Best case is actually +17 with background +2.
-
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes has a launch date! Mark your calendars for November 12th, 2024. 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Click here to follow on Kickstarter!
Proposal: Background Benefits
- Thread starter CaBaNa
- Start date
Best case is actually +17 with background +2.
Intimidate to begin with is game breaking.
To make it even better is a mistake.
You can call what I wrote a rant all you like.
Just because WotC writes something down on paper doesn't make it balanced.
KD,
I would be interested in what makes you feel that intimidate is game breaking to begin with. Given what R1 said above, there are so many situations that intimidate just doesn't fly with that I don't understand your reasoning for calling a once-per-encounter ability to make a foe surrender game breaking. The biggest (and most abusive) case you called out on was against a solo creature with 400 HP. As a DM, I would NOT allow my solo creature to be intimidated by a lone character. Why SHOULD it be intimidated by him alone when he can hold his own against the whole party? Against a group of standard creatures, sure, but then you're looking at a huge penalty to begin with if its used in combat. Even given the uber focused build you described with a +17 to intimidate, the likelyhood of it being abusive is well, not likely. Compare this with the striker who has focused purely on damage. If a standard creature is at 1/2 HP, even given the case that it is an N+4 creature, you're looking at an average of 25-30 additional hit points. I've seen SEVERAL strikers dish out over 25-30 damage in a single encounter power.
I would be interested in what makes you feel that intimidate is game breaking to begin with. Given what R1 said above, there are so many situations that intimidate just doesn't fly with that I don't understand your reasoning for calling a once-per-encounter ability to make a foe surrender game breaking. The biggest (and most abusive) case you called out on was against a solo creature with 400 HP. As a DM, I would NOT allow my solo creature to be intimidated by a lone character. Why SHOULD it be intimidated by him alone when he can hold his own against the whole party? Against a group of standard creatures, sure, but then you're looking at a huge penalty to begin with if its used in combat. Even given the uber focused build you described with a +17 to intimidate, the likelyhood of it being abusive is well, not likely. Compare this with the striker who has focused purely on damage. If a standard creature is at 1/2 HP, even given the case that it is an N+4 creature, you're looking at an average of 25-30 additional hit points. I've seen SEVERAL strikers dish out over 25-30 damage in a single encounter power.
Velmont
First Post
I used Diplomacy... and reroll it with an action point. To no use...
I was thinking to take as a next feat Soldier of Virtue (and take Intimidate as Trained skill and maybe use that option more).But I agree with KD. This feat looks like broken if the DM doesn't use some judgement. I agree that some onster would never surrender (exemple: Fanatics, mindless creature), but I fear some DM would likely apply RAW.
First off, Intimidate is not once per encounter. It's a max of once per encounter per bloodied foe. The PC can do this several times in a single encounter against different sets of bloodied foes.
You'll note that several people here stated that they have never seen Intimidate used in their game. There is a reason for that, but it isn't the +10. The reason is that many players understand the uberness of Intimidate and do not create such PCs.
There are players who want to play "save or die" type PCs (such as Orbizards or Intimidate builds), but very few players do so.
As was shown by renau1g, it is fairly easy to get a high Initimidate skill. Still, few players do it. The main reason is because it feels a bit like cheating to lock down a foe or make it surrender without doing enough damage to it.
In the case of normal Intimidate, say a player took the skill and had a Cha of 18. That's a total of +9. The chance of success at first level against same level foes is 30% to 45%. A 50% to 60% chance to damage a foe, or a 30% to 45% chance to taking the foe out completely.
That still seems a bit cheesy, but not so bad.
Now, up the 30% to 45% to 45% to 60% with a feat like Skill Focus Intimidate and the choice becomes a no brainer. 45% to 60% chance to force a foe to surrender, or a 50% to 60% chance to damage a foe (and of course, multiple foes can simultaneously be attacked with Intimidate without any real range limit).
Skill Focus Intimidate is bad enough. Replace it with New Sarshel Enforcer and it becomes amazingly good.
Sure, the player could roll a 3 and a 6 and get zip for it. But there will be so many times that at least one of the two dice will be 15 or higher (51% of the time or half of the foes it is used against) that it becomes extremely problematic.
The PCs wipe out the encounter in 3/4ths the time. And that's with a single feat, let alone taking both of the feats.
One really has to understand Action Economy to understand how uber Intimidate really is straight from the book. Taking out one bloodied foe changes it from 5 on 5 to 5 on 4 and decreases the encounter by a half of a round (and uses slightly less resources, especially healing surges). Changing it from 5 on 5 to 5 on 3 decreases the encounter by a round. This could be fairly common. And this is with no expenditure of resources, in fact, it saves resources.
Now, throw in a Kalashtar PC (like CaBaNa's new one) and although the range is now limited to 5, there is never a +5 penalty to the roll for not understanding the language (course, literally by RAW this does not work since Intimidate states speak and not communicate, but I suspect most DMs would allow it).
Sure they can (typically not at level 1 though, it usually takes several feats and some magic items to get this). Does that mean that it is balanced for any non-Striker to do Striker level equivalent damage against multiple foes with basically unlimited range and not using up a resource?
To me, it's not just Intimidate by itself. It's Intimidate combined with 2 D20 rolls. That's when it becomes extremely problematic. That's when it will work in many more encounters.
When there are 3 bloodied foes and the PC with Intimidate has a good chance of taking out 2 or all 3 out of 3 of them with a single Standard action.
