I did search. I really did. But I gave up after page 10 of the slow-loading paizo forums of 200+ resulting pages from searching for "intimidate". :)
So, a player created the Inquisitor. I love the character as it tends to put a heavier emphasis on roleplay than I'm used to seeing out of players. That said, the intimidate feature seems so "loaded". On the one hand, I don't want to nerf the player's resource allocation, but on the other hand, I don't want NPCs to act out of character.
The intimidate skill, in a nutshell, reads as follows: "If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance." This last part, 'limited assistance', is the most vague issue. How do you limit someone's assistance when they're scared/terrified. DC is 12, Inquistor makes an intimidate roll of 32. By multiples of 5, that's a success * 4. Now, I know multiples of success are meaningless here, but it means something to the player. How scary is the big bad Inquisitor? 32!
Some preliminary thoughts - for the Inquisitor, diplomacy and inimidation are valuable assets. With limited resources invested in these skills, they shouldn't be ignored. As I said, I especially like the fact that the player has so much invested in such a role-playing element (even though it has a combat value, as well), so there should be role-playing reward for that. The player has said, by making these investments, "I want a scary, intimidating character. I also want a strongly diplomatic character." As his GM, I want to accomodate that.
So, I came up with a few scenarios and I'd like to see how everyone handles them from a rules + *role playing* POV, if they would.
1) PC walks into a dungeon and sees a prisoner being treated (justified or otherwise) in a rather shabby way. He turns to one of the two low level guards and "intimidates" the guy. Then demands he go and get water for the prisoner. You say?
2) PC walks up to the squad of knights being led by a bureaucrat and "intimidates" him into taking his squad of knights and leaving before the PC roasts him on a spit. You say?
3) 1st level PC walks up to an orc guarding a pie and intimidates him and takes the pie. You say?
4) PC stands before the King in the King's throne room and intimidates him into abdicating the throne to the PC ("Your majesty. I see 6 guards standing nearby. They might get me, but not before I jump across this intervening space and stick my rusty poker in your eye. Come down off that throne and hand me the crown, or end your life here!").
5) 3rd level Inquisitor intimidates the 12th level mercenary into opening the gate into the settlement. 10 + 12(hd) + 1 (wis) = 23 [easily obtainable by a 3rd level Inquisitor].
6) Prisoner (villager) being led off to the dungeon by a single guard intimidates the guard into slipping him a key to his shackles ("You think I'm helpless? I've been in worse straights. For example, I could wrap these chains around your neck and choke the life from you. But I like you. I've known you since you were a kid. Give me the key when you put me in the cell and I'll say, if they catch me, that I picked your pocket. But if you don't... I promise you... you will pay. That one time when you're not looking, I'll snatch your breath away, boy!"). You say?
Edit: For what it's worth, I came up with the following "house rules" to help, but I don't know if they're sufficient number-wise:
2a) Successfully intimidated opponents may take actions that endanger it so long as it perceives the consequential danger to be less imminent, threatening, or severe than that posed by the intimidating player, at the GM's discretion. Alternatively, a highly moral person can overcome intimidation if asked to do that which is objectionable to that person's belief system ("I'd lay down my life before standing by for you to torture that child!").
2b) Circumstance bonuses and penalties will be applied according to the nature of the target (at GM discretion). For example, a guard who deals with threats regularly may receive a +5 circumstance bonus, while a sergeant of the guard might receive a +10. A king is likely to receive a +30 as he perceives himself to be completely in charge and has been trained from birth, as a leader, to face down threats.
2c) Circumstance bonuses and penalties will be applied according to the nature of one's allies. Half of the total HD of opponent's allies in immediate vicinity/support will be added to the DC. Half the total HD of the intimidator's allies assisting in the intimidation will be added to the intimidator's roll. (This helps prevent the 5th level barbarian from cowing a person backed by a squad of knights.)
Limited assistance is meant to be vague so the GM can decide what makes sense. It depends on the person being intimidated and the surrounding context. It basically means nothing they have actively been ordered not to do or which goes against their role and character (having a guard assassinate a general, having a page cut his knight's saddle girth, having a priest add poison to the holy water). It is meant to be small things that can be done and moved past (leaving a certain gate unlocked, ensuring armor was sent away for usual cleaning a bit early as to make it unavailable, 'dropping' an extra uniform while taking a load to the laundry).
1) Certainly. May consider making an intimidate roll on the part of the guard captain to be used as an opposed check against the inquisitor's. Kind of a "who is the guard more afraid of". In the end, the captain is a larger concern than the inquisitor.
2) Hard. Why is the squad there? Were they ordered? Why were they ordered? Is there something else they can do? This is probably more of a diplomacy/bluff check because you are convincing the bureaucrat to do something else, not just scaring him for a moment. If the bureaucrat was bothering the PC with lots of questions, then you can do an intimidate check to make them shut up or else.
3) Again, more diplomacy/bluff. If the orc has a pie that he is eating, the PC could intimidate him into giving up the pie, but here the orc has been ordered to guard the pie. If the PC is so much scarier than the orc's boss, then maybe, or if the orc knows he can blame the PC and be excused...
4) No. That isn't 'limited assistance'.
5) Probably but it depends, yet again, on what the mercenary thinks will happen if he does it vs what he thinks the inquisitor will do if he doesn't.
6) More likely bluff, but I can see this working with intimidate. There's a low chance the guard will be found out. Unless the guard personally detests the PC, for example if he's a treasonous curr or if he's being locked up for killing a bunch of the guard's friends.
These are my considerations. Intimidate requires an 'or else'. The roll is how well the player convinces the npc that they are capable of delivering on the 'or else'. But that only works if the 'or else' is worse than the consequences of doing it * probability of being identified as the one who did it.
Right, so that makes it very difficult as a GM to adjudicate intimidation. The player makes a great roll, but it just doesn't "work". He thinks, "What's the point in investing myself in this Inquisitor class if the GM just isn't going to allow me to do the things I should be allowed to do. How can I be 'Inquisitorial' if my rolls are ignored. Limited assistance means nothing if they're just going to say 'no' to everything? Opposed rolls? That's not stated in the rules."
1) Not a bad idea. Not supported by the rules.
2) It wasn't meant to be deeply thought out. Just a snapshot of "intimidate the leader" of a large gang of tough guys.
3) Like #1. Not a bad idea, but not supported by the rules. Furthermore, fear now vs fear later? Fear now should almost always win, if they're close to equivalent.
4) No, it isn't. This was a build on #2. Only, from a role-playing point of view. If #2 is viable, why isn't #4? It's not much work to stand up and hand over a crown, even if you wouldn't *reasonably* do it. The concept of reasonableness, nature of the target, and/or support are never considered here. It *needs* to be if it's going to be a regular mechanic that an Inquisitor is going to want to use.
5) Like #1. Understood.
6) But he might find it conscientiously objectionable. That's like someone intimidating you into standing aside to allow them to torture a child. Little needed from you in terms of assistance (nothing), but you're not likely to comply no matter how terrible the threat or belief in the threat. The mechanics of the skill check seem to allow it.
Apply common sense. Intimidate is basically "Do as I say or I will make bad things happen to you." Consider what the person would be prepared to do to avoid damage and rate the Intimidate roll as a measure of how scared they are.
So, Dabbler, just to be clear, give me some examples of how you'd handle the situations above. For example,
1st level Inquistor walks into a dungeon with three level 3 warrior guards. He says to one of them, "<preamble, preamble, to set up -> Get some damned water for the prisoner or you'll be wishing you had." He rolls a 25 on his intimidate roll. He's clearly outmatched, but he's also clearly passed his intimidation roll. What would you do as the GM? What's the common sense play here? Does he have to make a roll against each of them? Does he have to spend one minute trying to intimidate them separately? Can he intimidate them as a group? How does that work?
This is a class feature asset of the inquistor. They've turned a passing role-playing skill into focused mechanic. I don't see how you can just "common sense" your way through the rules, when the rules are clearly spelled out and then don't make sense because they don't account for circumstances. But if you account for circumstances, you want to be consistent about it, because the character is going to do this sort of thing regularly. For him, this isn't an exception, it's the rule of play. He's an Inquisitor for crying out loud! :P
Does he have to make a roll against each of them? Does he have to spend one minute trying to intimidate them separately? Can he intimidate them as a group? How does that work?
Roll versus the group, give them some group modifiers... we'll call it a solidarity bonus... or something. Something like +2 to the DC for each creature beyond the first. It's hard to intimidate a group/mob/army.
