Intimidation in combat?

[raspin]

Can anyone help clear up some question about using intimidation in combat?

Firstly, if a player tries to intimidate an enemy in combat I assume I set a DC based on the mob and the situation and they roll...we have an outcome of success or fail. Is that correct?

Assuming that is correct what happens if the mob is intimidated in combat. How does it affect the mobs behaviour? Is it as powerful as the mob now being frightened? Does the mob run? Does he have disadvantage on attacks?

Secondly, when should the player know the outcome of his intimidation effort in combat? At that instant he tries or on the mobs turn? I'm playing around with hiding some rolls from players to avoid metaing high and low rolls with social checks so im wondering when its appropriate to say the outcome.

With a spell such as minor illusion where your try to fool an opponent I wouldn't necessarily tell them if it work, or if it worked to trick all the mobs, until the mobs had an opportunity to act and they could ligitimately see for themselves. I feel the same might be true with intimidation. Could you tell if you had intimidated a mob instantly, before it has a chance to act scared?

I don't want to encourage someone to approach an ogre, drop "intimidation", see it hasn't worjked and then run away. I'd imagine intimidation requires more conviction than that and having to keep it up until the outcome on the mobs go seems right to me. Also im not keen on advising if it has been successfull until its the mobs turn or else all the players between the initiator of the intimidation and the mob get to know it failed and act accordingly. This is all supposed to take place in 6 seconds so I feel like it should only become apparent when the monster reacts.

Thats how I feel but i'd much rather know if anyone else knows as per Raw how it should be handled and how others see it as im not unflexible but need to get it nailed down one way or another.

Thanks.

[hymer]

Firstly, if a player tries to intimidate an enemy in combat I assume I set a DC based on the mob and the situation and they roll...we have an outcome of success or fail. Is that correct?

You're the DM. If you say it's right (and the players don't object too strenuously), it's right.


Assuming that is correct what happens if the mob is intimidated in combat. How does it affect the mobs behaviour? Is it as powerful as the mob now being frightened? Does the mob run? Does he have disadvantage on attacks?

Afflicting the Frightened condition for one round as an action doesn't sound overly powerful when there's a chance it won't work. Especially if you require a short range. Some enemies should be less susceptible, perhaps (immunity or disadvantage on rolls against them, or they have advantage; see the Knight, or consider how frightened an animated skeleton gets), and some should overreact (kobolds and goblins would be likely to run away for one round, e.g.).


Secondly, when should the player know the outcome of his intimidation effort in combat? At that instant he tries or on the mobs turn? I'm playing around with hiding some rolls from players to avoid metaing high and low rolls with social checks so im wondering when its appropriate to say the outcome.

You could wait until the creature actually gets to act. That reduces the power of the effect somewhat. Or you could tell them straight up, making it easier to strategize and cooperate. Or anything in between. You could even have the PCs roll Insight or lore skill checks to guess, although that does slow things down.


I don't want to encourage someone to approach an ogre, drop "intimidation", see it hasn't worjked and then run away. I'd imagine intimidation requires more conviction than that and having to keep it up until the outcome on the mobs go seems right to me.

You could tell the players this, and ask their opinion. Someone making a habit of doing as you mention could get disadvantage to combat intimidation, because they're unconsciously signalling that they are scared.


Also im not keen on advising if it has been successfull until its the mobs turn or else all the players between the initiator of the intimidation and the mob get to know it failed and act accordingly. This is all supposed to take place in 6 seconds so I feel like it should only become apparent when the monster reacts.

If that's how you feel, you can do that. But take into account your players' feelings, too. Having the option of strategizing and working together could be more fun. Anyway, you can try it out, and try out other variations before you settle on something. Announce that you're making a trial of one or the other ruling, and then see how it went after. See if your players have anything to say, too.


Thats how I feel but i'd much rather know if anyone else knows as per Raw how it should be handled and how others see it as im not unflexible but need to get it nailed down one way or another.

The rules are silent on this. You'll have to male it up yourself/selves.


Thanks.

