|
2 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2011 - 2:57PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 27, 2003
|
So I recently played a game in which one of the other players was a paladin with an obscenely high intimidate modifier, who enjoyed forcing bloodied enemies to surrender.
ANYways, later in the mod, we fight an adult black dragon. We manage to bloody it, and Sir Scarypants again uses intimidate to try and force the dragon to surrender, and gets a total of 40. The following exchange followed:
DM: "The dragon is unimpressed."
Pal: "He doesn't surrender?"
DM: "Nope."
Pal: "WHY? Is he immune to fear? Did something suddenly boost his will above 30?"
DM: "No."
Pal: "What, is he magically compelled?"
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."
The player was clearly not happy with this, but let it go. But I have to wonder, can DMs even legally do that in LFR?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2011 - 3:09PM
#2
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
The entire intimidate to surrender mechanic is a DM's decision mechanic - one could argue it doesn't work in LFR at all, as a result, but in general I'm happy to let it work and I don't believe I've ever denied its use myself*.
But, in the case of the dragon, there's nothing that even says what "surrender" means. The dragon allows the paladin to leave without eating him, surrendering his chance for dinner, could just as easily qualify as whatever the PC might be hoping for.
Me, I'd be happy for the chance to do some roleplay or have the dragon flee, instead of working through whatever combat was left. Sure.
* Now, if someone used a weapon power (flensing?) that barely injured an enemy but treated it as bloodied for a round, then tried the intimidate trick, that might be a different story.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2011 - 3:25PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 27, 2003
|
The entire intimidate to surrender mechanic is a DM's decision mechanic - one could argue it doesn't work in LFR at all, as a result, but in general I'm happy to let it work and I don't believe I've ever denied its use myself*.
But, in the case of the dragon, there's nothing that even says what "surrender" means. The dragon allows the paladin to leave without eating him, surrendering his chance for dinner, could just as easily qualify as whatever the PC might be hoping for.
Me, I'd be happy for the chance to do some roleplay or have the dragon flee, instead of working through whatever combat was left. Sure.
* Now, if someone used a weapon power (flensing?) that barely injured an enemy but treated it as bloodied for a round, then tried the intimidate trick, that might be a different story.
Ahh. I wasn't aware it was a DM's decision mechanic.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2011 - 3:57PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I think the paladin's player was right.
You could infer DM's discretion from the original 4e Intimidate rules. "Your Intimidate checks are made against a target's Will defense or a DC set by the DM. The target's general attitude toward you and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you're asking for) might apply to the DC." (PH, p. 186)
The RC version removed that. "Opposed Check: Against a monster's Will. The monster gains a +5 bonus to Will against the check if it is unfriendly to the adventurer, or a +10 bonus if it is hostile. [...] If the monster doesn't have defenses specified, the DM should select an appropriate DC from the Difficulty Class by Level table" (RC, p. 148)
A DM can, of course, simply add ad hoc modifiers to the Intimidate DC in the same way that he has the practical power to add modifiers to any DC or defense that he likes, but Intimidate is no longer called out specifically as being anything of a special case.
Under the current rules, bumping up the Intimidate DC because you don't think it makes sense for a dragon to surrender that easily would be like bumping up the Athletics DC because you don't think it makes sense that a halfling can jump that high. There's no support for it beyond inherent "I'm the DM" powers.
That said, I would rather not DM at all than DM for a character invested heavily in Intimidate. I don't think the mechanic makes sense or is fun, but the hypothetical player clearly thinks otherwise, so rather than one or the other of us not having fun, I'd prefer just not to be at that table.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2011 - 4:02PM
#5
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Interesting to see that Intimidate change...
That said, surrender is still not a defined game term.
So paladin intimidates, and...
... the dragon stops attacking and orders the party off, readying an attack.
... attempts to bargain for a ceasefire, operating from whatever position of strength seems logical (including offering up secret information, or ranging from offering not to kill a comrade, to set free a hostage, to leave in exchange for treasure, to offer some measure of treasure in exchange for them leaving, whatever)
... flees
... whatever, really. It's not mind control, so it's little more than a roleplay point for the DM to adjucate.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2011 - 4:13PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 27, 2003
|
Interesting to see that Intimidate change...
That said, surrender is still not a defined game term.
So paladin intimidates, and...
... the dragon stops attacking and orders the party off, readying an attack.
... attempts to bargain for a ceasefire, operating from whatever position of strength seems logical (including offering up secret information, or ranging from offering not to kill a comrade, to set free a hostage, to leave in exchange for treasure, to offer some measure of treasure in exchange for them leaving, whatever)
... flees
... whatever, really. It's not mind control, so it's little more than a roleplay point for the DM to adjucate.
I'm suddenly reminded of this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2_-atpNZDU&NR=1...
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2011 - 10:39PM
#7
|
|
|
poor paladin, probably expended resources getting his intimidate up that high only to learn that he was not playing the same game as everyone else at the table was.
seriously, i have been complaining about this idiotic mechanic for over 3 years, the powers that be do not care. and at this point i am wondering if the powers that be even exist.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 11, 2011 - 11:50PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2007
|
Well, really, when you get down to it, Intimidate is a pretty poor skill. Anything it can do, Diplomacy generally does better, and without the nasty aftereffects (nobody likes being intimidated, after all).
About the only real use of Intimidate is the powers that require you to be trained in it (Skill Utilities, some Class Utilities, Rattling keyword attacks).
If being used to get enemies to, you know, surrender (how many times do enemies fight to the death?), is a problem, then maybe the entire skill needs to be revised.
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2011 - 1:01AM
#9
|
|
|
The problem is also that "bloodied" is rather meaningless when applied to a solo. That dragon actually becomes more vicious and dangerous since the MV when bloodied, and depending on level could easily still have several hundred hit points left. At the same time, a party could have killed more than half of the opposition, but since the remaining opponents are not bloodied, by the rules he cannot do a thing with Intimidate. It is a vague potentially game breaking mechanic, which in itself is not bad if the DM has the freedom to interpret its effects and does so that is a benefit to both the story and the players. Still, like Keithric I don't think I have ever outright prevented a player from using it. If anything, I have had to remind players off the mechanic on occassion. Mind you, I have never had players use it against mindless constructs, fanatic cultists, summoned/bound creatures and similar creatures, or even the solo who just got bloodied. Under such circumstances I would tell players before they spend the action that they have no chance though. It is one thing to let a single skill check disrupt the fun of the rest of the table, but another to let that player waste an action on it. As for Diplomacy being better than Intimidate, that is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, and as a DM and adventure reviewer something I try to pay attention to. If you want to make friends Intimidate is obviously a bad skill, but many negotiations involve stick and carrots and one of the benefits of skill challenges is that you can ask for both that Diplomacy and Intimidate check 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 12, 2011 - 1:17AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2005
|
I think Intimidate is one of those areas with high table variation.
Many DMs think that you are taking away from the "fun" with it.
Players, you might ask your DM and follow players about thoughts
before you play. If they do not like, then put resources elsewhere.
DMs, you might explain your thoughts if you run for such a player.
If you do not like it and they insist, you can just allow it and then
use DME to add more monsters to make up for surrendering ones.
|
|
|
