Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5084533" data-attributes="member: 63214">Beyond the roleplaying at the table issue, I find Diplomacy is too broad, and bluff/intimidate are too narrow. Celebrim pointed out that you can only use intimidate if you are making a personal threat, rather than any kind of threat like "If you don't help, your kingdom will fall." Bluff is for 'passing off a lie,' and as far as I can tell, diplomacy is used for everything else in a talky-talky situation. I think they should be closer to evenly split. That is, they can all be go-to social skills, instead of having one general go-to skill and two niche skills.I think that's truer to the richness of human interaction, that is, that some people will respond to being intimidated (EDIT: And not become hostile! They will only listen to a powerful speaker, or whatever) better than being convinced(not necessarily being lied to!), and not at all to someone appearing diplomatic. And more fun for the players who only have access to intimidate or bluff. I think I imply my stance in the OP, but I figured a more well-stated position would garner discussion. Anyone have any thoughts?</blockquote>