You do realize that constant intimidation is not going to be met very well. Any or all previous targets will likely remember/report/seek revenge against the intimidator if the result of the intimidation is beyond limited assistance, and especially the threat of constant deadly force. So let them intimidate without impunity, but there should be consequences later on. Especially when trying to intimidate the authority figures of the land... nice way to get a bounty on your head.
Thanks, Stynkk, for your ideas. Unfortunately, I don't see those numbers as working: that would give them a DC 10 + 3(hd) + 1(wis) (let's be generous) + 4 (solidarity) = 18. So, the lone level 1 Inquisitor would have no difficulty intimidating three level 3 guards.
I do realize that intimidation against authority figures and others will not have great long-term consequences. But keep in mind, his intimidation tactics are used, primarily, against people/creatures he perceives as morally challenged or outright evil.
Another interesting example: Bad guy (CR 4) masquerading as good guy comes to the inside of a gate to the grounds of a mansion estate to meet the Inquisitor (Lvl 3) who stands on the outside. Inquisitor, wanting to get in rolls to intimidate the bad guy, and rolls a 27. Bad guy offers limited assistance? Why? He's the bad guy! He opens the gate to his own property to let the dangerous man inside? He should say no. But he's so outmatched by the intimidate check, he has very little choice but to "act friendly", offer assistance, and hope the Inquisitor doesn't figure out that he's the bad guy.
The intimidate doesnt have to be an evil act though...
As an Inquisitor you are the punisher type but you are also powered by the divine.
So your intimidate is less like "do this or I will cause you pain" and more like "stop doing <bad things> cuz <divine person> is on my side and they will punish you for your misdeeds"
In that case they wont have time to plan your demise because they will be to busy sitting at home re-evaluating their lives.
You are literally putting the fear of the gods back into them. which is never an evil act, (unless the god is evil).
Even if you do cause them pain... they deserved it, because of their past misdeeds.
Intimidate is a very flexible skill and should be used carefully. I like to think of it almost the same way may people think of wishes. in other words it may work but it also may have consequences.
(full questions omitted for the sake of space)
(1)PC intimidates guard to go get water: sure it works. the guard leaves for water. if the PCs have a reason to be there (they are recognized as working for the king or some such) the guard comes back with water. if they are un-recognized or a known enemy the guard alerts the rest of his people
(2) PC intimidates a bureaucrat leading a bunch of knights: the bureaucrat gains bonuses because he is surrounded by body guards, or maybe he is visually intimidated and then gets a second roll as he realizes he is legally within his rights and protected by armed men, or possibly he leaves because the PCs are known powerful heroes but he may come back with more support. lastly he may leave but the PCs begin to gain a reputation for being bullies
3) PC Deebos an Orc out of his piesure. level is irrelevant. enough intimidation and the orc may become a follower... or he may rub boogers on the pie when the PC is not looking. (slight of hand?)
4) PC punks a King out of his crown. not gonna happen. king is going to yell for help or try to intimidate right back. kind should get bonuses as reasonable. if the PC does intimidate him the kind will likley just say "sure then walk out and return with the entire castle watch, the royal mage, clerics from all relevant religions in the capital and the royal assassin sneaking through a window to slit the PCs throat.
5) PC intimidates an NPC mercenary level is again irrelevant (or already factored in by the noted bonuses) however the mercenary should get a bonus for wanting to maintain his reputation. also remember that the Merc does not simply walk away and never return. he may walk away, grab a few friends and set an ambush.
6) prisoner intimidates his way out of shackles generally not going to happen. guard gets huge bonus for the fact that he feels in total control of a shabby unarmed prisoner in shackles. PC will probably get a few lumps for the attempt. If the prisoner is a well known villain and for some reason you still want to roll it and the prisoner wins I would say the guard is SO scared he fumbles with his keys, drops them and runs (possibly yelling for help) If the prisoner is a well known hero the guard may be convinced with diplomacy but an intimidation check would probably make the guard feel that maybe the prisoner is rightfully in shackles.
House rules.
I agree with your house rules although I would just arbitrarily set some of them you may want to give valid quasi-rule type reasons for your modifiers.
Thanks, Stynkk, for your ideas. Unfortunately, I don't see those numbers as working: that would give them a DC 10 + 3(hd) + 1(wis) (let's be generous) + 4 (solidarity) = 18. So, the lone level 1 Inquisitor would have no difficulty intimidating three level 3 guards.
Err.. are there no other circumstances you're accounting for?
If you're intimidating guys that are well paid or are coerced or have motivations, all those factors usually add more and more circumstantial bonuses.
The bad guy should have some nefarious plan... just because he lets him in doesnt mean his sense has also gone out the window. Perhaps he can call his guards over subtley, set a trap, escape in the meantime, etc. It seems to me that you're limiting this idea of RP Intimidation too much.
I think your rigid math is better suited for the Demoralize part of Intimidation (in combat) rather than the many shades of grey that conversational intimidation has.
ultimately the Intimidate skill (as well as dominate and other skills) are something the GM has to deal with on a case by case basis.
the check should ALWAYS have a penalty for failure and should never be able to force someone to do something that will lead directly to their own demise.
there is no possible way, for example, to intimidate some one into giving you his sword so you can stab him with it.
in your last example about the bad guy in his mansion. at the very best the bad guy may decide to give you clues about another bad guy or blame some one else for what ever it is your after himn for. this would fall under limited assistance.
but he would not open the gate to his fortress so that you can come in and tie him up. that would be handing you a sword.
Thanks, Stynkk, for your ideas. Unfortunately, I don't see those numbers as working: that would give them a DC 10 + 3(hd) + 1(wis) (let's be generous) + 4 (solidarity) = 18. So, the lone level 1 Inquisitor would have no difficulty intimidating three level 3 guards.Err.. are there no other circumstances you're accounting for?
If you're intimidating guys that are well paid or are coerced or have motivations, all those factors usually add more and more circumstantial bonuses.
The bad guy should have some nefarious plan... just because he lets him in doesnt mean his sense has also gone out the window. Perhaps he can call his guards over subtley, set a trap, escape in the meantime, etc. It seems to me that you're limiting this idea of RP Intimidation too much.
I think your rigid math is better suited for the Demoralize part of Intimidation (in combat) rather than the many shades of grey that conversational intimidation has.
Oh, no. I agree. Circumstance and reasonableness are the order of the day. But if the APG is going to create a class that makes diplomacy and intimidation a heavy focus, then it makes sense that the characters are going to want to use them. Heavily. Which means some sort of consistent approach would be nice.
I guess there is no way but for me to fumble through, making decisions, that ultimately irritate the player because of either failure to launch in spite of ridiculous intimidate rolls or my own inconsistencies in maintaining the various reasons for people behaving as they do.
I think I'll stick with my house rules as I've outlined above and add in the Charm Person "if you ask someone to do something they wouldn't do, even for a friend, it requires opposed Charisma rolls with circumstance bonuses/penalties dependent upon the nature of the request." Maybe just add that to 2a above.
Oh, no. I agree. Circumstance and reasonableness are the order of the day. But if the APG is going to create a class that makes diplomacy and intimidation a heavy focus, then it makes sense that the characters are going to want to use them. Heavily. Which means some sort of consistent approach would be nice.
Well, I agree that it is thematic for an Inquisitor to want to.. inquisite.. however, one must still exercise judgement when doing so.
Imagine if a lovable scamp of a halfling rogue was a cutpurse Rogue and they stole everything in sight using Sleight of Hand & Steal - from everyone they met. That would cause quite a ruckus and probably get the group in a lot of hot water.
I'd say you can take a leaf out of the Diplomacy and Bluff skills.
BLuff: the more outlandish the lie, the greater the penalty:
Believable: +0
Unlikely: -5
Far-retched: -10
Impossible: -20
Diplomacy, improves attitude by one step with a pass
Hostile: 25+cha
Unfriendly: 20+cha
indifferent: 15+cha
friendly: 10+cha
Helpful: 0+cha
with the action having a modifier: to the DC:
Give simple advice or directions –5
Give detailed advice +0
Give simple aid +0
Reveal an unimportant secret +5
Give lengthy or complicated aid +5
Give dangerous aid +10
Reveal secret knowledge +10 or more
Give aid that could result in punishment +15 or more
Additional requests +5 per request
So you intimidate someone, the DC for what aid is given is midified based on what you're asking.
intimidating an unfriendly creature into doing something dangerous or counterintuitive could mean you have to beat the Intimidate DC by say 10, or 20.
