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.