I can't Intimidate you?

[jabberwocky9]

How does one play a character that focuses on Intimidation?

I experienced a dilemma when I used my Intimidation skill along with my Imperious Command feat. Currently running a Hexblade and explained that it is my focus as a character to be an intimidator and the Hexblade in my opinion is weak with or without feats focusing on intimidation; Imperious Command, Dreadful Wrath to name a few.

The group and DM argued that this was too powerful, explaining that a lower level character shouldn't be able to make a higher level character cower. Why not? If you need me to role play, eyes bulging, saliva drooling, shrieking battle cry, I will.

I just wondered if anyone out there experience this with Intimidation as demoralizing a foe and feats to support it.

[Platymus Pus]

If you could intimidate the higher level foe they weren't that tough to begin with. ;p

[Madara]

The argument in your favor is that higher power foes don't know all about you, they don't necessarily know how powerful you are until they fight you, and they may even think you're holding back during combat. They may be frightened a bit from the unknown or they just think you're crazy and unpredictable.

[Urpriest]

The argument in your favor is that higher power foes don't know all about you, they don't necessarily know how powerful you are until they fight you, and they may even think you're holding back during combat. They may be frightened a bit from the unknown or they just think you're crazy and unpredictable.

Right. This is why Intimidate is Charisma-based in the first place, it's why a whole slew of animals puff themselves up to scare off predators...it's pretty likely your group/DM don't actually believe this.

[Troacctid]

Higher-level enemies are harder to intimidate. They get a modifier on their opposed check based on their level. You'll have a lower success rate against them. I don't see the problem.

Characters in the game don't have any concept of hit dice. They don't know exactly how strong you are relative to them, unless they've researched you or used Sense Motive to assess you or something. If they have, a circumstance modifier would be appropriate, but most enemies probably haven't.

[dascarletm]

Intimidate can be hard for the DM sometimes.

I've run into the problem (this is in pathfinder) that I have a really strong confident NPC that is now shaking in his boots against a player that has optimized his intimidate. I have fixed this by giving some characters higher wis, but it can be a challenge at times.

[Madara]

I would suggest that you propose they think of higher enemies taking the fear penalties from caution and uncertainty. I definitely wouldn't try fighting someone full on if I wasn't sure what they were capable of. Tell your group to think of the enemy fighting safe, so they get slight penalties.

[Fouredged Sword]

Even if your opponent is stronger than you and knows it, that doesn't prevent them from getting thrown. You can convince them that you know something they don't or are otherwise confidant when you shouldn't be.

[Arbane]

Which loops back to the ridiculous fact that as written, the Orc barbarian who's just shredded half your team has a lower chance of scaring you than your useless-in-a-fight Bard.

[Deophaun]

The problem is not that you can Intimidate higher-level foes--a -2 to skill checks, attack rolls, and saves is pretty mild, and if you're using this for negotiations you could wind up making a very powerful enemy--the problem is Imperious Command. It is pretty OP. At base, it's a standard action to remove an enemy from the round, tied to a skill check that is particularly easy to optimize. That's pretty darn good on it's own, as you can likely trade one of your actions for the entire action economy of an opponent that otherwise would be an ECL +4 encounter on its own. But then there's support. The Fearsome armor enhancement makes it a move action instead of standard. Fear stacking is in play. If your target's suffering from the shaken condition for the next five rounds, you only need to Intimidate once to make him cower for the duration instead.

The downside is, anything with fear immunity of any sort is not going to be affected by your ability. But that's a pretty sad means of control: either your ability completely dominates, or it has no effect.

[Inevitability]

Which loops back to the ridiculous fact that as written, the Orc barbarian who's just shredded half your team has a lower chance of scaring you than your useless-in-a-fight Bard.

Well, remember that intimidate doesn't equal threatening someone with physical violence. Someone skillful enough with words can still make a fearsome opponent tremble in fear.

