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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8063700" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Ok... so then why not assume both skills are possible instead of trying to declare that Intimidate might be the only option? Doesn't it make more sense to assume the DM will allow either skill check?And so can persuasion or animal handling (which is really what intimidating an animal should be anyways), and with persuasion they might not hate you afterwards... which seems like the better resultThis is getting to the point of absurdity. But fine. Some people are so stupid they will attack my 15th level fighter with a tankard because they are too drunk.My fighter then punches them unconscious after taking no damage, or maybe 1 damage.No intimidation roll necessary to resolve that situation. Because drunk idiots aren't exactly a "challenge" for a high level fighter to deal with.Point proven?Okay, other than hold a phylactery in your hand or threatening a drunk commoner, how? How does this work more often than not. You guys keep saying that it doesn't have to be threats of violence, but the only time you provided an example of that was to threaten to reveal the crimes of a potion vendor. Which, doesn't work if they aren't a criminal. So, how do you use Intimidation more than persuasion without threats of violence, implied threats of violence, relying on the authority of someone more powerful than you (I'll go tell the king on you) or the person having secret criminal activities you can uncover.</blockquote>

Verification