So I have a player who is a Conquest Paladin and really wants to be a tank. So far he's phenomenal at it... to my chagrin. He sort of built his character to be able to intimidate opponents into attacking him instead of his party members. I told him it was a thing we could do since he wanted to so badly and it makes sense to be able to do it.
The thing is we tried it out for a couple of not-so-bad combats and he used it pretty much every turn. It wasn't combat designed to threaten their lives or anything so I had a few not-so-smart enemies try (And fail) to hit him before they died. But last combat was supposed to be "Oh-dang-we're-about-to-die" combat. And the enemies were more tactically minded than previous fights. I want him to be able to do the intimidate thing in combat and it help him, but also not make it so every time he gets into a fight he attempts to intimidate every single turn.
If he's using his action every turn to intimidate enemies, they'll soon realize he isn't actually a threat, if you're letting him do it without an action, fix that.
A whole action, do you think? Or a bonus action? And then how do I keep this precedent from affecting other in-combat skill checks that may happen? I really don't want it to seem like I'm picking on him. Because that's not my goal. I really enjoy his passion and creativity in this character.
A whole action, do you think? Or a bonus action? And then how do I keep this precedent from affecting other in-combat skill checks that may happen? I really don't want it to seem like I'm picking on him. Because that's not my goal. I really enjoy his passion and creativity in this character.
Part of Great Weapon Master feat gives you a bonus action to make an attack after a critical hit or reducing a creature to 0 hp.
Would a feat that granted the bonus action for a Str (Intimidation) check after a critical or downing a foe be reasonable? It would only be part of the feat. I’m not sure what the rest would be.
You could still have your player's pally try to intimidate the foe but, you could have it if one pass just describe as the other allies of the enemies take heart for their comrade not backing down and so further attempts won't work, and you could also get him that it just enrages the foes and they get advantage on strikes on the your player's pally
Oh I REALLY like that. It gives it even more risk/reward than just costing an action. So here's what I'll tell him:
Intimidating during combat takes an action.
If you succeed, the enemy will attack you exclusively and will get advantage on attack rolls made against you.
A failed intimidation attempt raised the next attempt DC by 5.
I'm not sure if it should be able to target multiple creatures at once or not. With all the other penalties/ trade-offs we've just added, I don't know if making it single-target is nerfing it too much. Plus I think it'd be fun to have like 10 creatures all at once trying to kill him. ESPECIALLY if he attracts the wrong kind of attention from an enemy mage that has abilities that don't care about your AC.
Trust me, limiting it to single-target usage is in no way a nerf. If you want to design something that is balanced, take a look at all the different feats & class features that cause a creature to target the character (there are a lot); they are almost exclusively limited to one creature. Some require an action, some require a bonus action, and some can only be done on a reaction (such as a penalty for not attacking that character). In particular, look at Unwavering Mark from the Cavalier subclass.
I'd recommend a feat that uses the main section of Unwavering Mark (the whole thing would be OP as a feat):
Intimidating Mark
You can menace your foes, foiling their attacks and punishing them for harming others.
As a bonus action, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can mark the creature until the end of your next turn. This effect ends early if you are incapacitated or you die, or if someone else marks the creature.
Until the effect ends, a marked creature who targets another creature other than you with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Charisma saving throw (DC = 8 + your Intimidation modifier). On a failed save, the creature must choose to target you or lose the attack or spell.
This would combine the pertinent effects of Unwavering Mark & Sanctuary without really going overboard either. They would still need to be actively involved in combat (a good thing), makes use of a bonus action (limits it to once a turn max), and allows them to utilize their Intimidation skill. It also gives you (as the DM) wiggle room to not always be 100% locked down by them using it.
I would not add any other effect or stat boost as that would be far too much from one feat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Also think about WHO is he trying to intimidate and what the reactions will be. Some enemies might aggro, others might run, and others might not understand what he's doing. Especially at the beginning of combat where the enemies don't know what he can do. If he wants to get a specific reaction out of his intimidation you might want to have him go through a round or two of combat to make the enemies take notice. So make him be smart about who he intimidates, and WHEN he uses it.