Of course, that doesn't solve the issue of a barbarian being worthless at intimidation, but hey.

[Flickerdart]

A barbarian is plenty intimidating, but he's not Indimidating. Intimidate isn't just "I am scary" but "I am so scary that you are scared into doing what I want."

A commander seeing a barbarian shred through his troops like tissue paper might be scared into issuing a retreat, pulling out an emergency scroll, or simply turning around and beating feet. But it's still pretty much a rational decision.

A commander seeing a bard waggle his eyebrows at his dagger and then the commander's favourite genitals doesn't have a choice - he immediately becomes Friendly if he fails the check, because he's so terrified that he's not risking a fight under any circumstances (and if there's already a fight, he's now freaking out about it).

[ComaVision]

If a PC that just killed the majority of an enemy's camp wanted to make an Intimidate check I'd probably be tacking on a fairly hefty circumstance bonus.

[Honest Tiefling]

There's reasons that I don't tend to run with intimidate as written, just like I don't use diplomacy as written. Trivializing far too many encounters is one of them, and becoming silly is another. A level 6 bard should not be able to make the world tremble, sorry. Are you seeking to intimidate the mooks, or everyone? If the former, perhaps the DM could be convinced if you aren't trying to intimidate every BBEG you come across.

I suppose I should also mention, how good is your team at...Well, working as a team? I could see some apprehension with the build if you have a lot of lawful good types that might need to stop you from biting people occasionally, or concern that your actions will take the spotlight or force the group to act a certain way if you jump the gun. Also, I wonder if the group has had problems with people just throwing the die and not explaining things at all, which is a problem that I've encountered.

Perhaps consider the Dark Companion, because if I recall correctly, it wrecks saves for everybody on your team. Works well with your fluff, and is a party-friendly ability that others can take advantage of.

[Dread_Head]

If a PC that just killed the majority of an enemy's camp wanted to make an Intimidate check I'd probably be tacking on a fairly hefty circumstance bonus.

This ^

A Cha based character might have the advantage in ranks+modifier. But as a DM I will probably be giving the big blood spattered barbarian some circumstance modifiers. Particularly if they have already downed a few enemies.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The problem is not that you can Intimidate higher-level foes--a -2 to skill checks, attack rolls, and saves is pretty mild, and if you're using this for negotiations you could wind up making a very powerful enemy--the problem is Imperious Command. It is pretty OP. At base, it's a standard action to remove an enemy from the round, tied to a skill check that is particularly easy to optimize. That's pretty darn good on it's own, as you can likely trade one of your actions for the entire action economy of an opponent that otherwise would be an ECL +4 encounter on its own. But then there's support. The Fearsome armor enhancement makes it a move action instead of standard. Fear stacking is in play. If your target's suffering from the shaken condition for the next five rounds, you only need to Intimidate once to make him cower for the duration instead.

The downside is, anything with fear immunity of any sort is not going to be affected by your ability. But that's a pretty sad means of control: either your ability completely dominates, or it has no effect.

This is a pretty clear case of "mundanes can't have nice things" imo.

A standard action to remove an enemy from the round? Casters already do that, to whole groups, for longer, more reliably and less easily countered.
To make intimidate really good you're investing the majority of your build resources into it - feats, skill points, levels, equipment.
And then there's still big groups of enemies outright immune to it, it's easily blocked by a first level spell and everyone at higher levels with access to magic blocks it as an afterthought just by getting standard protections.

That's an amusing build concept that's playable in most situations if you're not in an undead-heavy campaign.
It's certainly not OP unless your other players are absolutely incapable of making effective builds.

[elonin]

I don't see an issue with the whole idea of a level cap on intimidate. One aspect that hasn't been talked about is someone who is experienced might still be unnerved by that bloke who is staring at you while carving his arm up (or otherwise looking deranged).

