
Pendagast |

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.

![]() |

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.

![]() |

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

![]() |

But you can intimidate animals even though they don't have a language per se.
Good catch...I think I was thinking of Diplomacy.
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).

![]() |

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.

![]() |

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.

Pendagast |

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?

Adam Ormond |
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.

![]() |
snobi wrote:The black raven wrote:You can't if you can't communicate with them. They don't have a language.
This would mean that you can intimidate (demoralize) even mindless Oozes and Constructs, which strikes me as a bit oddBut 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 :)

Adam Ormond |
The black raven wrote: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 :)snobi wrote:The black raven wrote:You can't if you can't communicate with them. They don't have a language.
This would mean that you can intimidate (demoralize) even mindless Oozes and Constructs, which strikes me as a bit oddBut 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.
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!