Intimidating a creature doesn't improve its attitude, but makes it act like you have. so having that come into account.
The guard that is ordered to get water could be cowed into being less of a jerk by beating the normal DC cause it's no skin off the guard's back. It's like an angry little dude that orders you around, and you just don't wanna go there, even i you thought you could take him a second ago.
the leader of a group had his backup, and is in a position of power, needs to show strength to his men, so he;d likely attack you , but he'd start off demoralized, as would the men
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a fanastic idea, waiph. I'm going to post this to the Homebrew/Homerule section of these forums soon, but my preliminary rewrite of the Intimidate rule looks something like this (critiques and suggestions welcome):
You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.
Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.
Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
Try Again: You can attempt to Intimidate an opponent again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after 1 hour has passed.
Special: You also gain a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks if you are larger than your target and a –4 penalty on Intimidate checks if you are smaller than your target.
If you have the Persuasive feat, you get a bonus on Intimidate checks.
A half-orc gets a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.
So, Dabbler, just to be clear, give me some examples of how you'd handle the situations above. For example,
1st level Inquistor walks into a dungeon with three level 3 warrior guards. He says to one of them, "<preamble, preamble, to set up -> Get some damned water for the prisoner or you'll be wishing you had." He rolls a 25 on his intimidate roll. He's clearly outmatched, but he's also clearly passed his intimidation roll.
How is he clearly outmatched? For all the guards know he might be a 15th level inquisitor.
How is he clearly outmatched? For all the guards know he might be a 15th level inquisitor.So, Dabbler, just to be clear, give me some examples of how you'd handle the situations above. For example,
1st level Inquistor walks into a dungeon with three level 3 warrior guards. He says to one of them, "<preamble, preamble, to set up -> Get some damned water for the prisoner or you'll be wishing you had." He rolls a 25 on his intimidate roll. He's clearly outmatched, but he's also clearly passed his intimidation roll.
The guards don't know *anything*. They have no reason to believe he's even an Inquisitor for that matter. Here's a guy, working for the defense, who comes to speak to a prisoner. Yeah, he's wearing some sort of armor, but so are they. Yeah, he's got a sword, but so do they. However, there's 3 of them and they've got a little experience under their belts (not new to the world of fighting and soldiering). There's one of this guy. And these two groups 3 v 1 don't know anything about each other. It's not like the Inquisitor walks in glowing, wearing the breastplate of Sarenrae and speaking in a resonating voice that echos down the corridor. No, it's 3v1 and they have no evidence to think this guy is anything but another bloke off the street. But more, I mean "clearly outmatched" in the meta sense (9 total hd vs 1 total hd). Yet, in spite of this HD disparity, the Inquisitor is able to intimidate them all? Seems a bit far-fetched.
it is.
i think its clear that the ability needs a bit of GM common sense feat.
I think common sense can very easily be tainted by lack of objectivity. Some guidelines on the usage of a heavily used skill will lead to consistency, player satisfaction, and more informed choices by the player.
1) PC walks into a dungeon and sees a prisoner being treated (justified or otherwise) in a rather shabby way. He turns to one of the two low level guards and "intimidates" the guy. Then demands he go and get water for the prisoner. You say?
I see what his roll is and listen to how he says it in character, I like to know how they are using their skills. Now if he rolls really well and it's a fairly easy intimidate the guard will respond "yes, sir, right away sir..." if the character rolls low the guard will tell him to get his own damn water and then turn back to the other guard and resume his conversation putting the PC out of his mind.
2) PC walks up to the squad of knights being led by a bureaucrat and "intimidates" him into taking his squad of knights and leaving before the PC roasts him on a spit. You say?
This seems a bit tougher, the squad of knights and especially the leader would be harder to get to do what he wants. If he is unsuccessful in the roll, this could lead to a fight pretty easily. I'd again have him tell me how he's talking to the NPCs and judge it upon the roll plus how he's speaking. Perhaps he's not "threatening" them, but he's using his superior rank to do it instead, that would give me as the DM more incentive to let the NPC do what the PC wants. I personally think him using diplomacy would be better in this situation rather than intimidation, it would get him further in the interaction and I'd assume that his CHA is pretty good if he's using intimidate anyhow.
3) 1st level PC walks up to an orc guarding a pie and intimidates him and takes the pie. You say?
I say, "Orc no want to give pie to him, rawrrr!!!" and attack unless he succeeded the check with a great roll and then the orc will whimper and slink away instead.
4) PC stands before the King in the King's throne room and intimidates him into abdicating the throne to the PC ("Your majesty. I see 6 guards standing nearby. They might get me, but not before I jump across this intervening space and stick my rusty poker in your eye. Come down off that throne and hand me the crown, or end your life here!").
A very difficult roll is called for here. The king wouldn't want to and may very well see past the intimidation. The king may be an old fighter anyhow who took his throne by the way of the blade and sneer at the pathetic PC's attempt to do so. This is going to be very situational and not easy at all for the PC to accomplish. If a PC in my group did something like this it'd most likely end up in some sort of battle between the PC and the guards, with waves of more guards coming in at the sound of battle, it's very unadviseable for a PC to try this kind of thing unless he is powerful enough to take out all the threats he'd create in trying to intimidate a king into giving his throne away.
5) 3rd level Inquisitor intimidates the 12th level mercenary into opening the gate into the settlement. 10 + 12(hd) + 1 (wis) = 23 [easily obtainable by a 3rd level Inquisitor].
Sure, the merc doesn't know what "level" each of them are and if the PC is able to get the 23 or higher the merc will do what he says. If he fails the merc would laugh at him and tell him to piss off.
6) Prisoner (villager) being led off to the dungeon by a single guard intimidates the guard into slipping him a key to his shackles ("You think I'm helpless? I've been in worse straights. For example, I could wrap these chains around your neck and choke the life from you. But I like you. I've known you since you were a kid. Give me the key when you put me in the cell and I'll say, if they catch me, that I picked your pocket. But if you don't... I promise you... you will pay. That one time when you're not looking, I'll snatch your breath away, boy!"). You say?
Who is this prisoner? Is he the intimidating inquisitor? It's going to be easier for the inquisitor to do than a lowly level 0 or level 1 villager. If it's a villager, the guard will just slap him around a bit to shut him up because it's going to be nearly impossible for him to be intimidated by an unarmed and shackled villager. If it's the inquisitor, then the check will be medium difficulty with the guard having heard of the things this PC is able to do and being much more skittish around him and knowing he'd follow through with his threats.
In each situation it's based upon role playing AND roll playing for me as a GM. I give bonuses to good role-playing along with a good roll of the dice because I like a good story. If a player only relies on the dice he doesn't get anything extra from me and I state these things at the beginning of the campaign so everyone knows where I stand on these kinds of situations. Even if a player fails a roll, he can win at the role and still succeed in my games.
ub3r_n3rd8: Thanks for that. Your approach, then, is to make it almost all roleplaying judgment call for the GM slightly informed by the dice. Inquisitor rolls a 35 with his +15 Intimidate skill (and bonuses), but it's meaningless if you decide it's meaningless.
But I see the possibility of the player getting irritated and saying, "This class feature is pointless. Why do I even really need a high skill in intimidate. It's going to be whatever the GM decides, anyway. This is why you never maximize role-playing aspects of a character, it's all done ad-hoc anyway."
I think common sense can very easily be tainted by lack of objectivity. Some guidelines on the usage of a heavily used skill will lead to consistency, player satisfaction, and more informed choices by the player.
dont get me wrong I am not insulting the GM. I am just saying that not everything can be put in a clear list of rules because intimidate in general, and especially the ways mentioned above, is not a clear use ability. its not like your ability to jump or an abstract of the ability to sneak something into your pocket.
instead we are talking about your ability to simulate convincing a person to do something relatively impossible.
I mean... hell if my intimidate is high enough can I just convince a dragon to fly away from his hoard?
no. and there is honestly no hard and fast simple rule to cover these situations. at some point the RULE is that the GM makes the rules.
now as the GM you may want to just say its impossible and tell the person they cant do it or give it an impposibly high DC.
you may also decide you want it to have a chance to succeed but simply say the number needed to make it work requires the player to roll a 20 on the die.
Or you may say that it can be done but with unforseen consequences bassed on the nature of being intimidated that the character may not anticipate.
Yes a player wants to be able to use their abilities but that does not mean that they have to be allowed to break the game in order to have fun.