You're welcome! :smallsmile:

[Malifice]

How does it affect the mobs behaviour? Is it as powerful as the mob now being frightened? Does the mob run? Does he have disadvantage on attacks?

It depends on the situation. Has he just carved half the dudes friends to ribbons? Is a check possible? Eyeball it as the DM. Is the creature immune to fear? Is he outnumbered? Is an intimidate check even possible? Whats the DC?

If its got a DC and the PC nails it he probably hightails it out of there or surrenders, or backs down from the fight or makes him frightened for a round. Mix it up.


Secondly, when should the player know the outcome of his intimidation effort in combat?

Straight away generally. You know if someone is scared of you. If I threaten the crap out of you, I can tell if you're chickening out or not.


At that instant he tries or on the mobs turn? I'm playing around with hiding some rolls from players to avoid metaing high and low rolls with social checks so im wondering when its appropriate to say the outcome.

Straight away. Roleplay it. Based on the outcome of the roll:

Fail: Snicker at the Player, and then lunge forward like your holding a sword.
Success: Look at the player, gulp and tentatively make a thrusting motion forward with fear in your eyes.
Nails the check by 5 or more: Raise your hands in the air and scream 'I surrender; please dont kill me!' at the top of your lungs.

[raspin]

Straight away. Roleplay it. Based on the outcome of the roll:

Fail: Snicker at the Player, and then lunge forward like your holding a sword.
Success: Look at the player, gulp and tentatively make a thrusting motion forward with fear in your eyes.
Nails the check by 5 or more: Raise your hands in the air and scream 'I surrender; please dont kill me!' at the top of your lungs.

That's the bit that seems weird though. So that'd make an intimidation check seemingly boost the target up the intiative. Also, we play on roll20 so i'll need long arms to lunge at people ;-)

It happened at the very start of a fight the mobs had initated.

When a PC casts minor illusion to distract mobs with something or other during a fight, would you tell the PCs at that instant if they all the mobs were distracted? For me it seems right that they act on their turn and that is when its apparent. So many spells and things seem to be "on their next turn" but i guess consistency is the key.

[Gastronomie]

As a DM, if the players attempt an intimidation check during combat, I'll do it like this:

1. Check if the enemies understand what the PCs are doing
For instance, if the enemies are oozes, intimidation is not gonna work. (Not like the PCs will even attempt intimidation, but still.)
Some enemies, like most Demons, are also not gonna be intimidated, because they're "engines of destruction" that don't understand the concept of self-preservation, or fear, for that matter.
And finally, some enemies may not understand the PC's language. Not-verbal gestures may also work, but that'd need to have a considerable amount of "showing off". Which leads to...

2. Check if the situation is fearful for the enemies
Say, if the PCs are cowering before an ancient dragon, and one of the PCs attempts an Intimidation check, that's never gonna work.
But if the PCs have already cut down half of the enemy's goblin horde, that check is probably gonna work.
Okay, so what if the barbarian is swinging about the severed head of the horde's boss, roaring madly in his rage? I'd actually rule that as instant success, unless the goblins are really, really bolstered and have a clear motivation to fight (which most goblins don't have).

3. Check if the enemies have a reason why they shouldn't or can't back down
Hobgoblins are loyal to their tribe and rarely retreat, unless it's a tactical one.
Cultists will sacrifice their souls for their cause, so they would never surrender under any case.
The BBEG obsessed with his motivation will not retreat, if it means giving up his goal forever.

...And so on.

Bestow advantage or disadvantage if required. If the enemies can't understand the concept or retreat or have good reason not to, just don't allow the check.

Perhaps let him use a different skill to determine the check, if necessary. For instance, there's no way that the ugly, hulking 7-foot Barbarian with 8 CHA is less intimidating than the attractive halfling female bard (18 CHA) standing next to him, playing her flute. Let him use Atheletics for his intimidation check, by crushing a boulder with his bare hands, or by smashing apart the severed head of aforementioned goblin boss.

At times it's actually a good idea to not even have him roll, and just tell him the result, if the outcome is really, really obvious.

