Intimidation

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Thu May 05, 2005 2:25 pm

[QUOTE=Aramant]
And as for the king laughing in the character's face: that could just be the result of the horribly failed Intimidate check, which would be brought about by the negative modifier applied to the roll. Or alternately, the ridiculously high DC. Whichever way you prefer to think about it.[/QUOTE]

I indeed ment a very high DC, but I forgot to mention it sorry, a king is a king and you'd have to be of a very high level to intimidate a king.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Thu May 05, 2005 3:22 pm

Keep in mind that there are other forms of Intimidation. You could intimidate a king politically using the CHA score.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Thu May 05, 2005 3:36 pm

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Keep in mind that there are other forms of Intimidation. You could intimidate a king politically using the CHA score.[/QUOTE]
That was what this discussion was about in the first place. It was about whether you could Intimidate a king by using STR rather than CHA. That CHA was an option was never an issue

Demortis · Post by **Demortis** » Thu May 05, 2005 3:43 pm

i always thought it would be a sence motive check for the opposed roll. i mean whats the use of a will save if you cant sit there and say "what are you trying to do scare me, guards kill him and bring his head to me on a silver platter, with red wine."

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Thu May 05, 2005 3:47 pm

[QUOTE=Demortis]i always thought it would be a sence motive check for the opposed roll. i mean whats the use of a will save if you cant sit there and say "what are you trying to do scare me, guards kill him and bring his head to me on a silver platter, with red wine."[/QUOTE]
Sense motive? I think it's the idea of the guy that is intimidating that the other 'senses the motive'. Sense motive is for a character who is bluffing.

Demortis · Post by **Demortis** » Thu May 05, 2005 5:17 pm

still, you can see if hes "pretending" to intimidate you, or if your really in danger. thats the way my DM does it

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu May 05, 2005 5:22 pm

[QUOTE=Demortis]still, you can see if hes "pretending" to intimidate you, or if your really in danger. thats the way my DM does it[/QUOTE]
What's pretend about intimidating someone? If you are using intimidation, you're obviously attempting to scare someone, and willing to back it up with threats.

Now, if you were trying to blackmail, then Sense Motive would be fine, but then, blackmail would require a bluff

Demortis · Post by **Demortis** » Thu May 05, 2005 5:28 pm

then what do you use for an opposed roll?

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Thu May 05, 2005 5:32 pm

[QUOTE=Demortis]then what do you use for an opposed roll?[/QUOTE]
We typically use an opposed intimidation roll.

Demortis · Post by **Demortis** » Thu May 05, 2005 5:38 pm

so if the guy whos getting intimidated wins the roll, he intimidates the guy who tried it on him?

Aramant · Post by **Aramant** » Thu May 05, 2005 9:11 pm

The opposed Intimidate roll is a very good idea. I imagine it would be something of a battle of wills or some such. And a failed intimidation resulting in one being intimidate himself makes sense. If someone is totally nonplussed by your display, I imagine you'd be made to feel a little unsure of yourself.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Fri May 06, 2005 12:31 am

[QUOTE=Demortis]still, you can see if hes "pretending" to intimidate you, or if your really in danger. thats the way my DM does it[/QUOTE]
Pretending to intimidate = bluff

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri May 06, 2005 5:55 am

Personally I would always use CHA. I would however modify the difficulty after the situation. If the intimidator have a clear advantage over the intimidated I would give him a bonus. If it is the other way around I would give him a penalty. I dont see the point of letting anyone use strength instead of CHA, Barbarians or fighters aren't the only dangers. In that case shouldn't wizards be allowed to use INT? They can display their highly sofisticated tactics and arcane knowledge and the person will be scared...

Noghri · Post by **Noghri** » Fri May 06, 2005 6:14 am

Dottie has a point there....

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Fri May 06, 2005 6:26 am

Indeed, you can ad charisma and a bonus when intimitaing with musle power.
But that would be more work then I'm willing to invest in it.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Fri May 06, 2005 7:55 am

That's indeed a good point. The rule from Masters of the Wild is only an optional rule. Intimidation is a very tricky thing and the best way to handle it is to have some good house-rules and let the DM decide on the degree of success...just think about what's logical (party's reputation in the area for example).