Intimidate, or "whoops I wasted my skill points"

[Cadfan]

Random comments.

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. It means that the game, overall, should have chances for the PC to use his skill. Try applying that logic to other things- 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. 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.

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. 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.

Finally, re the idea that coercing through threat is not enough ground for a skill to cover.

Really?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I want a +1 to intimidate for my tall hat.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Even if Intimidate is somewhat mechanically suboptimal, it's still a viscerally satisfying skill to use at times. I figure that has to count for something.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I want a +1 to intimidate for my tall hat.

Interesting, previous to this post, I thought Charwoman Gene was a random, averagely friendly and nice poster. But he seems... threatening and dangerous to me now!

 

[FireLance]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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.

Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't talking about every situation. Just specific ones where intimidate might be appropriate.

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.

In the spirit of the game, I would not call this an honest attempt to use bluff by the player. Unless of course that's the kind of game we're playing.

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.

PCs are badass heroes. In many situations, they will have at least some social leverage because, frankly, no one else is willing or able to do what they do.

Certainly determining where certain social skills are appropriate is up to the DM, but I am more inclined to give my players more options rather than less.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

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.

1. "Lend us troops so that we might bring glory to your cause by routing these orcs."

2. "Lend us troops or else the orcs will pour over your border like a flood, burning all in their path. Thousands will die, your holdings shattered, and even if they are repelled before they reach your castle, the cost will be dire and famine will undoubtedly follow in the years to come as your people rebuild and replant their torched fields."

3. "Lend us troops or else Thunk here is going to break your arm. Right Thunk?"

The first seems to unquestionably be Diplomacy. The last unquestionably Intimidate. I just think that the one in the middle is pretty clearly Diplomacy as well. Its practically identical to the first example, except that instead of alluding to good results if aid is given, the player is mentioning bad results if aid is not given. This practically goes hand in hand. Meanwhile, threats are clearly off in their own territory.

 

[Xyl]

A successful Bluff check means that you have come up with a relevant lie and convinced the target of its truth. A bluff check could be used to make an angry ogre believe that you have a dozen strong knights waiting to aid you in the next room. If you wanted to use the threat of those knights to get him to turn over his treasure, you would also need an Intimidate check.

A successful Intimidate check means that you have convinced the target that you are a serious threat to them. An intimidate check could be used to make the same ogre believe you are too dangerous to attack unprovoked. If you wanted to convince the ogre that he should therefore let you pass through his territory, you would also need a Diplomacy check.

A successful Diplomacy check means that you have convinced the target to take a course of action that benefits you by convincing it it benefits itself. A diplomacy check could be used to get the ogre to leave you alone in return for a bribe. If you wanted to trick the ogre by using a promise of a reward in the future but not delivering it, you would also need a Bluff check.

All of this IMO, of course.

 

[Cadfan]

Don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't talking about every situation. Just specific ones where intimidate might be appropriate.

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.

 

[Evilhalfling]

in 3.5 I used intimidate as the skill needed for commanding troops. Anyone in direct control in rolled and intimdate check, and success added modifiers to the mas combat roles.

It got used a couple of times by PCs, more by NPCs and helped make the argument that fighters (and paladins) made the best war leaders.

There was also a fair amount of houseruling, either allowing it as a move acion, or providing run away benifits rather than the simple 1 round shaken. Of course these effects were completely subject to DM logic, I wouldn't want an intimatate twinky to avoid major (and fun) battles just because he had one good skill. But intimdateing the last, wounded guy into fleeing/surrendering was fine.