Search results

Oh, clearly. :rolleyes: Actually, you don't really have to make DCs at all. The point here is that you should be looking at how the players have designed their characters and what they want to do with them. I've already addressed the context question. The example we have doesn't give that...

So far so good. I disagree, you could do all sorts of stuff to alter circumstances so that the NPC can be properly coerced. My reply to this somehow disappeared in the multi-quoting. If they're taking a different approach then there's little need for the intimidate skill to be ruled over...

Under 3.x rules, about which I already made my opinion clear.

There are others making weird arguments about what intimidate is, so I understand your confusion here. I agree with the quoted statements, but still disagree with the claim that a person can be immune to intimidation while they still have something they care about. Plus, returning to my main...

Does the Duke really know what the PCs are capable of? Their ability to convince him that they can back it up is their skill level. It's a CHA-ability. They don't have to have the accomplice, they just need to intimidate the Duke with the perception that they have an accomplice. I think we can...

Does the Duke really know what the PCs are capable of? Their ability to convince him that they can back it up is their skill level. It's a CHA-ability. They don't have to have the accomplice, they just need to intimidate the Duke with the perception that they have an accomplice. I think we can...

It's me. Sorry. ;)

Does it, though? Does it make sense that the intimidate skill doesn't represent a skill, and that it can only work in way X for Y length of time? I think the original rule was dumb.

RAW must always be the initial assumption, so it's a problem. Just a little one, though.

No, and I don't think anyone is arguing that it would cause him to trust them. However, it's the PCs' choice whether they want that trust*, not the DM's. * = or whether they just want access to his human/material resources.

Andor sorta ninja'd me. = / Edit: I disagree with him here: Intimidate will only work if they are able to threaten him or his stuff without being present, like if they have an accomplice. Of course, they don't have to really have an accomplice, they just have to convince the Duke that they...

Let me summarize this debate for the people who choose to repeat the same ignorant post over and over without stopping to think about what others are saying. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is the reasoning behind the...

Well, that's not fair. I preordered, I should get mine first. Actually I didn't... but I'm going to. Sometime.

Refer to this exchange: ------------------------------- Why don't you read the arguments that have already been presented with regards to each of your points, and then respond to them? That's how I would do it. Actually, a few of the people that are usually anti-4e liked this example. I...

Whose objective? Certainly not the players'. I wouldn't tell the characters, "Your objective is this;" I think that hurts immersion. If it's implied, then it should still be their decision and you shouldn't penalize them for choosing their own path. If their objective actually was to gain...

If that is the context, it would be acceptable. My worry is that this was intended as a general example, and I think in that case it would encourage the wrong mindset in new/inexperienced DMs.

When the PCs succeed in doing what they want, it isn't a failure. It may have negative consequences, but it shouldn't be a skill challenge failure. The PCs are losing _____ because they didn't do things The DM's Way (tm). The point you quoted wasn't really a point, it was an alternate...

That's something to remember as a DM. If the players use intimidation to get their way, they just supplied you a free plot hook that, when used, will increase immersion by showing them that their choices have real consequences. As for success vs failure, I would say it's a success if they get...

Who cares? This is the big problem with WotC's given example; the DM doesn't decide how the plot goes down, the players do. Why can't the players use intimidation to get what they want? Sure, maybe the DM wants them to negotiate, but when you enforce that will it's railroading.

So you could just say Bursts and Spins provoke OAs, while Blasts do not... unless I'm misunderstanding you.