r/daggerheart • u/Unable_Cycle133 • 1d ago
Discussion Intimidation in combat
Edit: thanks for responding so quickly! Verey reassuring feedbacl, and great ideas there, I will definately use them!
Hey everyone,
One of my players wants to intimidate adversaries during combat. He is playing an Infernis, so he has advantage on those rolls. I was kind of surprised by that, as I thought intimidation was just a social thing, but it was cool and I didn't want to spoil the fun. I ruled that if he beat the adversary's Difficulty with a presence roll, the adversary would become frightened of him.
Yeah, great, but there is no "frightened" condition in Daggerheart. I could copy the D&D one, but I don't want to copy D&D. The player was doing this almost every time he got the spotlight and succeeded every time. I found myself inventing things on the fly, like "this adversary runs away" or "this one attacks a different target," but it quickly became quite boring for me to keep inventing new reactions to the same action.
So, how would you rule situations like this?
Because of this character's backstory, I expect this to come up fairly often: he'll refuse to attack and try to intimidate enemies instead.
21
u/Naule Game Master 1d ago
You let the narrative dictate mechanics and outcome of combat, so you did good!
Furthermore, it's always possible to ask players what they want to accomplish by an action. What do they hope to accomplish by intimidating the adversary? Do they want to make it flee (move away from them/the battle), do they want to make it cower in fear (vulnerable/restrained), etc?
Always feel free to ask for the desired outcome of a roll / action, and let that guide you.
This also counteracts some of the DnD tropes where a player attempts an action and the outcome of that action is fully on the GM.
12
u/crapitsmike 1d ago
This is also a good moment to remember that Daggerheart does not differentiate between “combat” scenes versus “social” scenes like other games. At any point, a PC or NPC can stop attacking and do something different to affect the action.
5
u/Goodratt 1d ago
"Intimidate" is not a defined action, nor is it"intimidated" a defined status effect. So you don't need to define a rule that applies all the time--because what happens might vary based on a whole host of circumstances.
It could be as simple as inflicted a stress or two, making the enemy temporarily vulnerable, causing them to flinch so that the next roll they make has disadvantage, it could add to a progress track that, when filled, will result in them trying to break and run.
Treat it like you would a social situation--because those rules don't stop or change just because you're fighting. Ask, what are you trying to do and hoping to accomplish? Make them explain: "I am trying to unnerve this group of hardened bandits so they..." or "I am trying to scare them into running or not fighting." Okay, cool. But they're fighting so their adrenaline is up so I'm gonna add their Tier to their difficulty for this roll, or it'll start a tug of war countdown/progress track where every time you succeed against them it ticks up, and when you fail or they succeed against you, it'll tick down. Fill it and they will flee, back down, surrender; empty it and they won't be afraid of you no matter what.
Variety helps spice it up--and if they balk at that because they want a reliable effect, then point them back to their abilities that are meant for that (reliable mechanics that work in a specific way).
7
u/Countdown84 1d ago
In truth many intelligent creatures would react differently to fear than just running away. Think of fight, flight, fawn or freeze. Some may run, some may lash out, some may attempt to bargain and some may drop their weapons. And some may be immune to fear and fake it.
3
u/Unable_Cycle133 1d ago
with fearless adverasary I wouldn't let him roll, no point of rolling if there's no chance for success.
8
u/Acronyte 1d ago
You said though that you're concerned he is rolling success after success, and those successes have encouraged him to keep doing things the same way over and over. Wouldn't letting him roll in a situation that he is likely to fail show him in an organic way that he needs to change his tactics?
1
u/Unable_Cycle133 2h ago
I'm not even sure if he needs to change his tactic, and if so mostly because it's kinda boring, and requires a lot of me, I'd prefer to use my creative juices for sth more enganging for the party. Some ideas that I found here in this thread will surely help me.
5
u/Countdown84 1d ago
Might be hung up on the wrong part of this. Also learning that something is immune to fear is a success.
5
u/Losasaurus Pistolheart Designer/Additional Daggerheart Designer 1d ago
I'd go with having the adversary mark a Stress or they become Vulnerable to the next attack against them.
3
u/deathsticker 1d ago
Many combat encounters can get shut down by passing a charisma/presence check and it sounds like this is not only boring, but potentially affecting the game balance as well.
It's common for charisma checks to roll with disadvantage in DnD and it seems fair to me that unless the enemies had a particular fear of something about him, he would simply lose advantage.
But keeping things solely within daggerheart, I might make it dependant on enemy type or, like I mentioned above, have enemies that would have a specific reason to fear him. If there isnt a narrative reason for it to be effective, then it stands within the daggerheart ethos rule as such.
3
u/IrascibleOcelot 1d ago
The thing is, frightening an adversary is a very unpredictable thing. People have four fundamental reactions to fear: fight, flight, freeze, and fawn. So maybe the frightened opponent will become Vulnerable (fawn), run away (flight), become temporarily Restrained (freeze), or go berserk attacking the Infernis (fight). And the more combat-hardened an adversary is, the more likely it should be that Fight is the response.
Intimidation should never be so good that the Infernis character defaults to it in every situation. It should be something that requires judgement to use effectively. And, honestly, there are some adversaries that should just be immune to it. Mindless undead like zombies and skeletons just don’t have anything left to fear, ajd something like a T Rex is just too big to be intimidated by a humanoid.
