Using Skills to Inflict Conditions in Combat?

[Grog Logs]

In a recent thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?556903-Vicious-Mockery-vs-Menacing-(UA-Feats-for-Skills)-(plus-AnyDice-Help)&p=23014630#post23014630), I requested assistance in determining the balance of "Menacing" from UA's Feats for Skills. In the initial thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?521626-Ua-4-17-2017-Skill-Feats&highlight=Menacing%2C+UA)discussing this UA, some complained about forcing players to take a feat to do something that they should already be willing to do. (I couldn't find the specific post, but I remember it being there.) This leads me to my questions:

Question 1: Under what circumstances would you allow a PC to use Intimidate in battle? What would be the effect? Does the target have to be low on HP first? Would you set a DC or roll for opposed checks?

(Personally, I would lean away from opposed checks unless there were restrictions put upon it for reasons stated in my other thread. If setting a DC, what would be "fair"? DC = 15+CR?)

Question 2: Under what circumstances would you allow a PC to inflict a Condition upon another creature? For example, would you allow them to use an Ability Check (Skill) to inflict the Blinded, Deafened, or Frightened conditions?

(I did not include Grappled, Incapacitated, or Stunned as they are already covered by RAW/RAI under "Combat Actions" of PHB or under "Feats." and Paralyzed is a more intense version of Incapacitated. I cannot see how a PC could inflict "Charmed," "Invisible," "Petrified," or "Poisoned" onto another without magic, a potion, or racial ability.)

[djreynolds]

I might allow advantage or disadvantage as a result, but something like causing fear is a 10th level ability of a frenzied barbarian.

I do allow players to use an action in combat, to intimidate, same searching for a hidden foe with investigation.

A win in an intimidation check could give the opposed foe disadvantage to hit

[sophontteks]

I allowed a druid who knew infernal to intimidate some ixitxachitl. I try to allow players to do creative things as long as its reasonable. In this case, it was given the context and the phrasing she used. It was enough for one to think that maybe the party is not such easy targets, and the retreat of one did snowball as they communicated to each other.

But, it took her action and I believe she rolled a 20.

It has to be creative and interesting to work. I wouldn't just allow it at a general mechanic the players can rely upon. They tell me their intentions and if I can't think of a way it would work, I tell them so.

[Quoxis]

I might allow advantage or disadvantage as a result, but something like causing fear is a 10th level ability of a frenzied barbarian.

I do allow players to use an action in combat, to intimidate, same searching for a hidden foe with investigation.

A win in an intimidation check could give the opposed foe disadvantage to hit

Adding to this:
As there are no „drawing aggro“ mechanics in 5e, if a player tried to intimidate an opponent, i‘d have them „think twice“ about attacking them and focus on another character. Or, if it’s a mob battle and the boss was looking bloodied or was already dead, i‘d set a high DC for an intimidation check and have the smaller, weaker mooks flee if the player succeeded.
Other possibilities:
Give other players advantage by distracting the baddies (acrobatics - leaping forward to the opponent to fake an attack; performance - do a trick like tumbling around to draw attention, stuff like that), by clever assessment of the surroundings (nature/investigation checks for noticing loose roots/stones/floor boards to shove an opponent over to knock them prone or at least unbalance them for advantage), etc.

I wouldn’t let them use perception though, that skill is usually way overused anyway.

[Eric Diaz]

Coincidentally, I'm writing a "manual of arms" for 5e and wrote some "Combat Tricks" today. Let me know what you think!

Combat Tricks
To perform a Combat Trick, you make a check (or attack roll) contested by the target’s chosen check (or saving throw). The GM assigns the appropriate check for both sides, keeping in mind that the target should have a choice between two adequate checks (one of them possibly being the same check the attacker use – the target can see through the tricks!).
Combat tricks are bound by the same limitations as Grappling Stunts (ordinarily, you’re not going to intimidate huge creatures, for example), but the GM may allow a greater range or even affecting creatures that you cannot see (you may be able to trick a creature that you know is hiding in a dark room, for example).
You must always describe how the stunts are being performed. The GM may rule that certain stunts (especially those that rely on Charisma) require you to use your voice and are limited to targets that are within 30 feet, can hear you and understand your language. As always, common sense applies and creativity should be rewarded.
Combat Tricks also have two additional limitations. First, the same target is unlikely to fall for the same combat trick more than once, and the GM may decide even nearby foes might be immune to it after they witness it. Second, combat tricks are not attacks and you can make only one combat trick regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make, unless otherwise noted or decided by the GM.

Blind
Attacker’s check: attack roll.
Defender’s check: Dexterity or Constitution saving throw.
Effect: the target is Blinded until the beginning of its next turn.
Critical hit: the effect lasts until the end of the target’s turn.
Special: Treat this stunt as an improvised weapon attack, which requires you to throw an adequate item such as sand, a vial of acid or a torch at your target. Sand does not cause damage, has a reach of 5/10, and the finesse property.

Intimidate
Attacker’s check: Charisma (Intimidation).
Defender’s check: Wisdom (Insight) or Charisma (Intimidation).
Effect: The target is Frightened until the beginning of its next turn.
Critical hit: The effect lasts until the end of the target’s turn.

Misdirect
Attacker’s check: Charisma (Deception).
Defender’s check: Wisdom (Insight) or Charisma (Deception).
Effect: If the target is attacked before your next turn, the first attack roll against it is made with advantage.
Critical hit: If the target is attacked before your next turn, all attack rolls against it are made with advantage until the first attack roll that hits the target.

Dissuade
Attacker’s check: Charisma (Deception).
Defender’s check: Wisdom (Insight) or Charisma (Deception).
Effect: the target is Charmed by you until the end of it’s next turn.
Critical hit: The target is Charmed by you until the end of your next turn.
Special: The target is no longer charmed if you attack it or use harmful abilities or magical effects against it.

[JellyPooga]

Question 1:

If I were to allow it at all, I might consider something like a DC of 10+(current HP). That makes intimidating low-level mooks entirely possible even at level 1, mid-tier critters able to be intimidated if they've taken a few hits and top end bosses have to be on their last legs to be affected. This is bearing in mind that this is trying to intimidate after combat it joined and that HP represents not only meat, but morale as well (among other things). By definition, someone with lower HP should be easier to intimidate.

As for the effect of a successful intimidation, I think that would (and should) be open to intention and interpretation. Intimidating someone to stay away from you, personally, might be easier than, for instance, getting them to surrender entirely, but I can see both as valid results. How or if that distinction should affect the DC is a GM call. I don't think using Intimidation should be able to inflict status conditions (frightened, etc.), per se, but a GM imposed facsimile (e.g. the target retreating) is a-okay in my book.

[djreynolds]

Question 1:

If I were to allow it at all, I might consider something like a DC of 10+(current HP). That makes intimidating low-level mooks entirely possible even at level 1, mid-tier critters able to be intimidated if they've taken a few hits and top end bosses have to be on their last legs to be affected. This is bearing in mind that this is trying to intimidate after combat it joined and that HP represents not only meat, but morale as well (among other things). By definition, someone with lower HP should be easier to intimidate.

As for the effect of a successful intimidation, I think that would (and should) be open to intention and interpretation. Intimidating someone to stay away from you, personally, might be easier than, for instance, getting them to surrender entirely, but I can see both as valid results. How or if that distinction should affect the DC is a GM call. I don't think using Intimidation should be able to inflict status conditions (frightened, etc.), per se, but a GM imposed facsimile (e.g. the target retreating) is a-okay in my book.

I like this

As long as it costs your action

But the HP is cool, even if it was just HP

Or if a negative in intelligence actually increased the intimidation DC

[strangebloke]

Athletics imposes prone condition or grappled condition. Stealth (or deception) imposes surprised condition...

So yes?

I would allow an intimidate check opposed by a passive will save as an action. The feat effect would go away when the creature took damage, and would only last a round in any case, but I like to let my players do cool things.

[Grog Logs]

Coincidentally, I'm writing a "manual of arms" for 5e and wrote some "Combat Tricks" today. Let me know what you think!

I like that you are expending the number of options available. And, I like that you put some conditions on it, but I think that your Party will succeed more often than you suspect. See the thread that I linked to in the OP and the AnyDice syntax. You can modify to suite. Essentially, you are given your players free spells of first level (e.g., cause fear) and second level (e.g., deafness/blindness). In my opinion, the magical option should be more likely to succeed than the mundane option since it uses a limited resource. The stipulations that you listed are not limiting enough for me on a personal level. The problem is that I can't find something to weaken it enough that using 1st and 2nd level spells make sense without nerfing it so bad it might as well not exist.


