Intimidate

[burkoJames]

So I was running a PFS game recently and I had an early scenario that did not anticipate the players attempting to interrogate the enemy. They could not diplomacy the enemy, as the enemy started out at the far end of the scale and they could not move the bar more than 2 steps.

So they intimidated the enemy. I felt this shouldn't work, the enemy knew that any talk on his behalf would lead to his torture & death (stated in his stat block) anyway, there was nothing the PCs could do to produce a worse fate. But they insisted that intimidate was a 100% guarantee if they made the laughably low DC. I tried pointing out that no matter how big your diplomacy, 'diplomancy' doesn't actually exist, and no matter what abilities you have to increase the number of steps you can move someone's attitude, it is within the rules for me to decide that a minute of discussion isn't going to change the genocidal maniac's opinion on killing the party. But they continued to insist that Intimidate isn't like that and that if they make the (again, laughably low) DC, they have to get the info they want.

Rather than waste time debating the issue with local players who question *everything*, assuming they know the rules better than I do, on the spot I decided to give them some ultimately useless information that appeased them. I realize that in PFS I am supposed to operate 'by the rules', but I also know the rules state that it is possible for there to exist impossible skill checks. My question to the rules forum: who do you think was right in this situation? Given the stated morale of the enemy (by losing he is already going to be killed or flesh warped), and the lack of insight has to what the enemy knows or doesn't know about the big bad's plans, should he have even been able to be intimidated into talking? Would you agree that the enemy might have considered spilling the beans to the party 'taking action that would cause him harm'?

I'm just curious the wider opinion on the skill. I don't need strategies to deal with problem players. I'm in rules, not advice.

[Chess Pwn]

Intimidate just makes them friendly for a short time, nothing more. So if they intimidate that guy is friendly, but even a friend wouldn't do something that would get him killed, nor would he go against his job, though he might regret it since it's now his friend.
Plus they then still need diplomacy to convince their friend of anything, it's just rather easy.

[Claxon]

It would have made the individual friendly.

But friends don't necessarily reveal secret information to friends, so your NPC could say something like "Sorry guys, I really want to tell you but my boss will literally kill me if I tell you." Even if they say "Well, we'll kill you if you don't" from the NPCs perspective the result is the same either way and wouldn't result in compliance.

[blahpers]

Quote:

Success: If successful, the opponent will:

…give you information you desire
…take actions that do not endanger it
…offer other limited assistance

Intimidate won't necessarily make the target talk if he knew he would be tortured and killed for doing so. That said, if the target is in greater fear that the PCs will do the same or worse if he doesn't talk, I'd let the PCs have the info.

Edit: giving useless or false info was a good way of resolving things.

[N N 959]

Let's look at the Intimidate entry:

PRD wrote:

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.

In the PRD, the bolded word is a link Diplomacy. This affirms what others are saying, using Intimidate produces the attitude shifting identical to Diplomacy.

But Intimidate points out that the assistance is "limited" and as others have pointed out, the target will not knowingly endanger itself.

blahpers wrote:

Edit: giving useless or false info was a good way of resolving things.

This is entirely incorrect. You cannot give "false" information if the players succeed at the intimidate check.

burkoJames wrote:

But they insisted that intimidate was a 100% guarantee if they made the laughably low DC.

A couple of issues here:

1. Your tone in this passage is a red flag. So what if the Intimidate DC is "laughably low"? That's how the game is written, that's how you play it in PFS. Taking an approach to GMing in PFS that causes you to second guess the DCs or outcomes is counterproductive in PFS. If Players find ways to circumvent difficult tasks and make them easy, even "laughably" so , that's the entire point of the skill system and the problem solving aspect of RPGs. Being bothered when that happens puts you in an adversarial position with the players. Don't get mad at the players if the scenario authors leave back doors open.

It's also important for you to recognize that authors may intentionally allow an easy way to succeed if the players figure it out.

2. Yes, you beat the DC to succeed at a task, then you succeed at the task. What you should be focusing on is what does success actually mean in any particular instance. In this case, it's clear that while the target may be intimidated, that doesn't mean it will stab itself in the heart or cut off an arm upon request.

Here's what the PRD says about Diplomacy and it should apply to Intimidate used as Diplomacy:

PRD on 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.

Emphasis mine. That last section provides you with the RAW to essentially invalidate success in the right circumstances.

3. Look at this line again:

PRD on Intimidate wrote:

f you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.

While it's not spelled out, this clause in Intimidate is materially different than Diplomacy. As such, it would be prudent to not reveal the DC for the Intimidate checks. While the DC may be low for mooks and henchmen on account of the Wisdom modifier, it carries a risk that the player will get false information, unlike using Diplomacy. The only way this works is if you do not reveal the DCs.