...Eh?
2009-09-20, 08:37 PM
Note: Originally, this was going to be a post solely about intimidate, but the more I thought about it, the more I strayed into other issues.
Ah, Initiadte. The unloved, abused stepchild of the social skills, ignored to the point that some argue that it should be a subset of Bluff, since it's just a threat, and threats are kind of like lies, right?
How you handle Intimidate, as a DM? I've seen a few people who houserule it as being Strength-based, so that Cha-dumping fighters can use it, but I never really found that to fit. Yes, you can use a feat of strength to intimidate an opponent, but its all in the showmanship of that feat is you want to influence. A menacing glare while you crush a soda can is still more intimidating than a guy who's making silly faces and funny noises while he bends a steel rod; sure, the second guy might be stronger, but he's just laughable. The first fellow, on the other hand, has made a pretty strong statement that he iontends to hurt you. Of course, this is just my opinion; if you feel the second example is still more intimidating, then more power to you. You also need to keep in mind that Initmidate should at least be a Charisma based skill at least some of the time. There's no physical prowess involved in whispering a threat to someone's family in his or her ear, after all. Perhaps, if you feel that the act is more intimidating than the intent, or just that Intimidate needs to be Strength based for game balance, then you may want to make the ability modifier situational.
On the point of game balance, I feel, without using any homebrew, Intimidate is the best balanced social skill. Even if you win on the skill check, there is still a backlash, as there should be for having such a strong influence on NPC actions. It is a trade-off, making it less powerful than Bluff and Diplomacy, but can anyone really argue that Diplomacy is good as is? Bluff, although it has problems, is probably a good contender for most balanced. Diplomacy is clearly the most abusable of the three skills; while Intimidate caps out at friendly, and only for as long as you are present, and Bluff only has the character act as you wish for a round or so, Diplomacy can be used to turn anyone you meet into a friend, or a friend into a fanatic follower, forever. In addition, Bluff and Initmidate can, at their best, replicate a limited Charm Person. Diplomancy falls just short of Dominate Monster. Initmidate and Bluff are what I feel are what you should be using; Intimidate for enemies or people you'll only be encountering once, and Bluff with people you'll be dealing with extensively. Barring homebrew, those are the skills I'd prefer my players use, although usually Diplomacy is houseruled to not be dumb.
Of course, there are issues about how players use these skills to influence your NPCs, but what about the issues with your NPCs using them to influence players? It has always been a long standing rule that you do not use Diplomacy and Charm Person. Bluff is always an interesting issue; chances are that your players won't complain if you make some secret rolls and say, "Well, Jim, you got a 22 for Sense Motive, and the king's advisor got a 4 on his Bluff, so your character looks at the advisor and surmises that he is lying through his teeth." However, some might have a problem with you making a sneaky roll, and then saying, "Well, Jim, the advisor tells you that he is secretly a unicorn. You believe him." If you don't tell him that he has to believe the advisor, why even bother making the check? You could have just told him what the advisor says and let him draw his own conclusions.
Honestly, that is really what Bluff and Diplomacy should be, when it comes to the DM against the character. There is no dice rolling involved; it relies solely on whether or not you, personally but in character, can lie to your players, or if you can convince them they should be on the NPC's side. The reasoning for this tends to stem from the idea that people don't like being told what their characters feel. However, when it comes down to it, it's not that much different form a Fear spell, or a Phantasmal Killer spell, or pretty much any illusion spell. The only difference is while people might get upset if they lose their roll on a fear spell, they'll just be mildly offput that they have to spend a turn running away, but people will start throwing chairs if you pull out Charm Person on them. Hell, people get more defensive about that spell than Dominate Person, just because it tells them that they like the person, rather than being forced. I think it says something about us as pklayer that we would rather lose control of the character totally than be told how we feel.
Anyways, how do you all feel about this? How do you handle Intimidate? How do you use the other social skills?
Ah, Initiadte. The unloved, abused stepchild of the social skills, ignored to the point that some argue that it should be a subset of Bluff, since it's just a threat, and threats are kind of like lies, right?
How you handle Intimidate, as a DM? I've seen a few people who houserule it as being Strength-based, so that Cha-dumping fighters can use it, but I never really found that to fit. Yes, you can use a feat of strength to intimidate an opponent, but its all in the showmanship of that feat is you want to influence. A menacing glare while you crush a soda can is still more intimidating than a guy who's making silly faces and funny noises while he bends a steel rod; sure, the second guy might be stronger, but he's just laughable. The first fellow, on the other hand, has made a pretty strong statement that he iontends to hurt you. Of course, this is just my opinion; if you feel the second example is still more intimidating, then more power to you. You also need to keep in mind that Initmidate should at least be a Charisma based skill at least some of the time. There's no physical prowess involved in whispering a threat to someone's family in his or her ear, after all. Perhaps, if you feel that the act is more intimidating than the intent, or just that Intimidate needs to be Strength based for game balance, then you may want to make the ability modifier situational.
On the point of game balance, I feel, without using any homebrew, Intimidate is the best balanced social skill. Even if you win on the skill check, there is still a backlash, as there should be for having such a strong influence on NPC actions. It is a trade-off, making it less powerful than Bluff and Diplomacy, but can anyone really argue that Diplomacy is good as is? Bluff, although it has problems, is probably a good contender for most balanced. Diplomacy is clearly the most abusable of the three skills; while Intimidate caps out at friendly, and only for as long as you are present, and Bluff only has the character act as you wish for a round or so, Diplomacy can be used to turn anyone you meet into a friend, or a friend into a fanatic follower, forever. In addition, Bluff and Initmidate can, at their best, replicate a limited Charm Person. Diplomancy falls just short of Dominate Monster. Initmidate and Bluff are what I feel are what you should be using; Intimidate for enemies or people you'll only be encountering once, and Bluff with people you'll be dealing with extensively. Barring homebrew, those are the skills I'd prefer my players use, although usually Diplomacy is houseruled to not be dumb.
Of course, there are issues about how players use these skills to influence your NPCs, but what about the issues with your NPCs using them to influence players? It has always been a long standing rule that you do not use Diplomacy and Charm Person. Bluff is always an interesting issue; chances are that your players won't complain if you make some secret rolls and say, "Well, Jim, you got a 22 for Sense Motive, and the king's advisor got a 4 on his Bluff, so your character looks at the advisor and surmises that he is lying through his teeth." However, some might have a problem with you making a sneaky roll, and then saying, "Well, Jim, the advisor tells you that he is secretly a unicorn. You believe him." If you don't tell him that he has to believe the advisor, why even bother making the check? You could have just told him what the advisor says and let him draw his own conclusions.
Honestly, that is really what Bluff and Diplomacy should be, when it comes to the DM against the character. There is no dice rolling involved; it relies solely on whether or not you, personally but in character, can lie to your players, or if you can convince them they should be on the NPC's side. The reasoning for this tends to stem from the idea that people don't like being told what their characters feel. However, when it comes down to it, it's not that much different form a Fear spell, or a Phantasmal Killer spell, or pretty much any illusion spell. The only difference is while people might get upset if they lose their roll on a fear spell, they'll just be mildly offput that they have to spend a turn running away, but people will start throwing chairs if you pull out Charm Person on them. Hell, people get more defensive about that spell than Dominate Person, just because it tells them that they like the person, rather than being forced. I think it says something about us as pklayer that we would rather lose control of the character totally than be told how we feel.
Anyways, how do you all feel about this? How do you handle Intimidate? How do you use the other social skills?