Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Narris 03-20-07, 04:03 PM	I rolled a 21 on my intimidate check and the DM rolled an 11. The DM said the guy was shaken but not to the point that I could influence him. On a later Intimidate, he didn't even roll an opposed level check, just some nonsense about some +3.
Flan 03-20-07, 04:14 PM	Apparantly your intimidate and diplomacy checks to change your DM's mind failed too.
Matthew77 03-20-07, 04:15 PM	Discuss with your DM how he wants to let intimidate work in his campaign. If you don't like what he says, ask him if you can re-assign your skill points because you thought Intimidate worked differently.
DarkNick 03-20-07, 04:17 PM	Depends what you were trying to influence them to do. If you were trying to influence someone to "better pray for me boy, pray real good" or told them to "squeal piggy" you probably won't have much luck unless you wore stained overalls held up by one strap and only had two teeth in your mouth. You can't exactly bully a king unless you have him by the balls either... But saying that it does sound like your dm wants things to only go his way and does not want you influencing his npcs actions...
Paneki 03-20-07, 04:21 PM	Intimidate lets you influence others in means to frightening them. They won't change from Indiferent to friendly. But used enough force, they will do the same things (just don't expect them to do it gladly or that they are telling you the truth.) However, a Friendly attitude seldom leads to a backstab from that NPC a week later. The best way to solve this is discuss it with your DM
DarkNick 03-20-07, 04:33 PM	Hey Narris, just noticed you have been having quite a few problems with your dm lately. This means one of two things as far as I can see it. Either he does not like you, or you are making it hard for him and he is getting ****** off. Perhaps you are always scrounging for every scrap of advantage, maybe you are too power hungry for the dm to handle, maybe your character is too powerful compared to the rest of the group, maybe you are hogging the action, maybe you whine when you don't get your own way, throw tantrums, are arrogant, rules lawyer, control freak, always think you are right....maybe you are simply a difficult player. Just something to consider. It probably feels like the dm is always trying to restrict you and there is usually a good reason for this. Try seeing it from his perpective.
Voran 03-20-07, 05:02 PM	Apparantly your intimidate and diplomacy checks to change your DM's mind failed too. Classic :) +1
Myzery78 03-20-07, 05:20 PM	From the SRD: You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile). If you fail the check by 5 or more, the target provides you with incorrect or useless information, or otherwise frustrates your efforts. Going by the rules the creature does behave exactly as if it was friendly by means of Diplomacy. In character it would certainly be described differently, but the quality of information is identical. The presence of consequences for failure indicate that upon success truthful information is given. An intimidated individual may very well still hold back some information however. A soldier would hold back information regarding troop movements that are critical to the success of a battle, but he would most likely be willing to tell you the strength of those troops in order to keep you from attacking them and thus saving your life. The key here is remembering that while intimidated he considers you a friend. Basic information about himself and his activities should be fair game. Information that would put another friend at risk would be held back, and information that would prevent conflict between two "friends" would be offered. Also remember that shortly after leaving your presence the creatures attitude goes to unfriendly or hostile and a second intimidate against the same target fails automatically so unless you plan to adopt the individual you're making a permanent enemy. Finally intimidating an individual takes 10 full rounds and unlike a diplomacy check cant be rushed and completed in a single round. I once had a PC attempt to intimidate a major crime boss in a city with two body guards at his side. He didnt even get to roll the check because after the first of his 10 rounds of verbal threats he was relocated. intimidating with intent to alter an individuals attitude requires him to be compelled not to leave or otherwise interrupt your threats meaning its usually limited to prisoners in one form or another.
bob_the_great 03-21-07, 11:28 AM	can i just piggy-back this a little? I have a story. in our last game we subdued a rogue after killing his allies (a group of bandits tried to ambush us). our party fighter was getting nowhere through his use of the intimidate skill. so i stepped in and it went something like this: me (chewing on the arm of his fallen ally) - "talk or this will be your arm" rogue - gives me attitude me - i ask my ally to hold out the rogues arm. i stand over him with my scythe - "you wanna talk now" rogue - another smart reply me - i chop off his arm, stop the bleeding, etc. me (chewing on his arm) - you wanna talk now? rogue - very unhelpful at this point i realize intimidating him will get me nowhere (btw i rolled 17 and 16 for imtimidate checks during the process. with no ranks and a 9 Cha i didn't expect a ton but much more considering i acted it out well and deserved some conditional modifiers), so i give him a speech about not preying on the weak and learning his lesson. basically, i do not want to kill him. he then goes on to tell me that he can just get the arm regenerated and that he's going to keep preying on people blah blah blah. he ended up dead, my character ended up conflicted, and i'm glad i didn't bother taking ranks in the skill.
Myzery78 03-21-07, 12:20 PM	Your example is somewhat unclear on wether your intimidate check beat his opposed check though since you were ambushed by bandits Im going to assume that you are a low level party. In my opinion I'd have given you a +2 or +4 circumstance bonus. Even without one though, a 17 probably should have done it for a low level opponent. The regeneration comment gives me pause about my assumptions since it is by no means cheap. All this brings me to two significant DM mistakes that really can be annoying: -Preventing the intimidate skill from functioning as intended -Playing NPCs without the strong(at times overwhelming) survival instinct that is present in most creatures. This comes down to two points: -NPCs should surrender if faced with no chance of victory and posses a belief that their surrender will be accepted(they can still prepare to attack if attacked), and there is no important factor to discourage this(rage: party just killed a family member, duty: paladin defending a holy place, stupidity: int score lower than 4) -Prisoners should be somewhat cooperative unless they have one of the reasons above and even then a successful intimidate check should override those reasons(neither side should likely have a circumstance bonus as you would both be entitled to one). The only creatures who are not vulnerable to being intimidated are those immune to Mind-effecting effects or Fear. DMs need to learn to stop treating NPCs they dont want to cooperate as if they all had the Paladins 3rd level feature Aura of Courage.
bob_the_great 03-21-07, 12:39 PM	we're levels 6-7. i have no clue where the npc though he was getting regeneration from. I didn't expect much. maybe a little fake remorse. maybe a little info. even a "please don't kill me i don't know anything." instead a got a guy goading me into killing him. what's frustrating me is that the main reason i joined in with the intimidate was that standard attempts were not working at all and i really wanted an idea of whether these bandits were just in over their head or if they were pros. most of the details point to the fact it was a random encounter except for this hardcore rogue who was willing to gruesomely die rather than talk. I have no clue if his lack of survival instinct was in-character or bad DMing. i think you hit upon it up well though that my frustration was probably more with the lack of survival instinct than the failure of imtimidate. the original post just made me think of it though, as intimidation was the intent.
kelvinaw273 03-21-07, 04:38 PM	Now a number of factors come in here: 1) An intimidated person is NOT friendly. They are scared and will act on your behalf as if they were friendly though. 2) There may be factors that your character may not be aware of. One is that if you are striving for information, they might not have it. Another is that they may be scared of you, but MORE scared of somebody else. What if the BBEG has a far higher intimidate check, and has told them to tell you nothing.
Myzery78 03-21-07, 05:06 PM	2) There may be factors that your character may not be aware of. One is that... they may be scared of you, but MORE scared of somebody else. What if the BBEG has a far higher intimidate check, and has told them to tell you nothing. That has absolutely no effect on the above situation unless the BBEG is with him at the time. Remember that 1d6×10 minutes after leaving his presence the effects would end. Also if anything that would encourage the NPC to talk as once you intimidate somebody and the effect ends their attitude becomes unfriendly at best.
Midnight_v 03-21-07, 05:30 PM	If the bbeg has a Higher intimidate check it wouldn't still affect the "minion" once he left the bbeg's prescense and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward the BBeg's shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile). Which should have little effect on if the current imtimidate check (mechanically at least). To the Op. My friend you are the victim of a Dm who either "a" doesnt' know the rules or "b" doesn't with to play by the rules of D&D he's playing something else. You can try the steps mentioned above, explain how it works etc...etc... figure out what the Dm actually does acknowledge from the ruleset and/or find ways (magical to) get the info you want...or start looking for a dm who you gell with better... To Bob the Great... That is one wild story... you got robbed, that was a very intimidating thing to do. Sad that your creativity was met with shennanigans. . .
