Excerpt: skill challenges

[Cadfan]

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.

The original rule provided a framework. As long as you could physically threaten someone, they acted as if they were Friendly towards you, with all that implied (see description of Friendly NPC behavior, etc). Once you couldn't physically threaten them, they acted as if they were Unfriendly or Hostile.

This didn't actually mean they wouldn't do what you ordered. Even an Unfriendly or Hostile NPC can be coerced. Of course, you're outside straight skill rolls at this point, and back to roleplaying and DM discretion.

But it did mean that you couldn't declare Intimidate to eat Diplomacy as a skill, simply because you were talking about dangers instead of mutual advantages. That's ridiculous, once you think about it.

Diplomacy: Aid us, and we will save your kingdom from the fierce dragon!
Still diplomacy: Fail to aid us, and who will save your kingdom from the fierce dragon!
Intimidate: Aid us, or my pet worg will eat your face!

 

[TreChriron]

So my questions:

1) When it says "Level" and the answer is "of the entire party" what does that mean? It implies sometimes levels will be specific? How do these encounters scale with level or is this just an XP thing.

I imagine there is an average going on here.

2) Complexity 3 - any idea what this means?

Probably maps back to a complexity table that lists complexities and the commensurate number of successes you have to achieve before you roll the listed number of failures.

3) Moderate DCs ... is this a specific number or will there be mechanics about this that we don't really grasp.

I am going to guess ranges based on level\capability. Another table that maps a range of DCs so the game scales equally across levels (instead of DC 25 being say “hard” it’s 20 + level = hard. Or something along those lines.)

I do also note that it says "Moderate DCs" suggesting they could be used multiple times (each time must be a different character?) but then an easy DC (singular) indicating you can only use the history once. That sound accurate?

I don’t know, could be a typo… but that sounds interesting.

 

[TreChriron]

(snip)

Great minds think alike?

 

[Torchlyte]

Your refutation refutes itself in a sort of weird logical mobeus strip.

In both of your real world examples, the intimidation factor of the organizations involved depended not only on the personal charisma of the person issuing the threats, but also on the real life capacity and demonstrated willingness of the organization to carry out those threats.

Or in other words, the Mafia doesn't "make you feel as if you cannot escape them" in some kind of theoretical vacuum. They make you feel that way because you know, from context, history, and familiarity with the Mafia, that you probably cannot escape them, just as they say.

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.

Now, logically, this also works in reverse.

Take the threats issued by the Mafia. Have them issued by a whiny six year old to his own Mom, after having watched movies at his friend's house that his Mom normally wouldn't let him see.

I don't care if he rolls a freaking 20, he's just getting paddled.

I think we can agree that PCs =/= children because their threats are plausible. How plausible they are able to make themselves is their skill check.

PS- for those of you who find it inexplicable that player characters couldn't intimidate a lousy duke, find and replace "duke" with the drago "Allenyo, the Golden Daughter of Tiamat, who is by the way a Level 30 solo monster and you're a level 2 character in a solo campaign."

Even a weakling can use poison.

If nothing else, that should persuade you that, in some circumstances, for some parties, certain social skills shouldn't work on certain people.

The rolls determine some of those circumstances, weighted against the circumstances represented by the DCs. Kind of like an attack roll, but without the auto success if the DC is just too high.

 

[Torchlyte]

Your refutation refutes itself in a sort of weird logical mobeus strip.

In both of your real world examples, the intimidation factor of the organizations involved depended not only on the personal charisma of the person issuing the threats, but also on the real life capacity and demonstrated willingness of the organization to carry out those threats.

Or in other words, the Mafia doesn't "make you feel as if you cannot escape them" in some kind of theoretical vacuum. They make you feel that way because you know, from context, history, and familiarity with the Mafia, that you probably cannot escape them, just as they say.

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.

Now, logically, this also works in reverse.

Take the threats issued by the Mafia. Have them issued by a whiny six year old to his own Mom, after having watched movies at his friend's house that his Mom normally wouldn't let him see.

I don't care if he rolls a freaking 20, he's just getting paddled.

I think we can agree that PCs =/= children because their threats are plausible. How plausible they are able to make themselves is their skill check.

