In a recent game, our characters went to a "courthouse" of sorts to get information on prisoners held in a nearby prison. The town's livelihood depended on us getting the info and acting upon it.
The old lady clerk we encountered refused us the information (naturally). My battle oracle tried to make an intimidate check to get her to release it to us.
I made it absolutely clear to the GM that this wasn't a "give me what I want or I'm going to hurt you" type of standard intimidate, but more of a "if you don't help us in this desperate hour, then doom might befall your town as a consequence." I didn't want to threaten her, but I did want to make her fear what may happen if she didn't. Basically, I wanted her to know the same fear we knew and, in her own way, be a hero too.
Despite my high check, the GM informed me that not only did I not get the info, but that her attitude worsened for being intimidated. This bothered me immensely as I didn't say or do anything to provoke her. I was warning her of the logical outcome if we didn't succeed in our quest because of her info-blocking us.
One of the other players commented that what I wanted was Diplomacy, not Intimidate, and that I was trying to "get my cake and eat it too."
Naturally, I disagree with both of them, but I thought I'd get some unbiased opinions on the matter.
Is it possible to intimidate someone? That is, to scare them into taking action, without directly or indirectly threatening them? Or is intimidate always so limited as "I will eat your face if you don't follow my orders"--cause if so, maybe I have invested in the wrong skill.
Diplomacy, definitely. Basically, you needed to convince her that the threat was real; to, in effect, convince her into scaring herself.
I see where you're coming from. I'm not sure if this was your GMs reasoning, but I could see how someone would still get upset at you for "trying to scare them into acting", even if that fear was stemming from you sharing your information rather than actually threatening them. That being said, I would interpret a successful check as communicating in a fashion which avoids that.
|
Is it possible to intimidate someone? That is, to scare them into taking action, without directly or indirectly threatening them? Or is intimidate always so limited as "I will eat your face if you don't follow my orders"--cause if so, maybe I have invested in the wrong skill.
"After the intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities."
If you want to use diplomacy, use diplomacy. This is exactly the kind of skill shoehorn attempts I was talking about in the Charisma thread.
A skill does what it says it does.
Intimidate
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess."
You tried to scare an old lady. If you wanted to explain your case forcefully, use the skill that you use to "...to persuade others to agree with your arguments..."
But I am guessing your Diplomacy was lower, so shoehorn attempted and failed...
Props to your DM for not letting that fly.
A definite case of "have-cake eatery" I'm afraid.
There is no way to intimidate someone without negative feelings. Using diplomacy you can pursuade someone to be scared of something other than you, and they wont hate you afterwards. After all who could hate a diplomat or politician?
Cheliax Empire of Devils has a trait called Nonchalant Thuggery that gives a +4 bonus on Bluff checks made to appear not to be doing something intimidating, even while rolling intimidate. Up until we saw that trait, our group had never even heard of the idea that you could do this (with or without the +4 bonus), but one player for CoT had a concept of a security expert who constantly scared the good guys into adopting stricter security measures using the trait to intimidate us with what 'the bad guys' would do if we weren't more careful. We didn't appreciate it that much until he wound up being right and caught an actually security breach in our organization from the Council with one of his terror speeches (he also had Perform: Oratory). Anyway, given the trait's existence, the GM ruled that it does seem you can make a Bluff check attached to the Intimidate to redirect the fear and not get the target angry with you in particular (as long as you roleplay it with a reasonable place to redirect the fear).
As a sidenote--I've actually only rarely seen someone with high Intimidate try to step on Diplomacy's territory. Usually it's a Diplomacy expert who wants to roll Diplomacy even when they are clearly trying to terrify the other person into breaking, a la "Well I think you're a wonderful person and I want to let you go, but Brutus here worships Rovagug for some reason, and I don't think I can convince my other allies to restrain him from tearing you limb from limb unless you tell me where to find your boss. Please help me so he won't torture you slowly and painfully for days and then disembowel you. It's what you and I both want." If you can do that, then why even bother ever using Intimidate as a social tactic (obviously it still has combat use), as you can just use Diplomacy like that instead.
I made it absolutely clear to the GM that this wasn't a "give me what I want or I'm going to hurt you" type of standard intimidate, but more of a "if you don't help us in this desperate hour, then doom might befall your town as a consequence."
It seems to be close enough to the definition of intimidation to work, perhaps with a penalty. "or I will make you eat your legs" is the typical use of the skill, but a more devious and roundabout way of intimidation might certainly involve things such as "Oh, and if you don't, well, bad things will happen. Not from us, obviously, but if you aren't there for us now, who's to guarantee someone will be there for you?" It's one of those offers you can refuse, but you really shouldn't. Kind of like, well, the local well-connected men asking for a favor. Nice, stylish Godfather-like negotiation ;) .
Despite my high check, the GM informed me that not only did I not get the info, but that her attitude worsened for being intimidated. This bothered me immensely as I didn't say or do anything to provoke her. I was warning her of the logical outcome if we didn't succeed in our quest because of her info-blocking us.
You were right, but when you use intimidate you walways worsen them after you leave their presence.
So you were right, but failed for some reason. How bad did you roll? You didn't tell us.
"Oh, and if you don't, well, bad things will happen. Not from us, obviously, but if you aren't there for us now, who's to guarantee someone will be there for you?" It's one of those offers you can refuse, but you really shouldn't. Kind of like, well, the local well-connected men asking for a favor. Nice, stylish Godfather-like negotiation ;) .
Which would still leave the imtimidee narked, i.e. a negative reaction once threatened.
I can't remember the exact number, but it was most certainly in the low 20s, about 21-24 I think.
She couldn't have been higher than 5th (the inquisitor couldn't pick up her alignment).
The GM later told me that most of the DCs in this 1st-level module (Carrion Crown, no spoilers please) were quite high, around 25 or so.
I really hate it when a module's DCs aren't the same as those in the established core rules--that or my GM like to cover his mistakes by saying "it's the modules fault."
I'm pretty cynical though, so it's probably just me.
|
|
I can't remember the exact number, but it was most certainly in the low 20s, about 21-24 I think.
She couldn't have been higher than 5th (the inquisitor couldn't pick up her alignment).
The GM later told me that most of the DCs in this 1st-level module (Carrion Crown, no spoilers please) were quite high, around 25 or so.
I really hate it when a module's DCs aren't the same as those in the established core rules--that or my GM like to cover his mistakes by saying "it's the modules fault."
I'm pretty cynical though, so it's probably just me.
I am running the AP now, if I'm guessing right about the context your DM was completely right and there is context you don't know that he does.
If you don't trust your DM, you need a new DM.
Warning someone of an obvious outcome is NOT Intimidtae.
"RD - If you let a kid play with matches, your house might burn down."
I hope you don't feel intimidated, you shouldn't.
"RD - If you don't pay the protection money, there might be a horrible fire, capice?" - said with menace by a 'made guy' holding a lighter and a crowbar..
Thats intimidate.
Intimidate and diplomacy are two separate skills...
Similarly a clerk of a court would be in a pretty safe position and likely knows they are in a building ull of armed guards, so talking smack to them and implied threats are probably going to be up for a situational modifier - they'd get people threatening them all the time.
|
|
I can't remember the exact number, but it was most certainly in the low 20s, about 21-24 I think.
She couldn't have been higher than 5th (the inquisitor couldn't pick up her alignment).
The GM later told me that most of the DCs in this 1st-level module (Carrion Crown, no spoilers please) were quite high, around 25 or so.
I really hate it when a module's DCs aren't the same as those in the established core rules--that or my GM like to cover his mistakes by saying "it's the modules fault."
I'm pretty cynical though, so it's probably just me.
The inquisitor checked all the four axis of the alignment (good, evil, chaotic, lawful)?
Some reason why she can't be neutral?I think improbable she is above 5th level but not detecting her alignment is not significant.
From hearsay the DC for social skills in that module are pretty high unless you have found the ways to make the general populace more friendly. You are strangers, and in Ustlav most strangers are seen with suspicion.
"Oh, and if you don't, well, bad things will happen. Not from us, obviously, but if you aren't there for us now, who's to guarantee someone will be there for you?" It's one of those offers you can refuse, but you really shouldn't. Kind of like, well, the local well-connected men asking for a favor. Nice, stylish Godfather-like negotiation ;) .Which would still leave the imtimidee narked, i.e. a negative reaction once threatened.
Maybe, though it depends just how incensed she'd be. For that matter, a particularly hard round of bargaining (diplomacy) might leave her feeling somewhat sour as well.
I think it certainly depends on the details of the conversation - tone, body language, etc - but I can see intimidation being somewhat useful here, if at a penalty. The skill does include being able to impress upon someone the certain options are preferable to others - just how much "finesse" you use in your argument is a fine line and one I'd be willing to give a player the benefit of the doubt every now and then.
|
I can't remember the exact number, but it was most certainly in the low 20s, about 21-24 I think.
She couldn't have been higher than 5th (the inquisitor couldn't pick up her alignment).
The GM later told me that most of the DCs in this 1st-level module (Carrion Crown, no spoilers please) were quite high, around 25 or so.
I really hate it when a module's DCs aren't the same as those in the established core rules--that or my GM like to cover his mistakes by saying "it's the modules fault."
I'm pretty cynical though, so it's probably just me.
I wont spoil here but there may be things going on "under the hood" so to speak, raising those DCs which is part of the AP.
Long time lurker here and RD you seem to make posts about disagreements between you and your GM/s often. I understand you have an expectation of the rules to always work a certain way, but sometimes you just have to let the GM make a call and live with it. Trust is huge and since I have learned to let go once in awhile my gaming experiences have been much better. YMMV
Cheliax Empire of Devils has a trait called Nonchalant Thuggery that gives a +4 bonus on Bluff checks made to appear not to be doing something intimidating, even while rolling intimidate.
I think you're interpreting that differently than written. The trait says "you're adept at keeping witnesses from noticing anything is wrong." That doesn't mean that the person you're intimidating doesn't realize you're threatening them, but that other observers don't notice and call the town guard or jump in to help the poor citizen you're harassing.
I wont spoil here but there may be things going on "under the hood" so to speak, raising those DCs which is part of the AP.
The GM explained to us in some detail the subsystem in the module that determines the town's outlook upon us. So far, we're at 23 or so, which our GM tells us is heading in the right direction.
Long time lurker here and RD you seem to make posts about disagreements between you and your GM/s often. I understand you have an expectation of the rules to always work a certain way, but sometimes you just have to let the GM make a call and live with it. Trust is huge and since I have learned to let go once in awhile my gaming experiences have been much better. YMMV
I do don't I? Despite all that, I continue playing with the same 3 or 4 GMs and we've all remained fast friends. In the end, we are all mature enough to recognize it as being only a game.
This wasn't even much of an issue during play. I explained what I intended, the GM understood and ruled in a fashion that I didn't prefer, another player made a Diplomacy check and rolled high. I kept my mouth shut after that because I wanted to get on with the game (it was getting late) and because I wasn't willing to risk losing points on the "town likeability meter").
I very rarely cause a disruption, even when I disagree. Most of the time, we debate the rules on breaks or even after the game.
I find it strange that the town doesn't trust me, as my character is an Ustalov native. I would have expected that to have an effect on the likeability meter.
My GM explained it away as "sure you're from Ustalov, but you aren't from this town, so the townsfolk still see you as an outsider." So much for nationality counting for something. :P
I really hate it when a module's DCs aren't the same as those in the established core rules--that or my GM like to cover his mistakes by saying "it's the modules fault."
I'm pretty cynical though, so it's probably just me.
I really, really highly doubt that this in any way constitutes a spoiler, but out of respect,
And as for being from Ustalov, that's an attempt to use character backstory to gain a mechanical advantage in the game. I also would have smacked that down with a stick. That's like saying your character grew up hunting and trapping small game as a child, so you should get a +2 bonus on your survival checks to find food.
|
|
I find it strange that the town doesn't trust me, as my character is an Ustalov native. I would have expected that to have an effect on the likeability meter.
My GM explained it away as "sure you're from Ustalov, but you aren't from this town, so the townsfolk still see you as an outsider." So much for nationality counting for something. :P
It does. And there are many other factors weight against you.
And most importantly, you don't know what is going on behind the scenes.
Your DM was more than fair in what he did. You are making a lot of assumptions about how things work, and that is about all I can say without going into spoiler territory.
As I said, you either trust your DM or you don't. But you are on the other side of the screen, you don't know what is going on. Deal with it.
|
|
I find it strange that the town doesn't trust me, as my character is an Ustalov native. I would have expected that to have an effect on the likeability meter.
My GM explained it away as "sure you're from Ustalov, but you aren't from this town, so the townsfolk still see you as an outsider." So much for nationality counting for something. :P
Perhpas its guilt by association? Who are you hanging out with these days?
And as for being from Ustalov, that's an attempt to use character backstory to gain a mechanical advantage in the game. I also would have smacked that down with a stick. That's like saying your character grew up hunting and trapping small game as a child, so you should get a +2 bonus on your survival checks to find food.
The Player's Guide itself practically encourages PCs to come from Ustalov. It also says that Ustalovians are a paranoid sort who are distrusting of outsiders.
1 + 1 = 2, not 82.
It makes logical sense that natives are less fearful of fellow natives. That's not power gaming, that's common sense. To say otherwise is a practice in reductio ad absurdum.
|
|
The Player's Guide itself practically encourages PCs to come from Ustalov. It also says that Ustalovians are a paranoid sort who are distrusting of outsiders.
1 + 1 = 2, not 82.
It makes logical sense that natives are less fearful of fellow natives. That's not power gaming, that's common sense. To say otherwise is a practice in reductio ad absurdum.
You're not from the town, you're an outsider.
Hell, I've lived in the same rural town in Pennsylvannia Dutch country all my life and because my parents parents weren't from here I'm a borderline outsider.
Yeah, nationality means almost nothing in the period in history involved. No one knows you. Hence you're suspect.
Not to mention why you came to town, and who you are considered to be associated with, and the context of that.
And again, you don't know what is going on and your DM does. And based on what you posted you are making a lot of assumptions about a lot of things and your DM is actually being fairly kind.
]The Player's Guide itself practically encourages PCs to come from Ustalov. It also says that Ustalovians are a paranoid sort who are distrusting of outsiders.
1 + 1 = 2, not 82.
It makes logical sense that natives are less fearful of fellow natives. That's not power gaming, that's common sense. To say otherwise is a practice in reductio ad absurdum.
If something isn't making sense to you in the game then you should first assume that there is something going on in game that is causing the discrepancy. If it seems strange, investigate it. In this case it seems strange that this town in particularly paranoid... hrmm... I wonder if something is going on? (not so subtle hint, I know)
The point is that your DM has a mystery going on. You may have decided you know what that mystery is but if you don't have all the clues/facts you could easily be wrong. Give you DM more trust... you will be rewarded with a more enjoyable game.
As for the original question, I would have to agree with the majority. You seem to have wanted the effects of a Diplomacy skill by making an Intimidate check. As a DM I would have just told you that is what you are doing and either suggested you then make a diplomacy check, work with someone else who has the skill (aid other), or use Intimidate as the skill says it works.
That said, if you chose to use intimidate and had a successful check (i.e. above DC 25) then I would have given you the info and then had the NPC turn sour on you shortly thereafter. RP wise it would have been her sowing bad seeds about you around town "how dare he blame me for all the bad things that are going on around here. I have been here all my life... I work at helping the community... no doubt it was the stranger that is causing all the bad things to happen, I wouldn't trust the lot of them!" and that kind of thing.
She still would have taken it as you saying it was her fault if bad stuff happened but not that you were personally threatening her, but the result of the skill check would still have the net effect as described in the skill.
This is a good thing! It means that you can read what the skill does and know what it is that will be happening when you use the skill. If it was arbitrary and worked a different way each time it would make things really hard on the players who would feel the DM is willy nilly making calls based on what he wants to happen.
Sean Mahoney
Shoulda just attacked her.
And as for being from Ustalov, that's an attempt to use character backstory to gain a mechanical advantage in the game. I also would have smacked that down with a stick. That's like saying your character grew up hunting and trapping small game as a child, so you should get a +2 bonus on your survival checks to find food.
The Player's Guide itself practically encourages PCs to come from Ustalov. It also says that Ustalovians are a paranoid sort who are distrusting of outsiders.
1 + 1 = 2, not 82.
It makes logical sense that natives are less fearful of fellow natives. That's not power gaming, that's common sense. To say otherwise is a practice in reductio ad absurdum.
The players guide encourages things like that because it's easier to get a foothold on working the characters into the overall plot.
And you hit the nail on the head - They are distrusting of outsiders. You're not from their town, you're an outsider. This is no different than most of Small Town USA and I'd wager Small Town Anywhere on Earth.
That said, if you chose to use intimidate and had a successful check (i.e. above DC 25) then I would have given you the info and then had the NPC turn sour on you shortly thereafter. RP wise it would have been her sowing bad seeds about you around town "how dare he blame me for all the bad things that are going on around here. I have been here all my life... I work at helping the community... no doubt it was the stranger that is causing all the bad things to happen, I wouldn't trust the lot of them!" and that kind of thing.
This sounds like a perfectly acceptable way of handling it to me as it makes a great deal of sense.
I can't stand rulings that don't make much sense.
|
|
That said, if you chose to use intimidate and had a successful check (i.e. above DC 25) then I would have given you the info and then had the NPC turn sour on you shortly thereafter. RP wise it would have been her sowing bad seeds about you around town "how dare he blame me for all the bad things that are going on around here. I have been here all my life... I work at helping the community... no doubt it was the stranger that is causing all the bad things to happen, I wouldn't trust the lot of them!" and that kind of thing.This sounds like a perfectly acceptable way of handling it to me as it makes a great deal of sense.
I can't stand rulings that don't make much sense.
It made perfect sense. I've run the module, you are making assumptions about the module from a position when you don't know what she knew, what she was willing to tell you, etc...
You don't run the NPCs. Your intimidate check isn't instant control of the NPC's and universal access to whatever you want.
Your DM is trying to run a realistic game, and you are upset because you can't shout a clerk into doing what you want to happen. You don't even know if she is able to do what you want to happen, or if what you want to happen is a viable option.
You ran into an office and demanded a lady do something or the whole town would go to...whatever. You didn't ask nicely (diplomacy) you threatened her.
If I were the DM, the outcome would have been much, much worse for you.
Just to add my input:
Diplomacy would've been the right way to go about it; using intimidate without the added impact of making the target frightened of you is against the rules - however, the intimidate would work regardless to make the target temporarily cooperate; provided you meet the required DC. You cannot use intimidate outside its mechanical impact (i.e. the bonus of intimidate without the penalty of intimidate).
It is also correct that the social DCs in Carrion Crown are awkwardly high; in this case it is not irrelevant that you're Ustalavian(?) yourself - but the check is still very high. The place has small-town mentality, and even the people from the next-door-village are practically from "forn'parts". If you were from outside Ustalav, and on top of that not even human, then the DC would not even be theoretically reachable at level 1.
To summarize, your GM played it quite fair.
I don't know what else happens for you guys, but buying anything for our group is at a 20 to 25% prize hike. And selling items likewise is at a much reduced benefit.
It is kind of like trying to intimidate someone when they have a bodyguard around. I am sure the DC to intimidate them goes up so it does make sense. I am surprised she did not call for the guards. Now if you were trying to let her see things your way the GM should have called for a diplomacy check, but what he was probably doing was letting you try with a higher DC because the wrong skill was being used for what you wanted.
PS: The rules are there to support the story, not run the story, so don't expect the NPC's to match up to some mathematical formula. A certain boss at the end of Kingmaker pretty much seems to ignore the CR table guidelines. That is all I can say without spoilers being given out.
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "Please may I see *insert document here*....have a cake" (diplomacy)
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "let me see *insert document here* or the town is in deep s*** lady!" (intimidate)
Which one looks most appropriate and likely to work?