So after looking through a what you've suggested, what I've come up with is this:
Taunt: As an action, entice foes within 20' that can see you to attack you. Creature makes a CHA saving throw (DC= 8 + Intimidate skill modifier) or be drawn to attack you to the exclusion of all others. On a failed save, creature gains ADV on attack rolls made against you. Creature remakes save at the beginning of its turn until effect is broken.
I decided to make it able to effect multiple creatures at once because that
a) Makes it more detrimental to the player if he is dumb about its use and
b) Makes narrative sense. In the heat of battle, I assume the goblin next to the one whose mother you insulted won't know or care that you didn't actually insult ITS mother. .
Hey, I'm currently playing a gunslinger in a game using 5e rules. One of the trick shot perks I took was "Bullying Shot" which lets me expend a grit point to gain advantage on an intimidation check, that I make while firing one of my guns.
Currently, my DM is using it to essentially paralyze a single opponent in fear for 1 round, so like, if I shoot them, I can then roll (with advantage) to intimidate the person shot or someone nearby who's allied with that person.
Is this a correct use of the intimidate feat for 5e? (I know the gunslinger is Homebrew, the particular campaign we're doing is non-medieval)
Hey, I'm currently playing a gunslinger in a game using 5e rules. One of the trick shot perks I took was "Bullying Shot" which lets me expend a grit point to gain advantage on an intimidation check, that I make while firing one of my guns.
Currently, my DM is using it to essentially paralyze a single opponent in fear for 1 round, so like, if I shoot them, I can then roll (with advantage) to intimidate the person shot or someone nearby who's allied with that person.
Is this a correct use of the intimidate feat for 5e? (I know the gunslinger is Homebrew, the particular campaign we're doing is non-medieval)
The bullying shot is not meant to be used as an attack (trick shots that are attacks say so). This is meant to be more of a warning shot in the air type thing.
The DM has to set the DC for Persuasion and Intimidation checks. And sometimes it's so high that you won't succeed even on a natural 20. Players have their agency; you have agency over the NPCs. Charisma checks can inform your choices on their behalf, but they should not bind your hands.
If you designed a mechanic where his intimidation check works automatically with a certain roll, that was a mistake. Reform it so that it has a variable DC depending on the target that only you decide and know. The Paladin can't intimidate the dragon any more than the Bard can seduce it.
The DM has to set the DC for Persuasion and Intimidation checks. And sometimes it's so high that you won't succeed even on a natural 20. Players have their agency; you have agency over the NPCs. Charisma checks can inform your choices on their behalf, but they should not bind your hands.
If you designed a mechanic where his intimidation check works automatically with a certain roll, that was a mistake. Reform it so that it has a variable DC depending on the target that only you decide and know. The Paladin can't intimidate the dragon any more than the Bard can seduce it.
I think the 2 year old original post is dead. But if you would like to answer the 3 hour old necropost...
So I have a player who is a Conquest Paladin and really wants to be a tank. So far he's phenomenal at it... to my chagrin. He sort of built his character to be able to intimidate opponents into attacking him instead of his party members. I told him it was a thing we could do since he wanted to so badly and it makes sense to be able to do it.
The thing is we tried it out for a couple of not-so-bad combats and he used it pretty much every turn. It wasn't combat designed to threaten their lives or anything so I had a few not-so-smart enemies try (And fail) to hit him before they died. But last combat was supposed to be "Oh-dang-we're-about-to-die" combat. And the enemies were more tactically minded than previous fights. I want him to be able to do the intimidate thing in combat and it help him, but also not make it so every time he gets into a fight he attempts to intimidate every single turn.
Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.
If he's using his action every turn to intimidate enemies, they'll soon realize he isn't actually a threat, if you're letting him do it without an action, fix that.
A whole action, do you think? Or a bonus action? And then how do I keep this precedent from affecting other in-combat skill checks that may happen? I really don't want it to seem like I'm picking on him. Because that's not my goal. I really enjoy his passion and creativity in this character.
Most in combat skill checks require an action.
Part of Great Weapon Master feat gives you a bonus action to make an attack after a critical hit or reducing a creature to 0 hp.
Would a feat that granted the bonus action for a Str (Intimidation) check after a critical or downing a foe be reasonable? It would only be part of the feat. I’m not sure what the rest would be.
