Originally Posted by Saeviomagy Regarding 3.5 intimidate
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.
Originally Posted by Saeviomagy Regarding 4e intimidate
How would you like to see it in 4e?
Tuft said:Waste of a feat then, since that is what you pay for getting a skill in 4E...
Raduin711 said: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.
It's a handwave, like how a single Athletics skill means that you are equally good at jumping, climbing and swimming. There are also plenty of implied subcategories for skills such as Arcana, Nature and Religion.Cadfan said:Second, regarding the idea that intimidate should be "convincing people of things through the use of fear."
I think its safe to say that convincing people to do things through fear is something with a LOT of subcategories. And I don't think they should all be treated alike.
For what it's worth convincing someone that his wife is having an affair would be a Bluff check by my categorization. I might allow an Intimidate check to convince a man to kill his wife because he is afraid she is going to have an affair, though.Convincing someone that you will break their arm if they don't comply is one subcategory. Convincing someone of the truth of their secret fear that their wife is having an affair is another. You don't intimidate someone into believing that. You might insinuate, you might suggest, you might exaggerate, but you don't intimidate.
Cadfan said:First, re the "there should always be a chance because a PC invested resources in this."
No, there shouldn't. The fact that a PC invested resources in Intimidate doesn't mean that fairness dictates that every specific situation have at least some chance of Intimidate working.
Cadfan said:if I invest lots of feats in improving my Bluff skill, I still fail when I try to convince the Duke that he's really a frog.
Cadfan said:Likewise, if I invest lots of feats on my Intimidate ability, it still doesn't work when I lack the leverage necessary to make credible threats. A high modifier and a high die roll should not replace these things, they should augment them, much like any other social skills.
The problem for me isn't the fact that there are subcategories. Its how different this particular alleged subcategory is, and how "convince someone that bad things will happen unless they take action" is so much like Diplomacy.FireLance said:It's a handwave, like how a single Athletics skill means that you are equally good at jumping, climbing and swimming. There are also plenty of implied subcategories for skills such as Arcana, Nature and Religion.
Specifically, you were talking about a character with 1 hp remaining, currently situated between the jaws of the villain's pet Rancor, trying to intimidate someone.GoodKingJayIII said:Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't talking about every situation. Just specific ones where intimidate might be appropriate.