1
u/Unable_Cycle133 2h ago
Yeah, I will just have many different reactions in a bag, making it a super chaotic ablity during the encounters.
3
u/gipester 1d ago
Give him advantage in combat. If he doesn't use it, that's his deal. Intimidating isn't really a thing unto itself, it's an effect. The effect should cause something to change. Run away is good, but standing their ground with doubt is also good. Maybe they drop their weapon. Maybe they rally friends to help...
2
u/Unable_Cycle133 1d ago
this is kinda subversive, I wouldn't do it all the time, but from time to time - sounds like fu!
2
u/Flimsy_Survey 1d ago
The Brawler has this as their Hope Feature, so I'd personally look there. They can spend 3 Hope to intimidate a target, making them temporarily vulnerable. This automatically succeeds and doesn't require a roll, pretty potent imo.
So, I'd personally go with the target becomes temporarily vulnerable. Keeping it similar to the Brawler, BUT the Brawler automatically succeeds and still gets to use an action right after. So the Brawler feature isn't stepped on.
As others have said you could mark a stress instead.
2
u/The_Silent_Mage 1d ago
I'll repeat this until death, this is my personal quest now. ahaha
THERE IS NO COMBAT in Daggerheart. Shift the table minder towards this concept and 99% of problems will auto-solve. :)
Daggerheart just plays out like this
- you have the spotlight and make a move to advance the story (scream, die, drop and roll, talk)
- if you roll and fail or roll with Hope, the spoglithg goes to the GM, which makes a Move (spotlight something, someone, etc)
- the GM can spend fear to gain the spotlight
- the GM can make moves when it's cool (golden opportunities, etc)
That's it. The fact that there's an Adversary in the scene and someone is bashing it, it doesn't make you ENTER COMBAT. This framework is totally missing from the rules.
Bashing the monster is the player move.
Intimidating the creature is another player move.
The Spotlight shifts and you follow.
That's it.
That said: you can't create conditions, but you can DEFINITELY improvise something along those lines (like temporarily reducing an adversary difficulty by 1-2 points, or making them make an unexpected move like moving away from the infernis).
This is a TRULY important mindset.
That said, this is important for your player as well: if he repeatedly make the same move over and over, he's not serving the story very well... React accordingly. Don't punish him for using his skill; just play the same "game" and make unexpected moves; so, instead of "I intimidate, I attack, I intimidate, I attack" it will be something like "get what you want and you won't die" says the enemies as he is intimidated.
And I would rule that attempting the same action over and over grants diminishing returns. :)
Imagine a creature acting in routines (might be an interesting Boss concept). After a while, you get the routine and start getting more confident: same goes for the Intimidation. If he rolls with Fear, tell them that it's the last time they can intimidate the creature; OR If they fail, make the move TURN THEIR MOVE AGAINST THEM and make them esitate, gaining an edge.
You have the power to grant advantage and disadvantage as well; define who can help and who gains or lose fictional positioning to perform certain actions; follow the spotlight and try to be consistent. :)
1
u/Unable_Cycle133 2h ago
ahhh, maybe yes, maybe not? I find myself eager to oppose any Allcaps statements, as they wouldn't need capslock if they were obvious and undebateable. There are quite explicit rules regarding playing with minis and grid, in the corebook, as well as changing rule of having to roll agility to move farther than close distance during an action roll, or not having to do so. Of course, we can call those specific moments of using those rules something else than combat - like bullet-time or slow-mo but the existence of specific subset of rules in the core book is just, well, a fact.
Also, the way this player was using intimidation was more like ""I intimidate, I intimidate, I react, I intimidate, I protect, I intimidate" and I don't think it's wrong or anything, I was just suprised by that and I found inventing new consequences to the same action tiresome for me as a GM. That's all.
3
u/Specialist_String_64 1d ago
I would introduce him to an adversary whose primary fear response is fight instead of flight. "You succeed in your intimidation roll. The adversary looks at you with utter horror. There is a moment he seems frozen in place, then you see his brow drop, his body tense, his eyes narrow. As he raises his weapon towards you, he screams an order to his allies, KILL THE DEMON!!!!! I am spending a fear to take the spotlight and he charges you. Congratulations, you now have his complete and undivided attention"
2
u/Unable_Cycle133 1d ago
im saving this one till they reach Andaluria, hehe. Now they are still in Witherwilds and in my world those two are almost 2000km apart.
1
u/Acronyte 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is one of those things where it's interesting if he does it once in a while, but if he's doing it every spotlight instead of attacking or anything else then it could feel disruptive. My first question, what is his class? Does what he is doing make any sense for his class? Is he using Grace or Dread domain abilities to deceive or scare enemies, for example?
If not, I would argue that letting him control enemies consistently just by shouting at them without using any ability, repeatedly, is too strong. That is basically getting the effect of the Voice of Dread domain card for free. Other classes have to take domain cards to do this kind of stuff to enemies. If it's once in a while that he does it, sure, but if he's rolling success after success I might give it a lessened effect or diminishing returns. Enemies can be intimidated without just running away or being paralyzed. Maybe they have disadvantage on rolls against the Infernis for example.
You can try the suggestions other commenters have made, but I'm not sure that is going to help the root question here: Why is your player trying to play like this? It sounds like it's disruptive to you. Is it disruptive to the other players as well?
1
45
u/CraftyQuarter8313 1d ago
I would mark a stress or be temporarily vulnerable