Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7585710" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Confession, i haven't read much of the thread beyond the first page and this one so here are some of my takes.1 - What does intimidation do? its a social skill so it shifts the attitude of the opponent toward a degree you prefer. its Dc is based on the circumstances and such, set by the GM. I have no idea how a wolf would "taunt" an ettin to walk through "" an effect of "sheathed in booming energy" that as you willingly move through it it causes harm. In my games, obvious and harmful effects are treated like fire or acid and they have obvious tells that it can hurt you. So, i would not rule a creature even an animal stuck inside  that effect gets no clue that moving through it is harmful. I can see wolves intimidating you to think they are a danger but to chase them down when they back away? nope. So i too would have given a disadvantage on an intimidation roll by a wolf to get them to walk through the booming due to obvious risk and presence of other threats. This would come as no surprise to my players because they are well used ton the notion that one of the "An element of the plan or description of an action makes success less likely." criteria i use in my games for social checks to get folks to do stuff is in fact "they can see they will take direct harm if they do so." 2 - For social checks in particular, it is needed for the player to provide a bit of input as to the direction they are trying to influence the NPC. Just like if they "shoved" a character they would need to tell the Gm "to which square" or "to the ground" if a character is trying to do the. frankly,. equivalent of a "social shove" through intimidation they need to give some idea as |to where".In our last game, the druid iirc was surrounded by three bad guys INT 6. The barbarian came rushing up from the outskirts of the fight but could not get there so he "tried an intimidate check" on the closest. I it "seemed like" the intent was to draw its attention off the druid, making himself the target, based on circumstances and i described that happening and he was fine with that. The BG had not acted yet.Then another PC moved to engage that taunted BG. Struck, hit i think, and positioned himself *between* the Bg and the barbarian. So between the intimidate and the Bg action, it had a new enemy move in, position itself between then and strike at it. So, when the BG time to act came up, it struck at the new guy instead of rushing out taking AO to go after the barbie, ignoring its new foe right there, etc.This led the barie player to gripe a bit - passing not discussion - that his success/action to intimidate was utterly useless. my comment later when it was brought up was pretty much what i described here - it was the changing circumstances and the actions of the later character that changed the result and the expected actions. That said, had his attempt been to "drive it off" as in make it scared and needing to leave, then that could have worked and the arrival of a new swinger would not have hurt, because the disengage would be an option as would dodge which i find is often superior to disengage.So, yeah, "i shove" needs a "where?" and "i intimidate" or taunt  needs a "where" too. But the circumstances really affect the outcomes very solidly.3 - help vs taunt (where help is distracting the target to advantage an attack and taunt is defined as forcing the other character's next action choice (case in point pursue through a known hazard)) - IMO those are as close to "the same thing" as an automobile and a tree. neither would be used mechanically as basis for resolving the other.</blockquote>

Verification