PDA

View Full Version : Blocking Intimidate...



daggaz
2009-06-08, 12:39 AM
Started up a discussion with my DM that we didnt quite finish last night, in regards to my barbarian, intimidating strike, and how he said there were easy methods to block it.

I said that its a fear effect, namely the fear of physically getting your *** handed to you, so in order to block it (besides of course beating the skill check or avoiding the blow in the first place) you need to be immune to fear. Remove fear gives a nice +4 bonus toward blocking, while a paladins no-fear aura grants immunity. As well, if you are totally immune to mind-effecting attacks, you are immune. See mindblank and being an undead.

But what about protection from x, as I am sure he was going to argue. The second paragraph claims immunity from "mind controlling effects" and goes on to describe spells like charm and dominate, as well as outright posession thru things like magic jar.

The way I read that, its blocking mental take over of one character by another, and it seems pretty specific to that end. I dont think scaring the bejesus out of something counts as mind control.

Arguments about "protection from x is already overpowered" and "berserkers intimidating folks is already in the bottom rungs" notwithstanding, I would love to hear the playgrounds take on this one. Please be rules-lawyery, as my DM (who is cool) is very much so.

Mewtarthio
2009-06-08, 12:50 AM
It would take a very cruel DM indeed to rule that protection from X makes a person immune to mundane persuasion. Still to be rules-lawyery, protection wards against "ny attempt to possess the warded creature [..] or to exercise mental control over the creature" (SRD). You are not exercising mental control over your victims when you intimidate them; you are merely presenting evidence that failure to regard you with the proper amount of fear is likely to result in a grisly fate. Mental control involves reaching into your victim's mind and pushing the big red button marked "OBEY."

daggaz
2009-06-08, 12:58 AM
yeah basically the way i see it too, what i really need is some kind of wizards response where they unaquivocally state that protection from x does not block the fear, either normal or by the spell would work, as I want to avoid the discussion about what constitutes "mental control".

Also, are there other ways to block intimidate that I am missing?

Hat-Trick
2009-06-08, 01:00 AM
Mind control is "Do this""Yessir, right away, sir. Do you want me to pick up the dry cleaning as well, sir?". Intimidate is "Do this""Okay, just don't kill me!" They have full control over their actions, they just don't want to exercise all of them.

Edit: stay at least ten feet away?

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-06-08, 01:06 AM
There's only one specific Epic Diplomacy use (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#diplomacy) which could be blocked by a Protection from [alignment], otherwise there is no skill that is outright blocked by its ability to ward against mental control.

Influencing a creature's attitude is not mental control, it is no form of control at all. Protection from [alignment] protects against effects which cause ongoing control over the warded creature. It works against Dominate Person, but it does not work against Charm Person because that grants no ongoing control whatsoever. Likewise, influencing a creature's attitude does not grant you control of any kind over that creature or compel it to do as you tell it to.

Furthermore, using Intimidate to demoralize a creature is completely separate from influencing its attitude. Even if a Protection from [alignment] could ward a creature against having its attitude influenced, it would not automatically also ward it against morale effects and fear effects. That would be like saying a Protection from Arrows spell also guards against an Enervation spell by virtue of it being a ranged attack, those are two completely separate mechanics. Your DM has absolutely no basis for ruling that a Protection from [alignment] effect would protect a creature from an in-combat Intimidate check to demoralize them.

daggaz
2009-06-08, 01:11 AM
hate to break it to you bifficus, but protection from x specifically mentions charm, tho i would most of the rest of your argument still stands.

as well, intimidate does affect attitude. You change them to friendly while in your presense and for a short time thereafter, after which they become unfriendly or one step lower than they were originally, whichever is lower.

of course, I am using it in battle, so I could care less about their friendly ranking.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-06-08, 01:12 AM
hate to break it to you bifficus, but protection from x specifically mentions charm.


including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject

It did not say all enchantment (charm) effects, it specifically says only those that grant ongoing control.

daggaz
2009-06-08, 01:17 AM
I dont know about that still... its not a total automoton in that you cant walk it off a cliff, but you _do_ control it to some extent, and for a duration of time. You can get guards that would normally stop you on sight to smile and drop their weapons and give you the keys for example...

But the discussion isnt so much about charm or enchantment effects and the line from diplomacy, its about fear, as using intimidate in battle is specifically a fear effect.

Hat-Trick
2009-06-08, 01:19 AM
Or apparently sorcerers with charm or beguilers. But, yeah, the demoralization thing only works if you threaten them in melee, so my 10ft thing still stands.

jcsw
2009-06-08, 01:20 AM
"Hey! Undead have immunity to mind-affecting effects, right? Isn't its sensory perception of me affecting its mind? It's immune to that right? So it can't see me?"

daggaz
2009-06-08, 01:26 AM
"Hey! Undead have immunity to mind-affecting effects, right? Isn't its sensory perception of me affecting its mind? It's immune to that right? So it can't see me?"

Yeah, I like this obvious logic to show the brokenness of the argument. Thanks.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-06-08, 01:46 AM
I dont know about that still... its not a total automoton in that you cant walk it off a cliff, but you _do_ control it to some extent, and for a duration of time. You can get guards that would normally stop you on sight to smile and drop their weapons and give you the keys for example...

But the discussion isnt so much about charm or enchantment effects and the line from diplomacy, its about fear, as using intimidate in battle is specifically a fear effect.

Absolutely incorrect. If you work at a convenience store and your best friend in the whole world walks in and asks you to let him come behind the counter and clean out the safe, there's no way you'd go for it. The same goes for the guards in question: They're well aware of their duty, they would sooner try to convince you to leave so you don't get into trouble (or get them into trouble) than arrest or attack you, but they wouldn't hand over the keys regardless of how helpful their attitude became. Charm Person and using Diplomacy or Intimidate to influence someone's attitude does not grant you any sort of control over the target's actions. It may limit their actions to however they would treat a close friend, but they wouldn't just do whatever you ask of them.

Edit: As another example, say the PCs face off with an evil Necromancer, and someone gets a Charm Person to work. Instead of trying to Enervate the whole party to death, he tries to convince the PCs to let him turn them into his undead minions. He has their best interests at heart and truly believes that he would be helping them in doing so, to the extent that he may even be willing to force it on them. That's probably the exact opposite of how the PC casting the Charm Person would have wanted him to act, but it's exactly how the spell would work.

Hat-Trick
2009-06-08, 01:53 AM
That sounds feasible, although it depends on the necromancer. One might do as you say, another might just settle with living minions or some other deviation.

daggaz
2009-06-08, 01:58 AM
Absolutely incorrect. If you work at a convenience store and your best friend in the whole world walks in and asks you to let him come behind the counter and clean out the safe, there's no way you'd go for it. The same goes for the guards in question: They're well aware of their duty, they would sooner try to convince you to leave so you don't get into trouble (or get them into trouble) than arrest or attack you, but they wouldn't hand over the keys regardless of how helpful their attitude became. Charm Person and using Diplomacy or Intimidate to influence someone's attitude does not grant you any sort of control over the target's actions. It may limit their actions to however they would treat a close friend, but they wouldn't just do whatever you ask of them.

Actually, all they get is an opposed charisma check to not perform an action they normally wouldnt do. Its in the spell description. The only actions they absolutely will not perform are "actions that are suicidal or obviously harmful orders." Obviously, if you are clearly going to rob them they wont go for it, but if you convince them its for something harmless and they wont get in trouble etc.. and they fail the check, presto. They can "even be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing." So in your RL example (why bring RL into this game?) you could conceivably convince your friend at the store you need the money in the register in order to save brother's life, because he owes a ton of cash to a violent thug who is going to kill him today or else. Ingame, it would be an opposed charisma check perhaps after a failed sense motive roll.

The sage at wizards, as crappy as he often is, agrees that charm is blocked by protection from x spells. And even tho its just diplomacy in effect, if you look at the list of core spells with the subschool of charm, you will see that they ALL have the same basic effect, making the subject "friendly." The only real difference is who and how many you effect, and for how much longer. Why would a core spell specifically mention charm effects, if, by your logic, none of the spells available could be blocked? Obviously it blocks charm, by specific mention, but it doesnt block diplomacy. (What is the rules guideline about specific examples etc?)

The sage as well says that crushing despair isnt blocked, which is great for me since its the exact same effect as intimidating strike, only problem is the sage is known to suck and without a solid rules-lawyering logical argument to back it up, he is kind of hard to quote..

Farlion
2009-06-08, 08:28 AM
As far as I interpret this:

Intimidate is NOT a spell nor does it have anything to to with magic. And as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't rule intimidate as something mind affecting. It's more something that will affect you physically, if you don't do, what the person sais ;-D


I would also not give paladins immunity to intimidate. I assume the anti-fear aura is something a paladin builds up, as he gains confidence in his diety. He knows his diety will protect him from evil (in case of a good paladin) and undead. But will his diety protect him from the mean looking barbarian with the huge axe over there? Well, you might not want to stick around and find out.

Cheers,
Farlion

P.S: just out of curiostiy: Who else allows to take the Str modifier instead of the charisma modifier for intimidate checks?

Tempest Fennac
2009-06-08, 08:30 AM
I'd let people use Str in place of Cha if their character is physically large (I tend to think that size can be as intimidating as a forceful personality).

daggaz
2009-06-08, 09:06 AM
My DM allows str instead of cha for intimidate checks which involve direct physical threats, like you pick him off the ground in one arm or you hold him out over a cliff or you just crush his throat some for a bit of nonlethal damage. He hinted as well that this could involve str checks, and that being so rough could be diplomatically disastorous and even illegal.

Ditto
2009-06-08, 09:45 AM
There've been discussions about other bonuses to Intimidate before - basically it boiled down to using it in the midst of the threat. If you want to use Str, break a table in half with your fist or lift a big rock over your head when threatening the other fellow. You might use Dex if you cut a Z into his shirt with your rapier, too. There are lots of ways to make it work.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-08, 11:49 AM
My DM allows str instead of cha for intimidate checks which involve direct physical threats, like you pick him off the ground in one arm or you hold him out over a cliff

"Remember when I promised to kill you last?"
http://s.bebo.com/app-image/8444151255/6027336212/PROFILE/bombsite.org/facebook/gallery/Commando/1224212437commando10.jpg
"I lied."