Intimidation checks in combat?

[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.

[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.

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.

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.