Intimidate, or "whoops I wasted my skill points"
- Thread starter Saeviomagy
- Start date
wedgeski
Adventurer
I like Intimidate as a social skill with ramifications. There aren't really any consequences for being diplomatic (well, maybe the vicious warlord will think you're a wuss), but there can certainly be consequences for being heavy-handed or using veiled threats, both of which I consider as a DM to be part of an Intimidate check. It's also why I *tend* to make intimidation more effective than diplomacy, depending on the NPC involved, because the PC's are effectively making an enemy at the same time as getting what they want.
personaly i hope there wil be some kind of morale system in 4th, like there was in AD&D 2nd
Becouse in 3.x al enemies seem to be willing to fight to the death
if there woeld be a morale system it woeld be nice if a intimidate roll during combat woeld give a mob a penalty on the morale role to see if they flee
times when i think morale woeld be apropriate
like when al non minion mobs have died i think there shoeld be a big chance that any minions left woeld make a run for it.
When the thougest openint goes down realy fast ( their defender being gibbed by a few crits)
this woeld in my opinion be situatons where intimidate shoeld help convince the enemies that making a run for it might be a good choice
Becouse in 3.x al enemies seem to be willing to fight to the death
if there woeld be a morale system it woeld be nice if a intimidate roll during combat woeld give a mob a penalty on the morale role to see if they flee
times when i think morale woeld be apropriate
like when al non minion mobs have died i think there shoeld be a big chance that any minions left woeld make a run for it.
When the thougest openint goes down realy fast ( their defender being gibbed by a few crits)
this woeld in my opinion be situatons where intimidate shoeld help convince the enemies that making a run for it might be a good choice
FireLance
Legend
I think that for game purposes, Bluff, Diplomacy and Initimidate would be better balanced by re-defining them as:
Bluff: Getting the subject to do what you want by making him trust you.
Diplomacy: Getting the subject to do what you want by making him like you.
Intimidate: Getting the subject to do what you want by playing on his fears.
Under these new definitions, convincing someone of the truth when you have no proof is not a Diplomacy check, it's a Bluff check. If you're telling the truth, then the DC is simply based on how improbable your (true) story seems. If you happen to be lying, then you also have to beat the subject's Insight check.
Similarly, painting a dire scenario of what could happen if the subject does not do what you ask him to do should be an Intimidate check, not a Diplomacy check. Threatening to personally do violence to the subject or his family members is only one way in which Intimidate could be used, and the one most likely to have only a short-term effect and/or to backfire. Suggesting to the Duke that the gnolls are going to invade his domain next unless he sends troops to help the neighboring barony fight off their invasion would be an Intimidate check that would not have short-term effects or make him ill-disposed to the intimidator.
However, if these new definitions are used, the skills may need re-naming to better reflect what they actually do.
Bluff: Getting the subject to do what you want by making him trust you.
Diplomacy: Getting the subject to do what you want by making him like you.
Intimidate: Getting the subject to do what you want by playing on his fears.
Under these new definitions, convincing someone of the truth when you have no proof is not a Diplomacy check, it's a Bluff check. If you're telling the truth, then the DC is simply based on how improbable your (true) story seems. If you happen to be lying, then you also have to beat the subject's Insight check.
Similarly, painting a dire scenario of what could happen if the subject does not do what you ask him to do should be an Intimidate check, not a Diplomacy check. Threatening to personally do violence to the subject or his family members is only one way in which Intimidate could be used, and the one most likely to have only a short-term effect and/or to backfire. Suggesting to the Duke that the gnolls are going to invade his domain next unless he sends troops to help the neighboring barony fight off their invasion would be an Intimidate check that would not have short-term effects or make him ill-disposed to the intimidator.
However, if these new definitions are used, the skills may need re-naming to better reflect what they actually do.
Raduin711
Hero
I think there should be limits to how useful social skills can be used in various social situations. There is a time and place for diplomacy, and a time and place for intimidation.
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.
