Intimidation?

[Eorendil]

Right, there's all kinds of situational modifiers so anything can happen. Just have to keep things in perspective.

My primary grind against things like persuasion and intimidate are when they're used with little to no rp, emotes, etc. That's all.

[jrizz]

bumped to remind about:

1. The requierment for extensive RP before an intimidate check
2. Size modifier -/+4 per size cat dif
3. Degree of effect per roll diffs.

[Gulnyr]

Originally Posted by jrizz

2. Size modifier -/+4 per size cat dif

I still disagree with that one, at least between PCs. Anyone who charges giants and dragons and gets beat up by fairies is not going to care how big or small Ivana Intimidatrix is when she makes a threat.

[jrizz]

but when was the last time those giants ran from that charging PC (without magical help)? The only people that can do that are well seasoned barbarians whose rage is so fearsom that those giants quake in their oversized boots when he/she charges them.

So the size modifier should come into account from small to large.

[Makashi]

Still think it would be best doing it the simple old fashioned way - 1d20 + Level + Intimidate skill.

Also agree with jrizz' points on the possibly making a difference though the roll above is the way I prefer.

[scifibarbie]

Ah, memories...Though lets not forget the diminutive but highly mad dwarf with a nasty axe!

On more than one occasion she has scared the pants off of much higher level creatures or pcs than herself. In both gm run situations and pc interactions.

Though I do remember a freshly bathed dwarf mage of a low level once scaring the pants off of one mighty battlerager by threatening him with a bath! The said mage rolled a 20 intimidate vs said ragers roll of 1.

We ignored the modifiers since it was such a gap between our respective levels (that, and a roll of 1 IMHO negates all modifiers) and the interaction at the time of the incident was for sheer comic delight. Many a dwarf still get a chuckle at the memory of the mighty warlord of bloody gate running for his life from an odd dwarf mage with a bucket of water and the promise of a bath in the desert.

A brief history of intimidation being satisfied and after several minutes giggling hysterically to myself at the memory, I do say i like jrizzs idea. But unfortunately, i am not so good with the dice bag, aside from the mundane stat rolls. So how such a complicated roll could be done with teh dice bag widget without taking a huge amount of time for those of us with more than 2thumbs does cause a bit of concern.

Oh, and yes..i do have 2 left feet also.

[Gulnyr]

Originally Posted by jrizz

but when was the last time those giants ran from that charging PC (without magical help)? The only people that can do that are well seasoned barbarians whose rage is so fearsom that those giants quake in their oversized boots when he/she charges them.

So the size modifier should come into account from small to large.

Sure, the NPCs might care about size, but PCs probably don't. So an NPC giant might not take an Intimidation attempt from a halfling as seriously as one from something bigger, meaning the halfling would get a -8 to the check for being two sizes smaller using the -4 posted above. But the halfling PC, who has faced off against giants before and won handily and also against fairies and been slaughtered, isn't likely to care that an Intimidating giant is so much bigger or an Intimidating fairy so much smaller.

The PC is not concerned with size because his experience shows size to be irrelevant in the potential power of a creature. That may or may not be true of NPCs, depending on their experiences. That's what I'm saying.

[lonnarin]

Tell Bakee that size doesn't matter. Meet Pyrtechon! hahah!

If only Mikey one day snapped, with his 300+hp on average scythe of doom. Somebody please make an evil Corathite half-giant or half-ore scythe weaponmaster! Or greataxe. Shows you why size adds to intimidate. That dwarven axe just doesn't compare!

Annie totally RPs her instinctual fear of things bigger than her. They include everyone! Her parents were eaten by a house cat. A halfling looking at a towering ogre with o fear modifier, in my opinion, is looking at the floaty text, not the size of the half giant barbarian. Go ahead and pretend intimidation doesn't matter, then meet that one PC that takes pure-class barbarian and terrifying rage. Walk into his aura and pretend to ignore it.

[Link092]

geez, richie is scared of everything..... but mostly that happens due to a childish mind and horrid wis rolls.

[Gulnyr]

I can do character-specific.

Jennara used to be afraid of everyone. Everyone had weapons, so they were obviously dangerous, right? But she has grown and changed over time. She's seen things that have opened her eyes to a wider world. During her travels, she has been absolutely torn to pieces by some pretty, tiny little fairies and more recently saw and experienced a short stick, literally a twig, be a problem for four very capable people, even killing one of them in an amazing surprise of blood and gore. She has also killed more giants who had outrageously large axes and swords than she can count, fought countless demons that were well beyond the rather commonplace ugly of an ogre, charged and helped kill a very big dragon, and even punched Milara.

Through all that, she's never had reason to believe that bigger things were necessarily more dangerous and frightening than smaller things. Her experience shows size is not an indicator of danger. Smaller things can easily be a greater threat than larger things, especially given that an Intimidation attempt is not necessarily a direct threat of violence against the person being addressed. If tiny, agile fairies threatened to sneak into your home some night and steal your baby, you'd take that much more seriously than if a somewhat clumsy giant with a big axe said it. Their small size is actually an advantage to that Intimidation since it makes it more believable.

Also, it's not the size of the weapon that matters but the demonstration of its use in an Intimidation attempt. Standing there growling with a scythe is less intimidating than standing there growling while stabbing someone's hand to a table with a dagger. The big weapon makes no difference; a demonstration of ability with any weapon might.

[Interia_Discordius]

In terms of PC intimidation, I have a tendency to read what is actually written than go completely by rolls. Having someone emote waving an axe at me and saying I'LL KILL YOU is a bit intimidating, sure, but I'm not gonna turn around and run screaming at the same time even if the roll difference was huge. I always found that incredibly cheap to roll against a +29 modifier when your counter roll is a bloody Will that has no ups besides a few +2 or +3s.

On that note, I personally react better to people who put the right atmosphere on or spend more time with their RP... it doesn't have to be lengthy, but there are more ways to intimidate someone than by just threatening to take their lives or brandishing a weapon. I react to characters regardless of rolls and look at what's really being said. Same with persuasion. I have no problems roleplaying my character in fear or stupid agreement... There should be no personal pride in such things with your own roleplay. I do it for the story, and in stories, you do not get anywhere by placing one character on a pedestal and making them practically immortal to their environment. My only problem comes with people who spam rolls and think I'll insta-agree just because they said "You'll tell me!" and roll an insane +modifier persuade or intimidate.

I'm bound... what are you gonna do? Camp me?

[Link092]

rather, the threat of a long and painful torture to a boutnd person is more intimidating, seeing that the can do all the torture they want, grab me again, and lather, rinse, repeat....

[Vyris]

Intimidation also has something to do with intelligence as well, and personal courage, which both need to be RP'd. A highly intelligent, or incredibly stupid person isn't as likely to be intimidated by threats of physical violence I think.

Mostly because the highly intelligent tend to wield magic, and the incredibly stupid tend not to realize the danger they may be in.

Vyris

[Gulnyr]

This is starting to sound way too complicated. It reminds me of the section of the 3.0 DMG titled "The DM's Best Friend." The "best friend" is the simple rule that a favorable circumstance gives a +2 bonus to a skill check while and unfavorable circumstance gives a -2. Cool - until you overthink it.

In any given situation, there are likely to be any number of factors that would be favorable or unfavorable to a given check. The example in the book is of a Listen check, and it lists several things (the character running, previous information that might affect what would be listened for, ringing ears from a lightning bolt spell, etc) that could affect the roll. You could spend all day on one roll if you wanted to, totally bogging everything down so that there isn't really any game anymore. It's not supposed to be that complicated.

I know the 3.5 SRD says to do the +/-4 thing for size differences, but I also know that's inconsistent with the nature of some other rules. For example, a half orc with a 16 Charisma is exactly as charismatic, on average, as an elf with a 16 Charisma. The half orc does not get any sort of automatic penalty for having tusky teeth and a piggy nose. That's because it's a fantasy world where there are multiple races living in close contact, so those teeth and that nose aren't as unusual as they would be to us it the real world. And mechanically, the half orc was already penalized by having a negative Charisma modifier at creation; having brought her Charisma up to 16 means she is lacking a bit somewhere else that the elf didn't have to "lose." Similarly, then, a halfling with a +20 Intimidate check and a 10 Charisma is exactly as intimidating, on average, as a half giant with a +20 Intimidate check and a 10 Charisma. They are both intimidating in equal measure to people who are used to seeing people of various races around all the time.

If Intimidate were only and specifically about direct and immediate violence, it might make sense to have size matter. Since it's possible to be much more subtle or to threaten something else (a powerful city official Intimidating a merchant with a threat against his business license, for example), the size thing is not at all universal, and that's on top of people of various races and sizes often mixing together regularly. It would be a complete non sequitur to have the +20/10 Cha half giant city official be more intimidating in his threat against the merchant than the +20/10 Cha halfling city official merely because he is two sizes larger. How does being bigger make his threat of rescinding a license any more credible?

Instead of the weird universal size thing, why not take the opportunity to reward RP by granting (for DMs) or agreeing to (for other PCs) bonuses based on the nature of the Intimidation attempt and the character trying it? So, pretend the characters mentioned are mechanically intimidating for a minute. If Jennara tries to Intimidate a guild by threatening their market share in Lor, that's not really any better than her base Intimidate check. I mean, she knows people, but who is she to affect trade and such, right? The same Intimidation attempt by Angela carries a lot more weight, though, right? It's not because Angela is taller but because she actually has a good chance to affect someone's trade status in Lor, so she should get a bonus for the favorable condition and RPing that position. Going by the situation is superior to "I'm bigger so I win."

EDIT: Yeah, I can get wordy. I woke up this morning with a clearer description of why the modifier for size seems wrong: it makes too many assumptions. It assumes that the Intimidating character is threatening direct, immediate violence from himself; it assumes the Intimidating character and his target exist in a vacuum; it assumes both the Intimidating character and his target are free to act...

Imagine a situation where a halfling follower of Branderback has taken a human prisoner and is interrogating him for information. The halfling tries to Intimidate the human by threatening to let his half orc buddy do whatever he wants to the human if he doesn't give up the info. So, in this case, the halfling is not threatening direct violence from himself and not alone (aka in a vacuum), and the human is not free to act as he will since he's chained up as a prisoner. It's exactly not what the size rule assumes.

Imagine this time the halfling is a Cleric with a golem summoned and the target is a human homeowner. The halfling tries to Intimidate the homeowner by threatening to have the golem block the doorway with a boulder. By the size rule, it doesn't matter that the halfling isn't directly threatening violence or that the golem can easily move the bolder or even that there is a golem. Since it doesn't matter according to the rule, the human, simply because he is three feet taller than the halfling, is less likely to take the boulder-hauling golem seriously than if the same threat were made by a human or elf, as if the halfling were somehow required to fulfill the threat all by himself. That's totally screwy.

There's no reason to assume that an Intimidation attempt will involve direct violence against the target from the Intimidating character (or even any violence at all), so the size of the Intimidating character shouldn't always be a factor. There's no reason to assume that the Intimidating character is in a vacuum and solely responsible for carrying out whatever threats he makes as if no one else exists, though that may be the case sometimes. There's no reason to assume that the target of the Intimidation is completely free to act against the threat in a manner that makes his own size an advantage since the threat may not be physical violence and he may not be free. So, as I said, it seems far better to add modifiers according to the situation rather than simply assume that a bigger person is automatically more intimidating regardless of the situation.

[stolen]

I think the most important thing is that you shouldnt just stand there and say
"gives him a mean look"
or something similar and shoot a intimidate roll. How about a little rp leading up to the roll that would give the target a reason to be intimidated.

[scifibarbie]

Grenna really enjoys using the end of her to get a point across. Lots of RP fun!

Holds up 2 left thumbs for RP

[ycleption]

Originally Posted by scifibarbie

Grenna really enjoys using the end of her to get a point across. Lots of RP fun!

Hm, is Grenna's end really that intimidating?

[wisper]

Forgive me for de-lurking but I want to point out one thing here...

Obviously barbarians need intimidate, at least those who plan to be epic barbarians, but for other classes- say a cleric, a druid, a fighter, a sorceror- who only have a skill point or two to spare each level putting lots of points into intimidate just isn't an option. Does that mean they aren't able to be intimidating?

By basing everything on this skill those who inherently have the points to spare, it's the high intelligence or skill-point rich classes that will always win. Bards, rogues and wizards can afford to be intimidating, but other classes cannot. A level 20 orc warrior with 8 intelligence, who wears the bloody skulls of his victims as a necklace, is going to need that 1 skill point per level he gets for discipline. Does his lack of intimidation skill mean everyone should treat him like a pushover? What about a religious type, aren't many clerics or paladins intimidating by their very nature? But most of them just won't be able to afford to invest heavily in the skill either.

That's why the skill itself, at least to me, represents the use of "situational intimidation", for lack of a much better term. It's a skill for the wily halfling rogue, genius wizard or reckless bard who doesn't look like much but knows how to talk his or her way into or out of trouble.

I would also argue the skill exists primarily for dealing with NPCs in PnP or in the single player game, cases where the DM or computer has to determine the reaction of the NPC. It just shouldn't be used when not on a DM quest, and that "intimidation" between two PCs should ONLY come from RP. Forcing rolls of the dice on other players turns them into NPCs, and takes away their ability to decide how their character would react.

Finally.. I would bet that most of the truly intimidating characters on this server, the half-orc assassins and evil clerics of Corath and tempermental wizardesses who make other players cower in fear when they run across them in the wild, have zero-to-low intimidate scores. Just a guess of course, I could be wrong.

I don't play here often so, take this with a grain of salt. Hope no one minds me butting in.

[jrizz]

@wisper,

Very well said and I agree with you for the most part but sadly we have players that even in the face of a 8 foot tall 500 pound half giant with a 50 pound spiked club will act with bravado knowing full well that the rules of the server will protect them (well for the most part). So when faced with that, where do you take your RP? I have to agree with you that forcing rolls takes away from RP. But there are times when it is needed. Of course that leads to abuse of the rolls as well.

[wisper]

Well, considering ogres and giants are two of the most common enemies you meet in Layonara, should an adventurer character necessarily be afraid to met yet another one, even if they're 1/4 the giant's size? We're not talking about cowardly little me or another commoner meeting a giant, we're talking about someone who may have killed hundreds of them. Anyway being somewhat fearless, even to the point of stupidity is something that comes along with being an adventurer.

Also, again, if the giant is a PC fighter with low intelligence instead of barbarian will they even have high ranks in intimidate? If it's a giant fighter vs. a halfling rogue the rogue may actually be the one doing the intimidating by these rules, just because they can afford to dump a point a level into it (especially if it can be used to push other players around a bit) and the giant can't.

Plus halflings are naturally fearless (+2 to fear saves), gnomes and dwarves have battle training against giants meaning some familiarity.. Are things like this even taken into account? They should be...

I've been genuinely intimidated many times by other PCs are acted appropriately, and it always comes from their demeanor, reputation and role playing... Not from being told that I had to fear them because I lost a dice roll.

That's all I'll say, thanks for letting me throw my opinions around.

[jrizz]

The argument of "we have faced gaints many times" keeps coming up. Please dont forget that at even skill levels a unbuffed PC (for the most part) will get smashed to pulp by a giant and most know this to be true. So lets say PC a is unbuffed and walking through the woods and come face to face with a angry giant (say 10th level PC vs a 10th level giant). The fight can go anyway and many times will go in the giants favor. Now of course you can go class by class on this and I invite you to to see how it would go. So a unbuffed PC should understand its danger.

[Weeblie]

Intimidation ultimately boils down to a case of "Gentlemen's Agreement".

There are no easy and reliable way to make a counter-roll accounting for all the modifiers and what not, and just like Persuade. So, de facto, it's really only done ("should" only be done) in two ways:

1) vs NPC: Let the DM decide.
2) vs PC: Let the "defending" player decide.

If your counterpart (and yourself!) has any sense of fairness at all, I'm sure the matter will be handled in a satisfactory way for both of you. If not... perhaps one should avoid rolling such checks in his presence the next time.

[Gulnyr]

I was thinking, while I was raking leaves, that part of the weirdness with this could be caused by the a lack of clarity in or the misunderstanding of the game terms used. "Good" and "Evil" in the alignments are probably the best examples, but in this case it's "Fear."

Fear is a normal part of being alive. Anyone who has no fear is not somehow superior but somehow mentally defective. Seriously, that would be a real problem. Fear is required for bravery, since you aren't being brave if you do something you aren't afraid of doing. Bravery is a key characteristic of many D&D adventurers, especially Paladins, the classic archetype of the brave knight in shining armor. Of course, Paladins are Immune to Fear, which is where the lack of clarity starts. I would say that it's not so much that Paladins are Immune to Fear but that they are Immune to Panic. In other words, they are afraid, since fear is normal, but their fear doesn't overwhelm them and they're able to stand up and face their fears, secure in their faith or whatever, without running off whimpering.

In the case of Intimidation against any character, where being Intimidating is defined as attempting to make someone's fear overwhelm them, a target character might be afraid of whoever is Intimidating or whatever they say or do but won't necessarily "panic" and be Intimidated. So there would be fear but not D&D Fear, and a character might be afraid of that half giant or huge axe but won't just cave in to that fear.

Stupid language. Y'know, as many synonyms as there are for any particular concept, you'd think maybe we'd have each one mean something slightly different so we could have a very detailed and accurate way to express things.

[Link092]

Stupid language. Y'know, as many synonyms as there are for any particular concept, you'd think maybe we'd have each one mean something slightly different so we could have a very detailed and accurate way to express things.

The TRUTH.