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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9540704" data-attributes="member: 23751">Depending on what the action is, the player(s) could certainly that on a success would hedge out or make such consequences uncertain.  Let's say that those PCs were not being chased by orcs, but knew orcs were coming in a few days. If they told me that they were going to make a large firebreak in the terrain around the town during that time and then later set the fire, that action declaration would/could prevent the town from being at risk from that fire.I can't see his posts as he is the one person on this site that I've ever blocked.  I don't agree with that assertion, though. Remember, skill rolls only come into play if the outcome is in doubt AND there are consequences for failure.  With a BBEG, intimidate would likely not work at all, or if it did, wouldn't be able to do things like force surrender.  That of course depends on circumstances, the BBEG and more.  Only the DM of that particular game could know for sure.Intimidate need not come with negative costs on success(or even failure), and if it does, it need not be unpalatable.I said as much in some of my posts.  I've seen and run games where intimidation success and failure had no negative costs at all.  Once someone in a game I was playing in tried to intimidate a gang and the failure just caused them to laugh at the attempt.  No attack. No hatred or dislike.  No being out for revenge.  Just laughing at the absurdity of one guy trying to intimidate a gang.  And I agree that intimidate doesn't break the game if the consequences are good, just a little negative, or non-existent</blockquote>

Verification