Intimidation checks in combat?

[UnwiseAlistair]

I'm having a common problem with combat encounters where any time a player does anything that can be described as even remotely frightening, they demand to be able to make an intimidation check to either get enemies to flee or surrender. It's getting really annoying and they keep rolling high when they do this, how can I encourage them to do this less often? I only allow one intimidation attempt per combat but they still try to do it every time they do anything.

[Findulidas]

I wouldnt disallow it but make it take a whole action as well as only work once. I also would have it do other things than making them instantly surrender depending on the situation. Like making the monster hesitate for a moment with some kind of effect like a concentration check on the spell they are casting or a decrease on the next attack roll. While intimidation might make street thugs back off, it obviously cant work like that on more self assured and motivated opponents. That way its only useful when they think about it and depending on how they word it and not just what they instantly do to skip fights. If they try to make the several hundred year old lich surrender by intimidation it simply wont work like that.

If they protest you can have another system with more realistic DCs instead. Have the lich surrender on a DC of 45 on intimidation rolls. I bet they quickly realize that its way less fun.

[Desteplo]

Make them take an action for it
-Also don't immediately end the combat but then turn it into a social encounter

[Millstone85]

If they try to make the several hundred year old lich surrender by intimidation it simply wont work like that.

If they protest you can have another system with more realistic DCs instead. Have the lich surrender on a DC of 45 on intimidation rolls. I bet they quickly realize that its way less fun.Setting a DC at 38+ instead of just declaring the check impossible might be seen as petty, or it might make it easier to understand the logic behind the impossibility.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I wouldnt disallow it but make it take a whole action

Agreed. Basically all ability checks should be actions in my opinion.

Other than that, have an idea of your monsters' morale before you start each combat. If you've got an 8-goblin ambush, be thinking "they'll lose heart if 4 or more are incapacitated." That way, if three goblins are down and the barbarian rolls an intimidation check, you can think "well, they were close to breaking anyway. Maybe that's enough to convince them to back off," whereas if only one is down, you can say straight off "you huff and puff, but it has no effect."

[Koren]

Agreed. Basically all ability checks should be actions in my opinion.

Other than that, have an idea of your monsters' morale before you start each combat. If you've got an 8-goblin ambush, be thinking "they'll lose heart if 4 or more are incapacitated." That way, if three goblins are down and the barbarian rolls an intimidation check, you can think "well, they were close to breaking anyway. Maybe that's enough to convince them to back off," whereas if only one is down, you can say straight off "you huff and puff, but it has no effect."

To add to this, I would say keep in mind WHAT they are fighting as well. Kobolds would get really nervous as their numbers drop from 10 to 2 but a couple of Orcs or even animals like Bears might choose "fight" over "flight."

Overall, rp wise, if they aren't specifically trying to intimidate then I don't think it should be rolled for. Brutally slaughtering a leader could definitely incite fleeing but it's not like that's what the Barbarian was thinking when he was hacking away. It's just something you as the DM would have to keep in mind as part of the mobs actions.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind that no one makes "Intimidation checks."

You can make a Charisma check, or a Strength check, and add the Indimitate proficiency if you have it. Nevertheless, it's a separate action from just hurting people

[Coffee_Dragon]

Have the NPCs make Intimidation checks against the PCs. Tell them they're successful so they'll have to flee or surrender.

[guachi]

Players never get to ask to make an ability check. (Well, I supposed they can. But it has no in-fiction meaning.) All they can do is describe their characters actions. Only the DM can ask for an ability check. Even then, the DM only asks for an ability check when the outcome is uncertain.

[Kane0]

I have a player that does something similar. She's a lore bard with expertise in intimidate and prefers to use that to end combats either before they begin or during when she believes herself to be in a favorable position. It is a strategy I like as DM, it gives more depth to play since I can incorporate a bit of morale.

Generally speaking I allow any sort of skill check as an action, this usually works pretty well in a fight since a successful Intimidate attempt can demoralise (frightened condition for a round or two) one or more enemies or force them into submission. Generally the intimidate roll is contested by an insight check but I often also use a morale check (very similar to a Wis save) as well.

[RSP]

Intimidate=action in combat (see the UA skill feat for more options).

If using the action to attempt to intimidate I'd factor in the motivations of the enemy(s).

For instance, hired thugs would weigh the PC's intimidate score vs how threatening betraying their master would seem and make a call on flight/fight. Whereas a summoned creature wouldn't care how intimidating the PC is as they have no choice to flee.

If I deemed the intimidate score high enough I'd give effected npcs the frightened condition for 1 round, but I'd also make it that anyone who saw the original check is immune to further checks that combat.

I'd also let the players know this is the way you'll play it from here on out, so they're aware of the cost vs benefit. I'd also let them know npcs can make similar checks against the PCs.

[Rebonack]

Here's how I roll.

Before initiative: A player can try threatening some potentially hostile creatures into backing down. This is more likely to work against some wandering baddies than it is to work against deranged cultists out for blood (apply advantage/disadvantage as appropriate). Typically you're going to be looking at an Int check (Investigation) to oppose, since the creature is rationally weighing the veracity of the threat.

After initiative:
-Attempting to frighten/demoralize: If a creature is above half HP it gets advantage on its check. If it is below half HP it rolls normally. If it fails the check it is Frightened until the end of its next turn. Demoralizing is a bonus action.
-Attempting to cause surrender: If the encounter is above half its original CR, the creatures roll with advantage. If below they roll normally. Demanding surrender requires an action. Calling for surrender can use a Persuasion check as well.

[Cap'm Bubbles]

I personally don't like using Intimidation during combat, as the kinds of things that can be intimidating may not come from a charisma-focused class.

An intimidation check is something I might permit before combat starts if a fight seems imminent or if a PC wants to spend their first action to end the fight right when it begins. DC depends on the characters' morale and potential consequences if a higher-up finds out.

During combat, I prefer to deny players an intimidation check and instead let their enemies react to what just happened. Suppose that half-orc barbarian that just sliced two guys in half before his enemies did anything (crit, GWM)? YEah, that's a whole lotta nope (intimidated creatures that saw this are now under the Fear effect when in combat with that barbarian -- disadvantage on attack rolls-- and will prefer fighting anyone else). In a mix of zealots and cowards, the latter may simply flee while expecting their superiors to die to that Storm Cleric smiting them with lightning from the sky after the first or second bolt. Maybe a more loyal leader of a band may be intimidated, but will opt to tell his subordinates to flee while he buys them time to escape. Or the reverse.

There's all sorts of things that can make a fight more organic than numerical, but as long as the players think that they can get more out of their dice rolls by constantly asking, it just won't feel as fun. As someone said before, it's no fun if the Lich surrenders because somebody made one high roll.

[poolio]

I don't know about giving opponents the fear condition, maybe for a turn, but berserker barbarians can attempt to inflict fear as an action at 14 and giving all players pretty much the same ability at the same cost just doesn't seem fair to me (granted it's a little different but it's still pretty much the same)

I have a bard in my AL group that i dm for that refuses to actually do damage in combat, and as such does pretty much anything else he can come up with, he once tried to use mage hand to help and give a friendly advantage, which is a 13th level arcane trickster ability, so naturally i said it wouldn't work.

This thread is definitely helping me come up with solutions to his fir his shenanigans though lol

[imanidiot]

PCs don't decide when they make rolls, you do. They also don't get to determine the effects of rolls that they make. Again, you do. I also find it laughable for someone to intimidate an opponent who is currently engaged in mortal combat with the person or persons who are attempting to intimate them. Barring extenuating circumstances, it shouldn't be possible. And if it is in a case by case basis, it will certainly take your entire action to do so.

[RSP]

PCs don't decide when they make rolls, you do. They also don't get to determine the effects of rolls that they make. Again, you do. I also find it laughable for to intimidate someone who is currently engaged in mortal combat with the person or persons who are attempting to intimate them. Barring extenuating circumstances, it shouldn't be possible. And if it is in a case by case basis, it will certainly take your entire action to do so.

Why wouldn't it be reasonable to use intimidate to get enemies to run away or surrender?

Not everyone wants to fight to the death if they don't have to.

