Really simple and stupid question (I guess) but can you use intimidate on creatures that don't understand you or are incapable of understanding speech (int 1-2) like animals?
And if they can or can't, where does it say that if anywhere?
I would say yes.
Definitely you can. Animals tend to be more sensitive to feelings. It makes sense that when you intimidate, you put some physical language into it and the message is properly given.
I would say sure, but i would impose a -4 penalty on the check (humanoid to animal type).
Maybe even a -8 penalty on the check (humanoid to animal type AND intimidate is going from effecting a 3-18+ INT creature to 1-2 INT creature)
Prefer the -4, but really depends on how much the PC try to abuse the skill and how much they argue with there DM,
My own gut reaction was no, since on some level there have to be a way to bridge the communication gab... but I guess the penalty on the roll sounds like a reasonable idea as well. I do wish though what the rules actually say.
I would say sure, but i would impose a -4 penalty on the check (humanoid to animal type).
Maybe even a -8 penalty on the check (humanoid to animal type AND intimidate is going from effecting a 3-18+ INT creature to 1-2 INT creature)
Not RAW, but I put a -4 on the check which is corrected with wild empathy (so a druid can use Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate on animals as easily as on humanoids).
But what if a Druid wanted to use Animal Handling on a human ?
-4 penalty (animal to humanoid)
-4 penalty (1-2 INT to 3-18+ INT)
Total = -8 penalty.
.......
Which is the way i was reasoning it. Then applying it for Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. Should be about the same.
Actually animals are easier to intimidate than people -- they are just attacking out of defense or hunger. If you can convince them that you are a difficult meal they normally will move on to easier prey.
Intimidate doesn't require words -- and the best intimidating displays don't include talking.
By RAW there is no reason that you would be unable to intimidate an animal and there is no penalty or bonus to doing so.
Size difference is already put into the intimidation skill so there is no reason to put something else in for it.
Actually animals are easier to intimidate than people -- they are just attacking out of defense or hunger. If you can convince them that you are a difficult meal they normally will move on to easier prey.
Intimidate doesn't require words -- and the best intimidating displays don't include talking.
By RAW there is no reason that you would be unable to intimidate an animal and there is no penalty or bonus to doing so.
Size difference is already put into the intimidation skill so there is no reason to put something else in for it.
+1
Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
Demoralizing an opponent cause them to become shaken.
Shaken = A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.
..........
So you are going to spend 10 rounds talking to a animal, that is attacking out of defence or hunger. No i do not think Intimidate will work.
Demoralizing an animal, with a -4 penalty.
Demoralizing an animal, with a -4 penalty.
And why the penalty? No one is suggesting a long term thing here -- simply intimidating it to render it shaken -- many animals would flee at that point if possible (though this is by no means guaranteed).
Yar.
Actually animals are easier to intimidate than people -- they are just attacking out of defense or hunger. If you can convince them that you are a difficult meal they normally will move on to easier prey.
Intimidate doesn't require words -- and the best intimidating displays don't include talking.
By RAW there is no reason that you would be unable to intimidate an animal and there is no penalty or bonus to doing so.
Size difference is already put into the intimidation skill so there is no reason to put something else in for it.
This +1
Intimidate works fine the way it is, as written, on any creature (regardless of it's Int score or type/subtype, unless it's type/subtype makes it immune to fear effects/mind affecting effects) within 30'. This includes animals.
The most important thing to remember is the size bonus/penalty written in the Intimidate skill, and the target DC.
There is no need to add additional modifiers to the roll because of the targets type/subtype or Int score.
~P
Ha now Druids and Ranger get Animal Handling. Even so we have to take a -4 penalty when affecting Magical Beasts.
So i think Intimidate, bluff, or diplomacy should at the very least suffer a -4 penalty when affecting animals.
Ha now Druids and Ranger get Animal Handling. Even so we have to take a -4 penalty when affecting Magical Beasts.
So i think Intimidate, bluff, or diplomacy should at the very least suffer a -4 penalty when affecting animals.
Bluff and diplomacy I could see... not intimidate though (I'm honestly leery of bluff too). Also magical beasts are not animals which is why you take the penalty -- nothing gives you such a penalty when using the other skills on magical beasts. So I think you are over stating the penalties.
Also to be clear: We are talking house rules/"what I would do" now instead of RAW (not that I mind, just being sure we are clear on that point for anyone lurking).
My own gut reaction was no, since on some level there have to be a way to bridge the communication gab... but I guess the penalty on the roll sounds like a reasonable idea as well. I do wish though what the rules actually say.
Read the Intimidation skill description, under Action:
"Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation"
You can't hold a conversation with an animal (if you can't speak with it). Perhaps that would help. I would think you still could, but the rules don't really support it.
'Du bist ein haesslicher Taschentuch!'
Now, do you feel intimidated?
I just called you an ugly handkerchief in German. Getting the opponent to do what you want is probably language dependent, at least complicated stuff.
You can probably still demoralize though.
I'm a rules lawyer.
Yes you can.One day, I was sitting on my friend's stoop. Her house was in a pretty poor neighborhood full of people that let their dogs out without leashes. A full grown Shepperd stopped a few feet from me. I picked up a stick and said, "if you come up here, it will be the last thing you ever do." Then basically stood there with it over my shoulder for a few long moments, then it ran off down the street and tried to attack a woman getting into her car. Good times.
Oh, I get it. I would allow it, just pointing out the text in the books. Something that a lot of people don't do when they post stuff on the rules board.
So did you intimidate the dog to go and attack that lady? You could do that with a human or creature that understand your language, but not an animal.
Oh, I get it. I would allow it, just pointing out the text in the books. Something that a lot of people don't do when they post stuff on the rules board.
So did you intimidate the dog to go and attack that lady? You could do that with a human or creature that understand your language, but not an animal.
To be clear I'm only talking about using the intimidate skill to demoralize an opponent (in this case an animal) in the hopes that he'll (it) will run when shaken. There is no RAW reason to supposed it would do this -- but there are good reasons to think it might from real life experience, and nothing saying that the animal once shaken might not decide to leave of its own accord.
It doesn't have to -- but it might.
Ok you can according to the rules, thanks that is what I wanted to know. :) I had just got it into my mind that for some reason you couldn't, silly of me.
It's worth noting that animal companions have Intimidate as a class skill.
I think anyone who has ever watched an episode of The Dog Whisperer knows that animals can definitely be intimidated. It is all about nonverbal communication; gestures, stance, eye contact, etc. Most of human communication is the same way.
I would have to say Yes.
What are you supposed to do when you encounter a mountain lion?
You are supposed to intimidate them. Stand up tall, throw stones, yell, growl.
Same applies to wild dogs.
The problem here is if you encounter an animal/monster that is not attacking, but is threatening, you may back away and not get attacked (if you're lucky).
Or you might attempt to intimidate the creature to get it to leave you alone. The problem arrives if you fail. This means the party has escalated the confrontation, generally meaning the creature attacks.
I would almost rule that your knowledge of said animal/monster would affect how effective you are at intimidating it, also I feel INT of said creature might come into play.