PS- for those of you who find it inexplicable that player characters couldn't intimidate a lousy duke, find and replace "duke" with the drago "Allenyo, the Golden Daughter of Tiamat, who is by the way a Level 30 solo monster and you're a level 2 character in a solo campaign."

Even a weakling can use poison.

If nothing else, that should persuade you that, in some circumstances, for some parties, certain social skills shouldn't work on certain people.

The rolls determine some of those circumstances, weighted against the circumstances represented by the DCs. Kind of like an attack roll, but without the auto success if the DC is really high.

 

[MindWanderer]

PS- for those of you who find it inexplicable that player characters couldn't intimidate a lousy duke, find and replace "duke" with the drago "Allenyo, the Golden Daughter of Tiamat, who is by the way a Level 30 solo monster and you're a level 2 character in a solo campaign."

If nothing else, that should persuade you that, in some circumstances, for some parties, certain social skills shouldn't work on certain people.

Even though I generally agree with you, this is a bad example. You can't pass that Intimidate check because the DC for intimidating Allenyo is probably around 45--feasible for a level 30 character, impossible for a level 2 character. It's not that you lack the muscle to back it up, it's that you suck at intimidating. If that level 2 character had some ridiculous item from a splatbook like a potion of +30 Intimidate, then no, I don't think that should be an impossible check.

However, I do think there are other circumstances where Intimidate should be an auto-fail. Say you're a terrorist, holding hostages and making demands. If the person you're asking the demand from is a super-Lawful bureaucrat who plays by the rules no matter what, then it doesn't matter how good you are at imtimidating. You could have his daughter captured and threaten to do all kinds of vile things to her, and it will just make him all the more devoted to not giving you what you want. I think people like that are rare, but they do exist.

 

[Torchlyte]

Diplomacy: Aid us, and we will save your kingdom from the fierce dragon!
Still diplomacy: Fail to aid us, and who will save your kingdom from the fierce dragon!
Intimidate: Aid us, or my pet worg will eat your face!

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 point over the course of this thread, the whole point of the Duke being immune to intimidation (Oh, he's just really stubborn!) is railroady, as explained in the long post at the top of this page.

Edit: Page 25, I mean.

 

[Lurker37]

if you're stuck for working out which social skill applies, looking at the outcome of the mechanics and trying to match them to the gist of the conversation is usually helpful.

Fighter: he's almost there, guys, I'll take him over the finish line "If you don't help us, who will be there to help you when the horde reaches here. Who is going to protect your daughter when the savages are tearing down your door, you willing to help out we can be around and make sure bad things don't happen to you" intimidate success

Intimidate clearly state that after 1d6x10 minutes the target's attitude drops to unfriendly or even hostile.

What about the quoted statement is going to wear of within an hour, leaving the Duke hating the fighter's guts?

Nothing.

So, by the RAW, this cannot be an intimidate roll. Q.E.D.

Intimidate is making a threat, not trying to convince the target of an existing one.

The fighter is not making a threat - in fact he is claiming that he and his group are the only protectors the Duchy has, but they're going to fail, leaving the duchy in danger, without help! That's pretty much the opposite of a threat!

So yes, it falls under diplomacy or buff, depending on whether this horde really is intent on attacking the Duchy.

 

[Torchlyte]

if you're stuck for working out which social skill applies, looking at the outcome of the mechanics and trying to match them to the gist of the conversation is usually helpful.



Intimidate clearly state that after 1d6x10 minutes the target's attitude drops to unfriendly or even hostile.

What about the quoted statement is going to wear of within an hour, leaving the Duke hating the fighter's guts?

Nothing.

So, by the RAW, this cannot be an intimidate roll. Q.E.D.

Intimidate is making a threat, not trying to convince the target of an existing one.

The fighter is not making a threat - in fact he is claiming that he and his group are the only protectors the Duchy has, but they're going to fail, leaving the duchy in danger, without help! That's pretty much the opposite of a threat!

So yes, it falls under diplomacy or buff, depending on whether this horde really is intent on attacking the Duchy.

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

 

[doctormandible]

I don't think that's necessarily true. Ahglock's scenario could be making a threat. It's like Al Capone making people pay bribes for protection. It's a threat to expose the NPC to an existing threat.