[imanidiot]

Why wouldn't it be reasonable to use intimidate to get enemies to run away or surrender?

Not everyone wants to fight to the death if they don't have to.

What is unreasonable is the expectation that they will be able to hear or understand you. Combat is several orders of magnitude more chaotic than most players treat it. You have 6 seconds to convey a believable threat to someone who is also trying to pay attention to all of your companions, all of his companions, looking for an opening to attack, maintaining his position in ranks, listening for orders from his commander, and all of this likely with several layers of cloth, leather, and metal wrapped around his head.

It's not impossible, just almost impossible.

And if you can threatening them is just as likely to make them fight harder.

[Findulidas]

Setting a DC at 38+ instead of just declaring the check impossible might be seen as petty, or it might make it easier to understand the logic behind the impossibility.

Well if they are rolling to make the lich surrender I can quite easily explain how its impossible. 1. He has never lost in his life. 2. Hes very powerful. 3. He has a ego thats even larger than his abilities. 4. Hes more or less insane. 5. He has lived for a long long time and this far from the the first adventurer trying to scare him. Then I would say its about DC 38+ to do it, which means almost impossible. Im not saying every encounter would be like this obviously but some monsters just cant be scared to back down. Unintelligent being are also impossible.

That said I prefer the other system I mentioned before because just rolling to make something back down and only getting that result or not is just boring.

[Rebonack]

I don't know about giving opponents the fear condition, maybe for a turn, but berserker barbarians can attempt to inflict fear as an action at 14 and giving all players pretty much the same ability at the same cost just doesn't seem fair to me (granted it's a little different but it's still pretty much the same)

Tenth level ability, as it happens. And it's a Wisdom save, so I'm not totally sure what this is supposed to be representing. The guy manages to not... hear you? I guess? Wizards doesn't seem to have fully grasped that Wisdom saves aren't Will saves anymore. Quibbles aside, it's a pretty terrible ability on a pretty terrible sub-class so I'm not sure holding it up as the gold standard for what a skill can do is altogether a good idea.

Using Intimidate to demoralize foes was a vanilla application of the skill back in 3e and it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to try to use the skill for. The Frightened effect is quite a bit nastier than Shaken was in 3e, but I figure some decent limits on how you apply it covers that reasonably.

[Quoxis]

How about giving no exp (or at least only a small amount) for fleeing opponents?
On one hand it's only natural that a pack of goblins might flee in terror when their evil overlord is decapitated, on the other: do the characters "grow" if they only scarcely fight and mostly frighten enemies out of the way? That's the thought behind it, and you can probably convince your group with it.

[Kane0]

I'm of the old school belief that 'dealing with an encounter' means more than just fighting and killing everything.

[Findulidas]

Milestones to level up is what most GMs use that I have played with.

[rollingForInit]

I could see lots of reason for simply not allowing a check, all of them because you don't roll when the outcome is already certain.

Enemies wouldn't surrender or flee if:

* They clearly have the advantage. Any threats from the PC's would be seen as empty.
* There's something they fear even more than the PC. Sure, the kobolds might be afraid of the big barbarian, but they will always be more afraid of the ancient red dragon that sent them.
* They are figthing for something they believe in. E.g. the elite knights of a king will fight to the death. Religious fanatics will gladly die for their god.

[Quoxis]

I'm of the old school belief that 'dealing with an encounter' means more than just fighting and killing everything.

Same here, but as i said: does your character grow by doing that? Does he learn something new, is he training by doing it? I'd argue you're gonna learn more from actually fighting than from running or making them run?
You can avoid combat, but you gotta deal with The consequences of taking the easy way out.

[Potato_Priest]

I'm of the old school belief that 'dealing with an encounter' means more than just fighting and killing everything.

Is that really an old school belief? I'm a newer player and DM, but I try to do that too, and although I occasionally forget to hand out xp for an encounter bypassed by stealth or negotiation or the like, I'll usually do it if the players remind me.

On topic, I quite like the idea of not handing out xp for fleeing monsters, and also not allowing checks for certain enemies. Oozes, golems, and mindless undead, for example, should never be intimidated, and a lot of humanoids will be too confident/devoted to be immediately scared off as well.

[SharkForce]

well, i would start by reviewing the rules for ability checks in general and charisma-based skill checks in particular.

for example, you roll when the outcome is uncertain. if it's impossible, no roll. if it's trivial, no roll. which means their enemies need to be somewhere between wanting to flee/surrender/back down already without any extra motivation, and not willing to flee/surrender/back down. so basically, if the enemies aren't borderline considering fleeing/surrendering/backing down... you don't roll. it doesn't matter if they got a natural 20. it doesn't matter if they got a modified 35. you roll when the outcome is in doubt only, and sometimes, the outcome is not in doubt; you are never going to stretch an iron spike into a monofilament wire with your bare hands, you are never going to jump so high you land on the moon (unless you are already on the moon), you are never going to pick up 500 lbs with your 8 strength wizard, and so on.

secondly, for DCs... don't set them stupidly high. escalating DCs are not a good thing.

instead, look at the social skill DC tables. for intimidation, rather than friendly/indifferent/hostile, you want something more along the lines of craven/indifferent/fanatical(craven = friendly, hostile = fanatical). remember that "friendly" means the person already wants to help you, so you should only use that table if the NPC is specifically afraid enough to want to do what you say rather than risk facing your wrath (in contrast to being perfectly willing to run away screaming for help rather than risk facing your wrath). it shouldn't come up just because the PCs are impressive; being impressive is what allows them to make the check at all. if they have demonstrated overwhelming force, see the first point above: there is no check. the NPCs are already fleeing, surrendering (if possible), or backing down. a craven NPC should come up only when the NPC is particularly likely to respond to intimidation in a manner favourable to the person intimidating them. that said, those shouldn't be unheard of... there are plenty of cowards in real life, after all (but most of them won't be leaders unless they're leaders of other cowards). fanatic should be pretty rare though...

now, one thing to note about those tables: they stop at DC 20, and there is nothing beyond. indifferent does not have a DC 25 option to get the DC 20 friendly check. that is deliberate. a friendly person not only is easier to get to do certain things, they also have a higher ceiling for what they're willing to do. an "indifferent" NPC will never do as much as an NPC

lastly, you should remember to keep in mind the cost, just like you should for other charisma checks that would use persuasion or deception. if retreat means certain death, it will be harder to intimidate them into retreating (but not necessarily harder to intimidate them to surrender, provided they think you can protect them from the person who's going to kill them for surrendering). if retreat means they'll be expected to give a detailed report of your capabilities so that the rest of their tribe/clan/coven/pack/whatever can use appropriate strategies, and they've got some useful information to share (like, say... the fact that you've got a wizard and a priest, and that the wizard likes to burn things), there is a low cost, and retreat is more possible. for surrendering, the "cost" is most likely based on their expected ability to win the fight or escape (possibly with KO'd allies), as well as their expectation of their tribe/clan/coven/pack/whatever being able to rescue them, and also what kind of treatment they expect from you (if they expect to be put in jail, then put on trial, then hanged, they'll be harder to intimidate into surrendering... if you give an oath that after a brief interrogation they'll be required to forfeit their weapons, accept a geas to never steal again, and then set free, easier).

i would award full exp for any encounter where intimidation is used (they defeated the challenge, after all; exp is for defeating challenges, not for killing things). but also remember that retreating wounded enemies can regroup, heal up, and come back, can give detailed information about the party's capabilities, etc.

i would also add that having people believe you will treat them well if they surrender should largely be based on reputation, which low level characters will likely not have yet unless they're a member of a specific group, and high level characters will often have a reputation for treating prisoners poorly in my experience (not always, but a lot of NPCs tend to be treated as things rather than people... if they give an explicit promise, PCs will often not want to break it, but if they just capture some random goblin without giving a promise, well... let's just say that torture is not unheard of in groups i've played with... )

note that this should not make it impossible to get people to surrender, just harder than someone who has a good reputation... a PC with no particular reputation is something of an unknown, but that's likely to at least start off being better than someone who is known to torture and maim prisoners, kill them, turn them into zombies, and use the zombies to kill the prisoner's old friends, family, and associates (unless they're being followed around by a few zombies that look like they've been tortured to death prior to being raised as zombies).

so, yeah... short version:

don't allow a roll unless their target is at least somewhat likely to do what they want.

set DCs and expectations of what is even possible using the charisma check guidelines in the DMG.

