he sure isn't immune to that sun or common sense. Self-preservation should kick in. And if it doesn't, your local Inquisitor is probably going to just find what he was looking for when he's done sifting through Lestat's ashes...

On the other hand, if your fighter walks in, the Lich surrounded by a dozen of his loyal minions, and says, "Yeah, you'd better surrender before you damage my calm and I have to toss you all over this place by your boney little head," the Lich is probably going to chuckle a little right before he unleashes a world of hurt.

In general, I think you shouldn't let mechanics get in the way of common sense or a great story, and as a GM, should certainly bend the rules to keep the story exciting and your players engaged. Of course, that works both ways, and you should always try to keep a level head and a can of common sense close by.

That's my $.02 at least... Your milage may vary.


Jason Sonia wrote:

I think a clear look at the situation is really where a great "Intimidate" roll would come into play (in regards to intelligent undead). If you've got one hand on a stake, you've managed to chain down your favorite Lestat, and he's only inches from the divine retribution of the holy, holy sun.. and you say, "Tell me what I want to know or else..." I'd say, sure, an Initimidate roll is definitely warranted. He might be immune to the magic of lesser mortals, but he sure isn't immune to that sun or common sense. Self-preservation should kick in. And if it doesn't, your local Inquisitor is probably going to just find what he was looking for when he's done sifting through Lestat's ashes...

On the other hand, if your fighter walks in, the Lich surrounded by a dozen of his loyal minions, and says, "Yeah, you'd better surrender before you damage my calm and I have to toss you all over this place by your boney little head," the Lich is probably going to chuckle a little right before he unleashes a world of hurt.

In general, I think you shouldn't let mechanics get in the way of common sense or a great story, and as a GM, should certainly bend the rules to keep the story exciting and your players engaged. Of course, that works both ways, and you should always try to keep a level head and a can of common sense close by.

That's my $.02 at least... Your milage may vary.

Your lich obviously hasn't met my fighter, Once I chew his minions up in under three rounds do I get a second chance at intimidate?


Jason Sonia wrote:

I think a clear look at the situation is really where a great "Intimidate" roll would come into play (in regards to intelligent undead). If you've got one hand on a stake, you've managed to chain down your favorite Lestat, and he's only inches from the divine retribution of the holy, holy sun.. and you say, "Tell me what I want to know or else..." I'd say, sure, an Initimidate roll is definitely warranted. He might be immune to the magic of lesser mortals, but he sure isn't immune to that sun or common sense. Self-preservation should kick in. And if it doesn't, your local Inquisitor is probably going to just find what he was looking for when he's done sifting through Lestat's ashes...

On the other hand, if your fighter walks in, the Lich surrounded by a dozen of his loyal minions, and says, "Yeah, you'd better surrender before you damage my calm and I have to toss you all over this place by your boney little head," the Lich is probably going to chuckle a little right before he unleashes a world of hurt.

In general, I think you shouldn't let mechanics get in the way of common sense or a great story, and as a GM, should certainly bend the rules to keep the story exciting and your players engaged. Of course, that works both ways, and you should always try to keep a level head and a can of common sense close by.

That's my $.02 at least... Your milage may vary.

Demoralize is only a 10% penalty on the d20 -- that's not likely to be an encounter-altering effect. I think some may be attributing too much significance to the effect due to the verbiage used to describe it. A demoralized foe in real life is likely to surrender -- that's not how it works in D&D/Pathfinder.

Given the amount of resources a character has to invest in order for Demoralize to even be worth attempting, I don't think it's balanced from a game perspective to make a large portion of the villain population immune to it.

If Demoralize had a greater effect, was a move action, or didn't require feats to make it usable, I think extending immunity to everything which is immune to mind-affecting abilities and fear effects would be appropriate.

Grand Lodge

The black raven wrote:
snobi wrote:
The black raven wrote:


This would mean that you can intimidate (demoralize) even mindless Oozes and Constructs, which strikes me as a bit odd
You can't if you can't communicate with them. They don't have a language.

But you can intimidate animals even though they don't have a language per se.

I think that we need clarification on which creatures you can Demoralize and which you cannot.

Intimidate is like diplomacy, you don't just get a roll, you have to specify the means to justify it. If you're going to intimidate undead it has to be through a means that would strike the appropriate threat. Just like that Richard Benjamin comedy where the hero tries to cow Dracula with the Star of David :)


LazarX wrote:
The black raven wrote:
snobi wrote:
The black raven wrote:


This would mean that you can intimidate (demoralize) even mindless Oozes and Constructs, which strikes me as a bit odd
You can't if you can't communicate with them. They don't have a language.

But you can intimidate animals even though they don't have a language per se.

I think that we need clarification on which creatures you can Demoralize and which you cannot.

Intimidate is like diplomacy, you don't just get a roll, you have to specify the means to justify it. If you're going to intimidate undead it has to be through a means that would strike the appropriate threat. Just like that Richard Benjamin comedy where the hero tries to cow Dracula with the Star of David :)

So the GM just gets to arbitrarily decide when a full round action (Dazzling Display) taken by a player won't work, just because the player doesn't have as high of an intimidate score in real life as his character does in game? D&D/Pathfinder is a game of high fantasy -- why do mundane-seeming abilities always get trashed for 'versimilitude'? Remember, we're talking about no more than a 10% penalty of success (nat 20 still succeeds) on actions which involve a die roll for a handful of rounds (at most), not disintegration or capitulation!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Intelligent Undead and Intimidate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions