|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the examples I can think of, they aren’t going to tell you the information with Diplomacy, either. I agree having immunity to Intimidate but not Diplomacy wouldn’t make sense in most cases. Keep in mind, though, without extra abilities, Diplomacy can only improve their attitude 2 places. So hostile is only going to go to indifferent. Then you have to make a request, and Diplomacy, unlike Intimidate, does provide modifiers for things like revealing secret information or giving aid that could result in punishment. Putting the DC to get a minion to reveal something important when they feel they’ll be punished/killed at least at 40 before other situational modifiers. Where an Intimidate DC just going off the Skill is probably not even going to be 20. So it isn’t as necessary to call out situations when Diplomacy shouldn’t work.
Now, I can think of a couple of times when using Intimidate will succeed in the short term, but ultimately be worse for you than using Diplomacy. I lost a prestige point over someone doing that once.
You can still intimidate them and have them show you the best places in their village, tell you their favorite color or a secret. They just won't tell you a specific thing via intimidate. HARDLY anywhere near immune to social intimidation.Is "They won't tell you what you want to know, they'll tell you all sorts of irrelevant stuff" really different from "they won't tell you anything" in any practical sense? The PCs are looking for information, by GM fiat and ignoring the rules the bad guys refuse to give it.
Yes. As I see it, it's about as different as using a lightning bolt on a demon rather than a fireball if you're trying to kill one and those are your tools available. You have a choice of tools to use to accomplish a task and, due to the circumstances, one's going to not work (demons being immune to electricity and all that).
Intimidate isn't going to work to glean information on a particular topic. Use another tool. Simple as that.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
My least favorite morale condition in a statblock is “fights to the death” because sometimes it just doesn’t make sense.
I suppose it beats, "fights until down to half hit points then runs away with all the treasure."
However, I do like that scenario authors provide a variety of NPCs for us to interact with. Tactics that work with one, won’t necessarily work with another.
It’s these monkey wrenches that up the challenge, force us players to try a new strategy, and diversify the tools in our RP tool box. Who wants everything to always play exactly the same way?
Hmm
Agreed. I just don't see why making someone highly resistant rather than immune substantially changes that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My least favorite morale condition in a statblock is “fights to the death” because sometimes it just doesn’t make sense.I suppose it beats, "fights until down to half hit points then runs away with all the treasure."
Agreed. I just don't see why making someone highly resistant rather than immune substantially changes that.However, I do like that scenario authors provide a variety of NPCs for us to interact with. Tactics that work with one, won’t necessarily work with another.
It’s these monkey wrenches that up the challenge, force us players to try a new strategy, and diversify the tools in our RP tool box. Who wants everything to always play exactly the same way?
Hmm
One thing I've noticed, is if an author doesn't want someone to succeed at something, but they feel the need to incorporate a DC, they will look at what they can figure out is the maximum a character of that level could do and add 10 to it. There are a couple scenarios out there with a DC 50 in a Tier 1-5 scenario.
If they are just going to bump the DC up so high as to essentially make it immune, why bother putting a high DC in there. Call it what it is.
Its up to the GM to sell it and make it fun and interesting instead of just shutting the player down.
EDIT: And lest you start arguing, "Well don't make the DC virtually impossible, just make it really, really difficult," what that does is creates an arms race. You see it already with many other things. And in some cases its just natural progression of a character.
e.g.: A witch can never quite get the NPCs to fail their saving throws against their hexes. Because using the hexes is such a primary ability of the witch, the player spends resources (feat, magic items, etc) to bump up their DCs so this happens less or not at all.
Or, "Why are all the perception checks in these lower level scenarios at DC 20, I better get my perception up real high." And so the player gets their perception up so high, that they essentially never fail a perception check again.
What will happen if you start giving resistance bonuses to Intimidate, is players will start failing at the check and start spending even more ludicrous amounts of resources on Intimidate to try and get to that previously insurmountable number.
There is no need to create another arms race.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, just reading through this conversation intimidated me.
Let’s face it. There are always going to be character statblocks that have tactics or abilities that we don’t like. My least favorite morale condition in a statblock is “fights to the death” because sometimes it just doesn’t make sense.
"Why are you fighting to the death?
"we were paid FIVE gold pieces for this job!!!
"... what if i gave you all TEN gold pieces to go to the bar?"
".. i suppose death by alcohol poisoning is still death...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My least favorite morale condition in a statblock is “fights to the death” because sometimes it just doesn’t make sense.
Don't tell anybody, but I've heard rumours that at least one local GM is known to ignore that particular morale condition on a regular basis when it a) makes absolutely no sense and b) is just drawing out an already decided battle for no good reason.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Its up to the GM to sell it and make it fun and interesting instead of just shutting the player down.
EDIT: And lest you start arguing, "Well don't make the DC virtually impossible, just make it really, really difficult," what that does is creates an arms race. You see it already with many other things. And in some cases its just natural progression of a character.
If the GM creatively sells the Author Fiat, then the players don't know they have been fiated and thus do not know that engaging in an arms race is futile.
Sorry, but I don't support any argument that says its okay for authors to control players via fiat. You can creatively manipulate them if necessary, but fiats are just heavy handed, lazy solutions. The players are not supposed to be your opponents, they are supposed to be your partners.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
One thing I've noticed, is if an author doesn't want someone to succeed at something, but they feel the need to incorporate a DC, they will look at what they can figure out is the maximum a character of that level could do and add 10 to it. There are a couple scenarios out there with a DC 50 in a Tier 1-5 scenario.If they are just going to bump the DC up so high as to essentially make it immune, why bother putting a high DC in there. Call it what it is.
The problem is that depending on the circumstances you can hit a DC 50 check. Hell even in the example you provided (9-4) you can get the information you want without a diplomacy check or intimidate unless your GMing style involves being a pedantic jerk.
|
|
Tell the players that.The players are not supposed to be your opponents, they are supposed to be your partners.
I remind my players when we get started for a given scenario that we're in a partnership telling a story with the mechanics to help us tell that story.
It sort of sets the table, as it were, for the feast to be presented.