The problem in 3e is it put too much stock in bonuses and penalties. The 3e solution for the DM in the above situation would have to apply a penalty of 3 bajillion and 20 in order to counteract the absurd roll, which has players crying foul. And the players are right... DM's shouldn't apply penalties like that. And the DM is also right; the Intimidation attempt was absurd and metagamey.
I think 4e's solution is a sight better. Rather than asking the DM to conjure situation penalties out of his butt to describe the situation, it simply allows DMs to control what skills are appropriate. Now let's say the player somehow manages to manufacture a situation where he can intimidate the duke into providing military assistance/money/etc. all while inside the duke's keep, with the PC's surrounded by guards that won't arrest them as soon as they leave the duke's presence (I mean, seriously) then sure, the DM can bend things. With this system, what social skills are useful is the DM's perogative, and now the difference between diplomacy and intimidation is more than merely mechanical.
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.
The problem in 3e is it put too much stock in bonuses and penalties. The 3e solution for the DM in the above situation would have to apply a penalty of 3 bajillion and 20 in order to counteract the absurd roll, which has players crying foul. And the players are right... DM's shouldn't apply penalties like that. And the DM is also right; the Intimidation attempt was absurd and metagamey.
I think 4e's solution is a sight better. Rather than asking the DM to conjure situation penalties out of his butt to describe the situation, it simply allows DMs to control what skills are appropriate. Now let's say the player somehow manages to manufacture a situation where he can intimidate the duke into providing military assistance/money/etc. all while inside the duke's keep, with the PC's surrounded by guards that won't arrest them as soon as they leave the duke's presence (I mean, seriously) then sure, the DM can bend things. With this system, what social skills are useful is the DM's perogative, and now the difference between diplomacy and intimidation is more than merely mechanical.
FireLance said:I think that for game purposes, Bluff, Diplomacy and Initimidate would be better balanced by re-defining them as:
Bluff: Getting the subject to do what you want by making him trust you.
Diplomacy: Getting the subject to do what you want by making him like you.
Intimidate: Getting the subject to do what you want by playing on his fears.
Under these new definitions, convincing someone of the truth when you have no proof is not a Diplomacy check, it's a Bluff check. If you're telling the truth, then the DC is simply based on how improbable your (true) story seems. If you happen to be lying, then you also have to beat the subject's Insight check.
Similarly, painting a dire scenario of what could happen if the subject does not do what you ask him to do should be an Intimidate check, not a Diplomacy check. Threatening to personally do violence to the subject or his family members is only one way in which Intimidate could be used, and the one most likely to have only a short-term effect and/or to backfire. Suggesting to the Duke that the gnolls are going to invade his domain next unless he sends troops to help the neighboring barony fight off their invasion would be an Intimidate check that would not have short-term effects or make him ill-disposed to the intimidator.
However, if these new definitions are used, the skills may need re-naming to better reflect what they actually do.
What if you're lying about something they might be afraid of?
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.
Raduin, please don't bring the Duke to this thread. He needs to stay in that other one.
Last edited:
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
FireLance said:
re: diplomacy - someone doesn't have to like you in order to agree with the negotiated settlement you've proposed.
My personal definitions would be
Bluff: Deceiving someone into doing what you want
Diplomacy: Persuading someone to do what you want with logic and evidence
Intimidate: Coerce someone to do what you want with threats (real or implied)
incantator
First Post
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. 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.
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.
arscott
First Post
I feel that appealing to fear should be an intimidate check.
But appealing to fear is not the same as appealing to caution, or appealing to worries, or appealing to a pragmatic sense of self-preservation.
If you use logic to demonstrate that the target has a good reason to be afraid, that's a diplomacy check, not an intimidate check.
I'd also like to see innuendo back in the game, to broaden the range of social skills (with skill challenges, I see them getting a lot more important), and to make diplomacy less of a catch-all.
But appealing to fear is not the same as appealing to caution, or appealing to worries, or appealing to a pragmatic sense of self-preservation.
If you use logic to demonstrate that the target has a good reason to be afraid, that's a diplomacy check, not an intimidate check.
I'd also like to see innuendo back in the game, to broaden the range of social skills (with skill challenges, I see them getting a lot more important), and to make diplomacy less of a catch-all.
Similar Threads
- Poll
