Intimidate, or "whoops I wasted my skill points"

[Staffan]

Suppose someone is at 1 hp and in the mouth of the villain's Rancor. Intimidating the villain is NOT going to work. I don't care if your half-orc's muscles are the size of texas, and has a rank of 3 bajillion, and rolled a natural 20, and the villain's HD is 1.

Yeah, intimidating someone when you're virtually paralyzed as an aftereffect of recently being raised from the dead is never going to work.

 

[hong]

Intimidate is a waste of skill points?

 

[Torchlyte]

It looks to me as though the OP might have a deficit of imagination if he can't imagine a situation where Intimidate might be more useful or where another standard social skill would not be allowed and Intimidate would be the best option.

Rude.

For example:

A small pack of wolves have surrounded and are threatening to devour a weak person, whom the PCs want to protect. Directly attacking the wolves would not ensure the weak person's safety because they are close enough to strike before anyone could get there. Diplomacy would obviously not have any effect, since the wolves would not understand any language. Intimidation, however, is not necessarily a language based means of communication and would work to drive the wolves back a bit. Other characters might use the Nature or Stealth skills to help succeed in rescuing the weak person. Intimidate, though has the advantage of being used in quite a few social encounters as well as the possibility of being on one's class list to pick up for free. The other advantage of the Intimidate skill is that it is a fun skill for some people to roleplay.

Why should intimidate be limited to those encounters when common sense makes it applicable in other scenarios, as well. Anyways, how legitimate is it to intimidate a wolf in that situation unless you're some kind of monster? Not very, if you ask me.

 

[Torchlyte]

Yeah, intimidating someone when you're virtually paralyzed as an aftereffect of recently being raised from the dead is never going to work.

Makes me think of Princess Bride.

 

[Jhaelen]

At present, it seems that intimidate is a waste of skill points. It has the short term effects of bluff or diplomacy, but suffers because:

DMs like to make their NPCs immune to it

It wears off in a few minutes

It carries stiff roleplaying penalties

So - no doubt (in my mind) that as 3.5 has it, it's a waste of skill points. How would you like to see it in 4e?

I disagree on all counts. The poll is based on false assumptions (in my mind ). EVERY skill is a waste of skill points if the DM decides to not let them apply or be useful in any way.

And yes, I have read the excerpt from the skill challenge chapter. Doesn't anyone think that extrapolating from a single arbitrary example is a bit far-fetched and premature?

 

[Torchlyte]

And yes, I have read the excerpt from the skill challenge chapter. Doesn't anyone think that extrapolating from a single arbitrary example is a bit far-fetched and premature?

Yes, I think it would be premature... but 3.x sets a dangerous, dumbed-down precedent for Intimidate.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It looks to me as though the OP might have a deficit of imagination ...

Don't be rude to other people. You can make your point without rudeness.

Thanks

 

[MerricB]

Yes, I think it would be premature... but 3.x sets a dangerous, dumbed-down precedent for Intimidate.

Hmm... what we have with 3.*e Intimidate is an overpowered skill that has been nerfed. No, seriously. Intimidate (on a generally easy DC) = Friendly! Oh dear, that's too much to be permanent, let's make it last only a short time...

Indeed, Diplomacy also suffers from a related problem. Either the DC is impossible, or it's too easy, especially with the way you could stack synergy bonuses until even your fiercest foes were friendly puppies in your hands.

"I'm sorry, Tiamat is your friend now? How did that happen?" "Oh, +50 Diplomacy check. All the Gods love me."

...and Diplomacy was permanent. Oh, goody.

The simple fact is that the interaction skills in 3.*e really don't quite work, in addition to being too binary. I rather expect we'll see in 4e a system where both Diplomacy and Intimidate work, but not in the same way, and not always together.

Cheers!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Intimidation doesn't always have a path to success.

I think intimidate and diplomacy have to be properly interpreted by the DM.
They aren't "Martial Dominate".

I think this is a case where people are just up in arms over nothing again.

 

[FireLance]

What if you're lying about something they might be afraid of?

Then you'll have to succeed at a Bluff check (against opposed Insight) AND an Intimidate check to score one success.