Voran 03-21-07, 07:18 PM	Without the DM's side, we can only guess. But it sounds like he's trying to do a mix of 'real world' intimidate within the funky game rules of intimidate. In the real world, you can "roll" a good Intimidate check and still get nothing, as the guy above the target you're rolling against, rolled a better check. Think "The Mob". The threat that you might talk, and you might also have your mailbox blow up in your face the next day, or worse, you just disappear, can be an effective long-scope intimidation. Granted, its not in the scope of the rules, as everyone apparently magically becomes unintimidated an hour after being threatened.
twad 03-21-07, 07:50 PM	I rolled a 21 on my intimidate check and the DM rolled an 11. The DM said the guy was shaken but not to the point that I could influence him. On a later Intimidate, he didn't even roll an opposed level check, just some nonsense about some +3. Maybe some old fashioned rusty axe (or spoon) will work as an effective backup to intimidate.. Or some showoff of your awesome world-shattering powers to make your point clear. A burned out citadel filled with impact craters is an acceptable warning.
High Octane 03-21-07, 08:36 PM	Let me explain a successfull intimidate check. A successfull intimidate check is your aunt going to a Kohls and demanding her money back for an item. If she is meek and stutters, she wont get very far. If she is loud and forceful she will likely get her way since the customer service rep will give her the refund. Thats acting as friendly. Soon as shes out of earshot the customer service rep will be remarking to his friends "*****." Thats an unfriendly attitude resulting from a successfull intimidate that wore off a few rounds later. Explaining that you will cut off someones arm if they dont give you info does not require an intimidate check. Its either a bluff check, or he has to sense motive to see if you are serious. Now if the person is not afraid of losing his arm, THEN it is an intimidate check to make him afraid of losing it. "Imagine your life without that arm. Hnot able to pick a lock. not able to disarm a trap. Balance way off. Cant climb a wall or pick a pocket as well. let me tell you,its not easy working life with one arm. Especially as a rogue who depends on his perfect delicate hands. You are going to lose that if you continue."
kelvinaw273 03-21-07, 10:14 PM	That has absolutely no effect on the above situation unless the BBEG is with him at the time. Remember that 1d6×10 minutes after leaving his presence the effects would end. Also if anything that would encourage the NPC to talk as once you intimidate somebody and the effect ends their attitude becomes unfriendly at best. So? IF a person KNOWS they will suffer massive retribution for performing an action, you aren't going to get them to do it by threatening them with worse, period. Stuff what the rules say, if I know that displeasing Evil Lord Scrote wil result on him feasting on my chidlrens' corpses' within ten minutes of his hearing about it, I won't cross him, no matter what someone else says they will do to me. Period. The only exception here is if someone can offer to make sure there is no more Lord Scrote. This is actually how most intimidation works in real life (words that rules lawyers everywhere hate to hear and deride as a sham, but it does exist and I have visited from time to time), people are intimidated on a few occasions, examples are made and after that everyobody (well, most people) is intimidated all the time.
AffableDoomwalker 03-22-07, 01:12 AM	So? IF a person KNOWS they will suffer massive retribution for performing an action, you aren't going to get them to do it by threatening them with worse, period. Stuff what the rules say, if I know that displeasing Evil Lord Scrote wil result on him feasting on my chidlrens' corpses' within ten minutes of his hearing about it, I won't cross him, no matter what someone else says they will do to me. Period. The only exception here is if someone can offer to make sure there is no more Lord Scrote. This is actually how most intimidation works in real life (words that rules lawyers everywhere hate to hear and deride as a sham, but it does exist and I have visited from time to time), people are intimidated on a few occasions, examples are made and after that everyobody (well, most people) is intimidated all the time. You're not factoring in the fact that he's being faced down by a group of guys that just killed his entire ambush party, who, having killed his entire ambush party have qualified themselves as just the sort of people needed to kill his employer. Whom, if he [the Rogue] is intimidated by, according to RAW (and your assumption that said rogue is constantly being intimidated), he does not like. Why would you lose your arm for someone you dislike, nay, hate? When you could just as easily send a group of rough and tumble adventurers to take him out (thus leaving a gap in power, which you, the smart, two armed Rogue, would be happy to fill)? The only Rogue willing to take one for the team is a Rogue who plays for a team he likes (led by, say, a charismatic, dashing Bandit king, not a two-bit control freak thug with an attitude problem). Or a stupidly loyal one.
