Saeviomagy
Adventurer
D'karr said:
Hmm, let us objectively compare diplomacy, bluff or intimidate, shall we? We'll use the 3.5e rules.
Bluff - can either cause the target to behave how you want them to behave for a short time, or believe something you want them to believe with no limit on duration. It's opposed by a skill that most people don't actually have. Can also deliver secret messages, allow you to hide in combat and deny your opponent his dex to ac (both fairly major combat impacts with the right circumstances). Takes 1 round+ to perform.
Diplomacy - can permanently change the attitude that NPCs have towards you. Can pleade cases and negotiate deals. Resisted with a static DC that does not scale with level. Has the potential to backfire. Takes 1 round+ to perfom.
Intimidate - can change a targets attitude to you for a short period of time. Has the potential to backfire. Automatically screws up your relationship with the target over any longer period of time. Has penalties for being smaller than your target. Opposed by a score that everyone has that scales proportionally to your skill, forcing you to max the skill out and even then only have a small edge. Can also be used to effectively waste your turn (ie - you spend your turn intimidating, which may or may not work, and the effect of a success is your opponents actions are slightly impeded for his turn). Doesn't work on anyone immune to fear. Requires at least a minute except for the waste your turn option. Takes 1 minute to perform
Now, without even considering other issues - which of the three skills above are:
a) Useful in the majority of social situations
b) Useful in the roles that they are appropriate for
c) A good use of skill points to ensure that you can take part in social situations
Intimidate is useless in the following situations from a mechanical standpoint
1) You want to keep good relations with the target (ie - the target is important in any way and is not already unfriendly or worse).
2) The target is hostile and an in a superior position to you (because they're unlikely to let you stand around for a minute making threats when they could just roll for initiative).
This basically restricts intimidate to being used in the following scenarios
1) interrogating a captive after you've beaten his fellows.
2) avoiding fights that you would have won anyway.
3) interrogating someone that you could easily overpower (which is basically 1+2)
Now, there's a couple more things to hamper it's use that are not mechanical, but certainly seem widespread.
1) DMs tend to frown on players using intimidate in any public venue unless it's against NPCs who are considered extremely disreputable (which makes it difficult to sue in scenario 3).
2) DMs tend to be more prone to deciding that an NPC simply cannot be intimidated than they are to decide that an NPC cannot be bluffed or diplomed(?).
3) DMs tend to be willing to allow diplomacy or bluff to invade the space of intimidate. If an implied threat is not real, a DM is more likely to call for bluff than intimidate. If the NPC is being offered a plea bargain - diplomacy.
4) It strains credibility and hurts the campaign for captured NPCs to NEVER speak simply because noone in the party has intimidate.
Now, honestly and even before the final section - which of the three skills are worth having?
It's also totally irrelevant. The original post didn't say "the duke in the example was immune to intimidate" it said "DMs like to make their NPCs immune to intimidate", which in my opinion and looking at the posts on this board is true. A large proportion of DMs feel that if their NPC has the upper hand in any way (higher level, comparatively unhurt, numerical superiority, obviously muscly compared with the 'weakling mage' etc) then they can just ignore or harshly penalise an intimidate check.Fifth Element said:
The same is rarely true of bluff or diplomacy.