Question 1:

If I were to allow it at all, I might consider something like a DC of 10+(current HP)...By definition, someone with lower HP should be easier to intimidate.

Interesting. I had not thought of HP being part of the DC. I might even allow DC = current HP to cause the target creature to surrender. Let's think this through. A Cultist is a 1/8 with an average of 9 HP. A Bandit Captain is CR 2 with an average of 65 HP. How likely is a PC to succeed and let's compare that to a similar PC who simply succeeded on their attack roll.

Here is a summary:
Vs 9 HP (e.g., Cultist of CR = 1/8 with average HP):
Rogue 1 with sneak attack with shortbow who hits: 58%
Rogue 1 with Proficiency in Initmidation and 10 Charisma stat: 65%
Rogue 1 with Expertise in Intimidation and 10 Chasisma stat: 75%
Rogue 1 with Expertise in Intimidation and 16 Chasisma stat: 90%

Vs 22 HP (e.g., Bandit Captain of CR = 2 with 1/3 of initial HP of 65; Young Green Dragon of CR = 8 with 16% of initial HP of 136 HP)
Rogue 1 with Expertise in Intimidation and 10 Chasisma stat: 10%
Conquest Paladin 8, Variant Human with Menacing Feat (UA) for Expertise in Intimidation, and 20 Charisma stat: 45%
Conquest Paladin 8 with 20 Strength stat with Extra Attack, not using Divine Strike: 58%

Link to AnyDice (http://anydice.com/program/fa6b) and its \ Intimidation vs. Current HP \
\ 1 = Creature Affected by Condition \

\ 9 HP: A Cultist is a 1/8 with an average of 9 HP. \
\ OUTPUT 1: Level 1 Rogue who uses sneak attack with a shortbow \ output 2d6+3 > 9
\ OUTPUT 2: Level 1 Rogue with Proficiency Intimidation and 10 Charisma stat (+2 Prof +1 Cha) \ output 1d20 + 2 > 9
\ OUTPUT 3: Level 1 Rogue with Expertise in Intimidation and 10 Charisma stat (+2 Prof +2 Expertise +0 Cha) \ output 1d20 + 2+2+0 > 9
\ OUTPUT 4: Level 1 Rogue with Expertise in Intimidation and 16 Charisma stat (+2 Prof +2 Expertise +3 Cha) \ output 1d20 + 2+2+3 > 9

\ 22 HP: A Bandit Captain is a CR 2 with an average of 65 HP and has been reduced to 1/3 of its initial hit points. Or, a Young Green Dragon is a CR 8 with an average of 136 HP and has been reduced to 16% of its initial hit points. \
\ OUTPUT 5: Level 1 Rogue with Expertise in Intimidation and 10 Charisma stat (+2 Prof +2 Expertise +0 Cha) \ output 1d20 + 2+2+0 > 22
\ OUTPUT 6: Level 8 Conquest Paladin, Variant Human with Menacing Feat (UA) for Expertise in Intimidation, and 20 Charisma stat (+3 Prof +3 Expertise +5 Cha) for a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 31. \ output 1d20 +3+3+5 > 22
\ OUTPUT 7: Level 8 Conquest Paladin, with 20 Strength stat using Extra Attack with a greatsword and No Divine Smite \ output (2d6+5)*2 > 22


Any thoughts?

Another idea for everyone's consideration: What if Intimidation did psychic damage and targeted their Wisdom Saving Throw? Hmm, probably too much damage when factoring in Expertise; and that almost all creatures have ACs above 10 and that many creatures have Wisdom ST of 10. What if Intimidation vs. Wisdom ST did half the value as psychic damage (i.e., decreasing morale)?

SUMMARY OF SURRENDERING:
Rogue 1 w/ sneak attack shortbow kills cultist 58% of the time.
Rogue 1 with Expertise in Initmidation and 16 Charisma stat forces cultist to surrender 77% of the time.

SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DAMAGE:
Rogue 1 with sneak attack shortbow (hitting AC): 10
Rogue 1 with Expertise in Intimidation and 16 Charisma doing full psychic damage (vs. +0 Wisdom ST): 17.5
Rogue 1 with Expertise in Intimidation and 16 Charisma doing half psychic damage (vs. +0 Wisdom ST): 8.5

\ Intimidation as Psychic Damage vs. Wisdom ST \
\ 1 = Creature Affected by Condition \

\ 9 HP: A Cultist is a 1/8 with an average of 9 HP. \
\ OUTPUT 1: Level 1 Rogue who uses sneak attack with a shortbow \ output 2d6+3 > 9
\ OUTPUT 2: Level 1 Rogue with Expertise in Intimidation and 16 Charisma stat (+2 Prof +2 Expertise +3 Cha) \ output 1d20 + 2+2+3 > 1d20+0

\ Average Damage \
\ OUTPUT 3: Level 1 Rogue who uses sneak attack with a shortbow \ output 2d6+3
\ OUTPUT 4: Level 1 Rogue with Expertise in Intimidation and 16 Charisma stat (+2 Prof +2 Expertise +3 Cha) \ output 1d20 + 2+2+3

\ Average Damage if only ½ psychic damage\
\ OUTPUT 5: Level 1 Rogue with Expertise in Intimidation and 16 Charisma stat (+2 Prof +2 Expertise +3 Cha) \ output (1d20 + 2+2+3)/2


Intimidation targeting Wisdom Saving Throw seems balanced at low levels (at least when assuming an 100% hit rate to AC, which is definitely inaccurate). Anything else that I am not considering?

[PhoenixPhyre]

As with all things skill-related, I prefer that it be motivated by the fiction first (not a mechanical button to press). What they do, if they can, and what happens all depend on the situation more than anything so I can't set a hard-and-fast rule. I try to let them act if there's a chance of it working, so generally I say "yes, but" or "yes, and" (or at worst "no, but").

I let a player use her character's background feature (as a Soldier) to attempt to intimidate some bandits into surrendering. They had been promised an easy fight against unarmed travellers, instead they got a band of royal troubleshooters armed for bear. They weren't injured, but they had just seen some of their fellows cut down in seconds by hidden people and realized that they were in for a hard fight, and now there's this professional soldier barking orders at them like she means it. Since it's likely that they would have either been military deserters or have been around such before, I figured it had a chance and let her try.

Her attempt mostly worked (I think I set a DC of 10). The two that failed their Wisdom save (could have been Charisma just as well) took no action that turn due to indecision.

[Tanarii]

Grapple already gives you some guidelines on how to do it. An opposed ability check taking an attack vs enemies choice of two different skills to add to their ability check is worth restricting their movmenet.

I'd certainly consider sacraficing your entire action for an opposed check of yours vs their choice between two skills to add to defense to inflict some serious conditions, especially if its not all the time and its a cinematic game. Maybe even to prevent a non-BBEG from taking an action at all.

The thing I worry about is if you give players a hard method to rule of cool, many of them will try to find a way to cheese it. And if you dont, its inconsistency. So its better to err on the side of not too powerful for codified house rules.

If players are really being rule of cool on a sometime basis, and dont care I'm adhoc every time (most dont seem too) i'll actually give them pretty significant bonus for pulling stuff off.

[Eric Diaz]

I like that you are expending the number of options available. And, I like that you put some conditions on it, but I think that your Party will succeed more often than you suspect. See the thread that I linked to in the OP and the AnyDice syntax. You can modify to suite. Essentially, you are given your players free spells of first level (e.g., cause fear) and second level (e.g., deafness/blindness). In my opinion, the magical option should be more likely to succeed than the mundane option since it uses a limited resource. The stipulations that you listed are not limiting enough for me on a personal level. The problem is that I can't find something to weaken it enough that using 1st and 2nd level spells make sense without nerfing it so bad it might as well not exist.


Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. Yeah, I tried to make them a lot more limited (one rounds instead of one minute, once per battle, etc) and a bit less likely to succeed (two options of defense), but I wouldn't want to make spells obsolete.

[Pelle]

Just do it like everything else.

The player describes what his character does and tries to accomplish, and the DM decides if that is possible or not, and set a DC suited for the situation. If failing by a small margin, maybe give out a condition, but there don't have to be fixed rules.

Scaring away the goblins might be almost impossible if their strong leader is there to motivate them, but if he's killed, then it might be really easy. Using CR or HP as a reference for the DC doesn't neccessarily make the most sense in the situation, and is therefore just unneccessary complex rules.