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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 691597" data-attributes="member: 4134">This is true: you should not be able to intimidate throne and crown from a mighty king. Nor should you be able to intimidate house and wife and whatever from a simble man. But that's not because some NPC's should not be intimidated (which I'd only consider if the NPC in question is immune to fear, for NPC's should obey the rules, and the DM should have better ways than the old "doesn't work" trick), but because you can only gain so much from intimidate, and turning over all his possessions or getting himself in danger are things the victim just won't do, whoever the victim is.In d20 Modern, the size modifiers are no house rule, and I'm quite sure that's how intimidate will work in the revisions for D&D as well.Why, if there was a thumb-size vampire standing in front of me threatening to suck me dry of blood (like it would fit into him), I'd just flick him away with my index finger...You know, this is an outrageous lie, resulting in a -40 to your bluff, so it will be incredibly hard to convince anyone of that. And if you have a bluff bonus that you could win that check against the PC's, you're the best liar in the world, and should well get your chance to make the players think that. Also, you forget one thing: the failed sense motive check will convince the players that the NPC is telling the truth. As he sees it. They could still be on the sure sight (on account that the NPC has been charmed by the dragon).Not neccessarily: how many villains in movies (or books) have pulled that trick on: telling that they die if the don't talk, but neglecting to say that they die anyway. It's not only what you say, but how you say it, there fore intimidate is keyed to CHA, not INT.I don't think they might run. Intimidate is not just frightening or a show of strength, or it would be keyed to STR. Intimidate is making it clear to them that running won't help, it's like the effect a snake has to a hare: it freezes them. Sure, the moment you leave them alone they will run like hell, and it won't hold forever, but in that moment, they do what you say (and that moment is enough most of the time)Well, cutting off heads is not Intimidating, and in that case there are bad circumstances (that would likely give penalties to your roll). That would equal to a failed intimidate check. Don't forget: you have to separate what the player says and what the character says: either you give penalties or bonuses according to how the player phrases it, or you let him make the roll and roleplay it, or you just ignore what the player said (because he himself is not good at all at intimidating, but that should not get in his way as he has put quite a lot into that skill).That, again, would be a good intimidate check. (depending on how the character says it)You don't have to give them two choices. You can leave out the good one, because they won't take the bad and take the other one no matter what. Don't forget that you have influenced them, and they have problems keeping their pants dry, and much more to think stright. You could also leave the bad choice out (or even don't tell them any consequences.) and let the threat hang in the air, unspoken, but for your bearing (it's not only about words, but about how you deliver them)</blockquote>

Verification