Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThoughtBubble" data-source="post: 1437313" data-attributes="member: 9723">I don't believe so. You add bonuses to fear saves to intimidate DC's. However, notice the typically. In 3.5 it gives a distinct set (I believe 10+HD+ size difference + fear bonuses). And I prefer the 3.0 set because the typically is justification to set it to whatever seems appropriate without invoking the 'DM is always right' law, whereas the 3.5 srd states it as a definate.Now, on to the rest of the post. The captian of the guard should be a tough guy to crack. He should not break under pressure like the serving maid. He would not willingly neglect his duty to help someone evil.I think you favor the guard too heavily though. The best possible success you're allowing is still a failure (even in the best situation the guard doesn't show him to master chen's quarters). This has, essentially, made the intimidate skill useless. Or, more accurately, any creature the DM chooses is rendered immune to that skill. As a player, I'd rather have someone have a boosted DC vs intimidate than I would simply have the skill not work. Especially since, pretening I'm the player of the assassin, I tried to do something other than stabbing everyone who came into view.Does the situation change if the assassin isn't some no name assassin but Kheras Darkblade, the best assassin in all the northern kingdoms, who has been practicing his trade for over 100 years and has eyes reported to 'chill the dead' and those who have seen him and lived have been haunted by his image till death? Does it change if the guard captian is a 4th level warrior and the assassin is 14th level? Mostly, I'm trying to ask if someone has the best warrior in the castle outclassed, then shuouldn't he be able to succeed?The intimidate skill isn't about making someone scared. It's using fear to make someone do what you want. And if it can't do that, consider taking it out of the game so no one wastes time or energy with it. On a somewhat related note, I think this is the problem for including rules for interaction in the game. Either you risk unsatisfying results or making the opertunity cost too great. I'll drop this line here, since it feels like we're on opposing sides of the "diplomacy check vs. acting it out" arguement. And we all know that one never gets resolved.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Here's how I would handle the assassin's rolls (keep in mind I'd give the GC some boosts to his DC):Mass failure: The guard captian pretends to be intimidated (bluff vs sense motive) while actually leading the assassin into a worse area (nearer to more guards on duty, or into a cul-de-sac) before calling for help.Failure: The guard captian calls for help. Marginal Success: The guard captian will lead the assassin to Master Chen's chambers. Any moment the assassin is distracted, however, risks the guard captian regaining his nerve and acting normally. This will be resolved by another intimidate check. There will be an indication of this check happening(glancing around) and if the player renews their intimidation ("I know what you're thinking. Don't try it.") they have an additional bonus to the roll. Additional checks will happen as detailed below.Success: The guard captian will lead the assassin to Master Chen's chambers. At any time circumsances change another intimidate check needs to be made. Running into another guard and entering Master Chen's quarters are two examples of situational changes.</blockquote>

Verification