A quick look at Intimidate: the D&D wunderskill

[greywulf]

/greywulf claps hands in glee.

I love how this thread is turning out. Thanks for all the input, folks.

The only issue I have with what's been said so far is this:

So, we're back to the 3.0 version of the skill where you have an unlimited Suggestion spell at your beck and call. After all, if I intimidate the baddy, he does what I say. There was a reason they took that bit out of 3.0 and added the 1 minute bit in 3.5. If I can do it as a standard action then it is WAY overpowered.

This is like saying

* "Let's get rid of Longswords+1, because that's like being able to cast Magic Weapon at will."
* "We have to limit the Open Locks skill, because it's even more powerful than Open/Close."
* "The Hide skill is way too powerful. It's like Invisibility, but without the duration!"

You get the idea, I'm sure. Magic isn't the only way to do things, and not always the best.

Here's the baseline: skills can be good - brilliant and essential, even. They are as intrinsic and important a part of a character's list of abilities as feats or even the supposedly all-powerful spell list. So what if some of them are great (Hide, Move Silently, and Intimidate), and some (Use Rope?! I ask you....) are just staggeringly dull. I'm pretty sure there'll be gamers out there foaming at the mouth because the only skill their character ever uses is Use Rope, and he's an 18th level Fiendish Half-Elf Shadowdancer/Paladin of Horus. But I digress......

I like the -10 to use Intimidate in a Full Round. That's a good compromise that takes the edge off the worst (potential) abuses of the skill if my House Rule of "it's a standard action" doesn't suit. That's cool.

On the "role-play vs. rule-play" debate, I'd say that the skills should reflect the character, not your abilities as a player. If you play the character as intimidaing, then they should have the Intimidate skill to a reasonable degree. If you're not, then the skill rolls will help. I do give bonuses for great acting though (never penalties for poor acting skills). You wouldn't neglect to take the Hide skill for your Rogue, just because you (the player) is wearing black.

Keep it coming

 

[LostSoul]

Actually, that not a good analogy. PC's don't put points into shields. I say it's a Bad DM becasue he's ignoiring the die roll, a nat one and nat 20 don't matter when by the rules they do. There are areas of every game that are not always as defined as some poeple would like them to be and this is one of those areas that seperates a doog, bad, and great DM from each other. Not everyone can handle vague and so they fail.

Compare it to the Tumble skill, then. There's no messing around - you know exactly what happens when you make (or fail) the skill check. But if the Tumble skill said "Tumble helps a character avoid attacks of opportunity", you'd see a lot of different uses in different games.

The other part of your post - knowing how to rule social skills separates good DMs from poor ones - I agree with. I just think that it would be easier on new DMs (and people who play in different groups!) if the rule reinforced "good" DMing techniques.

So when you Intimidate the Dragon, you don't end up saying, "Dude! I just made a successful check! I wanted to scare him away - why are we sitting down for tea?"

 

[brehobit]

I personally hate these skills because this stuff _should_ be role-played. What I do is ask for a roll _after_ the roleplaying happens and use the roleplaying as a _big_ modifier. Sense motive I tend to use as an opposed check (but the DM rolls the check for the players).

Its nice to have a measure of how diplomatic or intemidating a character is. But the player needs to figure out what buttons to push and/or have a good story. You can be as diplomatic as you'd like, but the king won't sign the treaty unless he thinks there is a good reason.

Mark

 

[pawsplay]

It's exactly this sentiment that makes Intimidate (and Diplomacy) worthless.

Funny, they get plenty of use in my games. I like it a lot better than, "Get red dragon to do stupid action X on a roll of 17 or better."

It also means that my PCs and NPCs are on equal footing.

 

[blargney the second]

What I do is ask for a roll _after_ the roleplaying happens and use the roleplaying as a _big_ modifier. Sense motive I tend to use as an opposed check (but the DM rolls the check for the players).

Its nice to have a measure of how diplomatic or intemidating a character is. But the player needs to figure out what buttons to push and/or have a good story. You can be as diplomatic as you'd like, but the king won't sign the treaty unless he thinks there is a good reason.

This is the sound of two hands *yoink*ing.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

There was a thread in the Rules Forum about a year ago where people argued that a Helpful result on a Diplomacy check means that you will get killed last in combat.

Nah.

You'll just be sold into slavery and end your days in the Dark Overlord's tin mines.

Brad

 

[buzz]

I personally hate these skills because this stuff _should_ be role-played. What I do is ask for a roll _after_ the roleplaying happens and use the roleplaying as a _big_ modifier. Sense motive I tend to use as an opposed check (but the DM rolls the check for the players).

Its nice to have a measure of how diplomatic or intemidating a character is. But the player needs to figure out what buttons to push and/or have a good story. You can be as diplomatic as you'd like, but the king won't sign the treaty unless he thinks there is a good reason.

See? Varying interpretations.

 

[GuardianLurker]

If you're threatening someone, it's Intimidate. In all of these examples, you're not genuinely changing the target's disposition; doing that is what Diplomacy is for. On the contrary, you're forcing them to act like they have a better disposition towards you as long as they are threatened; that's what Intimidate does.

Yes, but the problem is that to use the standard action version, you need to be not just in combat, but in *melee* combat. In particular, you need to be threatening (in the technical D&D sense) your target. In none of the examples that I provide is any of that true.

(OK the Batman's a bit of a stretch, since I didn't specify the distance, but I had envisioned him at the end of the alley, some 15' away from the punk.)

 

[pawsplay]

Intimidate is most useful for situations like in Princess Bride, where the marshal momentarily forgot where he put the key Inigo requested, but promptly remembered.

It is not useful for mind-controlling monsters, because it is, in the end, a skill based on what someone might accomplish in real life. It is useful because someone who is merely scared may still fire a crossbow at you, out of fear, but someone who is intimidated will decide they would rather not anger you.

 

[greywulf]

Yes, but the problem is that to use the standard action version, you need to be not just in combat, but in *melee* combat. In particular, you need to be threatening (in the technical D&D sense) your target. In none of the examples that I provide is any of that true.

But we all know that's just badly written rules silliness. We should be blind to such things

Of course, we could always start the philosophical debate as to exactly *when* melee combat starts. That would be fun!

I'll stick with my house rule of "Intimidate is a standard action. Period.". It's easier, more realistic and funner to boot.