Intimidate Has it Rough


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

This is dead horse that I know has been beaten many times but it still bothers me to this day. Why do DMs give Intimidate such a hard time as a social skill? I’m not talking about intimidate in combat – I’m talking about it purely as a skill to manipulate others and improve/change their attitude.

My gut reaction theory is the classic DM vs PCs mentality and I’m certain this is the problem in a lot of cases (My NPCs won’t be bullied!) but I’ve seen this sort of stance from otherwise skilled, experienced, and reasonable DMs.

Consider the following scenario:

The heroes rushes down the streets in pursuit of the assassin. They had to act quickly or the baron was dead and there would be a war for all the wrong reasons. Turning the corner they crossed through the gates into the Opal Quarter – home to the city’s nobility. As they closed on the baron’s manor, they stumble into a pair of city guards. The guards raise a hand – Halt.

The burly fighter steps forward with his hand on his weapon, ”We don’t have time for your s#!&. Step aside or we’ll move you.”

*rolls intimidate*

One guard looks to the other. There’s doubt in his eyes. This man meant business. One guard gestures for the other to let the dangerous man and his friends pass.

The heroes move on to save the day. Of course, later that day, they get a visit from an angry constable and troupe of guards… but the fighter got a chance to flex a little it made his skill investment feel useful.

****Or****

The heroes rushes down the streets in pursuit of the assassin. They had to act quickly or the baron was dead and there would be a war for all the wrong reasons. Turning the corner they crossed through the gates into the Opal Quarter – home to the city’s nobility. As they closed on the baron’s manor, they stumble into a pair of city guards. The guards raise a hand – Halt.

The bard bows deeply before putting his hands up to show no ill will, ”I apologize but we must be brief. The baron is in grave danger... blah blah blah.”

*rolls diplomacy*

One guard looks to the other. There’s a nod of agreement. This man is sincere and honorable. They both step aside.

This is how things work out most of the time.

Why can’t both scenarios be viable with similar skill DCs and no arbitrary punishing penalties? Intimidate is technically faster and has lower DCs but there’s already a mechanical downside built in (the loss of influence later). Why make it harder? Why do so many DMs blanket flag NPCs as immune or highly resistant to intimidation?

This isn’t a new trope. Heroes/Anti-Heroes have been using intimidation to influence others in fiction for a long time. Why are tabletop DMs so resistant to it?


I don't know tbh. I hear where you're coming from though. Intimidate is not always just about threatening someone with physical violence. Intimidation is often just about projecting an air of authority.

Those guards saying "Halt" are most likely saying "Halt" with stern voices. This isn't a diplomacy attempt... this is intimidate. The guards are posturing like guards do in order to project their sense of authority outward.... and many people will indeed Halt when they hear a commanding voice order them to.

This, to me, is the other side of intimidate that gets regularly ignored. Now, people might later on still think that you are a bit of a prick, but it shouldn't always imply the possibility of violence.

Kings do not make decrees by convincing or negotiating, they do it forcefully. A ruler is far more likely to be using intimidate when dealing with his subjects, and diplomacy when dealing with his peers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules are where it falls down: Intimidating someone to get a helpful result automatically reduces their attitude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:

This is dead horse that I know has been beaten many times but it still bothers me to this day. Why do DMs give Intimidate such a hard time as a social skill? I’m not talking about intimidate in combat – I’m talking about it purely as a skill to manipulate others and improve/change their attitude.

My gut reaction theory is the classic DM vs PCs mentality and I’m certain this is the problem in a lot of cases (My NPCs won’t be bullied!) but I’ve seen this sort of stance from otherwise skilled, experienced, and reasonable DMs.

Even good DMs... I don't think it's logical that good DMs would have DM versus player mentalities.

Quote:

Consider the following scenario:

The heroes rushes down the streets in pursuit of the assassin. They had to act quickly or the baron was dead and there would be a war for all the wrong reasons. Turning the corner they crossed through the gates into the Opal Quarter – home to the city’s nobility. As they closed on the baron’s manor, they stumble into a pair of city guards. The guards raise a hand – Halt.

The burly fighter steps forward with his hand on his weapon, ”We don’t have time for your s~@$. Step aside or we’ll move you.”

*rolls intimidate*

One guard looks to the other. There’s doubt in his eyes. This man meant business. One guard gestures for the other to let the dangerous man and his friends pass.

The heroes move on to save the day. Of course, later that day, they get a visit from an angry constable and troupe of guards… but the fighter got a chance to flex a little it made his skill investment feel useful.

That's not really plot-relevant. DMs tend not to mind that kind of thing.

Quote:

****Or****

Consider the following scenario:

The heroes rushes down the streets in pursuit of the assassin. They had to act quickly or the baron was dead and there would be a war for all the wrong reasons. Turning the corner they crossed through the gates into the Opal Quarter – home to the city’s nobility. As they closed on the baron’s manor, they stumble into a pair of city guards. The guards raise a hand – Halt.

The burly fighter steps forward with his hand on his weapon, ”We don’t have time for your s%#&. Step aside or we’ll move you.”

*rolls intimidate*

The bard bows deeply before putting his hands up to show no ill will, ”I apologize but we must be brief. The baron is in grave danger... blah blah blah.”

*rolls diplomacy*

One guard looks to the other. There’s a nod of agreement. This man is sincere and honorable. They both step aside.

This is how things work out most of the time.

Why can’t both scenarios be viable with similar skill DCs and no arbitrary punishing penalties? Intimidate is technically faster and has lower DCs but there’s already a mechanical downside built in (the loss of influence later). Why make it harder? Why do so many DMs blanket flag NPCs as immune or highly resistant to intimidation?

This isn’t a new trope. Heroes/Anti-Heroes have been using intimidation to influence others in fiction for a long time. Why are tabletop DMs so resistant to it?

There is a lot of complaints about Diplomacy, actually. Partly because it's basically mind control as written. (You can roll high and automatically befriend a 20th-level serial killer, which is utterly ridiculous. Unlike with Charm Person, there's no defense beyond plugging up your ears.)

But Intimidate is probably worse. You could theoretically put an end to an entire encounter, that the DM might have put a lot of work into being interesting and balanced (and non-replicable, especially if site-based) just by rolling a single d20. Note that there's no real defense against it other than being a paladin or mindless. (A shaken enemy might withdraw, but that's the DM's choice, not the dice. Note the general attitude toward morale rules - negative. The "force an enemy to act as your friend" ability either doesn't or shouldn't apply in a combat situation. It can get ridiculous if the enemy has a ton of advantages but must still get scared.)

Most other skills-based interactions (say, sneaking past an encounter) require multiple die rolls from multiple PCs and interact with multiple rolls. Even "easy mode" (making everyone invisible and silenced) costs resources. Diplomacy doesn't, which is why there's a bunch of alternate rules for it out there.

Books aren't a good guide either. The protagonist might get frustrated, but the author does not, and (hopefully) the reader doesn't either. It's not good to have a frustrated PC or DM. PCs who can effectively mind control enemies at will ensure there's no conflict. Boring.


I have to agree, there's more to intimidation than just threatening violence. Even stuff as simple as getting up in someone's personal space can throw a lot of people off and make them nervous and uncomfortable. As Malkov mentioned there's also the whole authority thing.

Really, what intimidation boils down to is "Do what I want, or bad things happen." While the bad things that happen could be a city guard getting sliced in half with a greatsword, there's reason it also couldn't be that guard getting fired by his superiors. Threats also don't need to be explicit—an implication is enough, in my opinion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of NPC's are flagged as being intimidate-immune because winning an encounter with social skills, especially one like Intimidate that is not based on ingratiating or making friends with the NPC's, is seen as 'too easy.' Nobody took hit point damage or anything. Plus, if a PC can intimidate an NPC, it makes a value judgment about that PC's protagonism and 'coolness' that most GM's are somewhat leery - the PC's are oftentimes the perennial underdogs only able to succeed when they jump through certain hoops set by the GM.


I don't see the problem?

Intimidate and Diplomacy both got the job done here, a guard might be upset that you just blew him off big time, but once it gets out that you saved the day he will probably just take his lumps. he might still be unfrinedly because you made him look like a clown, but that happens.

What was the downside again?

Diplomacy doesn't always work either, especially when people are set on gutting you like a fish. Including the serial killer L20 guy,

Liberty's Edge

Umbral Reaver wrote:
The rules are where it falls down: Intimidating someone to get a helpful result automatically reduces their attitude.

Yes, but that's not the problem. If you checked the example I used, the reduced attitude is part of the ideal scenario.

The problem is DMs that shut down intimidate from the beginning.

"No the guard/ogre/thug/cultist/whatever is immune to being intimidated."


Feral wrote:

"No the guard/ogre/thug/cultist/whatever is immune to being intimidated."

That said, he might be intimidated, but still not let you pass as doing so might well endanger it. He might offer the limited assistance though, which might mean a range of other options.


Shifty wrote:
Diplomacy doesn't always work either, especially when people are set on gutting you like a fish. Including the serial killer L20 guy,

You try that on a PC Diplomancer and you might get "drama" about how you're invalidating his skill choices/build. I don't recall seeing anything in Diplomacy that says "madness" or "stubborness" makes you immune to it.

Shifty wrote:
Feral wrote:

"No the guard/ogre/thug/cultist/whatever is immune to being intimidated."

That said, he might be intimidated, but still not let you pass as doing so might well endanger it. He might offer the limited assistance though, which might mean a range of other options.

This is much like Giant in the Playground's excellent Diplomacy house rules. It might be hard to make a deal with someone, if they're (secretly) terrified they'll be killed for making the deal. A clear set of modifiers would really help both Diplomacy and Intimidate here.

Feral wrote:
"No the guard/ogre/thug/cultist/whatever is immune to being intimidated."

That's because it's effortless, costs no resources and is unstoppable, unlike a Fear spell. It's better, because it lasts longer too. In other words DMs think it's a stupid rule. In addition, it can't be used on PCs (or maybe it can, but if you try anything nastier than "shaken", see point about drama above).

If you want to know that cultist's psychological levers, you should do research first. It's like watching Law & Order. Even the crazy serial killer will not fold on the stand until you bring up his mommy issues or find the one thing he can't stand being mocked about, etc. If they fold right away, they're a red herring, and they can only give up one clue to find the real killer.


I didnt know intimidation immunity was that common. Then again, I havent used it much yet. As I see it, i've always been leary of it (intimidation). But that's open to the same abuse as diplomacy; although while diplomacy is is long term mind control, intimidate is short-term.

Then again, this is a DM issue, not a system one. I would tend to ad a lot of modifiers (example: if the cultist is behind a door, a +5 to the DC, similar situational things, similar things for size differences). The same with diplomacy (while I havent had a chance to use it yet, I found a good NON MIND CONTROL alternative to diplomacy that I want to test out soon).

Edit: I've been wondering about using "social" skills on PCs. Without making them feel like their being mind controled. Especially intimidate, diplomacy, bluff, sense motive)

Liberty's Edge

We’re not talking RAW here. There’s no point. This is purely a DM culture issue.

The thing that’s bugging me is the way intimidate is penalized or denied when diplomacy is allowed. If the guards can be talked into letting the PCs pass with a diplomacy check, they should be just as capable of being threatened, bullied, etc into doing the same (without ridiculous penalties).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would tend to agree that if you cant intimidate, you cant diplomatize (according to the raw of diplomacy). Then again, I prefer the giant in the playground conversion of diplomacy ( http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html ). But yeah, if you cant scare the giant ogre, you shouldnt be any more likely to make him fall in love with you.


What is this diplomancer bull going around? Diplomacy takes minutes to make a roll, a check that cannot occur in combat. Whats the problem here?


Kimera757 wrote:
You try that on a PC Diplomancer and you might get "drama" about how you're invalidating his skill choices/build.

He can have all the drama he wants.

diplomacy wrote:


Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.

If they want to harm/kill you, you can roll all day and it means nothing.

diplomacy wrote:


Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).

GM discretion, duration based on circumstance (which at beast was only 1d4 hours anyway), as in "You seem a good fellow, I'd hate to kill you", right up until your Diplomancer started asking/doing stupid stuff.

diplomacy wrote:


Once a creature’s attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

So GM Discretion on what it might or might not do, so it might well believe that helping the party might get it killed yada yada

Also:
Restriction: you cannot shift attitude more than 2 steps (GM discretion)

Time: 1 minute of continuous interaction

It takes 10 ROUNDS, you count 'em. During which time they might walk off, tell you to go away, have friends intervene... they are not locked in the Diplomancer tractor beam for 10 rounds until he gets his roll. The diplomancer might not even get to make a roll in numerous circumstances.

Then there's also all the GM discretion, this is certainly NOT mind control.


Feral wrote:

If the guards can be talked into letting the PCs pass with a diplomacy check, they should be just as capable of being threatened, bullied, etc into doing the same (without ridiculous penalties).

Well that comes down to the skill, which seems to be single target. You might intimidate A guard, but what about his five mates backing him up? You might scmooze one guard, but his mates might decide they are sick of hearing the Diplomancer talk after he got told no, and punch him in the teeth - happens in nightclubs all the time :p

The minute required to shift an attitude (and only up to two steps - subject to GM discretion) seems to be glossed over, making Diplomacy seem really attractive.


sorry, posted a wrong thing

Sovereign Court

You know I tend to think of guards like policemen. They don't take it well when some citizen yells at them to do something. Talking reasonably with them might work better. On the other hand, if they don't know the PCs diplo probably wouldn't work well either. Hard to say with the missing context in the example.

I am more than willing as GM to let intimidate work just as well as diplo. However, unlike your example, most of the time when people use intimidate they are threatening people with straight up death. Instead of "the baron is in danger move" it's " get the f out of my way before I fireball you". People tend to use diplo in a reasonable way. I think it may be perceived that intimidate has to be so over the top. In any event I would say both sides of the screen have issues with intimidate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Correct Pan, and whilst your Intimidate might have scared ONE of the Guards, all his mates are likely to react poorly to the player standing over and bullying their friend. You might scare ONE guard out of the way if he is by himself, but if he has friends nearby who saw it you might be in trouble - hence the value of the Non-chalant Thuggery trait, which allows you to Intimidate (possibly) without the guys friends cluing on and coming over to do something about it.

Intimidate and Diplomacy work on ONE target.


Does anyone else find a discussion on the internet regarding how unbalanced intimidate is because of the negative social reprecussions of its use to be a little ironic?

I guess in light of that if your character just uses it annonymously it would be ZOMG uber.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GMs don't like relinquishing control of their NPCs' attitudes any more than players like giving up control of their PCs.

I've had GMs tell me that my Charm Person effect immediately ends as soon as I ask the successfully-charmed target to stop attacking me. "That's something they would ordinarily be opposed to, you see....."


I dislike the rules for diplomacy and intimidate so much that for my games I removed them as skills along with bluff. They are role play only effects now. Yes its basically GM fiat, but I don't care.

Bluff was replaced with Feint/Secret Message Skill and Intimidate was replaced with Demoralize skill. I just really hate putting a mechanical system for something like these in place. They just feel like the should be purely role playing actions. I don't (as a GM) feel like I should be beholden to this mechanical burden that says if someone builds their character specifically to use diplomacy or intimidate that they can then walk over everyone and everything that can understand what they're saying.

@ Williamoak, I read that GitPG thread and another (can't remember the guys name) blog that basically convinced me that the systems were terrible. They offered mechanical solutions. Some of which actually seemed very good, but they were a little mechanically burdensome to adjudicate on the fly so I just decided that I simply decide what happened based on what the characters said and did.

Edit: This is the blog/web page I am referring to.


Feral wrote:

This is dead horse that I know has been beaten many times but it still bothers me to this day. Why do DMs give Intimidate such a hard time as a social skill? I’m not talking about intimidate in combat – I’m talking about it purely as a skill to manipulate others and improve/change their attitude.

My gut reaction theory is the classic DM vs PCs mentality and I’m certain this is the problem in a lot of cases (My NPCs won’t be bullied!) but I’ve seen this sort of stance from otherwise skilled, experienced, and reasonable DMs.

Consider the following scenario:
...

I'm confused. What's the problem here? It looks like both skills were used correctly. The only thing that strikes me as odd is the guards making a visit to the PCs later, but that's not quite the same as throwing them in jail or anything.

Intimidate is quite powerful as a social tool. Contrasting to Diplomacy, Intimidate is far, far more likely to succeed. It's faster and easier than Diplomacy and suffers far fewer DC increases. Using your example from before:

The PCs come to the guard (who's a low HD warrior like level 1-2 with no positive wisdom modifier). The guy can intimidate him and tell the guard to let him pass. DC 12-ish. Maybe the GM increases the DC by 2 for the guy having his partner with him. The warrior intimidates the guards into letting him by by taking 10 and the guard doesn't like him much anymore.

The bard can try to talk him into ignoring them and letting them pass. The bard finds the two indifferent so the DC is 15 + their Cha mods (we'll assume -1). However, asking them to let the suspicious people by or pretend they weren't there may call for the "Give aid that could result in punishment" DC modifier. Bam, DC 29. The difficulty of pulling this off is much harder.

However
Now if your complaint is that your GMs randomly ignore or immunize enemies to your Intimidate checks, I feel for you but it has nothing to do with the game. GMs do the same thing with Diplomacy checks. It's probably a sign of a bad GM.


Feral wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
The rules are where it falls down: Intimidating someone to get a helpful result automatically reduces their attitude.

Yes, but that's not the problem. If you checked the example I used, the reduced attitude is part of the ideal scenario.

The problem is DMs that shut down intimidate from the beginning.

"No the guard/ogre/thug/cultist/whatever is immune to being intimidated."

Just immune? Lucky! I had a GM once who thought intimidating was for bad guys so if I even attempted it had immediate repercussions, usually me being stabbed. Another one of mine used it as mind control on the PCs but we weren't allowed to use it because again, intimidating is something bad guys do.


I have recently chafed under the 'immune/pseudo-immune' to Intimidate. I can understand granting circumstance bonuses to the DC of the check, such as the Shopkeep that 1) is in his store, 2) has a pair of armed guards a short step away, 3) knows he is well connected in the town. Going with the stock DC, 10+HD+Wis Mod the check may be against something as paltry as a 13, or 14. But add in +2 for each of the circumstance mods, it is now a 19 or 20 (or so :) ). So, that is the 'fix' adjust (reasonably) the DC to make it so every Shoanti that comes to town doesn't flex once and get a free set of track shoes.

