Excerpt: skill challenges

[Saeviomagy]

What scares me about this example is that it seems to have been written by someone who has pidgeonholed intimidation as a skill which solely encompasses making direct physical threats.

Which, frankly, is stupid. If that's all it's going to be, then remove the skill from the game because it's worthless and counterintuitive.

Requiring an NPC to bring up a historical example before you can make a roll on knowledge history seems stupid too.

I agree entirely with Wulf on the "don't make it impossible" front. I'd be fine with the two if the skill checks were simply made harder instead of completely written off.

 

[AllisterH]

What scares me about this example is that it seems to have been written by someone who has pidgeonholed intimidation as a skill which solely encompasses making direct physical threats.

Which, frankly, is stupid. If that's all it's going to be, then remove the skill from the game because it's worthless and counterintuitive.

Requiring an NPC to bring up a historical example before you can make a roll on knowledge history seems stupid too.

I agree entirely with Wulf on the "don't make it impossible" front. I'd be fine with the two if the skill checks were simply made harder instead of completely written off.

Er, did you read the setup?

SETUP:For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way

I'm REALLY, REALLY interested in the reasoning that makes "Intimidate" something that would make you trustworthy....I'm honestly blanking here, help me out here guys.

As well, even if you do FAIL the challenge, the excerpt doesn't mean that the adventure is over...just makes it more challenging (so instead of the NPC providing assistance, he decides to hire ANOTHER adventuring party and now you have to race against the clock to get to the borderlands...)

 

[Celebrim]

Heh..why am I not surprised you are here...

You have precognition brought about by secret goverment paranormal experiments using nanomachines and the Russian Woodpecker scalar vector device developed by Nicolai Tesla using texts translated from alien overlords that had formerly ruled Ancient Eygpt and Central America?

Anywa, all in all, I think this is good for the game as it isn't something that D&D has really thought about before. This at the minimum gives a novice DM something to work with...it may not be perfect but at least he knows from where to modify and what to change to his liking...

Agreed. It's a good set of guidelines for a novice. I just hope that the guidelines are presented sufficiently as guidelines that they don't end up being DM straight jackets.

 

[Frostmarrow]

You have precognition brought about by secret goverment paranormal experiments using nanomachines and the Russian Woodpecker scalar vector device developed by Nicolai Tesla using texts translated from alien overlords that had formerly ruled Ancient Eygpt and Central America?

I want to play in your game!

 

[hong]

Agreed. It's a good set of guidelines for a novice. I just hope that the guidelines are presented sufficiently as guidelines that they don't end up being DM straight jackets.

No DM with proper strength of will recognises straitjackets.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Er, did you read the setup?

SETUP:For the NPC to provide assistance, the PCs need to convince him or her of their trustworthiness and that their cause helps the NPC in some way

Intimidation is about making people afraid of the consequences of not doing what you say.

It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE "Help me or I'll hit you in the face". If that's all intimidate is, chuck the skill entirely, because characters can threaten to hit people in the face without it, and how scary that prospect is has very little to do with their charisma, and you're basically condemning anyone who takes the skill as their social skill to sit out of 90% of negotiations.

I honestly cannot think of an adventuring scenario where there can be no possible way that the fears of the target simply cannot be played upon at all. Bad things live on the borderlands. Someone else might get the treasure first. Another duke is massing forces.

Bluff apparently covers lying to the NPC in just about any way - so if your players were to tell the NPC that there's horrible things on the borderlands when they know that they're lying, they'd get a success. But if there really ARE horrible things there, then they earn an automatic failure?

I'm REALLY, REALLY interested in the reasoning that makes "Intimidate" something that would make you trustworthy....I'm honestly blanking here, help me out here guys.

"While you may not trust us too closely lord, surely you trust lord blackheart less" or "While you send your scouts to confirm our story lord, your foes grow ever stronger".

That's the one line summaries. Again - look to bluff for how wide a social skill can be.

As well, even if you do FAIL the challenge, the excerpt doesn't mean that the adventure is over...just makes it more challenging (so instead of the NPC providing assistance, he decides to hire ANOTHER adventuring party and now you have to race against the clock to get to the borderlands...)

That has nothing to do with the idiocy of making intimidate the skill to take when you want to make someone scared you might punch them in the face.

 

[FireLance]

As well, even if you do FAIL the challenge, the excerpt doesn't mean that the adventure is over...just makes it more challenging

In addition, using Intimidate does not mean that the skill challenge is automatically failed. In this specific example, it's one strike out of four.

That said, I would probably do one of the following:

1. Set the DC high enough (25 + 1/2 level, maybe) that even a trained character would only have a slim chance of success ([Ability Modifier + 1] in 20, if I have my numbers right).

2. If the failure is automatic, allow an immediate "recovery" roll to negate that failure (DC 20 + 1/2 level, -5 penalty if made by a character other than the one who attempted the Intimidate, further -5 penalty if the player can't come up with a satisfactory explanation why the skill he tries to use would work).

 

[Incenjucar]

Intimidation is about making people afraid of the consequences of not doing what you say.

No, it's about making them afraid of YOU. It's not "Scare," it's "Intimidate." It's a personal, martial fear-inducing ability emanating from the perception that you can do HORRIBLE things to people.

It DOES NOT HAVE TO BE "Help me or I'll hit you in the face". If that's all intimidate is, chuck the skill entirely, because characters can threaten to hit people in the face without it, and how scary that prospect is has very little to do with their charisma, and you're basically condemning anyone who takes the skill as their social skill to sit out of 90% of negotiations.

Intimidation is being able to look someone in the eye and make them wet themselves, not the ability to tell stories about OTHER Intimidating things.

And, yes, it has a lot to do with Charisma. Intimidation is the difference between a dog that is growling and baring its teeth and a friendly family dog wagging its tail who is about to spontaneously bite someone.

--

Beyond that, skill checks need not and perhaps should not ALWAYS have the ability to work.

A rogue can never climb air (pre-epic at least), and a character, PC or NPC, who can never be made compliant through intimidation will resist regardless of natural 20s. Otherwise you come to the situation of being able to get a dragon's horde with a knock knock joke.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I don't care about the article much, but the art is some of the best i have seen for 4e.

 

[VannATLC]

Intimidation is always about threats.

Which is why this; "While you may not trust us too closely lord, surely you trust lord blackheart less." Is not intimidation, its actually diplomacy.

"While you may not trust us too closely, lord, I am sure we can convince blackheart of the truth of our tale." is more intimidation.

And I'm happy to make cases where a threat of any kind would be treated as a failure.

Intimidation is the art of threat, Diplomacy the art of compromise.

Both may sometimes be inappropriate.

If the party is in a position to put out a threat big enough for the duke to feel the need to comply, then the challenge is unsuitable in the first place.