Wolfwood2 said:
Can we just agree on the basic premise that Intimidation pretty much sucks in 3.5? Because if you won't even go that far with me, I guess there's nothing we can discuss. Our points of view are too far apart.
...
I want to agree with you.
But...
Ok, here's the thing about 3e Intimidate.
The 3e rules are allergic to vague crunch. It makes them break out in hives.
So things that would fit perfectly in other RPGs are verboten in 3e.
In another game, Intimidate would work something like this: "The DM sets a DC, and the player rolls an Intimidate check. If the PC is successful, the Intimidated NPC believes that the PCs threats are credible. This skill might be used to convince a small time thug to give the PCs information on a mob boss, or to scare off would be attackers."
And then the exact result of the Intimidation would be decided by the DM, using only that guideline and the DM's judgment of the situation.
This is how things work in lots of other RPGs.
But in 3e, they wanted to make it scientific. So they created a hierarchy of NPC behaviors, from Hostile to Friendly to, whatever, Fanboy or something, I never bothered using it. And they defined Intimidate by how it moved an NPC on that hierarchy. What they came up with was a skill that created an NPC that functioned as if Friendly, but which secretly hates and fears the PCs. They gave it a duration, since obviously a status effect change needs a duration, and called it a day.
So... within the framework of 3e rules design, Intimidate is entirely appropriate as is.
Its just a framework that many, myself included, feel is a bit inadequate for the more fluid world of NPC interaction. Or... maybe not inadequate, per se, but... incomplete.