Great point, Michael. I actually pulled from Diplomacy to write the "Demand" portion of the Intimidate skill.
But take your understanding of the current rules. Background: There's no active Guard Captian. There's no real problem leaving post for a short time as long as one or two other guards remain present. So, the 1st level Inquisitor walks into the dungeon where 3 guards are stationed and says (slowly, deliberately, starting with just the barest hint of malice in his voice but intensifying the menace with each clipped sentence), "You know, I bet you have a lot of things going on here. It must get busy. What with the tortures in the morning... the beatings at noon... the worm-infested food you have to serve in the afternoon. I don't give a rat's ass. Unless you want to be on the end of what these prisoners' receive, get this prisoner some water."
Intimidate roll: 15 (die roll) + 2 (ranks) + 3 (Cha) + 2 (Half-Orc) + 3 (Skill Focus: Intimidate) = 25
What happens according to the rules as they stand?
Whatever you decide, keep in mind, there are two different perspectives. There's the role-playing perspective and there's the mechanics perspective. The mechanics perspective says that these guards are equal to a CR 6 encounter and this is a single level 1 inquisitor (yes, I'm aware that they don't know that themselves - that's the role-playing perspective).
How much should those bonuses be, BigCrunch?
Personally, I think they should be this much: Pathfinder - Intimidate Revised
BigCrunch - those are great numbers, but a little static. Do not 6th level guards rate a higher number? Aren't the moral bonuses really a wash, since it's a group thing - aren't guards in general "not wusses"?
Ausk, man, you preach it!
Seriously, though, the guards are not necessarily going to jump in nor are they going to necessarily be unintimidated, realistically. It depends on those guards and their orders and policies. It depends on the group. Again, I turn your attention to my thinking here:
Pathfinder - Intimidate Revised
If you want to intimidate a whole group of people, there's a separate mechanism for that.
@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.
You took my intentions wrong. I merely pointed that out because I see many discussions where this is assumed to be the rules, which totally changes things. If you house-rule it, it's not my concern. And discussions regarding rules tend to work better when we're all discussing the same rules.
In my above example lets say Ausk w/o feats is intimidating the creature I mentioned. Chances are a creature like that is the end encounter in a scenario. He will likely have friends or action economy would out pace him easily. Lets say he comes with 3 buddies all level 8, so we add 4 for each of them for a total of +12 modifier to that intimidate check. Now It adds up to 45 DC for intimidate check meaning I'd have to roll a 23... Making it impossible and intimidate a waste of skill points for most encounters as I rarely come up against single npc encounters.
Even specialized the way Ausk actually is (+36 intimidate), I'd be forced to roll a 9 to meet the DC but what would be the point of becoming specialized in intimidate if there is a 40% chance I'd fail whenever I go to intimidate? Rolling that 9 means the target becomes shaken for 1 round. Rolling a Natural 20 means that creature would be shaken for 3 rounds. Making Intimidation a...
When the Intimidate skill is used in combat (Demoralize), the modifiers aren't so restrictive. That's because you're just trying to scare the one opponent or multiple opponents into being "off their game" - like some guy trash talking the other team at a game of basketball. You're just trying to screw with their psyches.
As I understand it, you're saying Ausk is an 11th level adventurer, and he's facing off, by himself, against a 14th level NPC and 3 8th level buddies. If you're saying this is a "Led Group" according to the Cow Group check (the CR14 NPC is in charge and looked to for decision-making), then yeah, you just intimidate the main guy. But this is a huge thing you're asking to do. This is a huge CR above you. It should be close to impossible, from a purely meta-gaming/mechanical sense. Now, you took feats and class features and so forth to make the impossible possible. I think that's cool.
It would also help if you brought in your own allies. Which is at it should be, I think. Think about that. A CR14 + 3 8th level NPCs = a CR15 encounter. Your APL is effectively 10 or 9 (three or fewer = -1 APL, but one player? that's closer to -2 APL). So, you're trying to intimidate 5 baddies with a CR 5 (maybe 6) steps above you, by yourself, with just the basic natural intimidation any naturally progressing PC could have. Yeah, allies would help. Because then you add in half their total HD to your roll.
But then you go on to talk about making them shaken. But, that only happens in combat and is done through a Demoralize check. That isn't nearly so restrictive, because, as I said, you're just trying to strike a little extra fear into the hearts of those you're fighting. That's the normal 10 + target HD + target Wis mod. I give guidelines on how to give bonuses or penalties based upon morale and some things to consider for morale. Using the Dazzling Display feat is how you Demoralize a group.