This isn't like your uber Perception PC that noticed a lot of stuff. This is the equivalent of a multi-target Daily power that does a ton of usable multiple times every single encounter.
Intimidate is badly designed, but most players do not use it because it is so cheesy. New Sarshel Enforcer is worse. Instead of 11 or higher 50% of the time, it's 15 or higher 50% of the time. And it stacks with Skill Focus Intimidate.
And Will defense isn't exactly the highest defense for the vast majority of creatures.
The counter question I would ask is: Given the problematic nature of Intimidate (assuming it is problematic, but not broken), why would you want to vote in a rule that makes it even easier to use?
As a DM here, just like I would not allow an Orbizard into my game, I wouldn't allow an Intimidate build either. But that's just me. I like the PCs to be challenged without them having a go to the well ability to take out foes that turns a normal non-Striker into an uber Striker without using up any resources.
PS. Go look at CaBaNa's PC. It has an Intimidate of +21 at level 4 (with same level foes with Will +10 in the 25 to 28 range, in the 29 to 33 range for N+4 foes) and it is a Kalashtar. What a monster!!!
LEB
C:Veruza Jeleka (CaBana) - ENWikiI have no issue with CaBaNa playing such a PC. That's between him and his DM. But to make that PC or any PC even more capable with Intimidate seems illogical and a bit unfair to the other PCs and the DM.
KD,
Thank you for your completely rational and logical counter arguments. I appreciate that despite the history we've had, we can still hold a discussion without it spiraling into a flame war. Brownie points to you
Your arguments are also valid and sound in my eyes, so you've won me over I had thought that the intimidate was a 1 per encounter (since it can't be used against the same enemies more than once), but I hadn't thought about using it against separate "pockets" of enemies, or even 1 on 1 multiple times over the encounter. Your reference to "Economy of actions" helped me to understand this better, and you're right, I can now see this being abused by a player with a DM who feels that he must run everything RAW (or has a judge who feels this way and overrules the DM).
In light of this, however, I do not think that the feat or the background are the problem (although they could be a significant contributor). I think the problem is the possible build abuse. For just the same reasons that we have not banned the frost cheese items/feats, I do not think we should necessarily ban this feat/background, but rather, we should look to reclarify the Intimidate rule. I, personally, think it should be a once-per-encounter ability, cause I honestly can't see someone failing an intimidate check against one group, and then intimidate another group in the same battle. If you meant to roar but mewed instead, then you should be stuck with those results. I also think that it should have a much smaller range than "enemy must be able to hear and see you" OR it should be given the same penalties to range that perception has (-1 per 10 feet/2 squares).
What do you think about that idea?
Thank you for your completely rational and logical counter arguments. I appreciate that despite the history we've had, we can still hold a discussion without it spiraling into a flame war. Brownie points to you
Your arguments are also valid and sound in my eyes, so you've won me over
I had thought that the intimidate was a 1 per encounter (since it can't be used against the same enemies more than once), but I hadn't thought about using it against separate "pockets" of enemies, or even 1 on 1 multiple times over the encounter. Your reference to "Economy of actions" helped me to understand this better, and you're right, I can now see this being abused by a player with a DM who feels that he must run everything RAW (or has a judge who feels this way and overrules the DM).In light of this, however, I do not think that the feat or the background are the problem (although they could be a significant contributor). I think the problem is the possible build abuse. For just the same reasons that we have not banned the frost cheese items/feats, I do not think we should necessarily ban this feat/background, but rather, we should look to reclarify the Intimidate rule. I, personally, think it should be a once-per-encounter ability, cause I honestly can't see someone failing an intimidate check against one group, and then intimidate another group in the same battle. If you meant to roar but mewed instead, then you should be stuck with those results. I also think that it should have a much smaller range than "enemy must be able to hear and see you" OR it should be given the same penalties to range that perception has (-1 per 10 feet/2 squares).
What do you think about that idea?
We have a bad history? Bummer.
Well, we do not need to ban the feat. It is already not allowed. It needs a special house rule to be allowed.
I think for the most part that it doesn't matter too much. Very few people use Intimidate and for those like CaBaNa who want to, I don't think we should say "Sorry, we are going to nerf your build". I personally dislike the Intimidate concept, but I don't think we should change the rules unless it does become a problem. And that problem proposal should be initiated by the DM or a fellow player in the group of a problem PC, not the LEB group here as a whole. I have no idea how CaBaNa will play that PC. He might use Intimidate once in a blue moon for all I know and reserve it as a "Opps, we're screwed" ability. So I don't think we should create a new proposal to nerf Intimidate, I think we should just not allow this particular New Sarshel Enforcer proposal. The 2 D20 rolls is what makes this go overboard.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted how things were. I'm all good with the way things have been between us, but I thought perhaps there was a bit of animosity due to the whole Lan thing. If not, then all good!
About the Intimidate thing, you're right again. Perhaps I was hasty in suggesting that we nerf a base skill. I was thinking that the feat was already allowed for whatever reason, but yeah, I don't think it should be allowed either, so I'll have to vote no on this proposal.
About the Intimidate thing, you're right again. Perhaps I was hasty in suggesting that we nerf a base skill. I was thinking that the feat was already allowed for whatever reason, but yeah, I don't think it should be allowed either, so I'll have to vote no on this proposal.
EvolutionKB
First Post
In my eyes, KD has shown wisdom and balance of the rules in this case. I think the background should be allowed, but not abused. If it becomes a problem for the DM/PCs this should be brought up again. I'll hold off to vote officially.