[Specter]

As for rhe check, I would say the player has to beat the opponent's Hit Dice + His Insight modifier, similarly to 3.5.

[hymer]

As for rhe check, I would say the player has to beat the opponent's Hit Dice + His Insight modifier, similarly to 3.5.

That's pretty steep progression on the DC. And it starts kinda low; a goblin at DC 1?

[BurgerBeast]

Firstly, if a player tries to intimidate an enemy in combat I assume I set a DC based on the mob and the situation and they roll...we have an outcome of success or fail. Is that correct?

Sounds right. And now that you know about it as a tactic, you can pre-plan your encounters so that you know ahead of time how any particular enemy will respond.


Assuming that is correct what happens if the mob is intimidated in combat. How does it affect the mobs behaviour? Is it as powerful as the mob now being frightened? Does the mob run? Does he have disadvantage on attacks?

Any of the above. Some mobs might even become more dangerous. Fear can do that.


Secondly, when should the player know the outcome of his intimidation effort in combat? At that instant he tries or on the mobs turn? I'm playing around with hiding some rolls from players to avoid metaing high and low rolls with social checks so im wondering when its appropriate to say the outcome.

Also up to you. And it can vary if you have good reason. I like to give hints immediately, such as "the ogre's face goes slack as he ponders the weight of your words," "the goblin's eyes go wide with fear," or "the bugbear smiles and laughs in your face." To me this gives information to the player that they can work with. But there's no reason you have to.


I don't want to encourage someone to approach an ogre, drop "intimidation", see it hasn't worjked and then run away.

Then you don't have to. I think this is probably how most bandits and thugs make their living, though.


You're the DM. If you say it's right (and the players don't object too strenuously), it's right.

So if the players do object strenuously, that makes it not right? The truth of the matter depends on player agreement?


Some enemies should be less susceptible, perhaps

This. Don't forget that in some contexts, auto-fail and auto-success are totally reasonable. Some guards will never be intimidated into betraying their king. Some people just don't care enough about two silver to die over it when a bandit demands it.


It depends on the situation. Has he just carved half the dudes friends to ribbons?

For me, I distinguish between this and intimidation. If you have just carved his friends to ribbons, there is a legitimate reason to be afraid. This isn't talking the talk (intimidation - convincing someone that you're dangerous), this is walking the walk (killing - demonstrating that you are dangerous). There is no calculation. The threat is real.


For me it seems right that they act on their turn and that is when its apparent. So many spells and things seem to be "on their next turn" but i guess consistency is the key.

Totally your prerogative. The benefit of immediacy is that you can empower players by giving them hints work with. On the flip-side, if players make bad decisions, you can point back to the hint that you gave.

Player: "I thought the goblins back down after I threatened them!"
DM: "Well, I did say that they laughed at you. they weren't bluffing after all, they were ready to fight."


As a DM, if the players attempt an intimidation check during combat, I'll do it like this: (snip)

This is a good post providing insight into how another DM thinks.

I would again point out that, the way I see it, there is a difference between trying to scare someone (intimidate), and just doing something scary (slaughtering people). If someone just slaughtered 4 of 5 bandits in round 1, then I wouldn't even say that Intimidate was auto-success. I would say that the bandit is terrified, and intimidation is useless/pointless.

[hymer]

So if the players do object strenuously, that makes it not right? The truth of the matter depends on player agreement?

Absolutely. A DM ruling should be good for the table in general. If the players, say, are going to walk out over it, it's not good. You may see it differently, of course.

[BurgerBeast]

You're the DM. If you say it's right (and the players don't object too strenuously), it's right.

The statements:

(1) If you say it's right, it's right.
(2) If the players don't object too strenuously, it's right.

Are situationally contradictory. It's possible for the DM to say X, and for the players to strenuously object to X. If, when this happens, you ignore (1), then (1) is not generally true. The whole guideline becomes irrelevant.

If "if it's good for the table, it's right" is a better guideline, then why not just start for that? Why even bring in DM authority, if it's superseded by player preference?

