OK, I was going to post this yesterday when the boards had SQL errors. I saved it to a window on my workstation at work. Now that I have a free moment, EN World is running good, and need to reboot, I will post it now.
~~~~~
A few comments on the social skills - They should be useful, but they should not completely replace RP. That being said, how much should RP influence the mechanic? That is a good question. +2/-2 is an easy mechanic to take into account. I might also take into account existing relationships. The Paladin guarding entrance to the Holy Temple might react much more favorable to the LG fighter that belongs to a knightly order than he does to the vaguely disreputable, well-known womanizing Bard. How do you reflect that? You can either assign bonuses and penalties to the check, of you can start both characters off at different attitudes.
The only problem with this is when you are trying to gain a benefit for the entire party. In that case, maybe the Bard with morals the Paladin disapproves of drops the NPC attitude for the party in general (Lowest common denominator and all that stuff). I might DM it like this: The Bard's diplomacy comes into play (Since he is a social monkey and has the best bonuses by far) as he tries to explain how he has changed his ways (Perhaps since meeting his knightly buddy.) and he isn't the same person the rumors say he is. Perhaps the paladin gets a Sense Motive to see if this is complete BS. The knight pipes in to confirm the change of heart for the Bard, which might give the Bard a +2 for an assist on the Diplomacy check. After all that, if the party has RP'd it well, I might tack on an additional +2. Then, the dice are rolled and the bonuses are applied and we check to see if the Paladin has been swayed by the Bard's diplomatic efforts - this would be reflected in a change of attitude.
This is a rather convoluted example, but it shows the types of things that I consider when a Diplomacy check comes up. That being said, there are times when a Diplomacy/Intimidate check is going to be nearly impossible to pull off. As an example, I will point to an alternate view of Frostmarrow's above example.
Sure a 36 is dang impressive as far as an Intimidate check goes. Heck, a 16th level character would need to roll a 20 just to match that result. But, that assumes a relatively normal condition. Consider if this particular guard has a wife and 3 children. He also has a sister he cares for and his elderly mother. The inquisition chose him as a guard because they are using his family as leverage. IF a captive escapes while he is on watch, his family will be tortured and their souls consigned to hell, while he watches. He will then be tortured until he is broken and then he will be sacrificed as well. Afterward, all of their bodies will be animated to work pump the sewers below the city until they fall apart. However, if he falls doing his duty, his family will be taken care of until his son can take up a profession. This NPC has nothing to gain by being intimidated. Death is a terrible option, but at least his family will survive and they will all meet again in the afterlife. For dealing with this NPC, my plaers would have to come up with a better idea than an Intimidate check. A successful intimidate check just proves to the NPC that he should begin praying to the diety of his choice before he lunges. An intimidate check of that magnitude might even leave him a bit shaken, so he is even less likely to hurt the PC's.
If you, as a player, accused me, as a DM, of simply being unprepared for the encounter to go differently than I planned, you would be wrong. Instead, I would have been crafting the encounter to demonstrate exactly how bad the Inquisition is, and to give the PC's a moral dilema. The NPC can't let them past, his family will be tortured and sacrificed. But, the PC's might be killing somebody that is just as much a victim of the Inquisition as the captured PC's are. How do you resolve that? This is an easy example to construct because I have used similar situations in my games.
Regarding NPC Attitudes, the rules allow for a change of more than 1 category. There is nothing explicitly stated as to how quickly you can use a new check to change the attitude again. I would have to kind of wing this with a general rule that if you are trying to change a recently changed attitude, you have to wait a day. Though a week might be appropriate as well. Basically, I am not going to let a PC make 3 changes in the span of 3 minutes to go from unfriendly to indifferent to friendly to helpful. Think about how long it takes for you to get over an initial first impression of a person. It might be more realistic to allow an attitude change once a week.
Now, as a Player with a Bard that has a +27 Diplomacy check (At least until I decide to bump the skill ranks to Max.), I really like having a minute or two to chat with the NPC's. Most folks are going to be indifferent, but by the time I am done talking to them, they will probably be friendly toward me, possibly Helpful. In the game I play in, we don't focus on it that much in "normal" situations. for my character, the wheels seem to be greased a lot. We travel through a town with an NPC and that NPC might introduce us to all the notables he knows. The interpersonal networking seems to come pretty easily. Now, if I want to actually leverage those connections, then it might be a little more difficult.
The social skill rules are not as codified as combat. There is a lot of room for interpretation and customization for each game. If you are unhappy with the way the rules are being applied, you need to communicate some of this with your DM. You seem to be establishing the research for by posting here, so you are probably on the road to getting a bit more value for those skills.
I hope my verbosity has been helpful.