The GM and the players need to accept that not every situation has a rule and not every rule is reasonable in every situation.
ub3r_n3rd8: Thanks for that. Your approach, then, is to make it almost all roleplaying judgment call for the GM slightly informed by the dice. Inquisitor rolls a 35 with his +15 Intimidate skill (and bonuses), but it's meaningless if you decide it's meaningless.
But I see the possibility of the player getting irritated and saying, "This class feature is pointless. Why do I even really need a high skill in intimidate. It's going to be whatever the GM decides, anyway. This is why you never maximize role-playing aspects of a character, it's all done ad-hoc anyway."
My original post in this thread is very similar to Uber nerds.
your not removing the PCs ability. your simply making it reasonable. if the player quits because they cant talk a king out of his kingdom with a stern stare and threatening words then the player has other issues.
also... remember that intimidate is not a control person effect. the person does not LIKE you it just makes him act more favorably for a very short time. I dont care if its a DC 10 check to take a childs candy and the PC rolled a nat 20 with a +30 to the roll.
all that happens is the kid begins to cry then hands over his candy. at that point the GM is free to determine the consequences. maybe the kid just hids in a corner. or maybe he goes and gets his dad, the level 15 dragon slaying paladin.
Well, according to the rules, that child remains friendly (fearful) for at least 10 minutes and up to an hour. It doesn't just run off to find Dad.
You used the most ludicrous example (intimidating a King) to make a point that misses the crux of things. The issue isn't whether or not the character should be able to intimidate the King, but whether he can intimidate the guard. Just some Joe off the street walks into a dungeon and starts ordering people around. Put yourself in that guard's shoes. Would you "hop to" if some intimidating stranger started barking orders? I doubt I would. I'd be asking some straight questions, "Who are you to order me?" or, if I felt like I couldn't take him, I'd leave and get some support.
See, the larger question isn't whether or not the guard responds favorably or unfavorably, the larger question is, "How can I consistently roleplay these Intimidate scenarios so that I'm both fair to the player and so that the NPCs act reasonably? What sort of *consistent* thinking will go into my process?" These are followed by similar and related questions, "How can my players know that I don't have it in for them when I say, 'No'. How can I feel good about saying, 'Yes'? How can I feel comfortable that I gave the player a reasonable, rational, objective answer to their desires?"
As waiph pointed out, we have DC modifiers for Bluff. We have DC modifiers for Diplomacy. Why is Intimidate, the one skill players love to abuse the most, lacking in this department? If we were to create modifiers, what would be the main factors? The nature of the target (attitude towards the PC, general personality/attitudes to life, and experience) and his allies (strength and the belief of the target in their support) seem to be the most relevant factors.
When I just arbitrarily make stuff up as I go along without a firm foundation, I repeatedly question myself, "Did I make the right decision there?" My goal is to develop some guidelines to assist me. To assist them. And ultimately to make this less a world solely in the pretend realm of the GM's mind, but a world shared by me and the players where things are alive with their own consistent physics and reasonableness. In part, it's a matter of realism, it part it's a matter of consistent playability, in large measure it's a matter of player satisfaction.
ub3r_n3rd8: Thanks for that. Your approach, then, is to make it almost all roleplaying judgment call for the GM slightly informed by the dice. Inquisitor rolls a 35 with his +15 Intimidate skill (and bonuses), but it's meaningless if you decide it's meaningless.
But I see the possibility of the player getting irritated and saying, "This class feature is pointless. Why do I even really need a high skill in intimidate. It's going to be whatever the GM decides, anyway. This is why you never maximize role-playing aspects of a character, it's all done ad-hoc anyway."
No, I am not making the roll meaningless unless it's a bad roll with nonexistent role-playing. There will always be a way of succeeding with the roll no matter the difficulty (because a nat 20 always succeeds). I just like to see the players role-play and I give bonuses to their rolls when they come up with creative ideas on how to do things in-character, thinking outside the box is a great thing and creates even MORE opportunities to role play. I don't give these bonuses to players who just want to roll the dice to see how things come out w/o any kind of role-playing whatsoever. As I said, I tell this to players at the outset so they know my feelings and so that we can tell the story together.
An example:
Player A is a good role-player. He attempts to roll his diplomacy check to gain the trust of an aide to the king. He has a bonus of +10 to diplomacy checks and the DC is 20. He rolls an 8 for a total of 18, but since he's a good role-player he plays it out with me saying, "Sir, I know you are a good and trustworthy aide to the king and as you've seen from my history of helping the kingdom rid itself of the assassins guild the Starknives, you know me to be a loyal and decent person. I ask for your help in convincing the king to do X..." In this example he would have failed to convince the aide solely on the dice roll, but he role-played it out with me (as the aide) and convinced me with his past. I'd have given him the diplomacy check with flying colors.
Player B is a roll-player only. He attempts the same roll to his diplomacy and I give him the chance to role-play a bit more, but he rather just go with what his dice came up with and see how it plays out. The aide would say, "I'm sorry sir, I cannot be a party to your plans..." This player doesn't get the role-playing bonus that I'd give to the role-playing player A for trying to succeed at it.
Reason I do things like this: It makes things more interesting! It's more story and creates more hooks for the players to go back to.
In the above example, player A having succeeded with his role-playing would have the chance to get the aide's help in other things, perhaps the aide will come to the Player with another problem knowing that they can handle it and knowing them to be trustworthy. Player B just wanted to roll and the aide wouldn't have any reason to come to them if they failed the check.
ub3r: From what you're saying, we see eye to eye. I love seeing my players get creative and work things out. I love watching them flex their role-filling muscles! I definitely agree with giving bonuses for good role playing! That's the point, afterall. :)
ub3r: From what you're saying, we see eye to eye. I love seeing my players get creative and work things out. I love watching them flex their role-filling muscles! I definitely agree with giving bonuses for good role playing! That's the point, afterall. :)
Exactly, this is a role-playing game after all and not always about the dice rolls. I always encourage my players to try to do things that I don't expect. Those are the moments that I find more memorable when I think back on a campaign. I don't remember the guy who rolled a 17 to try to get a better price from haggling a vendor for that +2 dagger. I remember the guy who would have failed his roll, but role-played it out with a passionate plea to the NPC that convinced them that the PC knew what they were doing.
I like where this thread is going, but it definitely should be moved over to the Advice thread as we've gone far beyond the rules text for Intimidate.
I do like some of the proposals though.
I've started a thread in Homerules on this topic. I expected this thread to just die while we hashed out any changes there.
jupistar and uber.
what you guys just spoke about is more about diplomacy than intimidate. diplomacy checks can be made with success and failure leading to diverent branches of a conversation tree.
an intimidate check is much different.
if you fail an intimidate the person is likely to punch you in the face, throw you in prison, or simply ignore anything you say from that point on.
if you succeed in an intimidate check the person is cowed or frightened but not hiding in a corner pissing his pants.
but fine. if you want a guide then my only suggestion is this.
remember that BY THE RULES intimidate takes 1 min of conversation.
in the above scenarios ask yourself if the king/guard/etc would sit there and be insulted for a whole minute before smacking/dismissing/ordering the death of the offending person.
also... remember that you ARE the GM, understanding that you want to limit your power as the GM remember that its also your job to work these things out. Im not sure what you were looking for when you made the OP but you seem to already have in mind what you want to do... so do it.
set up a long list of modifications for abilities and also a list of what is or is not possible.
convincing a king to give up his castle, a dragon to give up his treasure, or a prison guard to hand the keys over to a locked up prisoner is probably beyond the realm of reason so just explain to the players that is your ruling so that they understand it before hand.
if they rebel then that is a problem that goes beyond the scope of this thread.
I would like to point out to ub3r_n3rd that skill checks do not auto-succeed on a natural 20, nor do they fail on a 1. Only attack rolls and saving throws have that rule.
|
Intimidate is a skill that has to be evaluated carefully.
First off, intimidate changes an opponents attitude. This requires one minute of conversation and affects just one target.
That target will then give you information (as long as it doesn't endanger the target), take actions you request that don't endanger it, or offer limited assistance. And note that this only lasts for 1d6 x 10 minutes. Afterwards, the target is unfriendly and "may report you to local authorities".
Additionally, the intimidate section tells us that the skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Basically, you're threatening someone so that they'll do what you want them to do. And afterwards, they're going to be pissed at you.
Now, let's look at your situations.
1) Now this is pretty vague. If the player doesn't have a right to be in the dungeon, then the guards are probably going to throw him into one of the cells. They might not give him a minute to explain himself/intimidate one of them. If he has the right to be down there, then he probably has the right to tell one of them to get water for a prisoner. As long as they haven't been explicitly ordered not to leave the prisoner or provide water, they'll give him what he wants. Chances are good though that they're under standing orders not to leave their posts. In this case, leaving the post would put the target in danger from his superiors. However, he might allow the player to give water to the prisoner.
2) Again, this depends on why the official is there. If he's under orders, then he'll get in trouble for leaving with his men, so that's unlikely. Also, consider whether his men are going to sit there for a minute and listen to their boss being threatened. If he's just roaming around and tossing his weight around, then the player should be able to intimidate him to leave. However, now the official is unfriendly to the player. He might issue an arrest warrant, send his men to beat the living crap out of him, or similarly make the player's life unpleasant.
3) Again, this one depends on the orders the orc has. If he can get in trouble for it, intimidate probably isn't going to work. Intimidate doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without penalty. However, the player could intimidate the guard to find out who his leader is, or some information about the stronghold.
4) Definitely not long enough to count as an intimidate check. Definitely going to provoke the guards in the room to draw their weapons and close in on him. Even if he succeeds and the king hands him his crown and leaves, the king will merely be heading out to order men into the throne room to kill the interloper. Have I mentioned yet that intimidate works much better when it's not in front of witnesses/allies?
5) If the guard is being a dick and doesn't have orders to keep the gate closed, then it will work just fine. If the guard DOES have orders to keep the gate closed, then this use will fail.
6) The guard will definitely get in trouble if others find out that his "key" to the prisoner's shackles is missing. Also, if the prisoner escapes, he'll definitely get into trouble. Diplomacy works better in this situation.
Intimidate works best when it can be used against one person. Guards aren't going to stand there and listen to someone threaten their boss, usually. Intimidate is useful for finding out information, or for getting obstinate people who are holding you up for no good reason to get out of your way. It's very difficult to use intimidate to get someone to do something that could get them fired, arrested, or killed. Information is the easiest since it's difficult to prove where it came from. Actions and assistance are harder, since many times you'll run up against the risk of punishment for the intimidated target.
For example, to get someone to open a gate, bluff or diplomacy are the skills to use.
Intimidate is a valuable skill, and you should give players the opportunity to use their skills in the game. However, no one skill or ability should be the answer to everything. If the player has maximized his character to never fail an intimidate check, that doesn't mean you give him more intimidate checks. It means that when he DOES get a chance to use it, it's almost guaranteed to succeed as long as he's not trying to use it for more than it's designed to be used for.
I did search. I really did. But I gave up after page 10 of the slow-loading paizo forums of 200+ resulting pages from searching for "intimidate". :)
So, a player created the Inquisitor. I love the character as it tends to put a heavier emphasis on roleplay than I'm used to seeing out of players. That said, the intimidate feature seems so "loaded". On the one hand, I don't want to nerf the player's resource allocation, but on the other hand, I don't want NPCs to act out of character.
The intimidate skill, in a nutshell, reads as follows: "If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance." This last part, 'limited assistance', is the most vague issue. How do you limit someone's assistance when they're scared/terrified. DC is 12, Inquistor makes an intimidate roll of 32. By multiples of 5, that's a success * 4. Now, I know multiples of success are meaningless here, but it means something to the player. How scary is the big bad Inquisitor? 32!
Some preliminary thoughts - for the Inquisitor, diplomacy and inimidation are valuable assets. With limited resources invested in these skills, they shouldn't be ignored. As I said, I especially like the fact that the player has so much invested in such a role-playing element (even though it has a combat value, as well), so there should be role-playing reward for that. The player has said, by making these investments, "I want a scary, intimidating character. I also want a strongly diplomatic character." As his GM, I want to accomodate that.
So, I came up with a few scenarios and I'd like to see how everyone handles them from a rules + *role playing* POV, if they would.
1) PC walks into a dungeon and sees a prisoner being treated (justified or otherwise) in a rather shabby way. He turns to one of the two low level guards and "intimidates" the guy. Then demands he go and get water for the prisoner. You say?
2) PC walks up to the squad of knights being led by a...
On number two especially, the inquisitor may succeed against a target, but does that mean all targets nearby are also affected? On the knights and the bureaucrat, the inq can intimidate the bureaucrat, or a knight, but this is no guarantee the other knights won't decapitate the proud inquisitor, start mockery or drive the inq off. Bands of toughs with good morale do stick together after all.
I like intimidate, and I like to see it used, but the inq isn't in my games because its all over the place and not close enough to real inquisitors for my liking. They should be scary yeah, but their real power comes from representing an evil and powerful church--which makes them far better as npcs, with guards, back-up, funds, sacred authority. Perhaps aristocrats with maxed out intimidate, religious and legal knowledge or clerics along the same lines. Feats also used to that effect.
If the player over-uses the intimidate, remind them of its limits. The inq intimidate ability also makes me smirk. Should it go off easy as pie when used against someone of an alternate belief system, someone actually committed to their faith and in opposition to yours? I wonder if assistance should just be given like that.
jupistar and uber.
what you guys just spoke about is more about diplomacy than intimidate. diplomacy checks can be made with success and failure leading to diverent branches of a conversation tree.
an intimidate check is much different.
if you fail an intimidate the person is likely to punch you in the face, throw you in prison, or simply ignore anything you say from that point on.
if you succeed in an intimidate check the person is cowed or frightened but not hiding in a corner pissing his pants.
but fine. if you want a guide then my only suggestion is this.
remember that BY THE RULES intimidate takes 1 min of conversation.
in the above scenarios ask yourself if the king/guard/etc would sit there and be insulted for a whole minute before smacking/dismissing/ordering the death of the offending person.
also... remember that you ARE the GM, understanding that you want to limit your power as the GM remember that its also your job to work these things out. Im not sure what you were looking for when you made the OP but you seem to already have in mind what you want to do... so do it.
set up a long list of modifications for abilities and also a list of what is or is not possible.
convincing a king to give up his castle, a dragon to give up his treasure, or a prison guard to hand the keys over to a locked up prisoner is probably beyond the realm of reason so just explain to the players that is your ruling so that they understand it before hand.
if they rebel then that is a problem that goes beyond the scope of this thread.
Good point on the minute requirement. Intimidate like diplomacy can also be interrupted.
Good point on the minute requirement. Intimidate like diplomacy can also be interrupted.jupistar and uber.
what you guys just spoke about is more about diplomacy than intimidate. diplomacy checks can be made with success and failure leading to diverent branches of a conversation tree.
an intimidate check is much different.
if you fail an intimidate the person is likely to punch you in the face, throw you in prison, or simply ignore anything you say from that point on.
if you succeed in an intimidate check the person is cowed or frightened but not hiding in a corner pissing his pants.
but fine. if you want a guide then my only suggestion is this.
remember that BY THE RULES intimidate takes 1 min of conversation.
in the above scenarios ask yourself if the king/guard/etc would sit there and be insulted for a whole minute before smacking/dismissing/ordering the death of the offending person.
also... remember that you ARE the GM, understanding that you want to limit your power as the GM remember that its also your job to work these things out. Im not sure what you were looking for when you made the OP but you seem to already have in mind what you want to do... so do it.
set up a long list of modifications for abilities and also a list of what is or is not possible.
convincing a king to give up his castle, a dragon to give up his treasure, or a prison guard to hand the keys over to a locked up prisoner is probably beyond the realm of reason so just explain to the players that is your ruling so that they understand it before hand.
if they rebel then that is a problem that goes beyond the scope of this thread.
Which, of course, is only a mechanic issue that would arise if the DM was trying to short-circuit an important skill. Preamble or slow speech by the role-player could resolve this issue when speaking (i.e. setting up the threat[s] in a subtle, powerful and ultimately surreptitious way - a la Cristopher Walken). The goal of the "1 min" rule is simply to say that to get the opportunity to intimidate, the character nees a bit of time to communicate; it couldn't be done during a chase scene, for instance, or while a guard in the lookout tower is distracted by a thrown rock.
1) Now this is pretty vague. If the player doesn't have a right to be in the dungeon, then the guards are probably going to throw him into one of the cells. They might not give him a minute to explain himself/intimidate one of them. If he has the right to be down there, then he probably has the right to tell one of them to get water for a prisoner. As long as they haven't been explicitly ordered not to leave the prisoner or provide water, they'll give him what he wants. Chances are good though that they're under standing orders not to leave their posts. In this case, leaving the post would put the target in danger from his superiors. However, he might allow the player to give water to the prisoner.
Incorrect assumptions: the character is given the right to interview the prisoner, but has no authority and is not trespassing. Nor is it vague. You don't need to know every last detail to understand the concept being presented.
2) Again, this depends on why the official is there. If he's under orders, then he'll get in trouble for leaving with his men, so that's unlikely. Also, consider whether his men are going to sit there for a minute and listen to their boss being threatened. If he's just roaming around and tossing his weight around, then the player should be able to intimidate him to leave. However, now the official is unfriendly to the player. He might issue an arrest warrant, send his men to beat the living crap out of him, or similarly make the player's life unpleasant.
Notice how you're making stuff up as you go along? What about the target's personality--what if he's craven at heart? What if he doesn't trust the knights to give him support? I get that you want to make a judgment call of everything. That's great, until you start making your players annoyed that every time they want to do something with a skill they've invested resources in doesn't do what they expect. If it's not a skill they can rely on, then what's the point in having it. What if you're just a jerk of a GM and don't know it, so you tend to rule things in the negative? What if you're too permissive of a person and tend to rule things in the positive? Is there nothing to guide you?
"Alright guys. Here's the plan. I've been watching guard X for some time now and I think I can intimidate him into giving us the keys to the laundry room. From there we can... <whisper whisper>." But when he tries, the GM makes up some crap about how the guard is actually only a wimp when dealing with his wife and in every regard has a will like iron--he starts combat when the attempt to intimidate him is made.
If you just make it up as you go with no guidelines or communicating expectations to your players, they're standing on shifting ground. One reason why combat is so quickly turned to is because there is little ambiguity there. The rules are pretty much set in stone. The player and the GM don't have to guess at anything.
3) Again, this one depends on the orders the orc has. If he can get in trouble for it, intimidate probably isn't going to work. Intimidate doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without penalty. However, the player could intimidate the guard to find out who his leader is, or some information about the stronghold.
It's an orc being Intimidated by an Inquistor who rolls a 30. What if the player has 5 other scary warrior/wizard types at his back. Would that make a difference? If so, then the roll doesn't matter very much. If not, then what's the point of the skill? And if you think that the orc isn't already concerned seeing those 6 well-equipped and confident "adversaries" and isn't going to say something like, "Here, I was guarding the pie for you. Would you like me to go find you another?", then I would question your objectivity as a player and be right in doing so. But I would have to question it even if I rolled a 30 by myself. It would mean that I'm an individual who is just really scary and this generic orc acts like he doesn't have any fear. Or maybe that's just a GM being a jerk.
4) Definitely not long enough to count as an intimidate check. Definitely going to provoke the guards in the room to draw their weapons and close in on him. Even if he succeeds and the king hands him his crown and leaves, the king will merely be heading out to order men into the throne room to kill the interloper. Have I mentioned yet that intimidate works much better when it's not in front of witnesses/allies?
You're missing the point. This is really nothing more than a build on #2. You can role-play a minute's worth of intimidation without threatening and insulting every minute of it. Further, guards and knights don't just jump because someone speaks in threatening words/tones to the King. That would lead to rather diplomatically sticky moments for a ruler, I suspect. They react to orders. But again, you're missing the larger point - how do we make it clear what's reasonable and/or unreasonable for a player to have their character do before they do it and something bad happens?
5) If the guard is being a dick and doesn't have orders to keep the gate closed, then it will work just fine. If the guard DOES have orders to keep the gate closed, then this use will fail.
I don't see how the guard's dickitude has anything to do with anything. The roll is the roll and the player's role-playing is the player's role-playing. How do you define "limited assistance" in this case? For example, what if the gate is closed as a general policy and no one is let in at night. Well, here comes this seemingly fine upstanding group of adventurers. He denies them entry. The Inquisitor of the party seems to get righteously angry and says, "Look, man, I understand you have a policy. I understand you have friends and loved ones inside. Or maybe you're just getting paid. We're a reasonable group of people with reasonable demands. We've been on the road a long time and we're tired, footsore, and weary. The only thing standing between us, bed, warm food, and a fire is you. Think hard on what that means to us as reasonable people. It means you're being unreasonable. And as reasonable people, we don't like unreasonable people. Usually, in our experience, we have to break their heads or cut open their guts. We don't want that experience here, do we? So how about you just open that f***ing gate?" Add a menacing smile and voila?
Sounds like it would work to me. Orders or no. With a resounding roll of 30, I'd have to let them in. Unless other factors came into play. But how do I make that call? Some guidelines might be nice, don't you think?
6) The guard will definitely get in trouble if others find out that his "key" to the prisoner's shackles is missing. Also, if the prisoner escapes, he'll definitely get into trouble. Diplomacy works better in this situation.
In your opinion. However, the player wants to try intimidate. We should all just ad hoc arbitrary ruling all the time, 'eh? Good think you're an objective and fair-minded GM.
Intimidate works best when it can be used against one person. Guards aren't going to stand there and listen to someone threaten their boss, usually. Intimidate is useful for finding out information, or for getting obstinate people who are holding you up for no good reason to get out of your way. It's very difficult to use intimidate to get someone to do something that could get them fired, arrested, or killed. Information is the easiest since it's difficult to prove where it came from. Actions and assistance are harder, since many times you'll run up against the risk of punishment for the intimidated target.
So, a gnome cartographer is hired to make maps of dungeons that have just been found below the fort and to keep them confidential. But the group has just found out about the map maker and his maps. They come in and intimidate him. This common village cartographer can't be intimidated out of his maps because he's afraid of being punished? By who? The scary inquisitor towering over him right now or the duke in two days when he finds out what has happened?
For example, to get someone to open a gate, bluff or diplomacy are the skills to use.
According to you. Movies and stories are replete with the idea that a guard can be intimidated into opening the gate. Hmmm, maybe we should have some guidelines so your objectivity doesn't reduce the enjoyment of the game.
Intimidate is a valuable skill, and you should give players the opportunity to use their skills in the game. However, no one skill or ability should be the answer to everything. If the player has maximized his character to never fail an intimidate check, that doesn't mean you give him more intimidate checks. It means that when he DOES get a chance to use it, it's almost guaranteed to succeed as long as he's not trying to use it for more than it's designed to be used for.
According to you, intimidate is a worthless skill unless a very limited and specific set of prerequisites exist (target is alone, target has no fear of external forces, target is only asked for knowledge, etc...). I would suggest that you should remove the intimidate skill from your game and leave it pure role-playing. Just my initial thinking.
I removed a post containing a personal attack.
@Talynonyx point taken, RAW a natural 20 doesn't always succeed, but I will (when I DM) house-rule this to be an auto-succeed with the skill checks. It's my personal preference and as the RAW state, it's within my purview as the DM to do so. Not to offend you, but this wasn't a RAW discussion it was a discussion on guidelines for the OP that he wanted to know how we'd react to the situations given. I gave my opinion as how I'd handle them as a DM.
Anyhow, as far as the discussion goes between intimidate and diplomacy. I believe they can be interchangeable in a lot of circumstances. To me when I think of intimidate it doesn't always means a PC has a presence that speaks to violence or prowess that a normal NPC wouldn't want to cross with the undertones of getting their butt kicked. Intimidation could mean that they are physically or psychologically affected by the intimidation techniques. I don't think of this as being black and white and cookie cutter. A PC can intimidate by having knowledge on a NPC (blackmail), know the right people that the NPC wouldn't say no to (is a friend of the king - this could also be used diplomatically), or the PC just is just a huge hero in the area (fame is intimidating to some people as well). All of these could be used to intimidate, but not all of them bespeak of violence.
Diplomacy is more about manners and sweet talking. I feel that characters who use this are trying to brown-nose their way into things or trying to be a bit more sneaky or political. This goes hand-in-hand with intimidate so it basically will come down to what the PC is trying to accomplish, which is why I will ask them to roll one check or the other, but they can tell me that they wish to do one or the other from the offset.
So there is a grey area between these two skills, but that is up to the DM to decide on depending on the situation(s) presented. I don't think that we can say, "well this is absolutely intimidate or this is absolutely diplomacy" when presented with any given situation. I also know that some PCs rather go with investing more into one or the other and I won't fault them for how they want to play their characters.
Both take an allotted amount of time to try to do, but when I DM I don't say, "It takes you 1 minute of conversation to do this..." I let the PC play it out how they want to, sometimes it takes 30 seconds of talking, rolling the dice, and role-playing it out and sometimes it takes 30 minutes. That doesn't matter to me, I want to see the end result as part of rolling and role-playing.
