NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6745474" data-attributes="member: 6787503">Then we agree that giving in to intimidation (i.e. letting yourself be intimidated) is a choice. You're making a distinction here between an attempt to intimidate (which I would represent with a die roll), and the success or failure of that attempt (whether the roll hits the DC or not). To me, this is like an attack roll only resolving how well an attack is aimed but not whether it hits. This depends on how you define intimidated. I'm willing to concede that sometimes people have a hard time controlling their feelings, but I disagree that determining that is what an ability check is for. I rather think it's about determining whether the creature making the check achieves its goal or not. An attempt to intimidate implies a motive other than causing a fear response. See, I would say that you didn't let yourself be intimidated by him. If I was to represent your interaction with a Charisma (Intimidation) check, I would say he failed because he was unable to achieve his goal in trying to intimidate you. To me, what you're describing is a failed attempt at intimidation. If you had been cowed, subdued, or intimidated, you wouldn't have stood up to those guys. I agree that intimidation is not mind control. This is precisely why I don't call for a check when a PC is the target. I don't see any value in checking a PC's involuntary responses when the player can just decide to do whatever s/he likes. To use someone else's formulation, this comes down to whether you role then roll, or if you roll then role. I prefer the former. That seems to be what happened, however. The bikers failed to have the influence they wanted to gain over this person, either through intimidation or persuasion, so they resorted to violence to prove they were willing to back up their threats, and hopefully have an easier time intimidating people in the future. This only applies when using your definition of intimidated. I don't use ability checks to determine the emotional states of PCs. Fair enough. It sounds like you and you group are genuinely happy with that, so no harm done, and please don't think I'm being dismissive. Not really. The DM's prerogative to describe the Orc as an intimidating presence is in no way dependent on a die roll. Proficiency with Intimidation suggests that well enough. You didn't. I did, because that's what I see as the Orc's goal in trying to intimidate.</blockquote>

Verification