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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Torchlyte" data-source="post: 4204790" data-attributes="member: 64272">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 what they want (at least temporarily) and a failure if they get kicked out.Exactly. The question then isn't whether or not intimidate should be an automatic failure, but whether the stated goal for the skill challenge was chosen properly. The DM is railroading because there's no reason that the PCs shouldn't be able to use intimidation to get what they want (except for "cuz I decided that the plot should go like this, guys"). If that brings later troubles, so be it. The example challenge here sucks because it makes a dumb assumption.Fire resistance is an innate physical quality that all Pit Fiends have. The capacity to understand social situations is an innate physical quality that normal human beings have. The Duke understands intimidation just like anyone else, even if he is in a position where effectively intimidating him would be difficult.Messenger-man failed his intimidation check. Maybe he rolled a 19 or 20 or whatever, but the DC was higher than what he had. It is concievable that LEonidas could be intimidated successfully by someone else through the clever use of circumstances.Yes there is. For the latter to be equal to the former, the DM would have to check the player's skill modifiers and design around them specifically.This is not RAW, so assuming it when making decisions about RAW would be dumb.In order to be truly immune to intimidation you'd have to have no emotional attachments whatsoever.This is why #1 is not true.</blockquote>

Verification