OPTIONAL RULES FOR USE OF THE INTIMIDATE SKILL:

INTIMIDATING PALADINS AND VAMPIRES

Intimidation is a very complex process, involving many components governing the result of interaction between its initiator (the “aggressor”) and its intended recipient (the “target”). But the definition of Intimidation is very simple: it is simply conveying to the target that it is facing something beyond its ability to handle, which it should retreat from or avoid (which can be very different from inspiring fear). Basically, intimidation always involves the aggressor presenting some unpleasant prospect to the target.

The target must be aware of the aggressor, and the aggressor must spend a standard action to attempt to demoralize the target. There are four steps to this process.

1) The unpleasant prospect presented by the aggressor may be spoken or unspoken, but should be clear and unambiguous.

General threats that the target will “be sorry” or “regret this” are very rarely heeded. This does not necessarily entail a common language, though --- my favorite example is that of a human fighter driving off a hungry bear from his party's campsite by shouting and waving a torch in its face, effectively saying in the bear's language: “Go away or I'll burn your face.” There is nothing ambiguous about that, despite the fact that no words are actually spoken.

2) The aggressor must choose a prospect that is genuinely unpleasant to the target.

Step 2 involves the substance of the threat, and whether it is something that the target actually fears. Some targets are desperate or suicidal enough to not fear pain or death, which makes threats of physical violence against them hollow. A careless bully who is unacquainted with his intended target may even actually “threaten” the target with something that the target wants to happen!

3) The aggressor must choose a prospect that seems feasible.

Step 3 involves the aggressor's appearance, which is why Charisma should be the default attribute for Intimidate checks. The aggressor may always use his Charisma as the attribute to apply to the Intimidation check, or perhaps substitute another if it is more directly connected to a successful carrying out of the threat made. A wizard may want to rattle off statistics of the dangerous new area-effect spell he's just perfected, using his Intelligence modifier --- this could well be more effective to a target far below him in a courtyard with no cover, as opposed to a target standing 5' away. It would also be more effective against a heavily armored cleric with a bad Reflex save than against a high-level rogue with improved evasion. A burly barbarian threatening to smash someone to a pulp might choose to base his Intimidation check on his Strength attribute.

4) The aggressor must choose a prospect that the target believes the aggressor to have control over.

Step 4 is more about the target's beliefs. If the aggressor's intended threat is simply not feasible to the target, it doesn't matter whether the target is mistaken. No Intimidate check is going to work. The GM may rule that any threat is invalid, if perceived as invalid by the target, even if the threat is valid in fact.

Can paladins or undead (or other creatures immune to fear) be Intimidated?

There is a case to be made that they most certainly should. The method of Intimidation involves the aggressor's use of an unpleasant prospect. The mere fact that a being may be “immune to fear” need not necessarily counteract this. Again, the definition of Intimidation is very simple: it is simply conveying to the target that it is facing something beyond its ability to handle, which it should retreat from or avoid (which can be very different from inspiring fear). Paladins could well be successfully intimidated by an evil rogue threatening harm against innocents or hostages.

Intelligent undead and other evil monsters do avoid direct conflicts with enemies whom they know possess the power to defeat them easily. Therefore, at some point, such creatures must make mental calculations about their prospective opponents' relative power levels. Since vampires (and other intelligent undead) are not infallible, it is possible for them to make mistakes in these calculations. It is therefore possible for an outmatched, but clever, aggressor to mislead a vampire into making such mistakes --- to, in effect, fool the vampire into thinking that the aggressor has the power to defeat him easily when he in fact does not, thereby convincing the vampire to attempt to leave or avoid the encounter. Therefore it is possible to Intimidate the vampire.

Any creature that has a mind --- which is capable of making decisions and gauging a potential enemy's relative strength or weakness, and who has a sense of self-preservation, or at least desires of some sort --- can be Intimidated. Being Intimidated is simply the result of the impression (true or not) that you're “in over your head”, which is a very different prospect from the visceral reactions that produce fear effects (as the game treats them).

Should any creatures remain immune to Intimidation? 

Yes, the mindless, zombies, oozes, and the like. Also, any creature that is intelligent but is genuinely uncaring to all prospects that the aggressor might speak of should be immune. An immortal creature bored with existence would be near impervious to Intimidation, as would be a damned soul that has suffered for a million years and believes itself doomed to suffer a million more.

Which attribute should the aggressor use in his Intimidate check?

He can always use Charisma. Or he could choose another attribute for making specific threats connected to that attribute (Strength, for example, in the case of a threat to apply physical violence to the target in melee).

Are some Intimidate checks automatic failures?

Note that the GM may rule the aggressor's Intimidation check an automatic failure in the case of a particularly ill-chosen threat. However, in such a case the GM should still have the target (PC or NPC) make an opposed roll, to hide the fact that the failure was automatic.

How does the target respond?

The target may simply choose to relent, and accept demoralization (becoming shaken).

