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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9538487" data-attributes="member: 6796468">4e's social skills were not "Better" than 5e's or 3e's.They were more narrowly defined into powers, sure. Giving you specific uses for it that the rules gave a structure for that DMs largely accepted.But even then, the issue remained one between DM and Player, not Rules and DM or Rules and Player.Both DM and Player are always going to have their own experiences with intimidation. Whether that's as a bully or a victim, boss or employee, or other power dynamic that is going to inform their, personal, interpretation of what intimidation looks like and the 'appropriate' response to it, as filtered through a given bartender or peasant or villain or whatever.And because most people are the victims of an abusive power dynamic at SOME point in their lives, that interpretation is typically one that is upsetting and often outright defiant because the consequences in a game are much lower than a real world bloody lip or getting fired or being thrown out on the street or whatever.What D&D needs for Intimidation to work well is a sidebar. Not skill powers or some magical function of rules that will suddenly make it "Better".Something that basically says "The DC for Intimidation should almost always be lower than the DC of Persuasion or Deception, but it typically comes with a negative consequence to reputation and occasionally betrayal or harm at a later date." instead of every third NPC having a vastly higher Intimidation DC than Persuasion because "They don't take guff from anyone" or whatever.Problem basically solved.</blockquote>

Verification