Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6060277" data-attributes="member: 6681948">As I read the text, it seems to presume an initial attitude of indifference.&nbsp; If you fail by 5 or more, you not only didn't intimidate the target, but also shifted his attitude so he will act negatively towards you.&nbsp; If the target was inclined to act against you to begin with, not being intimidated means he is still inclined to act against you.&nbsp; If he wasn't, at least your attempt didn't push him towards it if you fail by less than 5.The bottom line is that every possible situation can't be considered in a couple of paragraphs, so there is always a need for players and GM's to extrapolate from that brief description to convert a mechanic into in-game reality.I could see ruling that a check failed by 5 or more results in misinformation the target thinks you want to hear, but then that target (being so terrified) would logically still provide you with other assistance where it's not so easy for his panic to cause errors (I guess he could just curl up in a little ball and whimper &quot;please don't hurt me&quot;.To the Paladin issue, the Paladin clearly knows no fear, so any attempt to influence him by threats to his safety should be unsuccessful.&nbsp; But Intimidate is a Charisma skill, so it has some similarity to Diplomacy, Bluff, etc.&nbsp; I agree it should be possible to influence the Paladin by threats to others, rather than to himself.&nbsp; Demoralizing the Paladin is a &quot;fear effect&quot;, so I would rule the Paladin is immune and even those within his Aura of Courage bump the DC by 4 (since there is no save to adjust).&nbsp; The Intimidator would have to have a credible threat to have a shot at influencing the Paladin through interaction, and might face a higher DC depending on just how credible that threat is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6060277, member: 6681948"] As I read the text, it seems to presume an initial attitude of indifference. If you fail by 5 or more, you not only didn't intimidate the target, but also shifted his attitude so he will act negatively towards you. If the target was inclined to act against you to begin with, not being intimidated means he is still inclined to act against you. If he wasn't, at least your attempt didn't push him towards it if you fail by less than 5. The bottom line is that every possible situation can't be considered in a couple of paragraphs, so there is always a need for players and GM's to extrapolate from that brief description to convert a mechanic into in-game reality. I could see ruling that a check failed by 5 or more results in misinformation the target thinks you want to hear, but then that target (being so terrified) would logically still provide you with other assistance where it's not so easy for his panic to cause errors (I guess he could just curl up in a little ball and whimper "please don't hurt me". To the Paladin issue, the Paladin clearly knows no fear, so any attempt to influence him by threats to his safety should be unsuccessful. But Intimidate is a Charisma skill, so it has some similarity to Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. I agree it should be possible to influence the Paladin by threats to others, rather than to himself. Demoralizing the Paladin is a "fear effect", so I would rule the Paladin is immune and even those within his Aura of Courage bump the DC by 4 (since there is no save to adjust). The Intimidator would have to have a credible threat to have a shot at influencing the Paladin through interaction, and might face a higher DC depending on just how credible that threat is. [/QUOTE]

Verification