kelvinaw273 03-22-07, 01:53 AM	You're not factoring in the fact that he's being faced down by a group of guys that just killed his entire ambush party, who, having killed his entire ambush party have qualified themselves as just the sort of people needed to kill his employer. Whom, if he [the Rogue] is intimidated by, according to RAW (and your assumption that said rogue is constantly being intimidated), he does not like. Why would you lose your arm for someone you dislike, nay, hate? When you could just as easily send a group of rough and tumble adventurers to take him out (thus leaving a gap in power, which you, the smart, two armed Rogue, would be happy to fill)? The only Rogue willing to take one for the team is a Rogue who plays for a team he likes (led by, say, a charismatic, dashing Bandit king, not a two-bit control freak thug with an attitude problem). Or a stupidly loyal one. The example I gave was only one example of why a person might not be phased by using intimidate - there are others. Bottom line is, whether the character is intimidated or not is the DM's call. I know it's arbitrary, but the situation has too many factors of which the PCs may know nothing. If you relly solely on the dice rolls it's far too easy to get PCs relying purely on Intimidate and Bluff to resolve every situation - bluffing people that black is white, and threatening to do things they have no power to do. There are situations in which no emount of bluffing and intimidating is going to do any good at all, that is why you have DMs. I agree that under normal circumstances this character would beintimidated - in fact I would not even call for a roll, I would take it as read. Either these were not normal circumstances, or the DM has really hosed it up. Until we have any evidence for the latter, we have to assume the former.
ShadowDragon8685 03-22-07, 02:05 AM	You can not, and must not, rely on DM Fiat. Players invest skill points - PRECIOUS skill points, for Fighters - into these skills! Calling it on DM Fiat is stupid and illogical. Just institute some modifiers. Shadowrun had some nice ones, for example. Bear in mind these examples I'm going to list are negatives to a pool of d6, not straight-up modifiers. Intimidation modifiers: Character is physically imposing in some way: +1 to +3. (Such as a big, hulky Fighter type?) Subject is physically imposing in some way: -1 to -3. (Such as trying to intimidate Hulk Hogan) Characters outnumber the subject(s): +2 Subjects outnumber the character(s): -2 Character is weilding a weapon or obvious magic: +2 Subject is weilding a weapon or obvious magic: -2 Character is causing (or has caused) subject physical pain (torture): +2 (such as, say, cutting off an arm?) Subject is oblivious to danger or dosen't think character "would try something so stupid": +2* *applies to the subject's dice pool, not the intimidator's. So, let's see here... Subject is physically imposing... Call it a +2. I'm guessing this is probably a 16-18 Strength human and a 10-12 strength Human. Characters outnumber the subject, certainly. Character is weilding a weapon. Character has caused subject physical pain. So that would be +8 dice on his intimidation checks. That's enough to BUY two successes in Shadowrun. You only need one net success (Your successes - target's successes) to crack anybody. Ballpark, I'd call that about a +8 to a +10 to the intimidator's roll, d20 terms. This guy should be shaking in his boots, crapping his pants, and willing to give up his momma's home address in exchange for his own life. The fact that he's not screams Bad DMing, wherein the DM dosen't want the characters to know something. Hell, even if he's oblivious to danger, it's not really worth that much. This guy is very clearly demonstrating his badassitude.