[Solaris]

I've always viewed NPCs failing to be scared of a bloodsoaked barbarian who just tore half their friends to tiny red shreds as poor roleplaying on the DM's part.
I also don't see a problem with a confident NPC being shaken by a PC who's built around Intimidating. It's not like the game's centered around the NPCs looking cool, after all.

[OldTrees1]

I experienced a dilemma when I used my Intimidation skill along with my Imperious Command feat.

The group and DM argued that this was too powerful, explaining that a lower level character shouldn't be able to make a higher level character cower. Why not? If you need me to role play, eyes bulging, saliva drooling, shrieking battle cry, I will.

I find this ruling to be jarring and breaks verisimilitude. However I must begrudgingly point out potential metagame reasoning for it.

A NPC 1 level higher than a PC is a EL = ECL+1 encounter
2 NPCs each 1 level higher than a PC is a EL = ECL+3 encounter (boss fight difficulty)
A NPC 2 level higher than a PC is a EL = ECL+2 encounter
2 NPCs each 2 level higher than a PC is a EL = ECL+4 encounter (campaign boss fight difficulty)
A NPC 3 level higher than a PC is a EL = ECL+3 encounter (boss fight difficulty)

Of the 5 cases where one is fighting an encounter comprised of higher level NPCs, 3 of the 5 cases are boss fights that would be trivialized by Imperious Command (due to cutting the challenge in half or negating the challenge).

The other 2 cases in which one is fighting a higher level NPC (possibly supported by lower level NPCs), the higher level NPC is the "boss" of that encounter. Thus Imperious Command can readily trivialize those encounters.

So there might be some merit (personally I consider it insufficient) to not allowing Imperious Command against higher level NPCs (provided casters are held to the same).

[Deophaun]

This is a pretty clear case of "mundanes can't have nice things" imo.
You're wrong, because it works best on a Dread Witch.

[tiercel]

Of the 5 cases where one is fighting an encounter comprised of higher level NPCs, 3 of the 5 cases are boss fights that would be trivialized by Imperious Command (due to cutting the challenge in half or negating the challenge).

The other 2 cases in which one is fighting a higher level NPC (possibly supported by lower level NPCs), the higher level NPC is the "boss" of that encounter. Thus Imperious Command can readily trivialize those encounters.

So there might be some merit (personally I consider it insufficient) to not allowing Imperious Command against higher level NPCs (provided casters are held to the same).

This is less a problem with Imperious Command and more a problem with low-number/solo boss fights - they are vulnerable to save-or-die. Hold person/monster with any sort of save DC optimization is arguably more of a problem (range, duration, inflicts an even more debilitating status), and that's from a school of magic often subject to even more opprobrium than Evocation.

[Curmudgeon]

... the problem is Imperious Command. It is pretty OP. At base, it's a standard action to remove an enemy from the round, tied to a skill check that is particularly easy to optimize. That's pretty darn good on it's own, as you can likely trade one of your actions for the entire action economy of an opponent that otherwise would be an ECL +4 encounter on its own. But then there's support. The Fearsome armor enhancement makes it a move action instead of standard. Fear stacking is in play. If your target's suffering from the shaken condition for the next five rounds, you only need to Intimidate once to make him cower for the duration instead.
Where are you getting that "cower for the duration" from?
Benefit: If you successfully demoralize a foe in combat, the foe cowers in fear for 1 round and is shaken in the following round. Fear effects are cumulative in their intensity, but not in their duration.
Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead. Imperious Command provides its full effect for just 1 round, and a lesser effect for 1 additional round. You stack the intensity of the fear effects appropriately for each of those rounds. The duration is unaffected.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Where are you getting that "cower for the duration" from? Fear effects are cumulative in their intensity, but not in their duration. Imperious Command provides its full effect for just 1 round, and a lesser effect for 1 additional round. You stack the intensity of the fear effects appropriately for each of those rounds. The duration is unaffected.

Rules Compendium p. 53. The worst stage of fear lasts until all effects that cause fear expire.

