Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raduin711" data-source="post: 4205770" data-attributes="member: 15303">I think there should be limits to how useful social skills can be used in various social situations.    There is a time and place for diplomacy, and a time and place for intimidation.Suppose someone is at 1 hp and in the mouth of the villain's Rancor.  Intimidating the villain is NOT going to work.  I don't care if your half-orc's muscles are the size of texas, and has a rank of 3 bajillion, and rolled a natural 20, and the villain's HD is 1.  The problem in 3e is it put too much stock in bonuses and penalties.  The 3e solution for the DM in the above situation would have to apply a penalty of 3 bajillion and 20 in order to counteract the absurd roll, which has players crying foul.  And the players are right... DM's shouldn't apply penalties like that.  And the DM is also right; the Intimidation attempt was absurd and metagamey.  I think 4e's solution is a sight better.  Rather than asking the DM to conjure situation penalties out of his butt to describe the situation, it simply allows DMs to control what skills are appropriate.  Now let's say the player somehow manages to manufacture a situation where he can intimidate the duke into providing military assistance/money/etc. all while inside the duke's keep, with the PC's surrounded by guards that won't arrest them as soon as they leave the duke's presence (I mean, seriously) then sure, the DM can bend things.  With this system, what social skills are useful is the DM's perogative, and now the difference between diplomacy and intimidation is more than merely mechanical.</blockquote>

Verification