Whatever you decide as a DM it is your prerogative and as long as you and your group have fun doing this, that's all that really matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On number two especially, the inquisitor may succeed against a target, but does that mean all targets nearby are also affected? On the knights and the bureaucrat, the inq can intimidate the bureaucrat, or a knight, but this is no guarantee the other knights won't decapitate the proud inquisitor, start mockery or drive the inq off. Bands of toughs with good morale do stick together after all.
I like intimidate, and I like to see it used, but the inq isn't in my games because its all over the place and not close enough to real inquisitors for my liking. They should be scary yeah, but their real power comes from representing an evil and powerful church--which makes them far better as npcs, with guards, back-up, funds, sacred authority. Perhaps aristocrats with maxed out intimidate, religious and legal knowledge or clerics along the same lines. Feats also used to that effect.
If the player over-uses the intimidate, remind them of its limits. The inq intimidate ability also makes me smirk. Should it go off easy as pie when used against someone of an alternate belief system, someone actually committed to their faith and in opposition to yours? I wonder if assistance should just be given like that.
I agree. I've already told my player - just because you intimidate one person in the room doesn't mean you've intimidated all the persons in the room. On the other hand, is there room for passive intimidation ("Good thing he's talking to Kraven, I think I might've wet my pants!")? How does one intimidate a group, for instance, of children? Remember Wyatt Earp (in the movie of the same name) pulling out his two pistolas and intimidating the 3-4 ring leaders of a mob come to lynch a prisoner? The ringleaders were actively intimidated and the mob was passively intimidated. How does/should the mechanic take that into account (multiple targets, collateral intimidation)?
But many seem to miss the larger point. For example, magicdealer and blue_the_wolf have both responded with role-playing judgment responses which are entirely in keeping with being a GM. And that's fine. But it's not fine to the player when the player wants to use a mechanic that appears to allow for these things, in which he has invested valuable and limited resources, and who's GM just appears to be looking for ways to stifle his ability. blue_the_wolf writes, "if they rebel then that is a problem that goes beyond the scope of this thread". It's not about rebellion, it's about satisfaction with the game system, game world, and ultimately, the game. My goal isn't to oppose them to the point of rebellion, my goal is to give the player an enjoyable game. I don't mind giving him limitations, but how can he make informed decisions each and every time without running into the "No" wall, without an understanding of how the mechanics are supposed to or going to work?
- Player wants to swing his sword to hit the bad guy and the GM says, "I'm sorry, but no, you can't do that."
- "Why not?"
- "The hallway is too tight for large weapon work."
- "Ummm, ok, but maybe you could have told me that before I pulled out my sword. Alright, I'll drop my sword as a free action, draw my dagger, and stab the bad guy."
- "No, you can't do that."
- "Uh... why not?"
- "In the dark, you didn't notice your dagger sheath had been cut away from your belt by some sneak thief."
- "Oh God... alright, I spit on the bad guy and 'withdraw'."
- "You can't do that either, your mouth is too dry in this desert air and you haven't had anything to drink for some time now, so you can't produce any spittle."
- "Well, then what can I do, GM?"
- "You could grapple the guy."
- "Ok, GM, I'll do whatever you tell me I can do."
GM makes a Sense Motive check to notice the player is not having any fun and fails because he has no ranks in it and his wisdom modifier appears to be negative.
The whole point of this thread is that, unlike in most games where the intimidate skill is used sparingly, an inquisitor is going to use it a lot for investigation, demoralizing in combat, and for cowing the bad guys. So, of course, I have to tell the Inquisitor "no", from time to time, but how do I quickly and consistently make that decision? How can he understand, from the start, that there's likely to be failure in certain situations. How do I allow him to be that intimidating bastard he wants to be?
Just like the rest of you, I'm able to make judgment calls in-game, as well. I'm trying to avoid making completely arbitrary judgment calls each and every time my player wants to intimidate someone. That will get old for both of us very quickly.
As for the bureaucrat: the point of the scenario is that the knights do as they're ordered by the person in charge. By way of example, if the bureaucrat shows cowardice, they'll follow his orders, and think to themselves, "Why is this weak-willed person in charge?" Your job as the DM is to arbitrarily decide that the player fails the intimidation check, in spite of the massive roll of 35, and explain to him that the roll doesn't allow him to cow the bureaucrat because the bureaucrat is well protected.
- "Why not? Maybe the bureaucrat doesn't think the knights will support him or that the knights will be able to support him in time."
- "Because I'm the GM and unfortunately for you [I'm truly sorry] that's my final decision."
- "Ummm, ok. Then I try to draw the bureaucrat away from his knights. I say, 'Mr. Crat, I have something to show you over behind this barn. Unfortunately, the way is a little narrow, so why don't you leave your knights here.'"
- "Mr. Crat follows you."
- "Now I try to intimidate him."
- "Still doesn't work."
- "Why not?"
- "He still considers himself well-protected."
- "Arrggh. So the roll doesn't matter. Me getting him alone doesn't matter. What does matter, GM?"
- "I don't know how to answer that. Just role-play it and I'll decide."
- "Nevermind <grumbles about role-playing skills and the waste that they are... that one should just stick ranks into combat/true-mechanic skills>."
I think the fairest way to decide this is to always have a DC, whether it be a 1 or a 50. You give that number to the player up front if they want to do as a skill check, this is based on what you (as the DM) think is fair in the given circumstance.
So the way I'd do it for the inquisitor to intimidate the bureaucrat:
- DC 35 -> telling the player this up front, but he also knows if he role-plays it well that I reserve the right to give him bonuses to his d20 + modifier(s) roll.
- He rolls his d20 and adds everything up
- If he gets 35 or more, he'll succeed automatically w/o any need for additional role playing other than a few words to tell me what he says.
- If he gets below 35, he'd fail, but decides to role play it out with me and gives a very good intimidation role-play scenario in which I award him added bonuses so that he succeeds. (This is my house-rule and my call - he'd fail w/o it anyhow so why not give him a chance to redeem his lousy roll?)
- If he gets below 35 and doesn't want to role-play it out and go with just what the dice say, he will fail it and this could lead to combat with the knights nearby as they see/hear their leader being intimidated.
I personally don't like to say "no" carte blanc to my PCs unless it's something utterly ridiculous and the players know it. I like to have them think outside the box to try to figure out how to get something done. I think that DMs should give valuable information that is readily available to the PCs ahead of time w/o that "wall of no" that some DMs like to toss out there. Even with the highest DCs out there, if there is a will there is a way to get it done. It may take a few levels, a macguffin, the unique dialogue, the help of an NPC, or any number of things, but it can be done.
... OK...
Jupistar what is your intention with this thread?
it seems as if you asked for an opinion. were given a few... then spent the rest of the thread arguing about how those opinions where wrong.
which is interesting because the gist of the opinions was "your the GM, here are a few options but ultimately its up to you"
at one point you say
it's about satisfaction with the game system, game world, and ultimately, the game. My goal isn't to oppose them to the point of rebellion, my goal is to give the player an enjoyable game.
your right. So with that in mind ask yourself if letting a level 1 character intimidate his way through almost any encounter is actually fun. what happens when he intimidates his way into the depths of a situation far above his level and he then totally flubs an important check and gets slaughtered or GM hand waved to safety. would that be fun?
Balance is ultimately about fun. An unbalanced situation either for or against the characters is either less fun or a lot of fun for a short amount of time.
If you want to set up some list of set piece adjustments do so, if you want to simply explain to your players that everything will be role played according to the GMs best judgement that's fine too.
Just understand that in this particular case intimidate is, as noted above, complex and not something that Piazo wanted to dedicate a book or chapter to all of the possibilities. They ultimately left it up to the GM to figure out.
So figure it out.
... OK...
Jupistar what is your intention with this thread?
it seems as if you asked for an opinion. were given a few... then spent the rest of the thread arguing about how those opinions where wrong.
which is interesting because the gist of the opinions was "your the GM, here are a few options but ultimately its up to you"
Blue, I get it. You don't want to care about the skill. You want to make it pure role-playing. Great. I had posted this whole thing to "Rules Discussion" because I wasn't happy with the rule. I'm satisfied that you're satisfied with your position. I'm not satisfied with your position and I wanted other people to see why I wasn't satisfied. I wanted to discuss if there was a better way.
at one point you sayit's about satisfaction with the game system, game world, and ultimately, the game. My goal isn't to oppose them to the point of rebellion, my goal is to give the player an enjoyable game.your right. So with that in mind ask yourself if letting a level 1 character intimidate his way through almost any encounter is actually fun. what happens when he intimidates his way into the depths of a situation far above his level and he then totally flubs an important check and gets slaughtered or GM hand waved to safety. would that be fun?
