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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 1950131" data-attributes="member: 3400">This is a case in which I think the rule is wrong. Basing intimidation just on fear doesn't make much sense to me. While I woule rule that a paladin (or anything immune to fear) can't be demoralized by use of the skill, they could certainly be intimidated.In the example of the paladin with the sorcerer, the sorcerer probably isn't bluffing so bluff isn't appropriate. I suppose you could argue that the Diplomacy skill should prevail here since it doesn't involve direct consequences to the paladin himself and this can't invoke the kind of fear that intimidate is getting at. If Intimidate just relies on fear, then the skill should only be useable to imply consequences directly to the creature you are trying to intimidate and not to hostages. I think the write up on Intimidate does kind of point in this direction, but I'm not sure I agree with keeping its focus that narrow.But the way I see it, Diplomacy and Intimidation are really different sides of the same coin. Both seek to get someone to be treated as "friendly" on the NPC attitude table but one does it though threats and the other through less negative negotiation. Someone may be swayed by a threat not because of fear but because they find the threat extremely credible and they want to avoid the consequences of the threat being carried out. Intimidate becomes the character's ability to project the resolve necessary to carry out the threat and relative ability to carry it out even if not the consequences won't be directly felt by the creature being intimidated. I'm also starting to think that maybe Intimidate should just been absorbed into Diplomacy and listed as a couple of specific effects Diplomacy can achieve.</blockquote>

Verification