GoodKingJayIII
First Post
Cadfan said:
Yep, that's the one. Like I said, exceedingly difficult. So difficult, in fact, that only a high level character built for intimidation would have a shot, and a remote one at that.
Last edited:
Intimidate, or "whoops I wasted my skill points"
Yep, that's the one. Like I said, exceedingly difficult. So difficult, in fact, that only a high level character built for intimidation would have a shot, and a remote one at that.
Simon Marks
First Post
So, using an example from 3.5, if I have a base of +77 to my diplomacy role then anyone I can talk to is my friend?
Or are some things not swayed by Diplomacy?
If some things are not swayed by Diplomacy, surely some things are not forced into helping you with Intimidate?
Intimidate (like Diplomacy) is not a non-magical form of dominate.
Or are some things not swayed by Diplomacy?
If some things are not swayed by Diplomacy, surely some things are not forced into helping you with Intimidate?
Intimidate (like Diplomacy) is not a non-magical form of dominate.
Hella_Tellah
Explorer
I'd rather have Intimidate and Diplomacy have very informal rules. I'd make them both "attacks" versus will defense, with the stipulation that the DM should modify the NPC's will defense based on the NPC's personality, the quality of roleplaying that accompanies the roll, and the overall situation.
Here's the amount of game text I'd be happiest with:
"Intimidate: Opposed by the target's will defense. On a successful roll, the target is intimidated. DMs should determine what "intimidated" means in the context of the encounter, and should modify the target's will defense against the attempted intimidation based on the target's personality, the roleplaying that accompanies the roll, and the overall situation. Players can attempt to intimidate other players, but the targeted player is free to determine what it means for her character to be intimidated."
That's pretty much how I run it now. I expect, though, that WotC would include a table of modifiers, with listings of circumstances that could affect the roll. I'd ignore the table and make up modifiers on the spot, myself, but other people use their books more at the table than I like to.
Here's the amount of game text I'd be happiest with:
"Intimidate: Opposed by the target's will defense. On a successful roll, the target is intimidated. DMs should determine what "intimidated" means in the context of the encounter, and should modify the target's will defense against the attempted intimidation based on the target's personality, the roleplaying that accompanies the roll, and the overall situation. Players can attempt to intimidate other players, but the targeted player is free to determine what it means for her character to be intimidated."
That's pretty much how I run it now. I expect, though, that WotC would include a table of modifiers, with listings of circumstances that could affect the roll. I'd ignore the table and make up modifiers on the spot, myself, but other people use their books more at the table than I like to.
Darkthorne
First Post
I believe as stated the OP is taking what has been shown out of context. At no point was it stated the target is "immune" to intimidate, but stated that the use of intimidate by the PC's would result in a failure for this specific instance. Assuming the OP's statements are 100% accurate is only adding to the confusion.
For example (genre change) if you wanted to get a Klingon to do something, I can see Intimidate, Bluff and Bribery (not sure what skill this would fall under) working exceptionally well, however I can see diplomacy tanking (failing) every single time (or at least most of the time). In some cultures baring your teeth is a sign of aggresion doesn't matter how good you are at diplomacy if you keep doing this then you are SOL. I fully like being able to decide ahead of time that one specific use of a skill will result in a single failure for each time used vs successes against that specific end goal
For example (genre change) if you wanted to get a Klingon to do something, I can see Intimidate, Bluff and Bribery (not sure what skill this would fall under) working exceptionally well, however I can see diplomacy tanking (failing) every single time (or at least most of the time). In some cultures baring your teeth is a sign of aggresion doesn't matter how good you are at diplomacy if you keep doing this then you are SOL. I fully like being able to decide ahead of time that one specific use of a skill will result in a single failure for each time used vs successes against that specific end goal
Yes, the OP was taking a lot out of context. As has been pointed out repeatedly, 4e has no skill points to waste, so not only his attempt at wit fairly lame, but it also demonstrates that he isn't speaking from a knowledgeable position.Darkthorne said:
FWIW, you probably don't even need to change genres. You could substitute orcs, hobgoblins, or gnolls for Klingons.
Creamsteak
Explorer
Some enemies are going to be more resistant to bluff and diplomacy than intimidate, I would think. For example, a captured enemy lieutenant is probably fairly hard willed and difficult to pull one over on. Intimidate might work better.