[Curmudgeon]

Rules Compendium p. 53. The worst stage of fear lasts until all effects that cause fear expire.
Yet another arbitrary new rule in RC. The primary source rule (Dungeon Master's Guide, page 294) says no such thing. RC would thus make Imperious Command plus any other fear effect unable to work as stated (reduce the effect for the second round).

[Shpadoinkle]

The group and DM argued that this was too powerful, explaining that a lower level character shouldn't be able to make a higher level character cower.

By that logic, a lower-level character shouldn't be able to do ANYTHING to a higher-level character.

Besides which, this is something you specialized in. Why bother investing in it at all if it's only usable on stuff weaker than you?

[NapazTrix]

It really depends on what you want your intimidation to do.
Scaring some information out of someone or to stop them from bugging you can be seen as a simple task that is ok to do.
However scaring someone enough to run away when they've been trained and taught to fight until the very end, to have a warrior's death, or until your commanding officer tells you is going to be a lot harder.

3.5 rules is just "(1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear)"

Whereas some people can be leaders giving them a higher resolve, born warriors or trained, loyalists, dimwitted or even have several friends/allies near them which all affect their ability to withstand a person shouting at them.

While players and DM can argue over what that does you have to think in a way that is "What would intimidation look like and what do people actually use it for"


An enemy knows all that they have done, the higher their level the more things they have killed. If you walk up and demand his wallet or something they might have no idea about you. You can have great armour and weapons but you might just look like a silver-spoon lad/ladette to them.

Even if they are merely bandits looking for some gold from a target, you intimidating them to stop might mean they don't get to eat that week, not everyone is going to run, they are going to fight for their life.

[Flickerdart]

Even if they are merely bandits looking for some gold from a target, you intimidating them to stop might mean they don't get to eat that week, not everyone is going to run, they are going to fight for their life.
Criminals are the most cowardly combatant you can face, since they know that what you have can just as easily be taken off of someone weaker. Nobody bandits around in an area where only one party passes per week.

[OldTrees1]

This is less a problem with Imperious Command and more a problem with low-number/solo boss fights - they are vulnerable to save-or-die. Hold person/monster with any sort of save DC optimization is arguably more of a problem (range, duration, inflicts an even more debilitating status), and that's from a school of magic often subject to even more opprobrium than Evocation.

I disagree on the emphasis. It is equally a problem of Save-or-lose(Imperious Command) and using higher level NPCs(boss + minions or 2 bosses + minions).

When facing higher level NPCs at a reasonable encounter(EL no more than ECL+4) then you inevitably run into low(1-2)* numbers of these NPCs. So yes, the problem is the intersection of save-or-lose(including Imperious Command) and encountering higher level NPCs in combat.

So the DM's options are
1) To avoid using higher level NPCs in combat
2) To prevent the higher level NPCs from losing to save-or-lose effects like Imperious Command/Hold Monster
3) To use unreasonable encounters(EL > ECL+4)

Except for the 3 ECL+1 = ECL +4 case I missed last time.

[awa]

part of the problem is that it is super trivial to boost skills and the effect is at will.
Now if the wizards and clerics in the party are running around using broken spells then this should fit right in but if they are throwing around fire balls and cure spells in the midst of combat as there go to spell this is wildly broken.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I disagree on the emphasis. It is equally a problem of Save-or-lose(Imperious Command) and using higher level NPCs(boss + minions or 2 bosses + minions).

When facing higher level NPCs at a reasonable encounter(EL no more than ECL+4) then you inevitably run into low(1-2)* numbers of these NPCs. So yes, the problem is the intersection of save-or-lose(including Imperious Command) and encountering higher level NPCs in combat.

So the DM's options are
1) To avoid using higher level NPCs in combat
2) To prevent the higher level NPCs from losing to save-or-lose effects like Imperious Command/Hold Monster
3) To use unreasonable encounters(EL > ECL+4)

Except for the 3 ECL+1 = ECL +4 case I missed last time.

