Sorry, if you are 4th level and are trying to use persuasion to get an alliance with a lich, you're probably going to need more than one persuasion roll. Especially without any prep ahead of time. At least in my games. Liches have lots of powerful allies and don't need to rely on scrubs. I feel that is putting too much weight on persuasion.
Sure, but I never said it was at 4th level. In fact, the only time "level" came into it was when someone wanted to prove that an 8th level fighter could intimidate a Lich if her threatened the phylacteries location to the lich's enemy via a third party contract.
My original point was that you cannot threaten someone more powerful than you, but you do have the potential to persuade them.
4th level might be to low but, the party might be able to try. Maybe they have some clever leverage or lie that can work. But threatening the lich... probably not so much.
But by 9th level, the party is in a much better position to use persuasion... and still not so much on intimidation.
none? like, that's not the point I was trying to make? I was saying you need leverage to use intimidate. Just the same as you need a logical argument to use persuasion.
Ok. So, Intimidation is worthless unless you have something to hold over the person.
You aren't going to persuade the bandit king to make you the new bandit king without some kind of reasoning or background prep. Once again, if you allow bandit ambushes to be resolved in a single persuasion check, you're making it too powerful.
Of course not.
Good lord, have I ever said I was trying to take someone's position with a single roll? How about this, can I persuade the Bandit King to give us right of passage in the mountains with a single roll? Maybe, can I persuade the bandits to take me to see the Bandit King with a single roll? Could I maybe persuade the Bandit King not to kill us, with a single roll?
On the flip side, you already stated that without leverage, I cannot do any of that with intimidation.
Use persuasion to get a deal instead of intimidate. Intimidate isn't perfect for every situation the same way as persuasion isn't the best for every situation. The crooked Vendor isn't going to budge on his prices, regardless of your persuasion roll. Unless the Dm makes persuasion the catch-all solution for every social conflict.
Why not?
Seriously, what makes it impossible to change his mind? And, yeah, we have established intimidate isn't perfect for every situation. So far it only seems perfect for getting what you could already get.
I mean, if your definition of Intimidate is just beating people up, then, I guess so.
But Who cares about good or evil? There are in-game consequences. Some people will think you are evil and some will think you are good. I have friends who are bouncers - they use intimidate all the time to break up fights without actually getting into fights. I don't think they're evil.
In any case, Your characters do things and NPCs act according to their personal morality. I'm just the referee. It's not my job to pass moral judgement. My job is to do the best to play the NPCs the way they would act according to their personalities. The consequences of actions will be natural.
I can see a 'good' character using intimidate as a solution instead of killing. It may be a flawed solution to a conflict but the PC may feel justified. Only his peers and by-standards will judge him. He will have to live with the consequences and try to parse them. I feel It's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Sure, that is a valid solution to breaking up a fight, especially in the real world.
DnD game. How many times have you cared enough to stop a bar fight?
And the examples you guys have given for intimidate have included
1) Scaring a drunk out of your path
2) Scaring a bear to run away
3) Enslaving a sentient being (undead and evil, but still sentient) by threatening their life
4) Getting discounts on goods by threatening to reveal criminal activity
5) Forcing people to work for you out of fear
6) Bullying your way through a gate without paying the toll
7) Threatening to kill the children of an old man (the emperor example)
8) Threating to slaughter a village (the church example)
Can you really read that list and not see where I might think the person who goes and does these things isn't an ass? At best? At worst he is a tyrant.
Who wants to spend their liesure time pretending to be that guy? Not me. This is the first time anyone has said anything like trying to break up a bar fight (which is still threatening violence on those weaker than you) and that is the first non-evil use of the skill in nearly a dozen pages that I have seen.
Animals and idiots aren't as receptive to persuasion than intimidation. Especially when they can't understand your spoken words
Nah, because your fighter doesn't want to provoke violence at the moment or cause any brawl fights. If you're a monk, you may just kill the man immediately.
And who says only drunk people are idiots? Regular, sober people are also idiots who won't back down from a fight.
I agree, it's very absurd the types of battles people will try to fight. But until you get across that you can knock them out by looking at them, it's best to intimidate and scare them away. Maybe his friends won't pick on you either when they get the message.
If you think you can get away with being nice to everyone without getting beat-up, you've probably haven't been nice to the wrong people. Failing a persuasion check can very much get you beat up and thrown in captivity or just plain killed. Same as intimidation. It all depends on the situation and the DM.
Okay man, I get it. I need to bring my idiot spray to your games because they will be crawling out of the woodwork to inconveniently stand in my way or try to stab me in the neck.
And my only saving grace will be getting a +2 in intimidation.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic here, this is seriously just getting old and I don't know why you seem to insist that this is so important.
Feel free to declare a victory for idiots and bears.
