So I may have overlooked something that's common knowledge in the ruleset, but it seems like there should be some concrete mechanic behind attempts to intimidate, especially in combat. A lot of times I'll have a player just tag "I roar intimidatingly into his face." as flavor to punctuate their turns. And I instinctively reply "make an intimidation check." I have no DC in my head, and no idea what success or failure would mean in terms of combat. Would a big dumb ogre be intimidated by this puny barbarian enough to pick an new target for fear of engaging this intimidating one?
I know that I could decide that the intimidated NPC is now mechanically frightened. But that seems a powerful tool just for having proficiency in Intimidation or even just rolling better than the NPC. (And vs what? CON? WIS? CHA?) How do you all deal with intimidation outside of pumping NPCs for information?
Their is an action for this, which is merely the "make a check" action. As for how you do it, it's up to you. I personally wouldn't make them frightened, I'd just possibly give them disadvantage on attack rolls against the intimidator until the end of their next turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
That’s a good thought. Would people with spells that do the same thing feel like that steps on their toes a bit? Casters have to Viciously Mock or Frostbite or something as an action to impose disadvantage on a target’s next attack. But I guess you’re saying ‘intimidating’ would be the action taken by the melee guy, which would mean he couldn’t both attack and intimidate on the same turn (barring an action surge from a fighter). What about intimidating as a bonus action? I think of all the guys who like to flex on other guys by faking an aggressive lunge just to make the other guy flinch and look fearful. That’s not full action-worthy. It’s like a 1/2 second spasm. I realize the D&D combat rules don’t line up perfectly with the laws of physics, and you’re forced to choose between rules and realism quite often. But what about that?
Absent the allowance of a Bonus Action intimidation to gain a mechanical benefit (disadvantage on next attack against intimidator), what I’m getting from your response is that if a player attacks and then says they “intimidatingly roar in his face”, I need to just let it go as flavor and not try to factor it into the action. Accurate?
So I may have overlooked something that's common knowledge in the ruleset, but it seems like there should be some concrete mechanic behind attempts to intimidate, especially in combat. A lot of times I'll have a player just tag "I roar intimidatingly into his face." as flavor to punctuate their turns. And I instinctively reply "make an intimidation check." I have no DC in my head, and no idea what success or failure would mean in terms of combat. Would a big dumb ogre be intimidated by this puny barbarian enough to pick an new target for fear of engaging this intimidating one?
I know that I could decide that the intimidated NPC is now mechanically frightened. But that seems a powerful tool just for having proficiency in Intimidation or even just rolling better than the NPC. (And vs what? CON? WIS? CHA?) How do you all deal with intimidation outside of pumping NPCs for information?
The contested check is typically insight. (See Menacing feat).
and intimidation only goes so far. A dragon probably won’t be intimidated by any person unless said person has a visible “dragon slayer” weapon.
Based on the section on actions, where it says, "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies....", I would rule that if you are just doing it for flavor, whatever, go for it. But if you want to use your Intimidation to, say, terrify an enemy into surrendering, then you would need to spend your action for the round, doing the Intimidation rather than an attack (much like you could use Investigation as your action to search for something during combat).
It would then be up to the player to decide... burn the action on Intimidate, or make an attack. Depending on the circumstances, one might be smarter to do than the other.
As for DC, you'd have to come up with some rules for that or do it on the fly. It would be based on circumstance. Is the side being intimidated winning? If so, then DC = infinite, since why would a winning side surrender? Is it about even? Probably very hard, DC = 30 or more. Is the intimidated side losing? Now it is more possible, and will depend how much. 25% of their side is down, DC = 25 maybe... 50% of the side is down, DC = 20. 75% of their side is down, DC = 15, and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I may have overlooked something that's common knowledge in the ruleset, but it seems like there should be some concrete mechanic behind attempts to intimidate, especially in combat. A lot of times I'll have a player just tag "I roar intimidatingly into his face." as flavor to punctuate their turns. And I instinctively reply "make an intimidation check." I have no DC in my head, and no idea what success or failure would mean in terms of combat. Would a big dumb ogre be intimidated by this puny barbarian enough to pick an new target for fear of engaging this intimidating one?
I know that I could decide that the intimidated NPC is now mechanically frightened. But that seems a powerful tool just for having proficiency in Intimidation or even just rolling better than the NPC. (And vs what? CON? WIS? CHA?) How do you all deal with intimidation outside of pumping NPCs for information?
Their is an action for this, which is merely the "make a check" action. As for how you do it, it's up to you. I personally wouldn't make them frightened, I'd just possibly give them disadvantage on attack rolls against the intimidator until the end of their next turn.
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."
That’s a good thought. Would people with spells that do the same thing feel like that steps on their toes a bit? Casters have to Viciously Mock or Frostbite or something as an action to impose disadvantage on a target’s next attack. But I guess you’re saying ‘intimidating’ would be the action taken by the melee guy, which would mean he couldn’t both attack and intimidate on the same turn (barring an action surge from a fighter). What about intimidating as a bonus action? I think of all the guys who like to flex on other guys by faking an aggressive lunge just to make the other guy flinch and look fearful. That’s not full action-worthy. It’s like a 1/2 second spasm. I realize the D&D combat rules don’t line up perfectly with the laws of physics, and you’re forced to choose between rules and realism quite often. But what about that?
Absent the allowance of a Bonus Action intimidation to gain a mechanical benefit (disadvantage on next attack against intimidator), what I’m getting from your response is that if a player attacks and then says they “intimidatingly roar in his face”, I need to just let it go as flavor and not try to factor it into the action. Accurate?
That would be my call. Unless a player is telling you they are trying to intimidate a foe, it's just flavor.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
The contested check is typically insight. (See Menacing feat).
and intimidation only goes so far. A dragon probably won’t be intimidated by any person unless said person has a visible “dragon slayer” weapon.
it falls along the lines of bard seduction.
doesnt work for everything.
Watch me on twitch
Based on the section on actions, where it says, "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies....", I would rule that if you are just doing it for flavor, whatever, go for it. But if you want to use your Intimidation to, say, terrify an enemy into surrendering, then you would need to spend your action for the round, doing the Intimidation rather than an attack (much like you could use Investigation as your action to search for something during combat).
It would then be up to the player to decide... burn the action on Intimidate, or make an attack. Depending on the circumstances, one might be smarter to do than the other.
As for DC, you'd have to come up with some rules for that or do it on the fly. It would be based on circumstance. Is the side being intimidated winning? If so, then DC = infinite, since why would a winning side surrender? Is it about even? Probably very hard, DC = 30 or more. Is the intimidated side losing? Now it is more possible, and will depend how much. 25% of their side is down, DC = 25 maybe... 50% of the side is down, DC = 20. 75% of their side is down, DC = 15, and so on.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.