kelvinaw273 03-22-07, 02:26 AM	You can not, and must not, rely on DM Fiat. Yes, actually, you have to in every game every time something comes up that lies outside the stated rules. Players invest skill points - PRECIOUS skill points, for Fighters - into these skills! Calling it on DM Fiat is stupid and illogical. No, I think I made a very good case that under certain circumstances these skills will not work as stated in the rules. These require the DM's interpretation of factors of which the players may be unaware. Just institute some modifiers. Shadowrun had some nice ones, for example. Bear in mind these examples I'm going to list are negatives to a pool of d6, not straight-up modifiers. <snip> Ballpark, I'd call that about a +8 to a +10 to the intimidator's roll, d20 terms. This guy should be shaking in his boots, crapping his pants, and willing to give up his momma's home address in exchange for his own life. The fact that he's not screams Bad DMing, wherein the DM dosen't want the characters to know something. Hell, even if he's oblivious to danger, it's not really worth that much. This guy is very clearly demonstrating his badassitude. I would happily agree with you but ... DM adds +25 to the resistance roll for X, Y and Z (X= the persons loved ones will be exposed to these homicidal maniacs if he caves, and the more badass they are the more he will resist that; Y= the BBEG will kill the character in far more horrible ways should he cave; Z= the BBEG will kill his loved ones if the PCs don't). Or the NPC is being Dominated. Or does not know the information or cannot that which is being asked of him. None of which the player knows anything about, and the DM can't tell him without blowing the plot. Looks like you failed anyway ...:weep: Now a smart player/PC would look at that and ask themselves: This person should have wet himself and sung like a canary ... so why didn't he? And then they would try to find out more, maybe try a different tactic of questioning. Maybe they can't intimidate the guy, but by showing they are humane they can pursuade him. Perhaps they have ploughed all their hard-earned skill-points into Intimidate on the principal that it should always work, and don't have any in Diplomacy (never make your character a one-trick-pony) to try a different angle, but that is not the DM's doing. Instead they just assume that this is the DM sticking them one, and whine about it. It happens a lot on these boards, it seems - "things didn't happen the way I expected them too, so the DM must be cheating". Sorry, but sometimes there is stuff you don't know about going on. Admittedly, some bad DMs use DM Fiat to railroad the PCs every time they do something unexpected, but we don't know which it is and you can't condemn the DM on that basis.
Geogoose 03-22-07, 02:37 AM	An NPC successfully intimidated will temporarily act as if Friendly. They will do everything a normal friendly NPC would do, with the exception of long term stuff (intimidate wears off pretty quickly when not in presence anymore). The key to remember is a friendly NPC attutude doesn't mean they will automatically cough up everything or betray everyone else (other NPC's they might be helpful towards). Treat the intimidated NPC as a normal friendly NPC of XX alignment, with the possible revenge when the NPC reverts to unfriendly or hostile (they could always raise an alarm or thwart the party's plans other than direct combat action). A DM who doesn't want to use social skills or who fudges every roll to prevent the PC's from doing anything but the assigned railroad of actions are both separate issues greater than how to handle the skill Intimidate.
kelvinaw273 03-22-07, 03:05 AM	An NPC successfully intimidated will temporarily act as if Friendly. They will do everything a normal friendly NPC would do, with the exception of long term stuff (intimidate wears off pretty quickly when not in presence anymore). The key to remember is a friendly NPC attutude doesn't mean they will automatically cough up everything or betray everyone else (other NPC's they might be helpful towards). Treat the intimidated NPC as a normal friendly NPC of XX alignment, with the possible revenge when the NPC reverts to unfriendly or hostile (they could always raise an alarm or thwart the party's plans other than direct combat action). A DM who doesn't want to use social skills or who fudges every roll to prevent the PC's from doing anything but the assigned railroad of actions are both separate issues greater than how to handle the skill Intimidate. Excelent point! There are some things you don't do even for friends.
bob_the_great 03-22-07, 06:37 AM	I know my entire problem is that I don't trust my new DM. It really changes things when you have to factor in "what if the DM screwed up." So, let's see here... Subject is physically imposing... Call it a +2. I'm guessing this is probably a 16-18 Strength human and a 10-12 strength Human. I demand a +3 for my 21 strength half-orc who's gnawing on the guy's arm that he just cut off. Oh, and the rogue saw me rage and take down his group's leader. Physically imposing is what I do.