[Saeviomage]

Tenth level ability, as it happens. And it's a Wisdom save, so I'm not totally sure what this is supposed to be representing. The guy manages to not... hear you? I guess? Wizards doesn't seem to have fully grasped that Wisdom saves aren't Will saves anymore. Quibbles aside, it's a pretty terrible ability on a pretty terrible sub-class so I'm not sure holding it up as the gold standard for what a skill can do is altogether a good idea.

It completely neuters someone for any number of rounds and they don't get to attempt more saves against it even if your buddies are attacking them. It's amazing if used right (ie - such that the foe cannot flee). Doubly so since the barbarian can frenzy and keep attacking while keeping it going. The only thing that makes it bad is that barbarians often dump their charisma. This ability on it's own makes that a poor choice.


Using Intimidate to demoralize foes was a vanilla application of the skill back in 3e and it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to try to use the skill for. The Frightened effect is quite a bit nastier than Shaken was in 3e, but I figure some decent limits on how you apply it covers that reasonably.
Shaken was "minor penalties". Frightened is basically "you don't get to fight any more unless you have a ranged weapon". Against many foes, it's essentially an end to the combat: they won't be able to fight back at all as you destroy them with ranged weapons.

If you want to make your foes take a specific course of action, then use intimidate. You'll get a bonus if something legitimately scary just happened.

Otherwise, I'll decide how your foes react to anything worrisome. They might flee, cower, parley, pull the self destruct lever or just keep fighting. You don't get to decide unless you make an intimidate check.

[guachi]

Milestones to level up is what most GMs use that I have played with.

I use milestone leveling, too. When you get to the milestone of so much XP you gain a level.

[Tanarii]

In 5e, the DM is supposed to first decide if an action will automatically fail/succeed, then decide what the DC is if the outcome is in question.

So think the questions are:
1. how is the PC attempting to make this happen? What's they're approach?
Note: this will also tell you what ability score & proficiency applies, if any, if you determine its a check. And if it requires an action use to do it.
2. What's the enemy's mindset regarding the combat? What's their likely reaction to the players approach?

If the approach is valid, and the enemy's resolve is wavering, then yeah, have a roll. Decide on action required, ability score (probably Str or Cha), proficiency (most likely Intimidate for a threat), set a DC based on how bad the enemies resolve is wavering, and roll it.

I recently had a PC grapple the last enemy in a fight and demand their surrender. The enemy had already attempted to duck into cover and hide, was surrounded, had just been stabbed in the back, was at 1 hp, understood the language ... I didn't bother calling for a check. He cried like a baby and begged for his life.

[lperkins2]

Do note that the intimidate skill can be added to other ability checks than Charisma. If you want to intimidate someone through the threat of physical violence, have them roll Strength (Intimidation). If it is a wizard throwing firebolts, it'd be Intelligence (Intimidation).

[Tanarii]

Do note that the intimidate skill can be added to other ability checks than Charisma. If you want to intimidate someone through the threat of physical violence, have them roll Strength (Intimidation). If it is a wizard throwing firebolts, it'd be Intelligence (Intimidation).
That's a variant rule. A commonly used one though, from what I've seen. Edit: to be clear, I used it in my post too. But it's worth pointing out its a variant, which I didn't do.

[SharkForce]

It completely neuters someone for any number of rounds and they don't get to attempt more saves against it even if your buddies are attacking them. It's amazing if used right (ie - such that the foe cannot flee). Doubly so since the barbarian can frenzy and keep attacking while keeping it going. The only thing that makes it bad is that barbarians often dump their charisma. This ability on it's own makes that a poor choice.

Shaken was "minor penalties". Frightened is basically "you don't get to fight any more unless you have a ranged weapon". Against many foes, it's essentially an end to the combat: they won't be able to fight back at all as you destroy them with ranged weapons.