I am also disturbed by how *EASY* it is to 'do the impossible' with Diplomacy. The same GM, same game, same session, won't let the Barb intim a guard, but the Oracle seduces the BBEG. One was a flat, "No workie" and the other was, "Well, it beat a 25, so she agrees to drop her sword..."

Player frustration? Yeah. What the Hell? I chalk it up to a novice DMs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Feral wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
The rules are where it falls down: Intimidating someone to get a helpful result automatically reduces their attitude.

Yes, but that's not the problem. If you checked the example I used, the reduced attitude is part of the ideal scenario.

The problem is DMs that shut down intimidate from the beginning.

"No the guard/ogre/thug/cultist/whatever is immune to being intimidated."

Just immune? Lucky! I had a GM once who thought intimidating was for bad guys so if I even attempted it had immediate repercussions, usually me being stabbed. Another one of mine used it as mind control on the PCs but we weren't allowed to use it because again, intimidating is something bad guys do.

I feel for you, you poor, poor creature. Q.Q

There ARE some DMs out there who aren't total failures. Keep looking. :o

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:

However

Now if your complaint is that your GMs randomly ignore or immunize enemies to your Intimidate checks, I feel for you but it has nothing to do with the game. GMs do the same thing with Diplomacy checks....

This is what I'm griping about. It happens far far more often with intimidate. If you want to say the NPC is beyond reason and can't be persuaded in any way that's one thing. He shouldn't be immune to intimidation but convinced as normal by pretty words.

Liberty's Edge

FireberdGNOME wrote:

I am also disturbed by how *EASY* it is to 'do the impossible' with Diplomacy. The same GM, same game, same session, won't let the Barb intim a guard, but the Oracle seduces the BBEG. One was a flat, "No workie" and the other was, "Well, it beat a 25, so she agrees to drop her sword..."

Player frustration? Yeah. What the Hell? I chalk it up to a novice DMs.

It's not just a novice DM thing though. I've seen quite a few veteran DMs with the same mindset. Where did it come from? What can we do to combat it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:
FireberdGNOME wrote:

I am also disturbed by how *EASY* it is to 'do the impossible' with Diplomacy. The same GM, same game, same session, won't let the Barb intim a guard, but the Oracle seduces the BBEG. One was a flat, "No workie" and the other was, "Well, it beat a 25, so she agrees to drop her sword..."

Player frustration? Yeah. What the Hell? I chalk it up to a novice DMs.

It's not just a novice DM thing though. I've seen quite a few veteran DMs with the same mindset. Where did it come from? What can we do to combat it?

If the media is correct, as a gamer I am obligated to say "Violence is the only answer. Clearly, you must kill him."

Or, you know, talk to your GM. Since the above suggestion is pretty dumb. :P


Intimidate your GM into allowing it with threats of violence against himself or his family. If it works, it proves you right!

Or, you know, don't.


Not by RAW this is how i see it:

Diplomacy is when you talk to the person and eventually you convince the other to agree with you because you gave good reasons and know how to push the right buttons during the talk , you are not forceful , you are a smooth talker.

Intimidation is when you talk to a person and are forceful about it , maybe you used your autority "strongly" , maybe you showed you have a great sword +5 or maybe you just got an "evil look". Anyway , this can be done much much faster , and you dont really try to convince the person to agree with you , you "force" the person to agree you because you are more "badass" (which pretty much can mean a ton of things , does not mean you gonna say "OPEN THE WAY OR IM GOING TO MURDER YOUR FAMILY!").

So what does this mean?

Well in the situation you just described i would not allow a diplomacy test , not because i dont think it could be done , but because you said yourself they were in a hurry. If they want to stop and take their time there to explain the situation and so on fine , they can roll (note , im not saying in this situation it would take 3 hours , maybe a 2/3 minutes , are they willing to give it?)

On the other hand they can roll intimidation , it is much quicker , it will move the guards BUT NOBODY likes to be intimidated (i think nobody :P) , so yeah , later they will hear about this , maybe not badly (if they are helping the city), but something will mention the guard pissed and they being forgiven because of the circumstances.

EDIT/PS: i dont care about player complains , there is a need to limit both of these skills , they are OP if you follow RAW , so there will be no ubber diplomacy skill monkey , winning a lich because of a 20 in my adventure :P (unless they give me one HELL of a reason).

Liberty's Edge

I might not have made this clear but the examples I gave in the OP were of how I’d like to see the game be run. Yes, the guards returning with backup to apprehend the party (after they’ve defeated the assassin) makes perfect sense, fits the RAW explanation of the skill, and still leaves the fighter feeling like his skill is cool and accomplished something.

More realistically, this is how many DMs run the intimidate version of the scenario:

The heroes rushes down the streets in pursuit of the assassin. They had to act quickly or the baron was dead and there would be a war for all the wrong reasons. Turning the corner they crossed through the gates into the Opal Quarter – home to the city’s nobility. As they closed on the baron’s manor, they stumble into a pair of city guards. The guards raise a hand – Halt.

The burly fighter steps forward with his hand on his weapon, ”We don’t have time for your s&%&. Step aside or we’ll move you.”

*rolls dice*

DM: “Sorry, these are trained city guards and they have the law on their side. Even though you’re built like a truck, rolled an 18 for a total of 25 against these level 2 warriors, and obviously have them outgunned, they are not intimidated. In fact, they reach for their weapons. Roll initiative.”


The social skills in D&D are pretty much broken. Frankly, even games with much better systems for such like Exalted are broken also from an aesthetic point of view (especially how it essentially encourages you never to let a social monster speak a la the 'shut up Hannibal' trope).
In reality, nearly all social interactions involve all three, diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate.
For instance, I'm a fairly strong guy significantly above six feet. There is an element of intimidation in EVERYTHING I do socially in real life, even when I'm trying to be unassuming. People might think they are rationally immune to this but they're not. Their gut, which is doing a large fraction of their processing is evaluating the implicit threat my existence poses.
But amusingly, I never seem to experience any negative blowback from this passive intimidation. Nor do I generally when I use slightly more open intimidation (walk purposefully and express your requests in an imperative rather than a questioning manner, and assume compliance in many cases a step beyond what has been explicitly agreed to---this is sometimes called 'assuming the sale'.
Now your characters almost certainly radiate a lot more passive threat than I do. Had they said something akin to:
Stand down. This is a matter of national security.
I'd probably have had the guards falling over themselves to comply, assuming they are known by reputation and friendly. The guard's gut is processing like this:

These guys are way way more than we can handle
They're offering me a plausible face-saving out
they're not our enemies and we have no specific orders concerning them

So they're inclined to let you pass as long as you don't rub their faces in it. Retroactively if you wind up doing something heroic, they'll revise their memories to how they helped you. People just tend to think that way.


Hypothetical scenario 1: A random stranger walks up to me and my three year old daughter and tells me to give him my car keys. He rolls an Intimidate with a +20 bonus because he is brandishing a dagger towards my daughter and I am not Bruce Lee... I give him my keys and as soon as he is around the corner, I split the other way and phone the authorities.

Hypothetical scenario 2: A random stranger walks up to me and my three year old daughter and tells me to give him my car keys. He rolls a Diplomacy with a +20 bonus because I just realized he is Michael Jordan. I give him my car keys and call out "Whatever you need Michael" as he runs around the corner. I immediately call my wife to come pick me up and then proceed to let all my buddies know that I was robbed by the greatest basketball player that ever lived. A few days later, if my car has not turned up, I phone the authorities and tell them that I was robbed by a stranger.

I honestly feel that Diplomacy and Intimidate should be interchangable in a lot of circumstances, with very similar DCs. The big difference in the above examples are the (extreme) conditional modifiers and the timing / intensity of the resulting backlash. This feels right to me, and I wish more people saw it this way.


Some GMs just don’t like their NPCs to be intimidated. I don't know why. Maybe it’s an ego thing? Maybe they think you’re disrespecting their encounters/game?

I think it’s related to not even being able to trash talk (a FORM of intimidation!) their NPCs. If you say something like “You can’t catch me!” or “You wanna be starting something Bub?” or “You’re such a p*ssy!”, all of a sudden the NPC gets a lot tougher and starts “rolling” 20s.

“How dare you talk trash to my NPC!”

It’s kind of pathetic to be honest but extremely common. We play this game to fantasize and some players have fun talk trashing NPCs, but you just get yourself curb stomped if you do. If you’re quiet, nice and respectful, the encounter is over in 2 rounds without incident. It’s funny how that works. This is extremely common, especially with GMs that like to “put PCs in their place”.


Feral wrote:

DM: “Sorry, these are trained city guards and they have the law on their side. Even though you’re built like a truck, rolled an 18 for a total of 25 against these level 2 warriors, and obviously have them outgunned, they are not intimidated. In fact, they reach for their weapons. Roll initiative.”

And he's right, because you are doing it wrong.

Intimidate works on ONE of them, ONE. His friends are not affected until you make checks against them as well, however they might be about to get stabby.

If you bought the relevant traits and feats though you can do what you described.

You could take the trait 'non-chalant thuggery' which would have meant you might intimidate the one guard without his friends seeing, which might help things.

You could take Dazzling Display, which allows you to now intimidate the group, giving them the shaken condition - and if a Thug (or several others with the ability) you can give them the Frightened condition and they run away.

What can't be avoided though is the single target nature of both Diplomacy and Intimidate.

Liberty's Edge

Shifty, the RAW isn't what we're talking about. If it's a catching point for you, assume it's a single guard in all the scenarios.

More specifically, in a game I'm in, we beat down a bad guy guarding an objective the party was after. The bad guy surrendered but we needed information from him. The DM suggested we get information from him but pretty much straight up said he would be very difficult to intimidate because he was 'a bad dude'. Diplomacy was a viable option. This is a single guy.

Why the discrepancy? This guy was clearly beaten, outnumbered, and outgunned. Somehow he's immune to being bullied but vulnerable to talking nice.

Liberty's Edge

Jason S wrote:

Some GMs just don’t like their NPCs to be intimidated. I know why. Maybe it’s an ego thing? Maybe they think you’re disrespecting their encounters/game?

I think it’s related to not even being able to trash talk (a FORM of intimidation!) their NPCs. If you say something like “You can’t catch me!” or “You wanna be starting something Bub?” or “You’re such a p*ssy!”, all of a sudden the NPC gets a lot tougher and starts “rolling” 20s.

“How dare you talk trash to my NPC!”

I honestly feel like this is the problem most of the time. How can we break pattern and/or help DMs get over this issue?


I've been keeping an eye on this thread because I'm hoping to start DM-ing soon, and this seems like an important point to notice. I would think it's kind of like what's being descibed for any skill that the GM technically cant use on the PCs. Intimidate (and diplomacy) in their social forms arent terribly legitimate to use against PCs (since it amounts to mind control) but I'm wondering if there are ways around it (IE, intimidating players without them realising it).

But I guess the point here is consistency. I would not tend to value diplo more than intimidate (and I've already accepted a modified version of diplomacy, as indicated before). But part of the problem CAN (and I'm not saying WILL) come from the "artificial" nature of the game (IE, dice rolls). I beleive it's necessary, so that people who arent necessarily charismatic/quick thinking/intimidating in real life can still play those kinds of characters. But at the same time, it means players dont often act like the rest of the game is "real"; NPCs are treated like objects, worlds are treated as disposable, and I can understand why GMs resent that, considering the time and effort put into them.

If GMs only existed to enhance the players fun/challenge, this conflict wouldn't exist. I myself mainly want to GM for my own sake; I like to write, I like to act, I like to create.I have no interest in adventure paths for example.

This might ramble quite a lot, but I guess my point is, Intimidate feels like an "assault" on the GMs world, while diplomacy is felt more like a gentle manipulation. I see both as equally subversive, but a great many probably still see intimidate as something they just plain dont like, be it for a mechanical or a (more likely) emotional reason. In the end, the GM is trying to have fun as much as the players, and when their fun is messed with they push back. They just have considerably more power to do so then the players.

Liberty's Edge

williamoak wrote:
This might ramble quite a lot, but I guess my point is, Intimidate feels like an "assault" on the GMs world, while diplomacy is felt more like a gentle manipulation. I see both as equally subversive, but a great many probably still see intimidate as something they just plain dont like, be it for a mechanical or a (more likely) emotional reason. In the end, the GM is trying to have fun as much as the players, and when their fun is messed with they push back. They just have considerably more power to do so then the players.

This is a very good summary of the problem. The question is, what’s the solution? Suck it up and accept the fact that these DMs will never be okay with Intimidate and just avoid investing in it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's probably more complicated than that, but for those DMs that specifically void intimidate, yes. Then again, I think there needs to be as much effort on the players side as the GMs. I've known a few players that treat it like a living, breathing world, but most of them are still trying to "play the game" rather than "play the GMs game" (I,m middle of the road for the moment, trying to "play the GMs game" more, I've only been playing 3 months). With good players, the GM is more accomodating, and is less likely to game the system.

On the other hand, there can be emotional concerns on the GMs side. Intimidate might have personal connections with any number of things (an important one being possible former player abuse). If that's the case than yes, the only solution is to avoid certain builds with certain GMs. This is a personal issue, and one you cant avoid. Players have them too.

Liberty's Edge

I agree that the players should meet the DM halfway one making characters fit the world. The idea of omitting fairly standard innocuous content in the interest of keeping the DM happy seems strange to me but one couple argue it’s just a more extreme version of omitting an exotic race or class for the same reason. It seems reasonable for a DM to say ‘No Summoners’, I suppose it’s not so different to say ‘No Intimidate’.


Yes, but the intimidate case should also come up at the beginning. It becomes complicated when it's not an clear/overt issue with the GM (IE, they doesnt realise it themselves) and dont consider it an issue to be mentionned.

I myself have a few:
-No evil characters (general evil behavior will also be met with disaproval)
-No summoners (although this could change)(never synthesists though)
-Changes to diplomacy

I'm working on a "statement of principles", both to help define my ideas about playing and to let players know how I intend to play. I start with rule number 1: whe're all here to have fun, and I continue from that. I might eventually post it up here for commentary.

Still, I think reliable player-GM communication is essential first and foremost. The GM needs to tell the players what kind of game they want to play, the players the kind of game they want to play. Then, either the players and GM compromise a little and try to have fun anyway, or they go their seperate ways. Though I've been realising that for many, this cant be done, since they only realistically have one possible gaming group. In the end, everybody has to be ready to say "I wont ever enjoy the type of game envisioned by X, so it's better we split".

Eh, I'm in a ranty mood today. But I'm really working hard to establish what I need to be a good GM, but also to enjoy being a GM as well.

Liberty's Edge

I agree. Full disclosure upfront is important but that goes without saying and isn’t necessarily part of the problem.

I was in one game where we got up to level 8 before intimidate ever came up. We came across an obstacle that intimidate seemed like a good fit for. My character had max ranks and a good modifier. I rolled a check – had a good roll – and was promptly shut down because ‘the npc wasn’t scared of my character’. The cleric did a couple diplomacy checks with middling results. Suddenly the conflict was avoided.

That DM was terrible but he’s also not the point.


I would tend to think the GM is the ENTIRE point. We often forget that PnP rpgs are a social affair. It's especially significant for those who (like me) are used to video games and come in with pre-conceived notions. It's unfortunate, but with a poor DM, you're as much fighting the GM as the game.

If the GM was consistently terrible, the simplest solution is to leave. But be willing to accept that all people have sticking points, and if intimidate was the ONLY weird issue, accept that they have a problem with it.

Sorry if I come off as agressive. I had a tendency towards snap judgments for a good part of my life, and I've been working hard to improve my self-control in that respect. It's too easy to forget that other people are human, and tha ta small issue/lapse is not representative of the whole. And most of us arent self-aware enough to know all of them (I'm sure I myself am woefully unaware of quite a few of my own).

Liberty's Edge

Heh, I more meant that terrible DMs aren’t the purpose of this discussion. There’s at least three other ‘Bad DM Horror Story’ threads.

This thread was raising the question of why some DMs, otherwise good and bad alike, have a hatred and social interaction double-standard when it comes to intimidate vs diplomacy.

DMs banning Summoners/Gunslingers/Ninjas makes sense to me even if I disagree with them – they think the class is overpowered or thematically doesn’t fit his setting. Banning/nerfing intimidate as a social manipulator does not.


Feral wrote:

Shifty, the RAW isn't what we're talking about. If it's a catching point for you, assume it's a single guard in all the scenarios.

By RAW and by 'story' it is a sticking point.

RAW and 'real life' says it is notionally viable to intimidate one guard, which is one of the real life reasons you don't post people individually, you use pairs (or more).

RAW says that guy by himself is in trouble, badass or not, as he can be intimidated fair and square. If he has all his mates then RAW and common sense says that the Initimidation attempt is not likely to bear fruit.

That being said, the GM might still apply common sense in roleplay and assume that a bunch of guys at the poetry slam might not want to bang with Mike Tyson, whether he is trying to intimidate them or not, but that is a roleplay decision, not a ruleplay one.

TLDR, a Guard by himself is (by RAW) fair game. If the GM doesn't like it he needs to ensure his guarding strategy is well laid out.

For there to be equity between Diplo and Intim, GM's (and players) need to mind the limitations which are both rely on targeting ONE individual, and that Diplo is NOT a quick process, but a 10 round process in which many things can happen. Diplomancing past a group of guards could take a significant period of time - several minutes easily.

Shadow Lodge

This has not been my experience. My group uses both Diplomacy and Intimidate fairly regularly, and both with a fair amount of success.

Not that we really follow RAW for either. It's more about what's fun and fair, and that means that social skills will work very well sometimes and not so well other times, and you have to pick your tool to fit the situation. From my most recent campaign:

Intimidated the headmaster of a mages' college in his office, with several professors in the same building. Despite the headmaster's apparent position of power the PCs demonstrated enough of a magical, physical, and social threat to shut him down. Diplomacy wouldn't have worked well because the headmaster was already hostile towards the PCs.

Diplomacied a magically coerced NPC who was not easy to intimidate because her controller was holding a loved one hostage and she feared more for the hostage than herself. However, she did respond well to promises to rescue the loved one.

Ran a good cop-bad cop routine in which the Bad Cop scared the proud but cowardly BBEG and the Good Cop offered a compromise that allowed the BBEG to save face while surrendering.

Intimidated a house. It was a magic, intelligent house and the player had a large adamantine hammer and knew how to use it.


I guess most roleplayers or at least most GMs are or have been geeks and Intimidate feels alot like being back in School?


...and following on, they allow the 25CHA hawthawthawt Elven Sorceress to have the keys to the kingdom no matter how ridiculous that seems off one hokey die roll because it reminds them of their school fantasies.

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Intimidate Has it Rough All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.