The only reason I bring this up is because I think DM authority does supersede player preference. So to me, the stipulation "as long as the players don't object" is unnecessary. If players don't accept the DMs authority (and often they shouldn't), they should find a new game.

[pwykersotz]

I generally discourage intimidation if there isn't anything specific that can be used. You want to intimidate the vampire? You better brandish holy water or a wooden stake. You want to intimidate the local magistrate? You'd better let it slip that you know a few of his indiscretions.

For me, the check doesn't abstract away the need for context. The check is just there to see if the vampire laughs at you or if he recoils and flees.

The sort of reaction for being intimidated is entirely up to you, but frightened is definitely a good condition to use. And yes, I too would wait in the initiative until the creature's turn to display the result.

Regarding running up and dropping intimidation, I think that's fine as long as you abide by the first part which is having a reason the enemy is intimidated in the first place. For example, I think the vampire scenario makes perfect sense. You run up to Strahd, brandishing holy water. He laughs at you. You run. Perfectly sensible. But if you ambiguate the reason for the fear, it becomes too much.

Remember also that intimidation is often a matter of context. If the creature is already committed to a fight, it would take a hell of a display to intimidate them into submission. Don't let them get away with "I yell angrily to intimidate them!" unless loud noises are explicitly a fear of them or somesuch.

[BurgerBeast]

(snip)

This is interesting. We seem to have entirely different meanings of "intimidate."

I tend to think that context can provides a real risk, whereas intimidation is essentially a bluff to create the impression of a risk despite context (or lack of context).

You seem to be saying that real risk provides only an opportunity to intimidate, and without that context, intimidation is not possible.

Not saying you're wrong. Just interesting to see the difference.

[pwykersotz]

This is interesting. We seem to have entirely different meanings of "intimidate."

I tend to think that context can provides a real risk, whereas intimidation is essentially a bluff to create the impression of a risk despite context (or lack of context).

You seem to be saying that real risk provides only an opportunity to intimidate, and without that context, intimidation is not possible.

Not saying you're wrong. Just interesting to see the difference.

Agreed, it is interesting. I think you characterized it well. I can also visualize what you say when I think of the "Fighting Spirit" or "Killing Intent" in a lot of anime, where an enemy makes their presence known and suddenly everyone is super cautious or afraid.

To clarify a bit more, I view the intimidation roll as a method to resolve an unknown variable. If there is no unknown variable, there's no roll. If the vampire is absolutely afraid of holy water or if the magistrate absolutely will cower when evidence of misdeeds is presented, there's no roll. On the other side of the coin, if the ogre is absolutely not afraid of the barbarian with beefy muscles, there's also no need for a roll. So there's room in my interpretation for what you say, that context can provide the real risk outside of the skill.

But yeah, I think both ways can serve the game well.

[MaxWilson]

Can anyone help clear up some question about using intimidation in combat?

Firstly, if a player tries to intimidate an enemy in combat I assume I set a DC based on the mob and the situation and they roll...we have an outcome of success or fail. Is that correct?

Assuming that is correct what happens if the mob is intimidated in combat. How does it affect the mobs behaviour? Is it as powerful as the mob now being frightened? Does the mob run? Does he have disadvantage on attacks?

Depends on their reason for fighting in the first place. Honestly, a realistic mob is probably going to disperse or run away in panic as soon as it becomes clear that their target (party of PCs) has teeth*. But 5E has this weird trope where enemies who haven't a chance against the PCs are "supposed" to hurl themselves upon the PCs in a small but bloodthirsty mob and fight long enough for the players to have fun--so they can't just panic and bolt as soon as the fighter guts two goblins or the wizard hurls a Fireball or someone intimidates them all.

Presumably the DM has invented a reason why they won't panic--maybe they are all crazed with zombie-juice--and he can use that reason to inform what happens on a successful Intimidation check. Or else the DM plays mobs more realistically, and PCs are only attacked by large organized forces (18 bandits instead of 4) who will nevertheless break once four bandits are down. In that case, successful intimidation of the bandit leader probably ends the combat, whereas successful intimidation of an individual bandit (scowl + "Stay down!") probably removes them from play but requires an opposed roll to see whether the PCs or the bandit leader intimidates that bandit more.