You could still have your player's pally try to intimidate the foe but, you could have it if one pass just describe as the other allies of the enemies take heart for their comrade not backing down and so further attempts won't work, and you could also get him that it just enrages the foes and they get advantage on strikes on the your player's pally
Oh I REALLY like that. It gives it even more risk/reward than just costing an action. So here's what I'll tell him:
Intimidating during combat takes an action.
If you succeed, the enemy will attack you exclusively and will get advantage on attack rolls made against you.
A failed intimidation attempt raised the next attempt DC by 5.
I'm not sure if it should be able to target multiple creatures at once or not. With all the other penalties/ trade-offs we've just added, I don't know if making it single-target is nerfing it too much. Plus I think it'd be fun to have like 10 creatures all at once trying to kill him. ESPECIALLY if he attracts the wrong kind of attention from an enemy mage that has abilities that don't care about your AC.
Trust me, limiting it to single-target usage is in no way a nerf. If you want to design something that is balanced, take a look at all the different feats & class features that cause a creature to target the character (there are a lot); they are almost exclusively limited to one creature. Some require an action, some require a bonus action, and some can only be done on a reaction (such as a penalty for not attacking that character). In particular, look at Unwavering Mark from the Cavalier subclass.
I'd recommend a feat that uses the main section of Unwavering Mark (the whole thing would be OP as a feat):
This would combine the pertinent effects of Unwavering Mark & Sanctuary without really going overboard either. They would still need to be actively involved in combat (a good thing), makes use of a bonus action (limits it to once a turn max), and allows them to utilize their Intimidation skill. It also gives you (as the DM) wiggle room to not always be 100% locked down by them using it.
I would not add any other effect or stat boost as that would be far too much from one feat.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderAlso think about WHO is he trying to intimidate and what the reactions will be. Some enemies might aggro, others might run, and others might not understand what he's doing. Especially at the beginning of combat where the enemies don't know what he can do. If he wants to get a specific reaction out of his intimidation you might want to have him go through a round or two of combat to make the enemies take notice. So make him be smart about who he intimidates, and WHEN he uses it.
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
So after looking through a what you've suggested, what I've come up with is this:
Taunt: As an action, entice foes within 20' that can see you to attack you. Creature makes a CHA saving throw (DC= 8 + Intimidate skill modifier) or be drawn to attack you to the exclusion of all others. On a failed save, creature gains ADV on attack rolls made against you. Creature remakes save at the beginning of its turn until effect is broken.
I decided to make it able to effect multiple creatures at once because that
a) Makes it more detrimental to the player if he is dumb about its use and
b) Makes narrative sense. In the heat of battle, I assume the goblin next to the one whose mother you insulted won't know or care that you didn't actually insult ITS mother. .
I appreciate all the help! Thanks a lot!
Possibly a silly question... why doesn't he just cast compelled duel?
Hey, I'm currently playing a gunslinger in a game using 5e rules. One of the trick shot perks I took was "Bullying Shot" which lets me expend a grit point to gain advantage on an intimidation check, that I make while firing one of my guns.
Currently, my DM is using it to essentially paralyze a single opponent in fear for 1 round, so like, if I shoot them, I can then roll (with advantage) to intimidate the person shot or someone nearby who's allied with that person.
Is this a correct use of the intimidate feat for 5e? (I know the gunslinger is Homebrew, the particular campaign we're doing is non-medieval)
The bullying shot is not meant to be used as an attack (trick shots that are attacks say so). This is meant to be more of a warning shot in the air type thing.
The DM has to set the DC for Persuasion and Intimidation checks. And sometimes it's so high that you won't succeed even on a natural 20. Players have their agency; you have agency over the NPCs. Charisma checks can inform your choices on their behalf, but they should not bind your hands.
If you designed a mechanic where his intimidation check works automatically with a certain roll, that was a mistake. Reform it so that it has a variable DC depending on the target that only you decide and know. The Paladin can't intimidate the dragon any more than the Bard can seduce it.
I think the 2 year old original post is dead. But if you would like to answer the 3 hour old necropost...
Couldn’t you make it a once per short rest action like second wind.