Ausk, thanks for this. I love being able to explain to people my thinking. I feel like I'm on a campaign to show that Intimidation is not all about "scaring a guy", but it's about scaring a guy just enough.
You're sitting at a bar having a drink. Two really big (mass and muscle) leather-clad bikers sit down on either side of you. They begin to press in on your personal space. You feel closed in. They may not have made a threat, but you probably are going to feel somewhat intimidated.
Enough that you get out of there or start shoving people away? That means they've placed just a tad too much pressure and triggered your "Flight or Fight".
Or do you sit there and hope that they're not doing it intentionally. You sit there concerned that if you get up and leave too quickly they're going to take notice and offense? Maybe you'll just finish your beer and then get out of there?
*That's* "Intimidation".
- One of them looks down at you and says, "Hey, bud. You mind telling me how to get to the XYZ store?"
- You may hate bikers, but you still say in a polite, friendly way, "Sure, just head down..."
*That's* "Intimidation". That's the point of the skill.
- They respond, "Oh, got it. Thanks. Hey, I noticed you have a Lexus outside. I'm just wondering how you earned your money."
Secret information? Maybe they know something and will know if you start lying. Now you're sweating bullets (opposed Charisma rolls). Unimportant information? You respond casually even though you don't feel anything like casual, "Oh, just some good investments."
See what I'm talking about? If they come in waving guns, that's another form of intimidation... they know and you know, you can't outrun bullets.
*That's* intimidation.
So, they might have found the right balance, unless you're also carrying. Or if they come in waving bats and swinging chains... out the back door you go. That's not intimidation, that's simply scaring a guy.
The fear balance between flight/fight and staying is what it's all about.
The problem is that you have two DCs for the same skill and quite a few modifiers that have to be taken in to account for both sides.
This argument could be applied to Acrobatics, as well. For each type of action, there isn't that much to consider. Except, you'll say:
Intimidate when it comes down to it is based off the fear whether in or out of combat, fear that the PC will do X to them if they don't do Y.
But this simply isn't true. In combat, I'm scared of dying (or being severely injured, or some other horrible thing). As simple as that. That "shakes" me. So the scarier you are, the better. Even if I have a morale bonus from outnumbering you guys two to one, I still can be shaken. I might think to myself, "That's not enough!"
But in any other situation (i.e. role-playing situations), that is not necessarily true. Too much fear and I'll either run away or I'll fight. Too little fear and I won't care. It's about controlling this balance.
It doesn't matter how many guards you have. Intimidate works off that spark of fear in or out of combat. The responses to that fear might be to put the guards upon them or fight
Sounds like an unsuccessful Intimidation, to me
, give the object of fear whatever they want
Sounds like successful Intimidation, to me
, or to run away as fast as possible.
Sounds like unsuccessful Intimidation, to me.
In the end all the modifiers would still be in place in or out of combat. A person who believes they can't be intimidated because they have 20 guards around wont be shaken.
But see, that's clearly untrue. You're talking about two entirely different situations with two entirely different goals (hence, two different actions/checks and time associated with accomplishing them). When you use this skill in a social situation, your goal is to achieve compliance. When you use this skill in a combat situation, your goal is to put the fear of Besmara in your opponent(s). The first is a nuanced and difficult balancing act. The second is just throwing everything you've got into being a scary Son-of-a-Hun. The first is a social skill, taking at least 1 minute of communication to accomplish, the second is an instananeous roar of promised death or display of prowess designed to raise terror in the heart(s) of your opposition.
I believe there are better ways to 'fix' the intimidation for peoples games then to overhaul a system. A DM saying it doesn't work is an acceptable solution as long as its reasonably justified, see Rule Zero. "No, you can't intimidate the King. He immediately calls in additional guards and warns you further attempts will be met with deadly force." That is much better then figuring out a laundry list of modifiers.
That is not better, in my experience. DMs get very myopic and simply just tell people "no" because they don't take objective and fair consideration towards role-playing situations.
See, it's very well possible that even with ten 5th level guards standing by, Ausk (with his cohorts) can intimidate the King because Ausk is impossibly intimidating. He's the scariest monster to walk the land. In fact, he's so monstrous, the King actually is concerned that the guards at his immediate disposal might not be enough to handle Ausk and his companions. Now, later, the King's going to be very unfriendly, obviously--might even turn out the army.
But I see no reason why an 11th level Ausk might not be able to do the job. It depends on the King. It depends on his guards and how many he has standing by. It depends on many factors and you would just arbitrarily say, "no" to Ausk if you were the DM. I would want to look at the numbers. I want to be fair to you and to Ausk. Maybe Ausk has earned his reputation of ferociousness and even a King sits up and takes notice.
What if it's a frontier King of some small border nation. How do you figure it? Well, clearly such a King is war-like, so his personal intimidation DC is high, but he may not have a large retinue. You may be like a giant of a man striding the earth and the earth trembles beneath you. He might be a tough guy, but you might be just intimidating enough to strike a little fear in his heart.
No, I don't like the notion of some DM taking a hostile attitude towards my PC and just ruling "no" out of some shallow consideration of the role-playing situation. And, in turn, I don't want to be that DM. You know?
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!").
I'd probably have the king laugh his ass off for a second before signalling the snipers in the rafters (who've all been holding their action to fire crossbow bolts at him) to shoot the PC while he's flatfooted.
See, it's very well possible that even with ten 5th level guards standing by, Ausk (with his cohorts) can intimidate the King...
...
Maybe Ausk has earned his reputation of ferociousness and even a King sits up and takes notice.
...
What if it's a frontier King of some small border nation... Well, clearly such a King is war-like... but he may not have a large retinue.... You may be like a giant of a man striding the earth and the earth trembles beneath you.... He might be a tough guy...
I edited it down to get the relevant bits.
So lets pretend Ausk is standing before the king of equal level and wisdom mentioned above with his ten 5th level guards around. Ausk has a standard 4 person party of one level 10, two level 11s, and one level 12.
Base Modifier for Ausk is +36. From his Allies he gets +21 because by god if Ausk is a giant of a man striding the earth and the earth trembles beneath him he would be in the company of people that are similar.
The King believes:
Target believes you are especially threatening -5(the earth trembles beneath me)
The target’s impression of you or your reputation -3(the king sits up and takes notice)
The target’s concern about personal reputation+ +5 (he is a king and is very concerned)
The target holds the top or near-the-top leadership position of entire nations or tribes +20(he is a king!)
Kings allies +20 (2x10 guards)
My new total bonuses 1d20+65
His new DC 10+11+2+5+20=48
Now lets say the King only lets Ausk in, he ends up with a +44. Well damn now there's a chance Ausk could fail(20% of the time). Lets say the King is Unfriendly, well it jumps to 45% failure, and if he is hostile Intimidation fails 70% of the time. What if the king strips Ausk of his magical enhancements because he is afraid of assassins? it jumps to 95% failure. Whats the Point of an intimidation specialist when the above scenario is not hard to carry out. Just get lots of guards, strip people down, and be hostile all the time. Intimidation skill...
Hey, this is pretty awesome. I'm having trouble following your numbers. For example, you say you have a base modifier of 36 and your allies give you 21. That equals 57, but you say it equals 65. You say you have a +36, but you say that by yourself (no allies) you end up with a +44.
But either way: you're an intimidate specialist and so you can intimidate a King sometimes? That's freaking awesome. But sometimes you can't - depends on the situation? That's understandable, too. Can't win everything.
I think your estimation of modifiers is fine -5, +5, -3. But why would a DM go out of the way to make every King you meet unfriendly or hostile, stock lots of guards, see you alone, and strip you down. Unless, of course, you're a "bad guy". In which case, of course the King is less likely to meet with you in all your glory. I think everything you've written vindicates, not condemns everything I've said. :)
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!").I'd probably have the king laugh his ass off for a second before signalling the snipers in the rafters (who've all been holding their action to fire crossbow bolts at him) to shoot the PC while he's flatfooted.
You and a lot of DMs, I'm afraid.
"The goal of intimidation is to bring the target to a crucial balance of safety and fear. The higher the success, the more perfectly you have achieved this goal. However, if you fail this check by 5 or less, you successfully threaten the target, but fail to achieve balance. Instead you trigger "Fight or Flight". At the GM's discretion, the opponent will either attack with all its resources to meet the threat it believes you pose or will flee as decorously and/or speedily as required by the target's nature. If you fail this check by 6 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities."
