|
2 years ago ::
Jul 13, 2011 - 7:32AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
this is less an argument about intimidate than it is about DME. intimidate is completely broken, and very few people fail to realize this at this time. however so are lots of things. substitute intimidate for an indestructible revenant or any other perfectly RAW and ussually RAI use of embarassingly bad mechanics.
in answer to your original question, no the DM can not use DME to change the rules. period. since intimidate to surrender is very unambiguosly permitted RAW, as well as RAI (not that RAI matters at all to whether you can use DME) the DM has no legal choices but to quit, or to allow it.
No, there are a couple of additional options that are fully RAW.
(RC page 125)The DM determines if a skill check is appropriate....Almost always, the DM says yes after a player initiates the option
If the DM decides that making an intimidate check on a barely bloodied monster, especially Elites/Solos is not appropriate, that's fully within the rules, and then you don't get to roll.
(RC page 148 Intimidate)This skill(Intimidate) is not mind control, so a cowed monster is unlikely to take any action that would cause immediate harm to itself.
As an example, if you're the peon of a high priest that makes an example of those who show disloyalty by blood sacrifice and then going off and killing their entire family, surrendering could result in immediate harm if the party fails to defeat the high priest. And if it isn't clear to that peon that the party is going to win, then that's a reason to not surrender.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 13, 2011 - 11:33AM
#42
|
|
|
Leaving the absurdity of a claim that something flies in the face of RAI alone, I would claim that if there is anything DnD does not need, it is a DCI. DnD is not and should not try to be Checkers, Chess, Go or even Magic. To turn DnD into only a tactical wargame governed by unambigious and clearly defined rules would lessen the game.
This person is talking good sense!
One of the things that appeals to me about playing a role-playing game, with a human DM, instead of either Warhammer or WoW is the fact that there's a thinking person controlling the world instead of simply a code of rules. You can try unorthodox strategies and sometimes the DM will give you a roll, and sometimes the DM will say "sorry, that makes no sense - not going to work." You may not always agree with the DM's ruling, but that's what sets a game like D&D apart. If you tie the DMs hands too much the game turns into a lamer version of one of the games I mentioned earlier.
I heard that they are making a new video game, where you control the Netherese flying citadel of Sakkors, raining death on your helpless enemies below. Working title: Mythal Command.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 13, 2011 - 1:11PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2007
|
And, always, the DM at the table is in the best position to make that decision. (Based on the specific circumstances.)
Dan Anderson
@EpicUthrac
Living Forgotten Realms Calimshan Writing Director
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Meet me at TotalConfusion:
http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 13, 2011 - 2:59PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
From my personal point of view, as an old school (maybe just old) DM, modifiers to how easy or tough a skill check is should depend upon the situation. Should the reaction of the adult black dragon be the same to an intimidate if he was just bloodied, but the majority of PCs are in a world of hurt, or if they are all as fresh as daisies? Does the PC doing the intimidate offer a reasonable out -- quitting the field of battle, vs becoming a prisoner? Are the opponents long term enemies, or just newly met? (Would a worshipper of Shar be intimidated by a worshipper of Selune?) Is his master watching and surrender will be much worse than death? Does the PC have a rep as a dragon killer?
In the game play and fun sense, definitely, has the battle just started, or is it turning into a grind? Is this combat meant to be the big scene or just a speedbump on the way to better scenes?
And Yes, I have a bias for role playing -- has the player portrayed the character as menacing, scary, etc., or the fun loving halfling that has a really big modifier to intimidate?
The design of 4e was intended to bring back some of flexibility for DMs which had been lost in 3e. The goal was to not define every situation with a rule but leave the DM firmly in charge. It is a game, and the objective is to have fun.
Both as an author and a DM, I have also included modifiers where monsters/NPCs surrender easier because they are basically cowards and/or not fanatics about the cause. (Hey, it is just a job, not worth my life.) So I think it works both ways.
My 2 cents.
Keith
Keith Hoffman
LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 14, 2011 - 9:08AM
#45
|
|
|
The design of 4e was intended to bring back some of flexibility for DMs which had been lost in 3e. The goal was to not define every situation with a rule but leave the DM firmly in charge. It is a game, and the objective is to have fun.
I agree with this, but at the same time, for organized play, having players build their characters towards a goal they think they'll be able to use reliably and having that yanked away smarts. And I'm guessing that this is the reason behind the rule that game elements that rely on DM adjudication aren't allowed.
I had a fun, somewhat flavorful, and mechanically advantageous option I was using for a while on one of my characters. I ultimately decided though that strictly reading the text for the item would mean it would have to be DM run. It was an intelligent item, but about the most reliably loyal and robotic like intelligent item you could think of. It gave my non-Wisdom based Warden a way to get a good insight and perception score, by wearing a Warforged Docent that was added to a Spidersilk Mantle, basically cobwebs in his "limbs" that would warn him of danger. If the spider twitched that was his "spidey sense" telling him something was wrong. The reading of the Docent article strongly suggested that this should be automatic, but it still said that the Docent would talk itself and is an intelligent item itself. So I abandoned that item.
It would probably be easier if a global came down on the side of not allowing Intimidate for surrender in LFR due to needing DM adjudication on setting the DC (not quite the same as setting easy, medium, and hard DCs for outside skills in a skill challenge), but with an out that a DM can use it to aid his DME. So a PC could still help end a grindy, non-fun fight sooner, but it wouldn't be a reliable tool for ending all encounters early.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 15, 2011 - 6:47AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2007
|
It would probably be easier if a global came down on the side of not allowing Intimidate for surrender in LFR due to needing DM adjudication on setting the DC (not quite the same as setting easy, medium, and hard DCs for outside skills in a skill challenge), but with an out that a DM can use it to aid his DME. So a PC could still help end a grindy, non-fun fight sooner, but it wouldn't be a reliable tool for ending all encounters early.
I don't think an official ruling is needed - it's a table issue.
Player: Do I think I could try using intimidate to make this monster surrender?
DM: {answers question yes/no}
Player: Okay then I {try intimidate/make this attack instead}
Dan Anderson
@EpicUthrac
Living Forgotten Realms Calimshan Writing Director
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Meet me at TotalConfusion:
http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 20, 2011 - 12:58PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
From the rules Q&A forum FAQ, if desired: "How does Intimidation work? Ask your DM. The most common interpretation is that during combat you can force a bloodied target to surrender (i.e. no longer participate in the current battle), or an unbloodied opponent to take some other action. Either way they will likely have a +10 modifier to their will for being hostile. Discussed here."DM: "No. I Just don't think it makes sense for a huge dragon to be intimidated by a medium creature. So I'm DMEing that you automatically fail."
It seems like the DM could've clarified that perception before the player used a standard action and made the roll. The ruling is acceptable enough, but the timing violated Wheaton's Law.
fwiw: I consider myself fairly brave, but if several tiny creatures (or say, 3rd graders) somehow bloodied me, and then one of them looked into my eyes and said something grim... I'd certainly consider making a break for it.
|
|
|