The target may respond with belligerence, implying that he can easily handle whatever the aggressor may be about to dish out. This is represented by the target making an ordinary Intimidate check to oppose the aggressor's roll. The target may not substitute another attribute for Charisma unless the aggressor did, in which case the target may choose to instead use whatever attribute the aggressor used. If they meet or beat the aggressor's roll they resist the Intimidation; attempts by the target to “turn the tables” and intimidate the aggressor cost a standard action and require a new roll.

Alternatively, the target may respond with skepticism, implying that the aggressor is not capable of actually carrying out the threat. This is represented by the target making an ordinary Sense Motive check. The target may not substitute another attribute for Wisdom. If they meet or beat the aggressor's roll they resist the Intimidation. Furthermore, if the GM rules that the aggressor's threat is perceptibly credible, he can rule the target's roll an automatic failure, and the aggressor's Intimidation automatically successful. Note that in this case the GM should still have the target (PC or NPC) make their opposed roll, so as not to give away that the success of the intimidation was automatic.

AGGRESSOR ROLLS TO INTIMIDATE:

Intimidate ranks + appropriate modifier + HD + bonuses applicable to resisting fear.

Aggressor automatically fails if he fails to make a threat the target finds unpleasant.

TARGET ROLLS TO RESIST:

Intimidate check + appropriate modifier + HD (to say, “Bring it on!”)

Target cannot automatically fail.

OR

Sense Motive check + Wis modifier + bonuses to applicable to resist fear (to say, “I think you're bluffing”)

Target automatically fails if the threat is visibly and truly credible.

EXAMPLES

Borgash the half-orc wants to threaten a blacksmith into repairing his armor for free, and straightens out a horseshoe with his bare hands, implying that he will beat up the blacksmith if he doesn't comply. The GM rules the threat is truly and visibly credible. The blacksmith, who resents being pushed around, decides to respond with his own Intimidate check as he gets in Borgash's face. He may choose to use the ability modifier for Charisma (the default) or Strength (following the bully's lead); since the Blacksmith is of course not physically weak, he chooses Strength. Borgash makes an Intimidate check using his Strength modifier, adds his hit dice, and gets a 19. The blacksmith gets a 13, and even his +4 Strength modifier is insufficient. He complies.

Victor Malencourt, a high-level rogue, tries to threaten the innocent-looking Lady Jeanine with the implication that he will arrange an “accident” for her aged father if she resists his advances. He makes an Intimidate check using Wisdom, adds his hit dice, and gets 32. But unbeknownst to Victor, Lady Jeanine secretly hates her father (who has always been crass and heartless to her), and would love collect her inheritance. The GM rules that the threat is not a valid one, because the target does not find it unpleasant. The GM makes a die roll anyway, so as not to give away this fact to the player of Victor Malencourt, but ignores the result. Lady Jeanine does not have to make a roll; the Intimidation automatically fails.

Ashlan Devron, a leg-breaker for a local loan shark, dangles a thief off the edge of a high building. His threat is that he will drop the thief, which he fully intends to do if not told where a secret cache of money is. However, the thief is Jillian Mayfair, a clever halfling rogue who is wearing a ring that allows her to fly at will. She is quite frightened of Ashlan dragging her back onto the roof and beating her to a pulp, but not at all frightened of being dropped. The GM rules that Ashlan's threat, though truly and visibly credible (he is obviously capable of dropping her) is nevertheless invalid, because the target does not find it unpleasant (and indeed, hopes it will come to pass so she can escape). The Intimidation automatically fails. Note that if Ashlan drags Jillian back onto the roof and threatens to strangle her, his threats will be equally truly and visibly credible, but valid as well.

Romstein Kalgon, a high-level mage, threatens Saxon Kingsley, a high-level rogue, with a disintegrate spell. He is bluffing and has no such spell in memory. However, Saxon has no way of knowing this. Saxon has a poor Fortitude save, and his improved evasion and high Reflex save are not helpful against disintegrate. The GM rules that Romstein's threat is valid, because the target finds the threat unpleasant; it is also visibly credible as seen by the target, even if not truly credible (since Romstein cannot cast the spell). Romstein's Intimidate check uses Intelligence and totals 27 after adding his hit dice. Saxon chooses to respond belligerently, necessitating an Intimidate check of his own. Saxon chooses to use the default attribute of Charisma, since his Charisma is higher than his Intelligence, but rolls at 20 --- low enough to result in his Intimidation. Note that if Saxon had chosen to use his Sense Motive check, the result may have been different, since the threat was not “truly” credible.

Mandrake, a 12 th -level fighter with 18 strength, threatens Bilyam, a 2 nd -level fighter with 10 strength and 8 charisma, in a bar with a display of physical strength. Bilyam has been drinking heavily, and the GM grants him a +4 bonus to resist fear for this reason. Mandrake rolls poorly, totalling 18 on his Intimidate check even after adding his hit dice and Strength modifier, which fails to beat Bilyam's total of 20. Bilyam chose to use his own Intimidate skill instead of his Sense Motive skill to resist Mandrake's intimidation, so the fact that Mandrake's threat is valid in fact does not matter. The intoxicated Bilyam genuinely believes that he could easily defeat Mandrake, and no amount of further bullying will convince him otherwise. The Intimidation fails.