Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 4207263" data-attributes="member: 3424">While I take that point, it still highlights the limitations of Intimidate in the 3.5e rule set, and (perhaps consequentially) as understood by the majority of posters: it's a short-term effect, and it's limited only to making the subject fear you, as opposed to playing on his fears in general. If Intimidate is short duration, has negative consequences, and doesn't do anything more than a successful Diplomacy check can do, why would anyone ever take it instead of Diplomacy if he had the choice?So let me restate the question. How would you make Intimidate roughly as useful as Diplomacy in 4e? It's not sufficient to say that they are useful in different circumstances, or that the DM can always come up with a scenario where Intimidate is more useful than Diplomacy. In 3.5e, you could come up with scenarios where Use Rope is more useful than Spot, but that does not change the fact that in most games, Spot is used much more often than Use Rope. What changes would you make to either Intimidate or Diplomacy so that a character who is left with one skill choice and the option to choose between the two of them would find them to be of approximately equal value?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FireLance, post: 4207263, member: 3424"] While I take that point, it still highlights the limitations of Intimidate in the 3.5e rule set, and (perhaps consequentially) as understood by the majority of posters: it's a short-term effect, and it's limited only to making the subject fear [I]you[/I], as opposed to playing on his fears in general. If Intimidate is short duration, has negative consequences, and doesn't do anything more than a successful Diplomacy check can do, why would anyone ever take it instead of Diplomacy if he had the choice? So let me restate the question. How would you make Intimidate roughly as useful as Diplomacy in 4e? It's not sufficient to say that they are useful in different circumstances, or that the DM can always come up with a scenario where Intimidate is more useful than Diplomacy. In 3.5e, you could come up with scenarios where Use Rope is more useful than Spot, but that does not change the fact that in most games, Spot is used much more often than Use Rope. What changes would you make to either Intimidate or Diplomacy so that a character who is left with one skill choice and the option to choose between the two of them would find them to be of approximately equal value? [/QUOTE]

Verification