If you want to make your foes take a specific course of action, then use intimidate. You'll get a bonus if something legitimately scary just happened.

Otherwise, I'll decide how your foes react to anything worrisome. They might flee, cower, parley, pull the self destruct lever or just keep fighting. You don't get to decide unless you make an intimidate check.

it completely neuters someone... in exchange for the berserker not doing any of the things your berserker (being a barbarian) has the capacity for being exceptional at. there may be times where that's worthwhile. but most of the time i suspect you'll find that anything worth giving up one entire character's action at that level is not terribly likely to fail their save.

also, i'm not entirely convinced that "you can make yourself worse in every following fight for the rest of the day to be slightly closer to doing things you're actually good at" is really all that strong of a selling point. i mean, i suppose it is better than not having the option at all, because eventually if you get in enough fights, at some point it will actually be good (assuming you even remember you have that ability after getting used to not using it ever)... but we're looking at a pretty rare scenario here.

and no, you shouldn't get a bonus to intimidate for something scary having just happened. that's what allows you to make the check in the first place. there is always something scary that just happened when you try to intimidate someone, or else you automatically fail.

[Findulidas]

I use milestone leveling, too. When you get to the milestone of so much XP you gain a level.

Except its not a milestone system at all. Its just trying to give you something in return for how much you do in a linear or quadratic way all the time at every single point in time. The levels are the limits of the abstract system.

Whereas a milestone system only gives you levels when you actually complete something, you cant do parts of a dungeon go away and do something else and get half a level through xp. However in return nobody has to keep track of xp.

[Tanarii]

and no, you shouldn't get a bonus to intimidate for something scary having just happened. that's what allows you to make the check in the first place. there is always something scary that just happened when you try to intimidate someone, or else you automatically fail.Why? Intimidation is also about the character implying a threat, not just explicitly demonstrating the potential for threat. That doesn't mean something scary has to have just happened. It could mean the threat of scariness to come.
Or do you mean implied threats can be scary? (Result depending on the outcome of the dice.) And that's the bare minimum for a check?

Also things are more scary than others. Some are implied threat, others are damn convincing explicit threat.
Although IMO in combat it'd take a lot to be extra scary enough to get advantage on a check. You're already killing them. :smallamused:

[Gorgo]

Have the NPCs make Intimidation checks against the PCs. Tell them they're successful so they'll have to flee or surrender.

This was my suggestion as well. Or, sit down with your players and try to work out an agreement on what the intimidation skill can accomplish in combat, with the full understanding that whatever you agree to will be used against them, as well.

[Tanarii]

This was my suggestion as well. Or, sit down with your players and try to work out an agreement on what the intimidation skill can accomplish in combat, with the full understanding that whatever you agree to will be used against them, as well.
Do you generally allow checks, per the DMG table DCs, to change what a PC will do? If not, this is a bad idea.

Ability checks are for when something has an uncertain outcome. Unless a Player isn't sure how he wants to respond to another creature's attempts to convince them of a course of action, and requests a check against them, there's no uncertainty involved. (Note that uncertain players usually roll a die to determine their action themselves. They try to roll under Wisdom score, or some such.)

[Easy_Lee]

I think this is an issue of style. A player shouldn't say he wants to make an intimidation check. A player should say he wants to do X, and the DM should tell him if it's possible, and to roll Y if it is.

If you don't want your player to intimidate a given creature, then when they try, tell them, "You get the impression that it won't work with this foe."

If intimidation seems plausible to you, have them roll intimidation. Like the others said, the variant rule may apply depending on what the player is doing. For example, flexing muscles to intimidate might be a Strength (Intimidation) check.

This doesn't invalidate the berserker barbarian because with that archetype, there's no question that it works against anything that's not immune. There's also no question as to the result of a successful check, either. And a DM need not worry about that unless one of the PCs is a berserker.

[lperkins2]

That's a variant rule. A commonly used one though, from what I've seen. Edit: to be clear, I used it in my post too. But it's worth pointing out its a variant, which I didn't do.

Actually it isn't. It's on page 239 of the DMG (first printing). Well, I suppose it is optional in the sense that it is entirely up to the DM when to use it, but it isn't in a sidebar, or a section on optional rules.

"Under certain circumstances, you can decide a character's proficiency in a skill can be applied to a different ability check."

[JackPhoenix]

Why? Intimidation is also about the character implying a threat, not just explicitly demonstrating the potential for threat. That doesn't mean something scary has to have just happened. It could mean the threat of scariness to come.
Or do you mean implied threats can be scary? (Result depending on the outcome of the dice.) And that's the bare minimum for a check?

Also things are more scary than others. Some are implied threat, others are damn convincing explicit threat.
Although IMO in combat it'd take a lot to be extra scary enough to get advantage on a check. You're already killing them. :smallamused:

No, Intimidation (the skill) is about using the threat to coerce the target to behave a certain way. A beholder is scary and threatening to a random soldier, but that doesn't give it any control over whether the soldier flees, begs for his life, stands there ****ing himself in terror, chooses the beholder as priority target, or continues fighting its minions, because while that thing is scary, there's this orc or whatever trying to murder *him personally* right now. Or any other way people may react to threats. But the beholder doesn't have any control over which option the soldier choose until it focuses on him and succeeds on actual Intimidation check.

And remember that one round of combat is 6 seconds, how much can you say in that time?


Actually it isn't. It's on page 239 of the DMG (first printing). Well, I suppose it is optional in the sense that it is entirely up to the DM when to use it, but it isn't in a sidebar, or a section on optional rules.

"Under certain circumstances, you can decide a character's proficiency in a skill can be applied to a different ability check."

Pretty much everything in DMG is optional rules, using alternate ability scores for skill check is outright called as a variant in the PHB.

[SharkForce]

Why? Intimidation is also about the character implying a threat, not just explicitly demonstrating the potential for threat. That doesn't mean something scary has to have just happened. It could mean the threat of scariness to come.
Or do you mean implied threats can be scary? (Result depending on the outcome of the dice.) And that's the bare minimum for a check?

Also things are more scary than others. Some are implied threat, others are damn convincing explicit threat.
Although IMO in combat it'd take a lot to be extra scary enough to get advantage on a check. You're already killing them. :smallamused:

what do you mean by implied threat?

if you are going to threaten to, say, bend someone in half backwards, and you don't have *something* that displays your capability of doing so (which could include the fact that you're an eight foot tall goliath with arms as big around as tree trunks or something like that), you're not going to accomplish anything. if by "implied threat" you mean something like, say, "wouldn't be a shame if this nice store were to burn down?", well, in all likelihood if you don't have a reputation for being able to do just that, there's probably going to need to be something that happened recently implying you can make it happen. though of course, if you actually do start burning down businesses that fail to "pay their fire insurance bill" and the local guards can't or won't stop you, it probably won't take long for most ordinary people to not even require a roll.

before you get to start intimidating anyone, though, you're going to need to provide *some* proof that you can follow through (or make a successful deception check first, which will follow the same guidelines already mentioned). you don't necessarily need to actually do the thing you're threatening... if the shopkeeper is opening their store, and you come walking out of their back room with some oily rags that you "found" back there and warn them that something bad could happen (alternately, bonus points if you seem to have just appeared behind them soundlessly when they just looked there), you've just done something pretty scary. if you just walk in the front door with no such context provided, you're probably not going to even have a chance to have an impact on them.

and of course, the scary thing could just be that you are (or appear to be, with a deception check) a member of some group known to do certain things... that reputation for treating prisoners poorly that i mentioned earlier can make it harder to successfully intimidate someone to surrender, but it can also provide sufficiently impressive/frightening things having happened that you get to make a check; sometimes you being who you are is, in itself, a frightening thing. i mean, if you're the guy who walked into a goblin lair with 3 other buddies and killed every single goblin inside, then wiped out the clan of ogres led by an ogre magi that was directing that goblin tribe, you walking into a room can certainly be a frightening event.

if, on the other hand, you mean you have just demonstrated totally overwhelming force... still no advantage, generally speaking. depending on the target, you may not need to make any check at all though.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm having a common problem with combat encounters where any time a player does anything that can be described as even remotely frightening, they demand to be able to make an intimidation check to either get enemies to flee or surrender. It's getting really annoying and they keep rolling high when they do this, how can I encourage them to do this less often? I only allow one intimidation attempt per combat but they still try to do it every time they do anything.

You're describing is a morale check (fleeing, surrender), not a Charisma (Intimidation) check.

The rules for morale (optional) are found on DMG page 273.

Morale breaking is when something happens in the battle that might sufficiently frighten members of the opposing side, but even that only goes so far, and forcing a confrontation after morale failure pretty much leads to the enemy going down swinging.

Intimidation might be used to get the enemy to end combat, but it wouldn't make them flee or give up (only a cessation of hostilities is listed as something that Intimidation is applicable to, not routing the enemy), that's morale.

There's no reason you as the DM can't go ahead and allow it if you think it would be cool, but don't let your players badger you over it, it's not a rule. Next time they ask, just tell them the enemies resolve doesn't waver, and carry on.

[TwoSwordSamurai]

I'm having a common problem with combat encounters where any time a player does anything that can be described as even remotely frightening, they demand to be able to make an intimidation check to either get enemies to flee or surrender. It's getting really annoying and they keep rolling high when they do this, how can I encourage them to do this less often? I only allow one intimidation attempt per combat but they still try to do it every time they do anything.

I know I'm somewhere between one and three years late posting on this thread, but I came across it on the random and I had an idea that I thought I'd share.

The original quandary by UnwiseAlistair I believe is best answered by the shared wisdom (Insight? :3) of our collective forum. I really like the idea of only allowing one Intimidate check per encounter; it follows logically that future attempts are going to be seen as empty bluffs. I also really like the idea of situational modifiers; not every opponent is going to be intimidated in the same way (like that bit about being able to make street thugs back off, but good luck convincing a beholder to do so). That being said I also like the creative use of role playing and game mechanics. For example, I think I would allow a bard with animal handling to use their Charisma score to do an animal handling check (Charisma (Animal Handling) a la pg. 175 of the PHB, the Variant rule) if they were going to use their musical talents to try to calm an agitated horse or other animal. They say music soothes the savage beast; I know my cat certainly seems to like calm music. If you know for sure that your players are going to always 100% try to use a mechanic, then maybe go a step further and prepare for it. ;) Here is what I propose:

Allow a single intimidation check per encounter, but rule very clearly that you can't just yell at someone and expect that to be intimidating (maybe let them roll with disadvantage and let them ruin their chance). If they can find a clever way to make their intimidation roll very . . . errr . . . intimidating :3 then let them roll. Maybe if the group's fighter or barbarian corners a corrupt noble and offers his lordship a bonecrushing handshake while explaining to him that his actions led to the eviction of a bunch of orphans (or whatever) and that he needed to make restitution for his crimes; maybe let them use Strength (Intimidation) for possibly a better roll. But then anticipate that they're going to do so; plan for it and either give them a reward (like the noble coughs up the key to his desk, and that lands them 50 gp in a dungeon they were already going to run) or a penalty (the noble fires off a firework, attracting the attention of the city guard; that could either make the heroes look bad or get them arrested to further the plot, etc.). Maybe prey upon the noble's fear of snakes (probably requiring prior knowledge or use of a Helm of Telepathy or Detect Thoughts spell) by having the group's wizard explain that no matter how many times he manages to strangle a familiar, it can always be resummoned; then explain to him that he's about to be locked in a steel casket with just the wizard's pet snake. In that case it would be an Intelligence (Intimidation) roll (since Arcana is Int)? It's like a mini game of its own!

[JackPhoenix]

I know I'm somewhere between one and three years late posting on this thread, but I came across it on the random and I had an idea that I thought I'd share.

If you know you're late, don't engage in necromancy. It's against the forum rules.

[Damon_Tor]

I'm having a common problem with combat encounters where any time a player does anything that can be described as even remotely frightening, they demand to be able to make an intimidation check to either get enemies to flee or surrender. It's getting really annoying and they keep rolling high when they do this, how can I encourage them to do this less often? I only allow one intimidation attempt per combat but they still try to do it every time they do anything.

Half exp for enemies that flee. That should solve the problem.