Intimidate Foe

[Glorelendil]

If I had a party drain 12 points against TN 18 in one round, I'd just have the Werewolf flee and fight some other time.

If it took more than a couple rounds, I'd have the Werewolf attacking some of those juicy Forward stance foes (spending Hate on Savage Assault...use it before you lose it!), and then run away at zero Hate.

[Rich H]

And there you have it: Spirit vs. Letter. I suppose it comes down to why you play games.

Heh, quite.

My point was, that my suggestion serves both spirit and letter, coherently. Which is why i fancy that solution.

Hmmm, no I don't think your suggestions serve the letter of the law but that's no bad thing. You pointed out in your initial post some great reasons as to why the RAW doesn't work for you and many people will share those opinions, me included, but your alterations are very much house rules and modifications. No bad thing - I'd much rather play in a game with your type of rules than ones where PCs just "'intimidate to their heart's content against the troll till he's weary, then finish him"; which sounds... how can I put this diplomatically... incredibly... erm... unsatisfying*.

* Phew. Passed my Courtesy roll.

[Feanor]

Thank you rich. I assumed since i posted up, that people here felt the same way about Intimidate Foe.

What i want, is something that is as close to what happens ingame, as possible. In some roleplaying games, this is very hard to come by. But, i think in this case, my suggestion comes closer than what the rules in ground has to offer.

On another note, i never said it didnt serve the letter of the law. But, on all your other pointers, i fully agree.

[Feanor]

Now, there are different ways of meeting a troll. If he has a few pals with him, the intimidating abuse comes at a much harder price. Maybe too hard, but against ONE very strong opponent, Intimidate Foe is by far the best way to face him.

As LM one can always send something else in too, catching the player characters between hammer and anvil, if wanted.

[Angelalex242]

Well, I consider it my personal mission to find the most efficient and effective way to finish the enemy off. That is, the one that mathematically has the highest win percentage. Whether it make sense or not is irrelevant to me, I do what works. I do what gets the other guy dead while taking as little damage as possible.

Forward stance against a troll, for example, is actually the best option anyway...because the troll has so many dice to hit that dodging him is practically impossible. You're GOING to get hit, no matter what you do. So you might as well acknowledge that fact and take him out ASAP. Even my TN 21 High Elf (Wits 8+lesser ring in defense) is going to get hit almost every time. Cause, well, that's the math. No sense arguing with it.

So yeah. Think of me as the speaker for the math drill. If my math leads me to an...unsatisfying conclusion, then it's probably best to make the satisfying conclusion mathematically better then the one I come up with.

[Glorelendil]

Well, I consider it my personal mission to find the most efficient and effective way to finish the enemy off. That is, the one that mathematically has the highest win percentage. Whether it make sense or not is irrelevant to me, I do what works. I do what gets the other guy dead while taking as little damage as possible.

Forward stance against a troll, for example, is actually the best option anyway...because the troll has so many dice to hit that dodging him is practically impossible. You're GOING to get hit, no matter what you do. So you might as well acknowledge that fact and take him out ASAP. Even my TN 21 High Elf (Wits 8+lesser ring in defense) is going to get hit almost every time. Cause, well, that's the math. No sense arguing with it.

So yeah. Think of me as the speaker for the math drill. If my math leads me to an...unsatisfying conclusion, then it's probably best to make the satisfying conclusion mathematically better then the one I come up with.

I don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't efficient. But that efficiency is possibly the result of an oversight in the design of still fairly young game. Whether or not you think that exploiting design weaknesses is part of the "fun" of games is up to you.

[Rich H]

Well, I consider it my personal mission to find the most efficient and effective way to finish the enemy off. That is, the one that mathematically has the highest win percentage. Whether it make sense or not is irrelevant to me, I do what works. I do what gets the other guy dead while taking as little damage as possible.

Forward stance against a troll, for example, is actually the best option anyway...because the troll has so many dice to hit that dodging him is practically impossible. You're GOING to get hit, no matter what you do. So you might as well acknowledge that fact and take him out ASAP. Even my TN 21 High Elf (Wits 8+lesser ring in defense) is going to get hit almost every time. Cause, well, that's the math. No sense arguing with it.

So yeah. Think of me as the speaker for the math drill. If my math leads me to an...unsatisfying conclusion, then it's probably best to make the satisfying conclusion mathematically better then the one I come up with.

If that's what floats your boat in tabletop RPGs then fine.

I don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't efficient. But that efficiency is possibly the result of an oversight in the design of still fairly young game. Whether or not you think that exploiting design weaknesses is part of the "fun" of games is up to you.

Exactly. And additionally, a lot of that information Angelalex is using is gamer knowledge not character knowledge. Some of it could be learnt over time by a character but if a player was continually using such exploits in a game, when their PC wouldn't really know it, then I'd have a quiet word with them and likely alter the stats of such creatures - give 'em a 'nice' surprise. Would probably even do that occasionally with characters that did know those things as it does make things more interesting. Could also raise the TN on the Intimidate Foe action after the first roll as the opponent is hardened to it ("he's hardening to your ways") or raise the TN is a previous roll failed ("he isn't scared of you guys as you crapped out last time").

[Angelalex242]

Trolls are typically SO Dangerous that if you fail the roll, you'll just shrug and spend the hope point. You need to get that troll weary ASAP.

And then finish him with piercing called shots. People are only gonna fail if they roll badly enough hope can't save the roll.

Which, if I were the LM, is what I'd tell a character with Troll Slayer.

"You know the best way to kill a troll is to scare him silly, then finish him off with well aimed piercing weapons like arrows and spears."

[Rich H]

Thank you rich. I assumed since i posted up, that people here felt the same way about Intimidate Foe.

What i want, is something that is as close to what happens ingame, as possible. In some roleplaying games, this is very hard to come by. But, i think in this case, my suggestion comes closer than what the rules in ground has to offer.

On another note, i never said it didnt serve the letter of the law. But, on all your other pointers, i fully agree.

No problem, I totally get why you find it unsatisfying and I think that your changes do improve the usage of the Intimidate Foe option in combat. I know my suggestions work well with my group - they like how they can declare the target through RPing it and understand its limits - ie, once you've intimidated something then they can't be intimidated any more as you've effectively scared them successfully, in the same way as when a character gets daunted. I think my changes, and yours as they are similar, lead to far more satisfying combat encounters with the more dangerous/larger/iconic enemies. I love how the rules allow these kind of tweaks based on personal play style. Far better than it being over-wrought and over-developed. They allow for a GM to alter and apply rulings like dials that fine tune the rules.

[Feanor]

TOUCHE