My biggest problem with your expanded rules on intimidate is the passage above. The crucial balance of safety and fear is an unreliable system because if you are at a balance between safety and fear you're not being intimidated. Safe means secure from danger, harm, or evil. If a person is attempting to extort me by threat of violence or exposure then how am I safe? By complying to their demands I will eventually become safe, but when they are in the act of extortion I am afraid of whatever the results will be of non compliance. Which is when Fight of flight enters into it. I will fight if the goals of the intimidater are not compatible with my own goals and I believe I can control the situation. I will flee if the goals are incompatible and I cannot out maneuver the person. If neither of these are possible I will submit. There are exceptions.
Putting that aside, when a person rolls an intimidation check its to see how Intimidating they are being, not let me frighten you just enough so that you will do what I say, but not enough that you run screaming through the streets at the mention of my name. You roll your intimidate check, compare against their resistance, and find out their response. Sometimes that response will be pissing themselves and then their immediate submission to your will, other times they will call guards to come hack you to pieces so they don't have to be afraid of you...
In defense of my interpretation of intimidation: When a person feels threatened/frightened directly, indirectly, or obliquely, he has to chart a course that he believes will be most successful for him (unless there exists extraordinary circumstances [such as psychopathology, moral compulsion, or mental issues such as having a "small-guy chip on the shoulder"]).
It's not that he *feels* safe, but rather he's caught between the two extremes. One extreme is that of relaxing in safety, on the one side, and on the other side, running/fighting in fear. Those are the two polar opposites. Intimidation lands somewhere in between. Balancing between them simply means you've raised the target's awareness of the potential threat that you pose, but the hope/belief that it can be managed to a safe outcome.
So when you roll really well, you've managed to hit that balance like your "bull's eye"... your "I win" button.
I showed some examples of how to achieve and lose that balance with those bikers. It can be done in multiple ways - one way was just to use an intimidating presence against a guy, another was to threaten with weaponry (firearms) that the target doesn't feel it can defend against. It can fail in multiple ways - threaten with insufficient weaponry that the target feels it can get away from (bats and chains), or threaten with such ferocity the target feels he has no choice but to just defend himself (shooting at the mirror behind the target, but the target thinks you're shooting at him).
In defense of rewriting the skill: The goal is to not punish the player for specializing in a skill. In fact, the goal is to empower the player and the DM to give the player a realistic answer to a question. For example, "Can I intimidate the King?" The answer, "It depends on the King and the situation in the throne room. Most DMs would flat out say, "No." Because they can't imagine a way for it to happen. Or they would say, "No. The King signals the crossbowman (who you had no chance to notice) to fire on you." Because they're stuck in a DM against the player paradigm. You tell me who's punishing?
On success rates: You write, "The bulls eye on a target is the I win button, the closer you get to that center the more you win and after a point of specialization(2-3 feats) if you aren't hitting the perfect center 90% of the time or better then you've done something wrong." And you're absolutely right, except, when you shoot at a standing target, the difficulty of the task *never* changes. But what if that archery target were running around, jumping up and down, and doing everything in it's power to make you miss (like the archery targets in Disney's Robin Hood). Now things not only get more difficulty, but they get more difficult by the degree of success the target has in trying to prevent your success.
Your success probabilty at intimidation should surely be greater than someone else who hasn't taken all the feats and such that you have. That's like a fighter who specializes in combat feats. He has greater success at fighting than someone who doesn't specialize in fighting. Ausk has a greater success at intimidating because that's what Ausk does. But any skill which is defined as being opposed by the skill of another person should never have just a static DC (which is why it doesn't even in the original rules), but it shouldn't just be ruled a failure out of hand, either, in situations where the GM can't imagine a plausible scenario of success. In these situations, I want to see the numbers and see if there isn't a way we can say, "yes or maybe".
IMO there is a chart in the DM screen for this it lists the NPC's initial attitude and a penalty or bonus for the ease of the action, but it also says you can't change someone's nature. You can't make a vampire give up blood drinking, you can't make a cleric forsake their deity or a (anti)paladin his oaths with this. For someone like a townguard letting an evil warrior come through the front gates may get him the lash, but it might save him a sword in the gut. If the action ever would result in their own death they don't do it unless they plan on abandoning their post/job/whatever.
In short, use the diplomacy DC's as your guide.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/diplomacy
1) PC and the prisoner guard:
Well, a successful intimidate check could cause the guard to at least temporarily cause the guard to act nicer. The roll doesn't change the guard's nature. The request doesn't cause any harm to the guard and if the guard was indifferent to the player this shouldn't be hard at all, but naturally it should cause the guard to become unfriendly in subsequent meetings, no one likes to be bullied.
2) PC intimidates beaurocrat and knights. Well I would have the DC increased by 2 for every guard the man has at his back more than the PC (ie the aid another rule). I'd use the diplomacy chart as a base, but I would absolutely have the beaurocrat become unfriendly afterwards and doing things to spite the pc especially if this results in making him look like a coward. This obviously is at least going to result in a loss of honor and respect for the beaurocrat and I would adjust this to a bare minimum of 20 (unfriendly) + Charisma mod +5 (complicated aid) +2 per guard.
3) PC and orc pie. Easy enough its just food so its simple -5, and whatever the orcs attitude is say indifferent (15 + charisma mod) and thus dc about 10. Of course the orc goes unfriendly afterwards.
4) PC stands before the king and demands crown. This is fine, the King may well do this unless he is extraordinarily prideful. This doesn't mean he won't call the entire kingdom's army up to kill the upstart or empty the treasury to hire adventurers to kill him. Really depends on the king. For me say the king is a kid who doesn't like the PC DC 15 for unfriendly +15 for an act that could result in punishment or death, + kid's charisma, +2 for every guard, +15 for being in an extraordinary position of power. Because honestly, the king has armies and adventurers at his back and probably enough money in the treasury to be ressurected 10 times over and he should know this. Doesn't mean he won't hand over his crown over his pride to survive the conversation, but when he speaks to the royal mage and general of his armies, I'm sure he will return to the throne room. Also this is when I would have the people watching the conversation go and fetch every soldier within screaming range.
5) 3rd level Inquisitor intimidates the 12th level mercenary. Of course the inquistor can be intimidating, that 12th level guy might be dumb as a box of rocks. Also mercs aren't usually known for being particularly loyal. "levels" and CR shouldn't really figure into this kind of thing, that being said if the merc knows this guy is a little pissant nobody and this is going to loose him all of his pay (his reason for getting up every day) I'd add a +10 to that dc.
6) Prisoner (villager) being led off to the dungeon.
Oh absolutely, poor guard never should have been sent off alone.
I love the Intimidate skill. I use it on players all the time. Their characters, that is.
To answer your RP scenarios:
1. This is at least a "two-step" roleplay. That Intimidation scene would need to be talked-out. Guards don't run and fetch for just anyone, but they might for a scary guy who explains that his (prisoner) friend is a decorated war hero and is much better than "the trash guarding him" and "deserves better" and "don't make me pin a medal on YOU, go get him some water" etc. Get the idea?
2. Definitely a difficult Intimidation. The player would need some context for doing so, including either a Bluff check ("The Grand Marshall sent me to tell you to get your men back to company headquarters and he said I was free to make an example of you in front of your men if you so much as break-wind."). Intimidate isn't a spell, it's a roleplaying skill. Make the player play it out.
3. Again, it's a roleplaying skill. Make the player make YOU believe that he can communicate effectively with an orc in such a way as to be intimidating within a certain context. Does the orc know whose pie this is? Is he more afraid of the owner of the pie than the player?
4. Not gonna happen, unless he brought an army and knocked down the king's walls on the way in. Make your players respect your world, and that includes institutions like kings and thrones.
5. Not impossible, but like 1 and 2, make him rp it. That is, he'd better have a plan, and not just crack his knuckles. Remember that guards and officials work for Intimidating people too.
6. Believable. One-shot only, though, and a failure might ruin his chances with that guard, or make things worse for him. Make sure the player knows this.
2a,b and c. You're overthinking this. Just make the call as the GM. If they complain tell them "You play your characters, and I play the world. I'm not your enemy, I'm the challenge."
thread necro.
this is months old.
bottom line is that the intimidate skill, as well as bluff, diplomacy, and the antagonize feat.
leave much to be desired because by RAW they have very simple DCs for very powerful abilities without any real counter.
is HIGHLY up to the GMs discretion, very easy to rules lawyer into overpowered or powerless status and can create HUGE arguments in the forums related to every ones view on how it should be in relation to all of the holes in the rules.