Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Just a point - I don't have a copy of the 4e rules, so obviously any specific references to rules that I make are going to be referring to 3.5 mechanics unless otherwise mentioned so can we quit all the unproductive pedantry please?
"Lend us your troops or we'll leave you to sit in the mess you've created"
"Lend us your troops or we'll report to the king that you should be left to sort out the mess you've created"
"Lend us your troops or we'll report to the king that you're incompetent and should be replaced"
"Lend us your troops or we'll report to the king that you're incompetent and should be executed"
"Lend us your troops or Thunk, as a member of the kings Justiciars, authorised to be judge, jury and executioner, will find you incompetent to rule and execute you in accordance with the kings law"
"Lend us your troops or Thunk will punch you in the face"
At what point does intimidation start and diplomacy end?
Cadfan said: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..." etc.
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.
"Lend us your troops or we'll leave you to sit in the mess you've created"
"Lend us your troops or we'll report to the king that you should be left to sort out the mess you've created"
"Lend us your troops or we'll report to the king that you're incompetent and should be replaced"
"Lend us your troops or we'll report to the king that you're incompetent and should be executed"
"Lend us your troops or Thunk, as a member of the kings Justiciars, authorised to be judge, jury and executioner, will find you incompetent to rule and execute you in accordance with the kings law"
"Lend us your troops or Thunk will punch you in the face"
At what point does intimidation start and diplomacy end?
Diplomacy would be used for bribery - you're trying to get someone to do something by striking a deal.Darkthorne said: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).
If you're good at diplomacy, you stop doing it after the first time someone reacts negatively to it.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.
Causality. You choose your skills and then you play the game, not vice versa (usually - although it seems 4e might be tinkering with that, according to rumors)D'karr said:But if you find the skill to be a waste, why would you spend your trained skill pick on it?
Last edited: