No fleeing in the Fright Check Table?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

So, you're turning the margin resulting from the quick contest directly into penalties to combat abilities? Is this expanded anywhere?

Influencing the PCs box, basic set page 359 - Which is perhaps not an expansion so much as the germ of the idea, but it gives you the gist of things anyways.

Dungeon Fantasy 2 suggests a simplified implementation for use on NPCs (much in theme with the entire product line, which is all about cutting things down to the dungeon-delving essentials) where you use Intimidation vs IQ or Will to force an enemy to attack someone else, and must move away from you to do so (so you can shield someone by getting in front of them and Intimidating the attacker). But this sort of outright "mind control" isn't appropriate to inflict on PCs from just a basic skill use, because the players will likely lynch you.

[Athanbeli]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Influencing the PCs box, basic set page 359 - Which is perhaps not an expansion so much as the germ of the idea, but it gives you the gist of things anyways.

Yes, I know about that box. Still, I find the example it brings (sex-appeal to affect lecherousness and detect lies) somewhat easier to comprehend then influencing combat abilities trhough intimidation.
What should be influenced exactly? Attacks, defenses, anything that is combat-related?
I'd rather not turn intimidation into the ultimate skill.

[Zed]

It also makes little sense to me, especially in a DF setting where adventurers, especially PC's, take on dragons and demons and ... well... MONSTERS.

The mechanic also bothers me because a high combat skilled person would not be easily intimidated unless she has some other reasons to doubt her own abilities. A master sword monster slayer would shrug at something going GRRR at her. She might pause if the opponent demonstrates better swordsmanship or weird magic/powers or greater numbers though...

Rolling the Will + Skill you are using as the threat, CAPPED by Intimidate skill would make more sense to me for in-combat uses and for DF-styled settings.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

Yes, I know about that box. Still, I find the example it brings (sex-appeal to affect lecherousness and detect lies) somewhat easier to comprehend then influencing combat abilities trhough intimidation.
What should be influenced exactly? Attacks, defenses, anything that is combat-related?
I'd rather not turn intimidation into the ultimate skill.

Attacks, but not for very long. All it should do is give him an edge on the first round. Of course if he's attacking you with a chainsaw, the first round could be enough.

[Stormcrow]

It should only affect things which the intimidator is trying to influence. For instance, an NPC could wield a chainsaw and use Intimidation to warn the PC away. If the PC decides to attach anyway, roll the Quick Contest of Intimidation vs. Will. If the intimidator wins, apply his margin of victory as a penalty against the PCs' first attack roll, no more. It should not affect subsequent rounds. It should also not affect defenses, as the character was not intimidated against defending himself, only attacking. If the character has a secret Innate Attack or Affliction that the intimidator doesn't know about, it wouldn't affect that either. Just the first, normal attack.

Just keep the focus narrow, and it won't become the "ultimate skill."

Originally Posted by Zed

The mechanic also bothers me because a high combat skilled person would not be easily intimidated unless she has some other reasons to doubt her own abilities.

Those with Overconfidence should also be fairly immune to Intimidation.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Just keep the focus narrow, and it won't become the "ultimate skill."

QFT. This is true of all influence skills whether used by PCs or NPCs.