The DM's easiest option is to give his super-tough, one-of-a-kind, ECL +4 boss monster one of the most common and cheapest immunities possible.
You know, just like he's going to give his boss encounters other immunities to prevent the wizard from ending the encounter with a single casting of Solid Fog or Glitterdust or whatever.

It's just like every other SoL, except it's easier to counter and more limited in range and area than most.
Oh, and available to non-casters.
Seriously, nobody would even blink an eye at it if it were a spell effect. There's 2nd level spells that are more effective at what it does and don't require any feats or skill ranks to be expended.


part of the problem is that it is super trivial to boost skills and the effect is at will.
Now if the wizards and clerics in the party are running around using broken spells then this should fit right in but if they are throwing around fire balls and cure spells in the midst of combat as there go to spell this is wildly broken.

Literally every decent BFC spell ever is at least as good as Imperious Command + fear stacking. Except that you need to spend a hell of a lot more than a single spell slot that you can fill with something else tomorrow.
BFC spells are part of the game, there's nothing broken or cheesy about using them. There's also nothing broken about your non-casters being able to do more than "run up and hit it with a stick" unless you're playing very very low op - as in, "my wizard couldn't be bothered to look up any core spells beyond Magic Missile and Fireball", low op.

[jabberwocky9]

Apparently, and as always, it depends how others(dm, group) treat it being able to intimidate foes that are higher level than yourself. A higher level combatant that's been in the meat grinder be intimidated by whatever?

The argument of being able to use imperious command was supported by the comment that using this feat is more powerful than a dragon's frightful presence. I simply didn't get it.

My opinion of having a Hexblade is to intimidate, why not stack it? Along with my dark companion, imperious command, dreadful wrath, and mask of command, I don't see how useful a hexblade is without focusing on that.

[Curmudgeon]

Apparently, and as always, it depends how others(dm, group) treat it being able to intimidate foes that are higher level than yourself. A higher level combatant that's been in the meat grinder be intimidated by whatever?
Can a higher-level enemy be dominated by a spellcaster using Dominate Person?

It's pretty much the same question. Why not?

[Troacctid]

The dragon's Frightful Presence is a non-action and affects every enemy at the same time. Imperious Command is a standard action and affects one enemy, who must be in melee range.

[Flickerdart]

Apparently, and as always, it depends how others(dm, group) treat it being able to intimidate foes that are higher level than yourself. A higher level combatant that's been in the meat grinder be intimidated by whatever?
Not by "whatever." By someone who is an expert at intimidation.

[OldTrees1]

The DM's easiest option is to give his super-tough, one-of-a-kind, ECL +4 boss monster one of the most common and cheapest immunities possible.
You know, just like he's going to give his boss encounters other immunities to prevent the wizard from ending the encounter with a single casting of Solid Fog or Glitterdust or whatever.

It's just like every other SoL, except it's easier to counter and more limited in range and area than most.
Oh, and available to non-casters.
Seriously, nobody would even blink an eye at it if it were a spell effect. There's 2nd level spells that are more effective at what it does and don't require any feats or skill ranks to be expended.

I don't disagree with you.

I find this ruling to be jarring and breaks verisimilitude. However I must begrudgingly point out potential metagame reasoning for it.

-snip-

So there might be some merit (personally I consider it insufficient) to not allowing Imperious Command against higher level NPCs (provided casters are held to the same).

Following that metagame reasoning, one can either make the bosses immune to SoLs or make the SoLs unable to work against the bosses(the category of NPC met in combat that are higher level).

However, even knowing and understanding this metagame reasoning, I still find such a ruling to be jarring and break verisimilitude.

[jabberwocky9]

Not by "whatever." By someone who is an expert at intimidation.


The dragon's Frightful Presence is a non-action and affects every enemy at the same time. Imperious Command is a standard action and affects one enemy, who must be in melee range.


Can a higher-level enemy be dominated by a spellcaster using Dominate Person?

It's pretty much the same question. Why not?

