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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 4205366" data-attributes="member: 55966">My opinion about the skill checks is that social skills should have a "x action fails to sway this particular character".  This is for the same reason that you can't intimidate or sway a PC with diplomacy if he doesn't feel like it.  It forces the character to change his personality in an awkward way compared to how he usually acts.So instead of viewing the Duke as an NPC, you should probably view him as a DMC (Dungeon Master Character).  In this case, the DM wants the players to view a character who wields authority and demands respect.  To be successfully intimidated by the character goes against the Duke's rank, his experience, against the power he wields, and most importantly the DM's conception of the character.   I suppose you could make the DC of intimdate skill check so high that the players can't reach it... but if that is the case why not call it impossible?I can see situations where the diplomacy might be an automatic failure, but intimidate might work.  For example, you might have a revolutionary zealot who is secretly a coward.  However, the bluff skill, insight skill, and other opposed skills should not be automatic failures, because they don't change behavior of the PC or NPC engaging in them.This is simply giving the DM the tools to do what he has been doing all along anyway.  Allowing the DM to act out his character the way he intends it to act.  It isn't railroading, it is preventing PC's from bulldozing over every plot with a skill check.P.S. Am I the only one who notices that the evil advisor is Scott Rouse?</blockquote>

Verification