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "Please may I see *insert document here*....have a cake" (diplomacy)
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "let me see *insert document here* or the town is in deep s*** lady!" (intimidate)
Which one looks most appropriate and likely to work?
Honestly, neither one. "That's a nice cake, but you can't see those documents. You don't have the proper clearance, and it's not worth my job. Oh, really? Now you're threatening me? Guards! Guards!"
:)
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "Please may I see *insert document here*....have a cake" (diplomacy)
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "let me see *insert document here* or the town is in deep s*** lady!" (intimidate)
Which one looks most appropriate and likely to work?
Honestly, neither one. "That's a nice cake, but you can't see those documents. You don't have the proper clearance, and it's not worth my job. Oh, really? Now you're threatening me? Guards! Guards!"
:)
Followed by : You are endangering yourself and probably others in time by refusing to help me. Should you not endulge, please get me someone with responsibilities who might break protocol. Please, understand that I am no charlatan, just a sword who fights for the good folk.
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "Please may I see *insert document here*....have a cake" (diplomacy)
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "let me see *insert document here* or the town is in deep s*** lady!" (intimidate)
Which one looks most appropriate and likely to work?
Honestly, neither one. "That's a nice cake, but you can't see those documents. You don't have the proper clearance, and it's not worth my job. Oh, really? Now you're threatening me? Guards! Guards!"
:)
You get my point though...
|
I'd lean hard towards diplomacy for convincing someone that serious crap is going down. It feels like a better fit for "dammit, you have to believe me!"
But now I'm wondering what skill roll is involved for that one infamous/hilarious/NSFW and hopefully out-of-context panel from Tarot.
And as for being from Ustalov, that's an attempt to use character backstory to gain a mechanical advantage in the game. I also would have smacked that down with a stick. That's like saying your character grew up hunting and trapping small game as a child, so you should get a +2 bonus on your survival checks to find food.
You realize this is what traits are right? I am not disputing that there should be a limit to how this managed (such as with organized traits) but the concept of background information on the character coming into play mechanically has been around as long as the game has. Traits is one way to do it formally, but the idea say an elf getting a +2 bonus to diplomacy when dealing with elves form his home city, or a guy who grew up on the streets of westcrown getting a circumstantial bonus when dealing with other street urchins is as old as the game we play. DM's have been throwing circumstantial bonuses and penalties based on character background for as long as we have been rolling dice.
|
I'm a little unclear as to what the issue is here. Intimidate and Diplomacy are pretty clear as to what their mechanical effects are.
A successful intimidate check makes the target friendly. In which case you'll get the information you seek, take actions that don't endanger it, and offer limited assistance. This information seems to clearly fall under what you'd get from a successful intimidation check. The DC for which is 10+hit dice+wisdom mod. So usually pretty low. Even if the AP modifies this by +5 (which would be an exceptionally large modifier to a skill check, but would seem about right here given the nature of the game), that's probably not much higher than a 20. The downside to intimidating someone is that they *automatically* treat you as unfriendly once you're done, going so far as to report you to authorities.
A diplomacy check is generally harder (the DCs are higher) but the effect is lasting. That's the only real difference. As to how you describe a diplomatic action or a intimidate action, I would guess anything that would make someone friendly towards you *now* but would leave them angry at you would be appropriate for an intimidate check. Anything that would make people like you more and want to help you would be appropriate for diplomacy.
I'd certainly let you use the above conversation to "intimidate" the NPC, though the normal consequences of doing so would apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made it absolutely clear to the GM that this wasn't a "give me what I want or I'm going to hurt you" type of standard intimidate, but more of a "if you don't help us in this desperate hour, then doom might befall your town as a consequence." I didn't want to threaten her, but I did want to make her fear what may happen if she didn't.
Hmmm...let's check the intimidate skill,
You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments
That's a perfect fit for what you were trying to do. Unfortunately that quote isn't intimidate, it is from diplomacy.
You don't get to say, "I'm going to perform skill X but use skill Y instead because I'm better at it"
You say what you are attempting to do (in this case, persuade the clerk that she must help you to save her town without using threats or threatening body language), and then your GM tell you what skill to roll (which in this case is clearly diplomacy)
Intimidate should work as well in this situation. Intimidation requires certain aspects though made clear in the skill description,
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
so you would need to be threatening (either verbally or nonverbally) in your interaction, which would then result in a negative attitude shift afterwards as per the skill description.
From a players standpoint, diplomacy would have almost no chance of success. Assuming the lady is unfriendly, since your an outsider and all, the check would be like 35+. Good luck with that. Intimidate was the right call, with a diplomacy check on the back side to calm her down. Don't listen to all the "should have used diplomacy" people, you had no chance of success based on the rules of the game. So unless you just bribed the heck out of her, you did what was most reasonable for success.
I agree on the skill check thing being different than it should be as an annoyance. It is really no different than a long sword doing 3d6 damage, and the reason being that you don't know what is really going on behind the scenes.
It's a good thing you didn't attack her, she is obviously a high level druid with a 20 wisdom.
Diplomacy: The skill for getting people to believe and act on the truth.
Bluff: The skill for getting people to believe and act on a lie.
Intimidate: The skill for getting people to believe and act in a manner that preserves their own imminent safety.
You needed Diplomacy.
I have no problem with Intimidate being used here. You are trying to scare her into doing what you want her to do. You don't have to actively threaten to hurt someone to scare them into doing something.
Using intimidate will come off with a different feel than diplomacy, but both should be able to get what you want done without violating the law. One just makes her still like you, while the other makes her feel dirty for helping you. One you are friendly and making an appeal of the person, the other you are making a demand.
Diplomacy: "look if you don't help us lots of people are going to die. Do you want that on your shoulders? I know I don't. You can help us save everyone if you just give us cake."
Intimidate: <Slam hands on desk> "Look lady. If you don't help us EVERYONE is going to DIE. YOU <Poke her chest> will be responcible for that. NOW GET US THE DAMN CAKE. <Point at desk right in front of you>"
The intimidate version here does nothing illegal. Its agressive, slightly violent, and if it fails the person may likely ask for you to be removed, fearing you may become violent, depending on their revised attitude towards you. They may also try to talk you down, or respond in a dozen other ways.
Now, if he didn't hit the DC, that is a totally different story. But intimidate has a place in this scenario and does not require threats against the person.
I have no problem with Intimidate being used here. You are trying to scare her into doing what you want her to do. You don't have to actively threaten to hurt someone to scare them into doing something.
Using intimidate will come off with a different feel than diplomacy, but both should be able to get what you want done without violating the law. One just makes her still like you, while the other makes her feel dirty for helping you. One you are friendly and making an appeal of the person, the other you are making a demand.
Diplomacy: "look if you don't help us lots of people are going to die. Do you want that on your shoulders? I know I don't. You can help us save everyone if you just give us cake."
Intimidate: <Slam hands on desk> "Look lady. If you don't help us EVERYONE is going to DIE. YOU <Poke her chest> will be responcible for that. NOW GET US THE DAMN CAKE. <Point at desk right in front of you>"
The intimidate version here does nothing illegal. Its agressive, slightly violent, and if it fails the person may likely ask for you to be removed, fearing you may become violent, depending on their revised attitude towards you. They may also try to talk you down, or respond in a dozen other ways.
Now, if he didn't hit the DC, that is a totally different story. But intimidate has a place in this scenario and does not require threats against the person.
+1. I would also throw in the idea of cats and bags here too though.
Once an NPC is Intimidated (the following is at my table so ymmv), I don't let PC's make them all nice and happy right away with Diplomacy afterwards (the cat being effectively out of the bag). Now the "right-away portion" of my methodology varies significantly from situation to situation but I like to make players take a little responsibility for their actions, and if they choose to Intimidate someone into going along with their desires they should be ready to reap the minor/major backlash from doing so.
TLDR version; Don't overly punish players or block them from using Intimidate so long as they are willing to be in your "GM Karma Pocket" for some blow-back afterwards.