Agree and my point exactly, why not?

[danzibr]

A barbarian is plenty intimidating, but he's not Indimidating. Intimidate isn't just "I am scary" but "I am so scary that you are scared into doing what I want."

A commander seeing a barbarian shred through his troops like tissue paper might be scared into issuing a retreat, pulling out an emergency scroll, or simply turning around and beating feet. But it's still pretty much a rational decision.

A commander seeing a bard waggle his eyebrows at his dagger and then the commander's favourite genitals doesn't have a choice - he immediately becomes Friendly if he fails the check, because he's so terrified that he's not risking a fight under any circumstances (and if there's already a fight, he's now freaking out about it).
I can't believe nobody responded to this. Excellent point and hilarious.

[PersonMan]

However scaring someone enough to run away when they've been trained and taught to fight until the very end, to have a warrior's death, or until your commanding officer tells you is going to be a lot harder.

3.5 rules is just "(1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear)"

Whereas some people can be leaders giving them a higher resolve, born warriors or trained, loyalists, dimwitted or even have several friends/allies near them which all affect their ability to withstand a person shouting at them.

I don't see the issue. They'll get a modifier against fear based on said factors, which is included in their modified level check.

Of course, unless you want to just widen the gap between casters and non-casters, you'll also need to add these bonuses to saves against magical fear.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I don't see the issue. They'll get a modifier against fear based on said factors, which is included in their modified level check.

Of course, unless you want to just widen the gap between casters and non-casters, you'll also need to add these bonuses to saves against magical fear.

There are already feats that represent these factors, and they all affect magical as well as non-magical iirc.
I'm pretty sure that i've never seen anything that gives a bonus against fear making a distinction between the two.

Of course nobody takes those feats because they're too limited and too weak to be worth it mechanically.
Normally your training and experience are represented by having more HD, and thus in the level check to resist intimidate as you said.

So if one of my players came up with similar reasoning and wanted a bonus against demoralize for it that's where i'd point them.

The options to be exceptionally hard to scare are there. You don't get an extra bonus for fluff reasons if you don't take the options that represent that fluff.

[stanprollyright]

Imperious Command is not OP. And it makes perfect sense for the intimidator to not necessarily be the one doing the damage. The target doesn't necessarily have to be scared of the intimidator personally, just the situation he's in. As others have pointed out, NPCs have no concept of how powerful you are unless they've fought you before or studied you, in which case you'd get a hefty penalty to your check. They also have no idea what your party hierarchy is. For all they know the Bard is the leader and the rest of the party are just his hired thugs.

A fight breaks out; the Rogue draws a knife and throws it in the blink of an eye, the Barbarian gives a battle roar and charges with a giant axe. The Bard nonchalantly walks through the battlefield and looks you up and down before making steady eye contact. He looks positively bored, maybe slightly annoyed. "It doesn't have to be this way." If you still have clean underwear after that you've got to be immune to fear. That's some cold-ass Mafia Don **** right there.

[Solaris]

I agree with stanprollyright about Imperious Command. In the group I DM for, I have two players relevant to the conversation. One has maxed her Intimidate skills, has a high Charisma (on a barbarian, no less), and is a multiclassed abomination of rogue, barbarian, and warblade. She wears fearsome armor, and has taken the Imperious Command feat.
The other is a druid. Not much optimization, really, but then he doesn't need it. He just casts druid spells.

Guess which one impacts the battlefield more.

[stanprollyright]

I agree with stanprollyright about Imperious Command. In the group I DM for, I have two players relevant to the conversation. One has maxed her Intimidate skills, has a high Charisma (on a barbarian, no less), and is a multiclassed abomination of rogue, barbarian, and warblade. She wears fearsome armor, and has taken the Imperious Command feat.
The other is a druid. Not much optimization, really, but then he doesn't need it. He just casts druid spells.

Guess which one impacts the battlefield more.

Mr. Natural Spell?