Hungry_Backpack 03-22-07, 09:44 AM	Giving a bonus to intimidiate for being strong is wrong. If you do something intimidiating with that strength you can get a +2 modifier, but not solely from being strong, because in a world where a wizeled old man can kill/cause you untold agony by saying some words, a big half-orc wouldn't be that scary, since you can expect what he will do to you. Also, it seems you don't know who this guy is working for. I mean, he could be a religous fanatic of some strange cult with powers to regenerate things for all you know. And fanatics are most likely willing to die for their cause. Sometimes you meet people who are strongwilled. And sometimes the DM might make it very difficult to intimidiate people. If you have played KOTOR or Jade Empire (great RPG's by the way) you will know that there are sometimes where it is IMPOSSIBLE to intimidiate or use diplomacy on them. Still, the option to do so comes. So, in my opinion sometimes the DM is allowed to make certain things impossible to do. Note that I say sometimes, not all the time or most of the time or even half of the time. This should be done as sparingly as possible, and with a good justification why.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-22-07, 02:00 PM	Discuss with your DM how he wants to let intimidate work in his campaign. If you don't like what he says, ask him if you can re-assign your skill points because you thought Intimidate worked differently. Yeah, a lot of DM's just don't like the idea of social skills. I'm one of them. I think they detract a lot from roleplaying. If he's fair, he should let you reallocate your skill points if you don't like how he handles the skill.
nightwyrm 03-22-07, 03:04 PM	Do you guys think the DM should be the one who asks for a social interaction roll (ie. bluff, diplomacy, intimidate)? I usually wait for the DM to ask (or I ask him if such a check is appropriate) since if he asks then he obviously thinks that the particular skill can apply in the situation and he's given some thought to circumstance modifiers and maybe come up with possible consequences. But I've seen players who tells some ridiculous lie and then immediately roll a high bluff check saying that the NPC should believe whatever he said coz he rolled a 20. I think some of the problem with the social skills may have come from the players not waiting for the DM to think through what the possible outcomes of the skill in that particular situation.
ShadowDragon8685 03-22-07, 03:41 PM	In Shadowrun, a wizard can kill with thought and line-of-sight alone. He dosen't even need line of sight if he has a sample of your hair, or your skin cells, or something tied astrally to you. He can kill you from the other side of the world. And yet, being a 6-foot-tall, 340-lb cyberork, to say nothing of being a 9-foot-tall, 800 lb cybertroll, will still be worth Physically Intimidating bonuses. That's how psychology works. And sorry, but a half-orc does not really get that big. I'd give him the +2, but not the +3 unless you had someone cast Enlarge Person on him.
Comus 03-22-07, 05:09 PM	I would happily agree with you but ... DM adds +25 to the resistance roll for X, Y and Z (X= the persons loved ones will be exposed to these homicidal maniacs if he caves, and the more badass they are the more he will resist that; Y= the BBEG will kill the character in far more horrible ways should he cave; Z= the BBEG will kill his loved ones if the PCs don't). Or the NPC is being Dominated. Or does not know the information or cannot that which is being asked of him. None of which the player knows anything about, and the DM can't tell him without blowing the plot. Looks like you failed anyway ...:weep: I'ma have to disagree. See, it shouldn't add anything to a roll to resist being intimidated, for a simple reason: you can be scared of more than one person at a time. Just go with a strict interpretation of the rules - the man is scared. He's successfully intimidated him, and now the man is treated as being 'Helpful'. But you know what? That doesn't mean he stops being afraid of the other person, or forgets the consequences. Yes, he's helpful, and will help the PCs as much as he can - but he's got limits. The important thing is to roleplay the difference between "I'm not scared, you pansy." and "Please, don't kill me! I can't help you, he'll kill my kids!" I don't think there'd be nearly as much trouble if the DM just had the NPCs actually be afraid, but unwilling to help against their boss. It's enough to know the intimidate skill works, even if it doesn't get the desired result in this case.
kelvinaw273 03-22-07, 06:12 PM	I'ma have to disagree. See, it shouldn't add anything to a roll to resist being intimidated, for a simple reason: you can be scared of more than one person at a time. Just go with a strict interpretation of the rules - the man is scared. He's successfully intimidated him, and now the man is treated as being 'Helpful'. But you know what? That doesn't mean he stops being afraid of the other person, or forgets the consequences. Yes, he's helpful, and will help the PCs as much as he can - but he's got limits. The important thing is to roleplay the difference between "I'm not scared, you pansy." and "Please, don't kill me! I can't help you, he'll kill my kids!" I don't think there'd be nearly as much trouble if the DM just had the NPCs actually be afraid, but unwilling to help against their boss. It's enough to know the intimidate skill works, even if it doesn't get the desired result in this case. Very true. My point, though, is that we simply do not have enough information from the description given. This could be what the DM meant by 'shaken', it could be the DM didn't know what he wanted except to not give the player the info.
Forgember 03-23-07, 09:37 AM	Either the DM was being a jerk or he actaully had Game reasons for that guy not talking its pretty much a toss up. I have a little Intimidate problem myself I would like to address. In real life I'm a big dude, 6'2" 300+ pounds and I have probably Intimidated people on and off either knowing I was doing it or not. Thing is I know I have intimidated the same person multiple times, how come in DnD you can't intimidate someone more than once? I mean how would the mob run if they could only intimidate shop keepers once? This seem silly to anyone elts? Seems to me the negative reation should wear off as well over time. Maybe I'm just reading to much into it, it is just a game after all, sorry about going off topic there.
Voran 03-23-07, 06:08 PM	yeah the rules don't cover long term intimidation very well. But one of the consequences of a system intended to be simple. Diplomacy is also kinda screwy. Its like the opposite setup of Intimidation, your roll is more or less permanent :P Intimidation apparently fades, Diplomacy (good or bad) doesn't. Not to mentioned that Diplomacy appears to take away free will from the target, because Diplo skill monkeys can make even hostile people helpful :P With fairly little effort you can make someone who is actively hostile to you become at least civil/indifferent. Wouldn't that be fun if real life worked like that?
Aegeu 03-23-07, 06:50 PM	Here's a neat example of long-term intimidation not working (and a shameless plug for a webcomic). Linky! (http://www.antiheroforhire.com/d/20050923.html)
RetiredThief 03-25-07, 02:40 PM	Everything varies. But I think there is a basic principle that can be applied to ones thinking here. A knife at your throat is far more intimidating than a broadsword in a sheath. That's because the knife is the more immediately credible threat, even though the broadsword can do more damage if used. The size of the threat isn't what's important. It's the relative credibility. If the intimidatee is also under a mob threat for example, what you're really rolling against is the mobs intimidation threat. The intimidatee will conform to whichever threat seems more credible. (And if you're going PURELY by the rules, the mobs threat should become somewhat insubstantial 1d6×10 minutes after his last mob encounter.) However, even if the intimidatee resists you due to another threat, your DM probably should give you some indication of what's up. Under such stress the intimidatee should be pretty freeked out. "No! I can't tell! You might torture, even kill me. But Vinny the Devourer will consume my soul! I can't reveal his location!"
trapspringer 03-25-07, 06:39 PM	This is an example of a DM freakin' out. He hadn't planned for this contingency and rather than think it through and act it out, he made a knee-jerk call and said, "Uh-uh, ain't happen'en." The correct course of action would be to give a whole lotta' 2 (as in the give two/ take two rule) to the barbarian. +2 for size, +2 for situation, +2 for threat of bodily harm, +2 for previous demonstration of that threat (after all, the party won the fight), and an appropriately heavy modifier for the bandit if he were under threat from an unseen individual (+10 is listed under diplomacy for something that is obviously dangerous, and sems appropriate here).
plasword 04-01-07, 08:32 PM	If the DM says no it generally means that it can't happen. The DM happens 2 b the person in charge of the reality you are imagining a tiny little part of. besides he can always prove his divinity to you :censored: non believers by pulling out his ultimate ace in the hole universal rift .(basically scrapping the entire campaign & the mudball you used to call home, consequentially you don't exist either.)
perdera 04-02-07, 11:36 AM	Intimidate isn't an "I win!" button. If your Intimidate NEVER succeeds, I'd talk to your DM about why that is, and possibly ask to reassign those skill points if there is a disconnect between your interpretations. If your Intimidate SOMETIMES succeeds, I'd say things sound fine. Some DMs just don't like those social skills and instead rely on hearing certain keywords to successfully Intimidate. PC: I threaten his mother's life! Bandit: Bah! I curse the day that wench thrust me into this heartless world! PC: I threaten his dog! Bandit: Oh no! Not Mitsy! My only companion! I'll do whatever you want! Basically you and your DM just need to get on the same page in regards to Intimidate (and Diplomacy)--reassigning of skill points should be an option.