Perhaps they should be rolled into one skill and represent different levels of difficulty. From personal experience, I know that a good debater is often a good liar. It's just harder to convince someone based on facts you invented, because you don't have (at least as many) true details to rely on.

That was done in SWSE, but I guess the 4e designers wanted to maintain different flavors of persuasion.

 

[FireLance]

re: diplomacy - someone doesn't have to like you in order to agree with the negotiated settlement you've proposed.

In my view, if he sees the negotiated settlement as a net positive for him, and he thinks he's unlikely to get a better deal, a Diplomacy check isn't even necessary.

Getting him to agree to accept a deal that is less than what he thinks he can get, or getting him to think that he isn't going to be able to get a better deal, or making him worry that the deal will be off if he keeps haggling, is where Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate comes in.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Is this a troll? Because the OP hasn't come back to answer any of the follow up questions. I too would like to know where he is getting his info on intimidate?

FWIW, I like how Elder Scrolls Oblivion handles social interaction. Some people only respond to a dominate or intimidating personality. A king or noble, maybe not so much. A commoner or prisioner, I can see Intimidate working very well on. Will Intimidate be used every time? No, just like any other skill.

 

[zoroaster100]

I would strongly disagree with a redefinition of Diplomacy as making someone like you. The common use of the term applies to negotiation -- the skill of bargaining by mutual compromise.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Intimidate should be more useful than it is in RAW 3rd edition. I've houseruled a few uses for it. For example, it should be more useful for getting enemies to surrender a fight, or flee. "DROP. YOUR. SWORD."

If that was supposed to be an interesting fight, however... this is why DMs make NPCs immune to it. Goes double for BBEGs.

 

[Pale Jackal]

I'd largely use Diplomacy as 'Persuasion.' I can understand desiring a skill to make your character more likeable... but really, I think that can be done with roleplay, most of the time, and when it comes time to ask for a favor, it's time for 'Persuasion' (with a situational modifier, perhaps) anyway.

 

[TheGogmagog]

Is this a troll? Because the OP hasn't come back to answer any of the follow up questions. I too would like to know where he is getting his info on intimidate?

What is there to answer?

At present, it seems that intimidate is a waste of skill points. It has the short term effects of bluff or diplomacy, but suffers because:

DMs like to make their NPCs immune to it
It wears off in a few minutes
It carries stiff roleplaying penalties
So - no doubt (in my mind) that as 3.5 has it, it's a waste of skill points.

How would you like to see it in 4e?

I see no supposition about how it works in 4e, it was a simple question about how you would like it to be.

I assume there is some source for it's existence in 4e. Intimidate does show up in the 4e Pre-Release Rules as:
Intimidate: Use this skill to influence others through hostile actions and overt threats

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If that was supposed to be an interesting fight, however... this is why DMs make NPCs immune to it. Goes double for BBEGs.

The same applies to diplomacy in this scenario, too. A rushed Diplomacy check to make someone go from hostile to friendly isn't exactly what the DM had in mind, and it's also quite annoying if the fight looked to be pretty interesting to the PCs.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

Intimidate: Getting the subject to do what you want by playing on his fears.

I think of intimidate during the first scene of Phantom Menace when the Jedi have just landed on Naboo and are talking to Jar-Jar.

"That is the sound of a thousand terrible things coming this way. If they find us, they will crush us, smash us into little pieces, and blast us into oblivion."

They are not threatening the gungan directly (unfortunately), but they are using his fear to convince him to do something that he had already decided against.

 

[Patlin]

I would have preferrred Persuasion over seperate Intimidate, Bluff and Diplomacy. The seperation leads to silliness. We were discussing a similar point at my last game. Let's say my rogue, skilled in Bluff but not the other two, discovers a raid of orcs heading toward the town. He goes there to warn them, but they seem reluctant to believe him. To use his skill and have the best chance of getting them to act in some way, he must lie in some way.

Therefore:

Diplomacy: "A squad of orcs is heading for your front gate!"
Reaction: "Why should we believe you?"

Intimidate: "If you don't start to mobilize right now, they're going to burn down this town."
Reaction: "You're clearly exagerating."

Bluff: "Did I say Orcs? I meant Goblins."
Reaction: "To arms! To arms!"

 

[LostSoul]

I like this definition: To make timid or fearful. It seems to be a popular one.