Balance is ultimately about fun. An unbalanced situation either for or against the characters is either less fun or a lot of fun for a short amount of time.
But you and I don't disagree here. We just disagree on how to get to balance. My point is: the intimidate *rule* is broken. Can it be fixed? Your answer is: just roleplay it and make judgment calls. To which my response is: that's what I've been doing and it sucks, because it denies my player the efforts/resources he's sunk into the skill without any explanation to him other than my completely arbitrary judgment, "That's not reasonable." He obviously thought otherwise or he wouldn't have tried. And the next time. And the next time. Wall of "no" or a better way?
If you want to set up some list of set piece adjustments do so, if you want to simply explain to your players that everything will be role played according to the GMs best judgement that's fine too.
Just understand that in this particular case intimidate is, as noted above, complex and not something that Piazo wanted to dedicate a book or chapter to all of the possibilities. They ultimately left it up to the GM to figure out.
So figure it out.
Figuring it out is exactly what I'm trying to do. And without any practical help from you, just what appears to me to be holier-than-thou comments about how one should GM a game (common sense feat, indeed).
You aren't offering anything new to this discussion or any further help. You know the rule is broken and yet in spite of your statements that I can and should do what I want, you seem to insist that it should be done your way. Why are you still here?
I require my players to tell me what their characters say when they intemidated. If they lie, they also have to roll bluff. The threat and the response both need to be reasonable.
In real life, I can be intemidated by a teacher threatening a bad grade. I can be intemidated by my boss because I care about my job. A mugger can intemidated me with the threat of violence.
But my boss, no matter what he says, can't intemidated me into giving him money, lying for him, or much else outside of my job. A professor can intemidated me into doing extra work or being more polite. A mugger can get my wallet by threatening me with violence.
My boss can't threaten me with violence. A mugger can't blackmail me.
Certainly, WHAT is said during an intemidation is very important, as is what the victim believes about it. Threatening people with the prospect of violence is the most typical threat player characters make, and it needs to be married with the knowledge the pcs can carry it out. Looking like murderous hobos helps.
But remember, both threatening people with violence and blackmailing them are crimes in sophisticated societies, and not to be taken lightly. If your players are having there characters basically say to anyone they need something from that they will harm them if they don't get it, they are going to have a short and deadly run in with the king's knights, who can't be intemidated with the threat of violence - because they came to bring it.
Agreed. We've been talking in a thread in the Homebrew rules on this subject about the issue of bluffing and the belief of the target in the state of reality (subjective perception, not objective). And I agree with ub3r_n3rd in this thread that both the roll and the role-playing are important. They inform each other: a fair DC should be created and then the roll can be boosted or reduced by good role-playing.
Intimidation doesn't just seem to me to be about *(direct) threatening words or insults* though. I think someone muscling in on your personal space, pushing you around with his presence, being ungentle with your belongings, and displaying menacing body language can be just as intimidating as threats (or more). But your point about threats being of varying types with each type having it's own level of "motivation" is interesting.
I was just watching an episode of Justified the other day and this cop was being bribed. And as he sat there looking at the briefcase full of money he considered and then asked, "What's the stick? This here's the carrot, what's the stick?" "Oh, you don't want to know what the stick is."
No threat at all, just the implication of threat. Intimidating.
But if he had said, instead, "I'm going to destroy your flower garden." It probably wouldn't have been very intimidating. If he said, "I'm going to destroy your life." It would be more so. If he said, "I'm going to destroy your life, torture your kids, and rape your dog." That's pretty intimidating. So, obviously, the nature of the threat is important. And as you say, some things are more important to some people than to others. For one person, the threat to their reputation might be more important than their life, while for another the opposite is true.
In that Homebrew thread, a fellow posted a link to popular D&D 3.5 website where a guy basically rewrote the whole Diplomacy rule and I think he had a brilliant approach to it (as well as singing my tune on the subject). Another gave me some other modifiers to consider to the rule I suggested above. I'm working through those issues now. If the other guy's Diplomacy rule is as good as it appears, I may try to simply borrow some concepts from that for Intimidate, as well.
Edited: for clarification
Great questions. Let's try to make some guesses.
Navy Seal - guessing he would be a fighter at about 6th level? According to my calculations, he would be:
10 + 6 + 1 (give him a wisdom of +1, at least) = 17. Now for circumstance modifiers. The one's that seem appropriate are:
The target looks down on you or your reputation: +5
The target is a rank-and-file Warrior (someone accustomed to the world of threatening language and behavior: e.g. guard, bandit, mercenary): +5
The target is Hostile: +10
So that makes for a 37 DC.
and possibly -> The target considers the demand/request to be morally/ethically objectionable: +5 or more
Now, don't forget, even a Navy SEAL is trained to just hand over money or jewels to a mugger. That small-cash property is never worth risking one's life over. But the chance that he does? Not likely, but possible. Depends on the mugger, I suppose.
Now, the British Royal Guard would be two checks. One to intimidate and then one to get the Guard to do that which he wouldn't even do for a friend.
The first would be hard enough. Again, just assuming a level 6 fighter with a +1 wisdom, the base would be 17. Then we add in the same modifiers and get the same DC. But then we get to the harder straight opposed Charisma roll where you try to convince this dude to do something he considers morally objectionable in which case you have to judge the character of the Guard (you can't just assume that because he's a Guard he stopped being a person). Maybe he could be convinced but it would be hard +15 for just that part of it alone. Then there's the modifier for giving "dangerous aid" or "aid that would be punished" and you're looking at a +30 modifier. Highly unlikely.
I don't know. But it would be feasible to figure out if you have the appropriate tables to look at.
I've just found this thread and thought I might be able to help.
The OP quoted this "If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance." but seemed to ignore the first part of the sentence in favour of concentrating on the last. They also seemed to dismiss the need to spend an entire minute using the skill too readily.
You can remain consistant, as a GM, by using this as a filter.
1) Do the NPCs let the PC spend a minute talking to them? If yes then continue.
2) Is the roll sucessful? If yes then continue. If no then apply the negative modifiers as per rules. "If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities."
and/or "Try Again: You can attempt to Intimidate an opponent again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after 1 hour has passed."-PRD
3) Does the action endanger it? If yes then target does not comply, they do however remain intimidated for a specified length of time (see (5))
4) Information is given unless the GM feels (3)is invoked.
5) Limited assistance is given, for the length of 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. (the OP seemed to want to know what effect a large margin of sucess made..."This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC."-PRD)For an indication of the definition of "limited" see (3).
Yes more limited than Diplomacy, it does however have an easier DC and less DC modifiers.
I've just found this thread and thought I might be able to help.
Hey, thanks Ingenwulf. Turns out that the problem isn't so much a rules question (they're fairly understandable as is) as much as it is about the fact that the rule seems poorly written/broken.
Firstly, the skill DCs are unrealistically low. An Intimidator needs a very low roll relative to their goals, in many cases. In a recent Adventure Path scene, the DC to intimidate a group of guards into following your orders (presumably because they're uncertain as to what to do) in a specific situation is a 12. For a group of foreigners in a strange city, you wouldn't expect a DC that low. Anyone putting a rank into Intimidate as a class skill each level would be able to order these guards around with child's play at 3rd level. Figuring +3 ranks + 3 class skill = minimum 6. That means, at minimum, that person needs to roll a 6 or better (75% success rate). If you add in any modifiers, such as a Charisma modifer of +2, it becomes a meaningless 85% chance. I already think the DCs in this game seem largely on the easy side, but this is ridiculous. And you can create many such scenarios to prove the point.
And for someone who focuses on intimidation, as I've mentioned, their overall "control" of NPCs becomes trivially achievable.
Secondly, the rule doesn't take into account most other factors that apply to a given intimidation check. Which is fine, if you want to ad hoc it yourself, everytime. Which is also fine, but almost guarantees from time to time you're going to miss things that contribute to the overall achievability of the goal. Which is fine, as long as your player characters don't have a vested interest in you getting it right having devoted valuable resources to excel with the skill (race choice [Half-Orc], skill points, class choice [Inquisitor/Bard/Rogue], multiple feats [Skill Focus, Persuasive], and the painfully valuable ability score points added to that ability that many dump [Cha]).
I've been working on a rewrite to this rule to account for more things that can be done with the skill currently and to give some guidelines on factors that should play into a successful or failed Intimidate roll. I've moved it over to Google Docs so that all edits can be made and found easily: