The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Roleplaying => Topic started by: Witch Hunter on February 20, 2007, 12:14:32 am
-
I was wondering
what does the intimidation skill represent?
Does it mean the character is big and scary? Or can it be applied to a small sized person who for example is really skillful with his blades, thus being able to scare foes away – or does it always mean "he's big and scary and can shout loud"?
Do you have to be big and scary looking to be scary? :p
-
Intimidation is just what it says - the ability to intimidate others. It may well manifest itself in different ways though as you suggest.
The assassin may have a feel and look about him that just says "Don't mess with me i'm your worst day ten fold". The hulking barbarian in her spiky armour with a massive greataxe across her shoulder is equally intimidating.
The assassin would probably be intimidating in a quiet way - he stands in a manner that suggests that all though his blades aren't at your throat, they could be at any second. His voice is low and threatening. You BELEIVE his threats!
The barbarian when she wants to threaten you is probably different. Anger pours from her like an almost visible cloud. She is using her large size to tower over you. She has just picked up a chair in one hand and is threatening to smack your head in with it. The half-giant who still sitting on the chair is trying to look small and non-threatening and hoping he can just return to his cups without being used as a club to bash you over the head with.
Intimidation can be a really good skill to RP, even better in quests (Karana once made a GM led NPC wet themselves in a quest (she rolled a 20). It took the other party members five minutes to get him to stop blubbing before they could get some useful information from him.
Most (straight) barbarians should have a maxed out intimidate skill as they need a high intimidate skill to use terrifying rage (if they take the feat at level 21 or above). For all other classes it is really just an RP decision
-
Witch Hunter - 2/20/2007 3:14 AM
Do you have to be big and scary looking to be scary? :p
No, but it helps. :) (Zug, for example, is frequently intimidating even when he isn't trying to be, because he's so huge.)
Consider this -- Intimidate is a Rogue class skill. Most Rogues aren't big and scary looking. (Although... in my vault of character ideas for the future...)
-
Hey Nibor I don't remember, was that the Orgre in Haven during the Illithids quest?
----
Anyway, Yeah intimidation can be a lot of things: You can be a big spiky barbarian, a deadly assasin, or really just highly skilled in what you do. Even, (using an example I'm familiar with) a mage, despite being physically frail, would be able to scare with the...other horrors he or she can preform to mind and body.
-
LynnJuniper - 2/20/2007 9:03 AMEven, (using an example I'm familiar with) a mage, despite being physically frail, would be able to scare with the...other horrors he or she can preform to mind and body.
I dunno about anyone else, but Rhynn intimidates the H-E-double-hockey-sticks out of ME.
-
Shyeah. Rhynn is scary.
But even without having to be big and scary, or even very creepy, one can be terrifying.
For example, if a man talks nonchalantly about peeling your skin off, or taking our fingers off one joint at a time, just as if he were talking about the weather...
Well. That'd freak me out. ;)
-
Stephen_Zuckerman - 2/20/2007 9:58 AM
Shyeah. Rhynn is scary.
But even without having to be big and scary, or even very creepy, one can be terrifying.
For example, if a man talks nonchalantly about peeling your skin off, or taking our fingers off one joint at a time, just as if he were talking about the weather...
Well. That'd freak me out. ;)
That right there is the best kind of intimidation there is (IMHO)
Truthfully though, Rhynn finds Czukay and Farros a bit intimidating in and of themselves. Sometimes you don't even need the ranks.
-
Intimidation is one of those things that you can decide to always have on - some PCs as Rhynn says are just always intimidating - can use as and when you need it. I try to play Karana as only intimidating when she wants to be, but to friends she more of a big (and rather dim) big sister.
Part of her personality is quick to take offense though especially if she doesn't entirely understand the thread of the conversation. So she can get intimidating pretty quickly!
-
In that sense, people that also demand respect (without asking for it) can be intimidating when you first see them in their own way. I know the first time Rhynn saw/talked to people like Kobal, Rhizome, or (a loooong time ago) Ozy, she was intimidated as the hells, but more in a "For once Im going to act subdued" way. All in all its more of a question of the different types of intimidation. Rhynn still feels a bit 'intimidated' (read: She'll actually be quieter/listen to) some of these people. Yard is a good example. While not imposing or scary, he has a sort of air that almost demands respect without ever asking for it. Its something you =want= to give. That can be intimidating too, though not in a usual sense.
-
LynnJuniper - 2/20/2007 9:23 AM
Truthfully though, Rhynn finds Czukay and Farros a bit intimidating in and of themselves. Sometimes you don't even need the ranks.
Mwahaha, of course there are situational modifiers like in PnP social rolls... a mentally distrurbed fighter in black platemail with a firey skull lantern who plucks monster flesh off his armor spikes and eats it has something like +15 to +20. Farros tries to be personable in town, but the tiefer in him usually breaks free at strange times where he goes off into long monologues of bloody doom. Still, a guy who sends swarms of giants fleeing and strikes the swamp cultists near Rodelm dead with a single wail is bound to turn some heads. It comes with the skaldic territory.
Rhynn is far scarier though, for she's a woman and therefore very unpredicatble and unreadable with an endless supply of wrath. Couple that with the magical power and you'll quickly understand why the town crier is so skittish all the time. ;)
-
she tries to be personable...in which cases she's usually scarier. But anyway..Any more questions on intimidation?
-
Intimidation to me can be more than just the hulking brute with a bad attitude. though i don't see people being intimidating jsut cuz they're skillfull with their weapon. Just cuz your good doesn't mean you LOOK good. Honestly, i wouldn't be intimidated (saying i never saw his movies) by bruce lee untill he kick my arse. he wasn't that big, he was very dexterious, and could punch hard for a guy his size, he didn't even have that "don't mess with me fight" untill he was actually fighting.
I'm also agaisnt that *this guy has that "don't mess with me" feel* cuz i see it a lot in ig bios, and personally thing slike that make me roll my eyes. or like *the gaze at you and you feel a shvier down your spine*. the don't mess with me feel isn't something you apply to your char, it's something others apply to your char. Just cuz you feel your char is a Bad a** doesn't mean everyone else feels the same. personally, and this is Tath growing up in a society raised that small and fragile is weak while big and tough is strong, if a Halfling came up to Tath and tried to intimidate him, Tath would either A) laugh or B) try to intimidate back unless they rolled a 19 or a 20. same might go with a dexed based fighter.
however i'm not playing "i can't be scared cuz i r uber" i hate that, if Czuk came up to intimidate Tath i'm sure he'd succeed, same with praylor, i'ms ure anyone one with magic could intimidate Tath as the whoel concept is very foreign to him.
I guess what i'm trying to say is i don't like characters that aren't intimidating to try and make themselves itimidating by buffing up the skill. Tath has alot of RP behind his intimidation, He roars, beheads, mutilates,a nd destroys corpses in hsi rages. He wears armor that's made to scare hsi enemies, He's got a bad temper at times and it's getting worse as he trains mroe and more as a barbarian. He's over seven feet tall muscular and tattooed up for what that's worth heh. He's also from a tribe that doesn't frown on killing someone if they've have "dishonored" you with words or actions. He actually Kill Hector for starting a lie that he had rabies. After sticking to that and having so much reason behind why he intimidates, it jsut kilsl me when i see someone runnign around like "sweet i just got my WM level, time to start upping Intimidate cuz i don't want anyone to scare me, and plus i should be scarey. I mean i'm good with a weapon, I have confidence i'm good with a weapon, so i fi say "make another step or i'll gut you" people should be scared."
i might start some flair at me with that, but i jsut don't see that as a good reason tob e intimidating. lots of people are good with their weapon, doesn't mean their intimidating.
-
"sweet i just got my WM level, time to start upping Intimidate cuz i don't want anyone to scare me, and plus i should be scarey. I mean i'm good with a weapon, I have confidence i'm good with a weapon, so i fi say "make another step or i'll gut you" people should be scared.""
Seriously, a weapon master that slices down his foes without much effort compared to a brute that takes a beat while doing it and then ravages the corpse... well, the brute might be scary to some, an idiot to others... but the blade master did his job quick and clean - if your character isn't afraid to mess with him in your opinion than sure, but as far as im concerned I'd be scared to cross a man whos a master of his weapon :p
I compare his skill with weapons to Rhynns skill with magic, both equally scary - each in its own way.
-
No worries Tath praylor don't do the intimadation thingy, he try's to enforce the law, but as he has no means to others make it a joke
-
Well I take a little different view here. You dont have to be mean all the time or darkly scary to intimidate. I have a elf barbarian (lol) he is not big or too mean looking (except for the deep cross shaped scar) but he has a high intimidate and he uses it only when it is needed. So I RP that he is getting grim, angry, mad, or upset then I emote that his voice changes and he speaks in a low growl. And then I do a intimidate roll. So the questions I have are:
What is the counter roll to a intimidate?
And what do you need to beat?
How do you tell if a PCs intimidate roll should affect you?
Can a clearly less experienced PC intimidate a much more exp PC?
If a PC fails against an intimidate how can the PC handle that?
-
Bear in mind the modifier of intimate is charisma.
That supports the general clause that intimidation is nothing more then an avenue utilizing force of personality. Which is again, as with all CHA modifiers, using what you've got and being confident in it.
A massive, growling, dumb brute can have an intimidation to a degree with his personality constantly pursuing a feeble but powerful stance.
A blademaster with some wit and a little social saavy can turn on the intimidation with some more suave and sass, begging those weaker willed to simply avoid conflict.
Likewise, the witty secretive and almost always friendly bard with hitpoints lower then my grandmother can use force of personality to quickly beg questions in your mind as to what shade of truth he is using in his subtle but foreboding signals. What does he know that you don't, why is he smiling about it, and am I about to die? This too is intimidation.
It's a direct pressure of your charisma.
.... that and it's the DC check for terrifying rage which is one of the coolest feats in the game that I'm just begging for someone to brave the barbarian build to be rewarded by it.
-
Im working on it chongo :)
-
*What is the counter roll to a intimidate?
Well, this depends on who you ask. Myself, I have to go with the D20 system rules. That is, 1d20 + WIS modifier + 1/2 ECL (effective character level).
Many people here, though, will say that a Will save is more appropriate. I strongly disagree, here, but that's another discussion.
*And what do you need to beat?
The opposed roll.
*How do you tell if a PCs intimidate roll should affect you?
Common sense by thy guide.
*Can a clearly less experienced PC intimidate a much more exp PC?
Oh, heck yes. I'm a level 5 Expert, but the level 1 Warrior's still going to scare the crud out of me if he's got a giant axe in his hands and he's coming for me.
*If a PC fails against an intimidate how can the PC handle that?
How would you react if you were thoroughly intimidated by someone?
-
What is the counter roll to a intimidate?
There are a lot of opinions. Some say a Will check, some say a Wisdom check, there might be a few votes for an opposed Intimidate check. The 3.0 Player's Handbook says the DC for an Intimidate check is typically 10 + the target's hit dice, plus saving throw modifiers against fear (for PCs, hit dice = character level). I like a modified level check:
1d20 + Character Level + Wisdom Modifier + Modifiers vs Fear.
- The d20 allows for some random results (aka luck). It's the same thing as the 10 in the 3.0 PHB version, which is simply an average d20 roll. This just let's the luck come through.
- Character level helps represent that higher level characters are generally harder to threaten successfully; think of all the things they've fought against and all the people they've stood up to in the past.
- The Wisdom modifier gives a little bonus to the characters with more will power. It might seem like this gives an unfair advantage to Clerics, but I bet you'd be more sure of your safety if you could call on the power of the gods.
- Intimidate is basically trying to scare someone into doing what you want, so "Modifiers vs. Fear" is self explanatory.
It's not so low as to be useless against anyone with Intimidate ranks (like a typical Wisdom check or opposed Intimidate roll), and not so high that it can't be beaten by a character of comparable level with some experience at intimidation.
And what do you need to beat?
Using the 3.0 PHB method, the Intimidate check has to beat a DC of 10 + the target character's level. With the other methods, the Intimidate check result becomes the DC that the target has to beat on her roll.
How do you tell if a PCs intimidate roll should affect you?
If you roll against the Intimidate check and don't beat it, your character is intimidated. In the case of the 3.0 PHB method, if the other character's Intimidate check is more than ten above your character's level, your character is intimidated.
Can a clearly less experienced PC intimidate a much more exp PC?
With a little luck. Characters don't know that they have levels and such, so what looks obviously less experienced to us doesn't necessarily look the same to our characters. Any Intimidate attempt should be handled seriously with rolls, but a target that overwhelmingly beats the Intimidate roll shouldn't be afraid to react appropriately to the threat (laughing, etc). It's important to make the rolls first rather than trying to force the RP by deciding unilaterally that Lewis Lowlevel just doesn't have a chance to intimidate your character.
If a PC fails against an intimidate how can the PC handle that?
Imagine how you would feel in real life if someone threatened you and you believed he meant it. Keep that in mind as you consider the same situation through your character's eyes, then roleplay accordingly. Depending on the threat, the character, and the situation, it might be enough to be quiet, or it might take running away.
In some cases, there would need to be extra modifiers added to help represent the convictions of the target, and sometimes no amount of Intimidation would make the target act as desired. Let's say Pamela Pummel threatens Carlos Cleric with serious injury or death if he doesn't kill Terrence Target. It just so happens that Carlos is an Aeridinite priest and is sworn to preserve life, so he would almost surely take whatever beating was coming rather than kill Terrence. Carlos might still be intimidated, he might even whimper and cower, but he wouldn't do what Pamela wanted.
-
So if one wants to intimidate someone they must roll higher on thier intimidate check then 10 + the targets level.
So A want to intimidate B, A rolls D20 + Intimidate
If A rolls higher then 10 + B's level there is a chance of success.
B must then roll D20 + level + wisdom mod
If B's roll is higher then A's intimidate check then B is not intimidated.
So if A has a Intimidate of 10 the best roll A can get is 30
So any PC whose level + wisdom mod is 30 or higher cannot be affected by A.
-
Not quite. The DC10+level+wis is only a static DC for NPCs, when a DM doesn't have time to fiddle around with more complicated rolls.
The real rolls would go like this.
A (level five): *intimidate check*
A: Intimidate check: 12+10 (8 ranks +2 CHA) = 22
B(level five): *WIS check*
B: Wisdom check: 10+3 (+3 WIS) = 13.
B: [Tell] 13+1/2(5) = 15. Yeah, I fail.
A: [Tell] Big time.
This is between A, who has maxed out Intimidate and a decent CHA, and B... Who is the same level, and whose Wisdom is only marginally higher than A's Charisma.
Now, let's say B were a tenth-level Cleric with a WIS now of 20.
A (level 5): *intimidate check*
A: Intimidate check: 13+10=23
B (level 10): *WIS check*
B: Wisdom check: 14+5=19
B: [Tell] 19+1/2(10)=24. Hah!
A: [Tell] Aw, rats.
Now let's use two different character, G and L. G is a tenth-level barbarian with a CHA bonus of +3, and NO RANKS in Intimidate. L is a tenth-level cleric with a WIS bonus of +4.
G: *Intimidate check*
G: Intimidate check: 12+3=15
L: *WIS check*
L: Wisdom check: 9+4=13
L: [Tell] 13+1/2(10)= 18. Hah.
G: [Tell] Aw, shucks.
This method gives a GREAT DEAL of weight to skill ranks and to levels.
-
I was told by a GM that to counter any social skill that you use the same one. Say someone's PC rolls imtimidate. I would roll imtimidate myself VS the DC of whatever they rolled.
X: *Intimidate check*
X: Intimidate check: 12+3=15
Y: *intimidate check*
Y: Intimidate check: 12+0=12
Z: X wins
-
always thought it was a will save and not a wisdome check as it is the will that is affected. An intimidation will affect the moral of a person saping his will to fight back.
-
How would you react if you were thoroughly intimidated by someone?
\\
In my opinion this is where being a "PC character/hero" rather than a commoner comes in motion - instead of running away crying (Unless the situation called for it :rolleyes:) one would instead become more defensive as he is facing a certain threat - a PC finds undead or giants intimidating for certain yet he still faces them.
Many animals when intimidated by something become more defensive and some even agressive... etc etc.
-
ok so we really dont have a consensus on this. Both as to method and to reaction. Although the method SZ laid out seems very clear (I will call it the 3.0 method) it is still only one of three at this point (3.0, will, and same vs same methods). If a GM (or GMs) could weigh in on this it would help. As to the reaction, we have for the most part a common thought "you would be intimidated". Now WH's point above is a good one. The PC's are mostly heros ready and trained to face danger (except the evil ones which I dont know what they are). They are used to seeing a room full of nasties that could kill them and charging in anyway. So if faced with what they see as real danger and not just an empty threat (failed roll) would they not react in kind. Of course most heros are also smart and wont charge into certain death. So if intimidate results in a feelng that this person can and will kill you will the hero retreat?
-
I guess it woudl depend on what kind of person he is. How usualy the player rp's it. If its the kind that has no attachement, nor care of his own safety in general, he might just receprocate and charge in. If he is the kind with a family and a sence of preservation, he might think it twice and may back down althout not always backing down with its tail between his leg, all depending on how bad he failed the roll of course.
Say your character failled his roll by 5, he would a bit confused and wondering. but if he had a critical failuer on his roll, 1+mod etc then he would be quite frankly frighten as hell and would probably drop his weapon and run screaming like a little girl.
-
So you are saying that how much you miss your roll by should also be a factor in how you react. I fully agree with this. This brings up another question though. Does a natural 20 on a intimidate check always result in the target being intimidated (unless the target rolls a 20 as well)? I am sure this cant be the case, but thought I should ask.
-
always thought it was a will save and not a wisdome check as it is the will that is affected. An intimidation will affect the moral of a person saping his will to fight back.
Will saves represent the character's ability to push through DIRECT influences to his or her mind, i.e. magic. Let's use an analogy...
Let's say the mind is a train. Now, what everyone's trying to get that train to do is move. Something that requires a Will Save would be like getting behind the train and pushing. The things that would, in 3.0/3.5, require a Sense Motive check, would be more akin to lighting up the engine and making it go.
A forcing as opposed to a persuasion.
All of the social skills in 3.x are opposed by Sense Motive (apart from the 3.0 skill Innuendo, which was opposed by Read Lips). Since we don't have Sense Motive in NWN, it gets a bit tricky to adjudicate what rolls should be done in its place. However, the fact remains that the mechanic of Sense Motive represents being able to see another character's intentions, and their efforts to persuade you. It does NOT represent strength of willpower, which doesn't factor into Persuade, Bluff, etc. This is why Will Saves aren't appropriate.
The exception to this is Intimidate, which is opposed by the modified level check mentioned earlier in the thread. Which we can simulate without any trouble at all, here in NWN.
The official (D&D) rules on Intimidate can be found here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm)
HOWEVER.
All of this said... If you're asked by a DM to roll something against Intimidate, you roll that. Period. I don't care if it's an Open Lock check, roll it. DM trumps all.
Anyhow. Intimidate should be rolled like any other skill check. A natural 20 does not always mean success, and a natural 1 does not always mean failure (at least by the canon rules). However, as a somewhat old-school gamer myself, I'd consider a 20+1 to give a result somewhere around 31. ;)
-
Myself, I have to go with the D20 system rules. That is, 1d20 + WIS modifier + 1/2 ECL (effective character level).
Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear).
To satisfy my curiosity and clear up what seems confusing, can you tell me where you got the roll info from the first quote above? You say it's the d20 system rule, but the SRD doesn't say anything at all about halving the character level.
In my opinion this is where being a "PC character/hero" rather than a commoner comes in motion - instead of running away crying ... one would instead become more defensive as he is facing a certain threat - a PC finds undead or giants intimidating for certain yet he still faces them.
This is a big reason the character level is included in the roll. The higher the character's level, the more he's been through, so the harder he is to intimidate. It would be... well, I hesitate to say "cheating," but that's what it is... It would be cheating to simply decide your character can't be intimidated and won't be scared off.
It may be out of character for some characters to run away. Paladins come to mind. They may be quivering in their tin cans, but they still try to stand tall against the threat, even if only to keep up appearances. Of course, if he failed the roll, he really should be roleplayed as properly affected - less arrogant, quieter, slumped over a little, whatever. Of course, everyone has a breaking point, so even the most recalcitrant Paladin will break and run under some threat or condition.
But it may not be the intention of the threatening person to scare anyone away. She may just want someone to shut up or back down, to reduce the target's standing within a group, say. Intimidate isn't a one-task tool.
-
Well paladins gain Aura of Courage at level 2 which makes them immune to fear, so technically they should never be scared again... just like Elves don't sleep.
Also theres a new point to think about - how easy is it to scare an entire group? say:
Mr.Pickles is a fearsome barbarian; behold his terrifying growls and gestures... Mr.Pickles approaches a group of 3 adventurers who are 5 levels lower than him and goes "BOORAAARARA!! *intimidate check* and rolls some 15+20...
But would each and every one present in the group roll against that?
Or would they do something like add the combined courage of 'em all to face the terror that is Mr.Pickles?
As for what to roll againts it... I agree with Stehen it shouldn't be will, I think a skill vs skill makes the most sense at the given moment as we have no other form with which to use... Although new forms would be welcome *cough*
-
In terms of intimidating paladins, I think it can be done under some circumstances. They may not feel fear, but they could be convinced that wisdom is the greater part of valour and step down from what they perceive as a greater threat. I think it depends on the context of the intimidation.
-
Mr.Pickles is a fearsome barbarian; behold his terrifying growls and gestures... Mr.Pickles approaches a group of 3 adventurers who are 5 levels lower than him and goes "BOORAAARARA!! *intimidate check* and rolls some 15+20...
But would each and every one present in the group roll against that?
Or would they do something like add the combined courage of 'em all to face the terror that is Mr.Pickles?
Hahaha I'm still laughing about that. Hahaha!
But I'm confused. Which is it? Wisdom save + 1/2ECL? People try intimidate very often, I really would like to know! I've just been throwing Will saves. But it makes sense to me that bonuses vs. fear should be added.
-
Good points all. I agree that if a DM tells you to roll something then you roll it. But when it is a random RP event, and this kind of a thing comes up. I really feel the SZ's system is the best way to handle the rolls. To restate it:
A (level five): *intimidate check*
A: Intimidate check: 12+10 (8 ranks +2 CHA) = 22
B(level five): *WIS check*
B: Wisdom check: 10+3 (+3 WIS) = 13.
B: [Tell] 13+1/2(5) = 15. Yeah, I fail.
A: [Tell] Big time.
Now if Mr Pickles trys to intimidate a whole group the group should have some pluses due to "strength in numbers". I would suggest:
1. plus 1 if the group is two people
2. plus 2 for each person over 2 and up to 5
3. plus 3 for each person over 5 and up to 10 (that would be the end of the pluses)
I would also say that if more then half the group beat the roll then the whole group is unaffected and if more then half the group fail the roll the whole group is affected.
So if MR Pickles trys to imtimidate a group of 4 people each person would get a mod of 5 added to their roll. If it was 6 people each person would get a mod of 10 and so on the max being a mod of 17.
What do you all think of this a solution for groups? I am not a versed as SZ in 3.0 or 3.5 rules so this may be addressed already.
-
It seems as though everyone has their own separate (rather convoluted) rules as to this. The last thing I want is extensive Tell arguments about whether I saved against the Intimidate or not. How can we get any sort of consensus?
-
In terms of intimidating paladins, I think it can be done under some circumstances. They may not feel fear, but they could be convinced that wisdom is the greater part of valour and step down from what they perceive as a greater threat. I think it depends on the context of the intimidation.
I think in order to scare a paladin Mr.Pickles would have to do something else than the casual "ROAOOARBRAAAAAA"... something clever like kidnap said paladins beloved and hold her at axe-point.... That Mr.Pickles sure is cunning...
-
Actually, Gulnyr caught a mistake of mine. The 1/2 level is a house rule, and I always forget that the official rule is full ECL.
1d20 + ECL + WIS bonus + Modifiers against Fear.
It lends a heck of a lot more weight to character levels... Now I remember why my DM altered it, back in the day. *Chuckles.*
-
Ok then full ECL. Perhaps we can get a GM to weigh in on this so that we can start to socialize this method.
As to the Paladin issue. Paladins should be imune to intimidate really once they have AOC.
-
The Paladin's immunity to fear is something I had forgotten. That's a good point.
As for groups, I think it should remain individual rolls. Good arguments could be made to have Intimidate checks affect whole groups at once, but that breaks away from the standard of other Fear affects (like spells and auras). It's generally a good idea to keep things consistent from one situation to another, and Fear checks are based on individual saves in other circumstances.
Besides that, an Intimidate check doesn't carry the same panic effect result as spells or auras. It's a "less powerful" ability, and it really doesn't make any sense that a yelling Barbarian can make a whole group cower just because a few fail the roll when a group charging a dragon is affected individually no matter what.
It seems as though everyone has their own separate (rather convoluted) rules as to this. The last thing I want is extensive Tell arguments about whether I saved against the Intimidate or not. How can we get any sort of consensus?
Things that are official carry a lot of weight. Since the SRD, as linked and quoted above, lists 1d20 + Character Level + Wisdom Modifier + Modifiers vs. Fear, and since that can be pointed to as official, I'd say lobby for that one.
-
Alrighty, thank you, I favoured that one myself, actually.
I thinks it's a good idea that saves against intimidate should be done individually - if one fellow in a group resists it, (s)he can RP trying to bolster a member that failed and appears frightened, etc.
-
I tend to agree on the method.
On the group thing it seems a little fuzzy. A PC with high enough intimidate could affect a really large group if everyone fails the save. And although that would be funny it seems just a little off. Take my Barb for instance, by next level his intmindate will be 24 so a roll of a 20 would result in a 44 a group of PCs in the 10 to say 15 level range could easly all fail against that.
a 15 level PC with a Wis mod of even 6 could not make the save unless they had a lot of fear mods in place, and then the PC would still need a high roll. i would say that the group thing is a strange one.
Mr Pickles wants the benches by the fountain to himself. He walks up to a group of 10 people and brandishes his big axe saying in a threating way "it is time for all of you to leave". Mr pickles has pumped a lot of points into intimidate (say 30 not hard to do) he rolls a check and gets a 20. Most PCs not ready for something like that will fail the roll. Except the paladin in the crowd LOL who will be standing there by himself saying hey what are you all afraid of LOL.
-
ok so we really dont have a consensus on this. Both as to method and to reaction. Although the method SZ laid out seems very clear (I will call it the 3.0 method) it is still only one of three at this point (3.0, will, and same vs same methods). If a GM (or GMs) could weigh in on this it would help. As to the reaction, we have for the most part a common thought "you would be intimidated". Now WH's point above is a good one. The PC's are mostly heros ready and trained to face danger (except the evil ones which I dont know what they are). They are used to seeing a room full of nasties that could kill them and charging in anyway. So if faced with what they see as real danger and not just an empty threat (failed roll) would they not react in kind. Of course most heros are also smart and wont charge into certain death. So if intimidate results in a feelng that this person can and will kill you will the hero retreat?
I was told by Ice at one of those 101 RP meeting, who was told by Dorganath, that since we don't have the proper counter skill for intimidate that we are suppose to just use intimidate for a counter roll.
-
Iosheka, that's just one method, and a reasonably common method, at least when dealing with two characters who both have a high Intimidate modifier. It's not balanced, though. As you'll recall at that session, the consensus was that there wasn't really any consensus, and to figure it out yourself, except on DM quests (when you roll what they tell you to).
In terms of Aura of Courage, I'd say that would give +5 to the Paladin's level check, and +2 to everyone he considered with him. (I.e. those in Party.) Nothing should ever give total immunity to it except catatonia.
-
it states immunity to fear though...
-
That would be immunity to spells that play on fears. No spell can grant immunity from genuine fear; nor would you wish it to. Fear, most of the time, is your hindbrain telling you, "This is dangerous. REALLY dangerous. Be careful."
-
Iosheka, that's just one method, and a reasonably common method, at least when dealing with two characters who both have a high Intimidate modifier. It's not balanced, though. As you'll recall at that session, the consensus was that there wasn't really any consensus, and to figure it out yourself, except on DM quests (when you roll what they tell you to).
In terms of Aura of Courage, I'd say that would give +5 to the Paladin's level check, and +2 to everyone he considered with him. (I.e. those in Party.) Nothing should ever give total immunity to it except catatonia.
Thanks, but I was told otherwise. We're to use the same soical skill check for counter rolls. Not a pefect system, but that is what we're suppose to do.
-
As I am certain any DM will tell you, that is not an absolute statement, and not the official be-all-end-all statement. The official statement is "Common sense, and on DM quests, whatever the DM asks for."
-
But we still need a standard way to do this between PCs when a DM is not present. So which way do we go?
-
I advise going with a Wisdom (not Will) check + character level (+ any bonuses against fear) to oppose. However, as I'm not part of the Team, I can't say that that's any "official" way.
-
Using the same social skill for a check is the standard, otherwise the GMs would not have told us in RP101. A copy and paste from the log. Thanks, Lynn! :)
CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:47:20] Sallaron Tempest: Oh...just a quick one......
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:47:39] Sallaron Tempest: ....bit of confusion over it.....what counter's a Intimidate and Bluff check when out of a DM quest?
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:47:55] Death's Harbinger: thats really a tough one
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:06] Muireann: I know what Dorgy told me.....
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:07] Kutya'I: *raises his hand*
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:10] Muireann: for ease
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:25] Death's Harbinger: since its DnD skills there SHOULD be skills to counter them but they aren't put in NwN go ahead Muir
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:31] Death's Harbinger: one sec Kut
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:46] Kutya'I: I looked into this and for NWN a will save is what is typically use.. was rasing my hand for that :)
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:02] Muireann: Dorgy said that due the the fact there aren't skills to counter them and it's not fair to counter with a will....
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:17] Muireann: as you can't up your will in the same way someone can with skill points...
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:34] Muireann: He said to go with an opposed roll of the same skill
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:47] Sallaron Tempest: *sighs miserably* Will save huh.......that's just great
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:51] Death's Harbinger: *nods to Muir*
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:52] Muireann: No
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:56] Death's Harbinger: not a will save
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:57] Muireann: Not will
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:06] Sallaron Tempest: Oh *perks up*
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:15] Muireann: Opposed roll of the same skill
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:19] Death's Harbinger: a will save is what you would use on a dm quest where a fair DC could be determined by the DM
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:43] Sallaron Tempest: So....bluff vs bluff.....intim vs intim?
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:51] Death's Harbinger: yes
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:52] Muireann: That's what Dorgy said
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:53] Kutya'I: cool!
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:51:02] Sallaron Tempest: Sounds better to me *grins*
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:51:27] Muireann: Otherwise the high level rogue will always bluff you unless you've very lucky
-
As I am certain any DM will tell you, that is not an absolute statement, and not the official be-all-end-all statement. The official statement is "Common sense, and on DM quests, whatever the DM asks for."
Common sense is not as common as you may think. It is a default way of answering a question without providing an answer.
My common sense may tell me to use a skill that I am best at and then to try to find justification in using it. My sorceress has a CHA of 34 and her Will saves are high. However, her WIS is average. By using common sense, would I use a WIS roll?
There has to be a standard or people will roll whatever they want.
-
Using the same social skill for a check is the standard, otherwise the GMs would not have told us in RP101.
At another RP101 meeting, after a long discussion was held about the strengths and weaknesses of various methods, GMs said there is no official Layonara standard. *shrug* I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying other people were told differently.
Just to add a completely unofficial opinion, I think an opposed Intimidate check is very unbalanced, and were it decided that it is the official Layonara position, I would argue vigorously against it. Imagine that someone like Plenarius or Triba or Reventage or Brisbane, any character we all see as tough and experienced, the kind who would stand face-to-face against Blood, had no ranks in Intimidate. Any Joe Nobody with a few Intimidate ranks could often frighten these great heroes into submission with opposed Intimidate checks, and that's just silly.
-
SZ's posted method from 3.0 has my vote. I too would argue against the same skill method it is very unbalanced and does not take into account a PCs level in anyway.
SZ, would the same method be used against a bluff check, pers check, taunt check and so on? If so then it could be the standard very easy. It is ok for the team to say there is no standard method we can still try to set one by default if we can get a movement behind it. This is how a community works.
-
No, the same method would NOT (imo) be used against the other checks.
Resisting an Intimidate check involves (and very much so) one's experience - after all, someone who's been in countless battles isn't likely to be daunted by Joe Schmoe Orcenstein.
Beating a Bluff, on the other hand, requires the person to be perceptive - very much so. After all, you're catching clues in body language and wording (as well as spotting holes in the bluff itself) that the person's not telling the truth. However, we don't have Sense Motive. This makes it very difficult to adjudicate properly. Myself, I would say that one of the following (whichever's highest) would be appropriate:
- Opposed Bluff check (if you know a good lie when you see one...)
- WIS check + 1/2 levels (not everyone maxes out Sense Motive, but this would be nice for those perceptive characters)
- INT check (this may not seem quite as intuitive, but a smart person can catch flaws in a person's bluffs)
Onto Persuade...
Now, in the Diplomacy skill description (which is basically a renamed Persuasion), it states that one simply opposes one skill check with another. This represents two characters interacting and trying to assert their force of personality over the other. So, an opposed Persuade check.
Taunt. Ick.
I'm not a big fan of NWN's Taunt, just like I'm not a big fan of Parry (however much I use Parry). That said, the standard opposing roll is Concentration. In battle? Sure, fine, I'll go with that. But... I have to say that it doesn't make as much sense to me as, for example, our Sense Motive stand-in, WIS check + 1/2 level.
Oh, and as a note, the method for opposing Intimidate that I and Gulnyr proposed (that the latter corrected the former on) is from 3.5. I'm not sure if it was the same in 3.0 - I've only got the 3.5 rules handy. That said, 3.5 is better-balanced. :)
-
Maybe they could add all those nifty rolls we need to the dice bag :P
-
Beating a Bluff ... I would say that one of the following (whichever's highest) would be appropriate:
- Opposed Bluff check (if you know a good lie when you see one...)
- WIS check + 1/2 levels (not everyone maxes out Sense Motive, but this would be nice for those perceptive characters)
- INT check (this may not seem quite as intuitive, but a smart person can catch flaws in a person's bluffs)
"Pick whichever works best for your character" is weird, but without an actual Sense Motive skill, I can see how it might be appropriate.
I'm not convinced that a Wisdom roll + 1/2 Character Level is fair. Imagine that we did have Sense Motive available, and imagine that there are two characters, Billy Bluffer and Scarlett Skeptic.
Billy Bluffer is level 10, has no Charisma modifier, and has maxed his ranks in Bluff (13). Scarlett Skeptic is level 10, has no Wisdom modifier, and has maxed her ranks in Sense Motive (13). On average, each rolls 23 or 24 on their opposed check when Billy tries to bluff Scarlett. (10.5 + 13 = 23.5).
Now let's remove Sense Motive and let Scarlett use half her levels instead. Billy's average is still 23 or 24, but now Scarlett's average roll to resist is only 15 or 16 (10.5 + 5 = 15.5), a difference of 8 in Billy's favor. At level 20, Billy's average with maxed ranks is 33 or 34 (10.5 + 23 = 33.5), and Scarlett's average is 20 or 21 (10.5 + 10 = 20.5), for a difference of 13 in Billy's favor. That is a big jump in effectiveness for Billy, one that gets more pronounced as his level rises, and it's not fair to justify it by saying "not everyone maxes out Sense Motive." Not everyone maxes out Bluff, either, but they don't get penalized for it; they just don't know how to lie. If you want to pick locks, you put ranks into Open Lock; you don't change the rules to make locks weaker. If you want to be able to lie well, you put ranks into Bluff; you don't make other characters more susceptible.
Instead of half her levels, let's let Scarlett use her full level. Now, Billy's average is still 23 or 24, but Scarlett's average is up to 20 or 21 (10.5 + 10 = 20.5). At level 20, Billy's average is 33 or 34, and Scarlett's average is 30 or 31. Billy still has the advantage, but Scarlett isn't so far behind now. Bluff doesn't become overwhelmingly powerful and difficult to resist at higher levels.
Consider also that the typical Bluff user probably has a positive Charisma modifier, making his attempts more effective than my examples. The Bluffer is likely to have enough of an advantage over the target without halving the target's level.
I know level doesn't necessarily seem right as a measure of skepticism, but by adding only half the target's level to the opposed roll, Bluff becomes more powerful than it should be.
-
I'll agree with you there, Gulnyr; the advantage is clearly for Bluffers in that instance. But... What about Gary Gullible? He's got no ranks at all in Sense Motive...
I think the thing I was trying to hedge against was the ease of exploitation of WIS + level. Those who have Bluff have actually spent skill points, while those using our ad hoc method haven't. And that much really does seem unfair (at least to me, who values skill points as much or more than feats).
Perhaps we could just replace another skill with Sense Motive, or add it in? We replaced Craft Trap with Gather Information, for example (I think).
Though that would leave a lot of characters who should have ranks in it without them.
-
I'll agree with you there, Gulnyr; the advantage is clearly for Bluffers in that instance. But... What about Gary Gullible? He's got no ranks at all in Sense Motive...
I think the thing I was trying to hedge against was the ease of exploitation of WIS + level. Those who have Bluff have actually spent skill points, while those using our ad hoc method haven't. And that much really does seem unfair (at least to me, who values skill points as much or more than feats).
I thought about that. If we use level in place of Sense Motive, how do we compensate for those characters who would have taken ranks in Sense Motive and those who wouldn't have? Take half the level for everyone. It makes sense, but it breaks pretty early and gets worse at higher levels.
Mechanically, I like adding full level for everyone because it maintains the challenge for the Bluffers. Nothing ever becomes an "I win" button. There isn't an upper limit of ranks that becomes enough to fool everyone; more ranks will always make a character more effective, and there will always be targets worthy of the effort and the skill points spent.
Roleplay-wise, I think a lot of the social skill rolls should be used sparingly between PCs. In other words, players should actually roleplay bluffs and persuasion rather than constantly resorting to dice. Sure, pull out a roll now and then, but try to actually get in there and persuade Biff Buyer that 15000 True is a good price, or Lisa Lowlands that climbing the cliff is the best plan. Save most of the rolling for interactions with NPCs. This isn't a great example for the general reader, but there have been good examples of this on the What Is and What Should Never Be series. Jennara was ready to jump overboard and swim to Audira, but she was persuaded to stay with the group and sail on to North Point. No rolls were necessary, and I don't think whipping out dice bags would have been as fun and rewarding. Intimidate is the social skill that should be rolled most often between PCs, if only to get an indication of just exactly how intimidating (or intimidated) a character is.
I like skill points, too, and I know not rolling a skill against PCs seems to make the skill points spent on a skill less valuable, so I can understand if my opinion doesn't sound so great to everyone.
-
Roleplay-wise, I think a lot of the social skill rolls should be used sparingly between PCs. In other words, players should actually roleplay bluffs and persuasion rather than constantly resorting to dice.
Hear here. I really agree with this statement. That said...
Again, you've said it... And we've come to the same old conclusion that there isn't really a good opposing roll for Bluff at all.
-
I agree with that. But when it does come to rolls it is good to have an idea of the ways to do it.
-
In summation:
Vs. Intimidate: Wisdom check + level + modifiers against fear
Vs. Persuade: Opposed Persuade
Vs. Taunt: Concentration
Vs. Bluff: Opposed Bluff OR Wisdom check + level OR Intelligence check
When is a Will Save used to oppose social skill checks? NEVER. (Except when a DM asks for one.)
What's better than rolling skill checks? Roleplaying it out!
Will we ever really get our hands on a good way to oppose Bluff checks? Only time will tell!
-
Im good with this. How do we push this up to the team?
-
They see it.
-
I thought about that. If we use level in place of Sense Motive, how do we compensate for those characters who would have taken ranks in Sense Motive and those who wouldn't have? Take half the level for everyone. It makes sense, but it breaks pretty early and gets worse at higher levels.
Mechanically, I like adding full level for everyone because it maintains the challenge for the Bluffers. Nothing ever becomes an "I win" button. There isn't an upper limit of ranks that becomes enough to fool everyone; more ranks will always make a character more effective, and there will always be targets worthy of the effort and the skill points spent.
Roleplay-wise, I think a lot of the social skill rolls should be used sparingly between PCs. In other words, players should actually roleplay bluffs and persuasion rather than constantly resorting to dice. Sure, pull out a roll now and then, but try to actually get in there and persuade Biff Buyer that 15000 True is a good price, or Lisa Lowlands that climbing the cliff is the best plan. Save most of the rolling for interactions with NPCs. This isn't a great example for the general reader, but there have been good examples of this on the What Is and What Should Never Be series. Jennara was ready to jump overboard and swim to Audira, but she was persuaded to stay with the group and sail on to North Point. No rolls were necessary, and I don't think whipping out dice bags would have been as fun and rewarding. Intimidate is the social skill that should be rolled most often between PCs, if only to get an indication of just exactly how intimidating (or intimidated) a character is.
I like skill points, too, and I know not rolling a skill against PCs seems to make the skill points spent on a skill less valuable, so I can understand if my opinion doesn't sound so great to everyone.
I agree, generally in pen and paper DnD you had to roleplay a bluff or intimidate. Someone stays step aside to me, I don't quake in fear. But if a big fat giant reeking of enchanted weapons and dripping acid from its double axe comes up to me then it's a different story.
G'ork did excellent in this respect, intimidating me without using a roll and that was played out. But I'm against people who say "you don't want to do that" *intimidate check*. I think it should always be roleplayed out, not 'diced' out. Otherwise one can use certain skills to steal control of a character away from others, there are some classes who will NEVER compete with a Barbarians intimidate, or a Rogues lies and there are some of them which push it beyond the realms of plausibility, I'm sure you can think of some examples for all of this.
There is also times when you cannot intimidate things. Say you have met a dragon, who isn't initially hostile. You're Mr. Scary the level 20 Barbarian with a high intimidate, you beat the dragon's role and it agrees to let you have some/all of it's treasure. Or let's say, Mr Undead, you try and intimidate him into giving up his current evil course of action. There are times when intimidate doesn't work. The same *should* be true of bluff. For example, you witness the rogue, in open sight stab someone in the town center, is it reasonable, for him to bluff and tell people he didn't really do it, when they saw him......
I'm sure many will disagree, but I *hope* this has raised a point I didn't see/missed being mentioned.
Personally I think it should be used only when applicable, and when used should be opposed to a level check + will, intimidate versus combined levels of the ones you are trying to intimidate. Otherwise barbarians would just scare and rule the world, bust into the mage tower screaming move and you're dead with your level 20 barbarian and the mages all cower and just give you their stuff, I mean, come on. Or what about an insane cleric of pyrotechnon, or a drow priestess, so on and so forth, sometimes intimidate just doesn't make even a little sense.
-
If anyone tries to intimidate my chars I go with the following save.
Intimidate :: d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm)
(1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear)
Which in Hardragh's case is somewhere around (1d20+21-1+12), so 1d20+32. Level 21, 8 wisdom and around 12 will save, no special bonus vs fear if unbuffed.
And if the other person does manage to intimidate him, I first consider his initial attitude. He will be helpful, but he'll also remember the deed, for a while at least.
I refuse to roll will save or intimidate as opposing roll, it makes absolutely no sense at all.
-
I generally roleplay intimidation as the ability to convince someone that you have both the means and desire to do them harm, albeit not necessarily physical. Telling someone that you'll turn them over to the guard if they don't give you the information you need is as much an intimidation tactic as threatening to smash their face in, although it may have very different effects.
Viewing intimidation as the ability to convince someone of your desire and ability to do them harm does not necessarily mean that they'll immediately do what you say. If you offer someone a physical threat who responds poorly to bullying, you may provoke them into fleeing your presence, or your attempt to bully them may just make them angry. You've certainly succeeded in intimidating them, but the effect is that they've decided to attempt to remove that very real threat to them.
There are consequences to using any of the social-skills. If you're using intimidate to strong-arm someone, it MIGHT get them to back down... or it might lead to them and their gang jumping you the next day, to have a kindly chat about acceptable behaviour with their broken beer bottles. You can't bluff someone into thinking that the sky is green if it isn't - they can SEE the sky - but in a sense, the same holds true for any other bluff you make. If they see overwhelming evidence against what you said, they won't magically have faith in you, and again, Mister Dark Alley might not be your friend for a while.
Persuasion, like Intimidation, is limited. Certainly you can convince someone that what you suggest is the best course of action, and they may well believe it, too, but you'd have to do VERY well to convince Joe Peasant to go fight the dragon, regardless of how much Joe Peasant may agree that yes, indeed, it would be nice if someone were to slay it.
Simply put, social skills are useful, but they're not magical - a contrast made evident by the very really magical spells designed to GIVE you direct influence over someone's actions. By all means, use them, but remember that just because John the Shoemaker rolled a natural twenty on his intimidate check over Mr. Pickles, Barbarian Warlord of the Seven Straights, 15th level (and exceptionally unlucky/unwise) half-orc and won doesn't mean that Mister Pickles might not just cut him in half to remove the source of the threat. Sure Mister Pickles might face some consequences for THAT, but John the Shoemaker's consequences were a trifle more immediate and, shall we say, sharp.
-
Well put, LightlyFrosted.
-
(1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear)
Which in Hardragh's case is somewhere around (1d20+21-1+12), so 1d20+32. Level 21, 8 wisdom and around 12 will save, no special bonus vs fear if unbuffed.
I agree with the method, but I'm not clear on your numbers. I bolded the confusing part. Are you saying you're adding Hardragh's Will save as a save modifier against Fear?
I don't think a Will save is a modifier to a Will save, which is what a Fear check is. Modifiers to Fear checks are the bonuses that apply to that Will save, like the Halfling's Fearless "feat" (+1 vs. Fear).
So, Jennara would roll 1d20 + 31 (her level) + 7 (her Wisdom modifier) + 1 (her Halfling Fearless Bonus), or 1d20+39 against an Intimidation attempt, not 1d20+64 (all that plus a 25 Will saving throw).
-
Yeah, I realized that later. Fearless is +2 by the way. So it would end up with Hardragh rolling 20.
Makes more sense too come to think of it.
-
In this medium, I very much agree with you, Frosty. Most of us aren't prepared or capable of RPing a 30+ social roll, apart, perhaps, from Intimidate (which can be just as much body language). The rolls were, in PnP, the actual "persuasion" your character was doing. For example, I have no idea how Ronny Rogue could convince someone that a lich cowered in fear of his might, but if he had +20 to Bluff, he could do it, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm) at least to someone without much of a Sense Motive. That's how the system's designed to work - remember, these are AMAZING characters! Making someone believe the unbelievable without a terribly sound way of supporting their claim is part of what shows how terribly good they are. That said, there should be at least some description of their argument... *Shrug.*
But, in this medium and in general, I'm not denying that it's a very good argument.
-
While it's good to have fixed ways of doing things, sometimes there should be multiple options specified as well.
Countering Intimidate with Intimidate makes sense, of course. If someone tries to intimidate you, you can try to offset that by being more intimidating than they are. Whomever is scarier, wins.
On the other hand, you could just try to resist the intimidation, and that's where the level check plus Wisdom/Fear modifiers come into play. As Intimidate is a Charisma-based skill, it's counter should be Wisdom-based.
In any case, as with any other opposed roll on "social" skills, be sure to think about what reasonable modifiers would be for the situation, and have both parties agree to them before rolling it out. This is also one of the times where I think degree of success/failure should be represented by the difference in the opposed rolls -- when the hulking menace says "step aside", if you fail your opposed roll by only a couple, you simply step aside, but a huge failure could be represented as perhaps cowering and simpering.
-
I have been thinking about this whole intimidation thing. There is a RP factor that needs to be factored in as well. As stated earlier in this thread for RP you should work up to a intimidate check, not just:
PC 1 and 2 have just run into each other.
PC 1 "hey dont make me smash you"
PC 1 *intimidate check*
Player 1 [tell to player 2] hey you have to make a roll
So we all agree on this, I think. Now another dimension that needs to be considered is, does it make sense for PC 2 to be afraid of PC 1 under any conditions. Here is a scenario that does not make sense.
A half giant fighter (say 10th level, that means he has seen a good amount of battles) and a halfling fighter (with a high intimidate). The half giant is 7 feet tall and over 400 pounds the halfling is 4 feet tall and 80 pounds. Without a incredible and public show of power/prowess/skill the half giant just will not be intimidated by the halfling on words alone.
-
I agree that depending on the physical aspect of the people intimidating each other, there will be a limit to what can be done. But taking out the overly abundant differences in height and all, someone who doesn't know his opponent will most likely have an apprehension in the back of his head because he doesn't know who he is dealing with. So beside obvious disparity in race and size, there is always a likely hood that someone will be intimidated. I'd dare to say that for race, even a half giant may be intimidated from the start if he sees a dark elf come out of the shadow just in front of him with his weapons drawn and ready to strike :D if he was not intimidated, why then did he take his weapon out when he saw the dark elf?
-
yes there are some races that have that mystique about them, I agree. But on the flip side there are races that have just the opposite air about them.
-
The half giant is 7 feet tall and over 400 pounds the halfling is 4 feet tall and 80 pounds. Without a incredible and public show of power/prowess/skill the half giant just will not be intimidated by the halfling on words alone.
I don't know about 3.0, but in 3.5, there's a +/-4 modifier for each size category difference (in this case, a modifier of 8 between a half-giant [large] and a halfling [small]).
-
So a HG would have a +8 against a halfling and a halfling would have a -8 against a HG?
I dont think that is taken into account since a intimidate roll does not have a target.
-
Remember that there are all kinds of situational modifiers. If someone is trying to intimidate someone else using information that they are somewhat ignorant in and someone else is very knowledgeable about and vice versa that DC is change some.
You just have to be flexible and RP it out. I tend to ignore persuasion and intimidation attempts that aren't really RP'd and equate to "I intimidate you!" *intimidate check*.
That Halfling might have a much better chance at intimidating that Hill Giant if he's standing on Mr. Hill Giant's friend or leaning on the severed head of another Hill Giant and covered in gore and bits.
-
exactly my point :) but said much better, thanks.
I also ignore rolls that are made during RP when they don't fit or make sense for the situation.
-
I understand the point, but I think it's important to point out that if someone has ranks in the Intimidate skill, he IS intimidating, regardless of his physical attributes. Intimidation might involve the threat of direct harm, but it isn't necessarily about direct damage, after all.
-
That's why I say it requires rp and a lot more than just say "I intimidate you.. grrrr" There are a lot of possible situational modifiers and its as much about knowing how to be intimidating. I mean, being the head of an order or being seriously famous can have an effect on the result and no it doesn't have to be under threat of bodily harm.
As an example.. A militia drill sergeant may have an incredibly high skill in intimidation and he may still succeed if he were wearing a pink tutu, lipstick and eye liner but I'll bet you that most of the people he's trying to intimidate are not going to take him seriously. The DC set by his skill is going to have a lot more negative modifiers in that instance.
Apply that same thing to you boss, a gangster.. etc. That particular example may be a bit far fetched but it illustrates what I mean.
It'd be like trying to intimidate a Rofi by telling them they're going to be locked up till the end of their days by a non-existent law in a region where they are intimately familiar with the laws.
There are a lot of ways people can be intimidating.. beauty, fame, position of authority, brutish, intellect, knowledge.. it just needs to be rp'd a little and there are always possible situations where they may, in part, be mitigated by situational modifiers..
-
Absolutely. I'm not questioning how circumstances affect intimidation at all, or saying a character should just be intimidating without a little effort to RP it from the player.
I'm just not certain that in a world where there are multiple races and magic is a real thing that size would be that big a deal. There are rumors and stereotypes about every race, and there are stories told about powerful heroes and villains of every race. Some people may grow up in more sheltered environments, a lot of people probably feel that their race is superior for one reason or another, and some people are just dumb, but most people who grew up and live in civilized areas where the races mix aren't likely to assume anything about people just because of their sizes.
Sure, that Halfling looks little and a Half Giant could throw him across town in one heave, maybe, but Halflings are sneaky, and he'll get you where it hurts when you least expect it! And that Elf looks like a good, stiff breeze could blow her over and break her in half, but those Elves wield magics that make steel seem pitiful and useless...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ah, memories...Though lets not forget the diminutive but highly mad dwarf with a nasty axe! O.o
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. :D
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. :p
-
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.
-
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.
-
geez, richie is scared of everything..... but mostly that happens due to a childish mind and horrid wis rolls. :D
-
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.
-
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?
-
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....
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Grenna really enjoys using the end of her to get a point across. Lots of RP fun!
Holds up 2 left thumbs for RP
-
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?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.