10-23-2020, 06:47 PM | #31 |
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dreamland
|
Re: Passive intimidation?
I'd argue you weren't successfully intimidated if this step happened. If you have a chance to logically think through threat analysis, then that means you're deciding your actions, not him. You were merely in danger.
I'm not saying full on Fright Checks, I'm saying that someone has the emotion 'fear' and is reacting however they might while under the duress of 'fear'. And that will often be something bad for you, thus why it's a disadvantage. Intimidation lets you use that fear to help you out. |
10-23-2020, 09:02 PM | #32 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: Passive intimidation?
Quote:
Fear seems to have a threshold below actual fright checks (B360 that's more like "terrified" not "ordinary frightened") just like "Sanity-Blasting Fright Checks" (H141) are a step worse. It does sound like Intimidation is one way to interpret the "fear before terror" state of being (except when there's a critical involved: that actually IS terror since it produces a fright check) Normal failures' compliance ("state of fear") could prob be represented by Social Engineering rules... SE69 mentions "Apply the same penalty to the PC’s initial roll to attack, reflecting lack of confidence." so it's sort of like a Temporary Disadvantage (DX reduced by MoS) which goes away after making an attack. Actually surprised it only lasts a single second, but B359 "Influencing the PCs" guideline would otherwise be open-ended so it's nice to know something: When an NPC makes a successful Influence roll against a PC, the GM should apply the NPC’s margin of victory as a bonus or penalty (as appropriate) to the PC’s die rolls |
|
Tags |
barbarian, fearsome glare, fearsome stare, intimidation, size modifier, social interaction, strength |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|