-Max

* In the real world, a military unit which takes 50% casualties is almost certainly broken. 20% casualties are pretty heavy. A mob of creatures which takes even one or two dramatic casualties without inflicting any on its targets is going to suddenly realize that "I could die here!" and lose its mob mentality.

==============================================


This is interesting. We seem to have entirely different meanings of "intimidate."

I tend to think that context can provides a real risk, whereas intimidation is essentially a bluff to create the impression of a risk despite context (or lack of context).

You seem to be saying that real risk provides only an opportunity to intimidate, and without that context, intimidation is not possible.

Not saying you're wrong. Just interesting to see the difference.

FWIW, I'd call a bluff to create the impression of a risk, "Deception followed by Intimidation to exploit the impression." If the threat is obviously real then you can just skip straight to the Intimidation.

There are cases where the threat can be real but non-physical. You could intimidate a bureaucrat by glaring him into silence when he's raising silly objections, even if he knows you can't legally gut him with your sword, because the threat is "I can make your day very, very unpleasant by yelling at you," among other things. A lot of human interactions work this way. Getting honked at on the road doesn't hurt you in any way, but most people still consider it a negative event and go out of their way to avoid driving in a way that gets them honked at. Other people are immune of course, and a bureaucrat who happens to view you as an insignificant worm whom he can get thrown out with a single gesture will not be subject to intimidiation until you make a threat that is real to him.

[BW022]

Can anyone help clear up some question about using intimidation in combat?
...


There are no hard and fast rules. However, no social skill is simply a role and other person becomes a mindless automaton. Intimidation is going to depend how the intimate was phrased, whether your opponent can understand you, and what their options are. At best, it will make someone scared of you (not as a condition, but as a general feeling). What scared people do in combat is not at all certain. Some afraid people fight harder, some flee, some fight less efficiently, etc.

If a PC walks up to a goblin, cleaves him in two, and says in goblin "Surrender and I'll let you live." Ok? Why are the goblins there? Is there an ogre leader who is going to kill them if they flee anyway? Is there something they are fighting for worth dying? Are they religious fanatics? However... assume a check worked... they could...

a) Surrender.
b) Flee.
c) Pause, maybe talking to the PC? ("Can you let us flee? We can't be taken prisoner!")
d) Stay back and use missile weapons.
e) Fight defensively.
f) Lie/bluff. ("There are twenty more of us coming down that hallway... we can't surrender?")
g) Try talking or hinting at surrender, but only to buy time or get into a better position.
etc.

I don't set a DC. I let the player roll and the result might fall somewhere in the spectrum. Further, what they say may be as important as the roll. If they don't give the goblins an "out", they may have no choice but to continue fighting no matter how afraid they might be.

Honestly, it is up to the DM, the situation, what is said/implied, who the creatures are, and what their motivations for fighting are.

Thanks,
Brett

[Sabeta]

The statements:

(1) If you say it's right, it's right.
(2) If the players don't object too strenuously, it's right.

Are situationally contradictory. It's possible for the DM to say X, and for the players to strenuously object to X. If, when this happens, you ignore (1), then (1) is not generally true. The whole guideline becomes irrelevant.

If "if it's good for the table, it's right" is a better guideline, then why not just start for that? Why even bring in DM authority, if it's superseded by player preference?

The only reason I bring this up is because I think DM authority does supersede player preference. So to me, the stipulation "as long as the players don't object" is unnecessary. If players don't accept the DMs authority (and often they shouldn't), they should find a new game.

That might work in Roll20 where even the most garbage of DMs are in staggeringly short supply and every game has 30+ applicants. It does not work in small towns where everyone at the table is more than a first-time acquaintance, or even good friends. It also might work in AL, where most groups are meeting for the first time and where DM has more power than normal to facilitate quick and smooth gameplay (even though it says to only change rules to allow for more fun, not restrict it). If it's a Roll20 game then sure, make a quick ruling on how something works, and if your players object then perhaps reconsider. If you're pig-headed and/or a bad DM you'll automatically reject them, lose 4-5 players, and have replacements next week.

[BurgerBeast]

That might work in Roll20 where even the most garbage of DMs are in staggeringly short supply and every game has 30+ applicants. It does not work in small towns where everyone at the table is more than a first-time acquaintance, or even good friends. It also might work in AL, where most groups are meeting for the first time and where DM has more power than normal to facilitate quick and smooth gameplay (even though it says to only change rules to allow for more fun, not restrict it). If it's a Roll20 game then sure, make a quick ruling on how something works, and if your players object then perhaps reconsider. If you're pig-headed and/or a bad DM you'll automatically reject them, lose 4-5 players, and have replacements next week.

Load your language, much? Stop whining about your own situation and have some integrity. Great games require great people. Filter more, and you'll get better people. As a result you'll get better games. It took me about 24 years to really understand this, and my life has improved immensely for it. I almost never have to waste time explaining to idiots that I'm not a ****, because I almost never engage idiots anymore. It's that simple.

I get that you think I'm a ****, but I've seen and heard it before. I have helped a lot of people in my life, and ironically the reason I am able to help them is exactly the same reason that other people think I'm a ****. I know how to face the truth and I don't shy away from it.

Ask any coach and they will tell you that player selection is the most important decision of the season. It can literally make or break your season. D&D is no different. Make the cuts you need to make to ensure a successful campaign.

Here's a hint: you don't have to be jerk to say no. Saying no to people isn't rude. Choosing not to engage with people isn't rude.

The truth is, the best DMs (and the best players, I might add) are the best because they know how to say no, they know how to take no for an answer, and they don't tolerate idiots who drag the game down.

[Slipperychicken]

My advice to OP is to use morale rolls, whether from an OSR system (i.e. B/X, AD&D, OD&D, or the many similar systems out there) or elsewhere. Monsters may have to check for morale in circumstances like losing one of their own, being outnumbered, or being reduced to half health. Morale check results should include the monsters booking it, retreating orderly, continuing to fight, or being inspired to fight even harder (perhaps even fighting to the end). Each type of monster should have its own morale score (kobolds might have poor morale, while berserkers might never retreat from battle), modified by circumstances as appropriate.

Then, what intimidation should do is force a morale check on a successful roll. So the order of operations would go something like this: PC uses his action to do or say something suitably unnerving -> PC rolls against a static DC to intimidate the monsters -> If successful, then monsters make a morale check -> DM determines outcome.

[Specter]

That's pretty steep progression on the DC. And it starts kinda low; a goblin at DC 1?

Then put a minimum DC like 10. I think it's easier to intimidate goblins than dogs, but I'm no specialist.

[hymer]

Then put a minimum DC like 10. I think it's easier to intimidate goblins than dogs, but I'm no specialist.

Very Concentration save-esque, very 5e. :smallsmile:

[MrStabby]

Whether you are wanting a formal system or an ad-hoc system there are a few things that might help.

1) Don't make is success or fail, but a gradual scale. This lets you lower the DCs on the bottom end just a little so more people can use it from time to time.

I mean something like:
Beat DC: You are identified as a threat by the person threatened, they are more likely to aim attacks at you and less likely to conserve resources

Beat DC by 5: They fear for their lives and behave more defensively, they take the dodge action in their next turn

Beat DC by 10: They fear you specifically, they suffer the fear condition

Beat the DC by 15: They flee the battle but may attempt to regroup later

Beat the DC by 20: They are terrified into reforming their lives, swear to be better people in future, give penance at their local temple and devote the rest of their lives to good deeds.


Consider what helps resist this as well - advantage on the roll if there leader is still leading them, if there is a charismatic leader them maybe add Cha bonus to DC. This means it will be unlikely to win an encounter but can end a won encounter more quickly, saving time and resources.