50% is too high, and you're right that it is absurd. Simply seeing how much you beat the DC, and if it's less than 5, report, is a much better system IMO.
Your "shooting a threatening look" example illustrates the absurdity of rolling d100 perfectly. If you look at someone wrong, there's a 50% chance they'll report you to the authorities? It would suck to live in that game world.
The "report to authorities" depends, as you say, on what you do to intimidate them. If you threaten to kill them or break their fingers or ruin their store; yes, they'll report you.
If you threaten to expose their own crimes, or threaten to embarrass them in front of their family, or threaten to ruin their daughters birthday party, then no; they cannot report you to the authorities, as you have not committed a crime.
Remember, the strongest arm the inquisitor can gain is the arm of the Law. Put a few skill ranks into Knowledge: Local Laws.
I have to agree that 50% is too high.
But in my opinion, "shooting someone an angry look" is not an Intimidate check. Threats, physical coercion, and similar is Intimidation, not just a look. While its doubtful just looking at someone wrong will get you reported, threats and physical violence will.
As for reporting you to the authorities, it could be the town guard. But I could also see it being reporting to the thieves guild enforcers (if the person being intimidated was a member of the guild). Just who the intimidated person is reporting this to will depend on the situation.
There used to be a skill called Innuendo that would accomplish the "intimidate with a look" action. I think it got rolled into Bluff.
I'd say a non-verbal Intimidate, threatening them with a look, would also require a Bluff check simultaneously. If you succeed on the Bluff check, then they will be too unsure of themselves to report you to the authorities.
That's just how I would do it.
I'd also treat Intimidate the same way our modern law treats "assault" (as opposed to battery). Battery involves unwanted physical contact. Assault requires no contact; it can be a threatening gesture, or an attempted battery, anything that makes your target think you probably intend them harm.
The thing with the Intimidate skill is that no matter what you do to accomplish it, the result is always the same. The victim is intimidated and when people get scared they can do some fairly crazy out-of-normal-character stuff. Like report the scary guy in armor surrounded no doubt by some fearsome looking folk bristling with weapons and magic to an authority figure.
I have seen quite a few people try to justify the use of Intimidate on these boards by saying, "Oh I am not actually threatening to take their face off and feed it to them, I am just being a bit mean to them" to get around the very clearly outlined consequence of the skill. Once you have rolled an Intimidate check that person then becomes afraid of you, no matter how you got there.
Just remember that Intimidate is not exactly a nice thing to do to someone, you are putting them into a state of fear. If you go around doing that to any and everyone, please do expect to get a knock on your door one morning.
For example:
"I'll take my wares elsewhere!"
or
"Next time your village is getting attacked by [insert horde of creatures here] I'll just refuse to help you."
or
"I'll report you to [insert made up authority here] for [insert offence here]"
All would be intimidate checks, in that you're threatening the individual with wares, with harm (through no fault of your own), and by taking justified action against the individual.
Those sound like Diplomacy to me.
However, all of them have a chance that the character doing the intimidation will be reported to authorities of some kind. How does one determine what that chance is?
A reasonable question for a DM to ask. For a player, the answer is "the DM decides." If he wants to flip a coin, that's his choice to make. There are a lot of times when NPC actions can't be covered by rules, and it's better that they aren't. There are too many mitigating factors.
Think about it this way: if you Intimidated a fellow player character, what would you expect their reaction to be? If you expect them to just take your intimidation lying down, you're delusional.
If I were your DM, I'd be nice and give you a chance to Bluff the NPC into being scared, while not being sure about your intentions, hence not going to the authorities.
But you're threatening with something. Not a physical threat, granted, but a mental one.
What else defines the intimidate check but a threat of somekind?
The rules are scarce on this point, but in my opinion, Intimidate does involve physical threats. You can't intimidate someone with "You are going to be sorry, mister." It has to be "I am going to make your very sore, sir." (I should also mention: body language should be taken into account too, but like the words, it has to be physically threatening.)
How else does one 'force' the NPC to do what you want (using only the social skills)? Diplomacy is more...diplomatic XP
Its negotiating, its flattery, its generally a 'positive' way to get what you want. Its hardly a diplomatic approach to a negotiation if you threaten the other party to conform or reap the consequences.
While it's true that all the examples given in the core rules are positive, I think it's also completely reasonable to use negative consequences as a negotiating strategy. It's your choice whether to play those up or down, and part of the skill is in determining which approach will be effective with a particular NPC: honey or vinegar. But it's still Diplomacy.
You have a point there. Intimidate needs to be treated a little bit differently than Diplomacy. It's still up to your DM, but Intimidate should be able to get faster and better results. For example, you can ask your intimidated subject to hand over all their valuables. You don't even have to offer anything in return.
|
Using Stargate Atlantis as an example, Ronin's diplomacy=intimidate, Col. Shepherd's diplomacy=diplomacy.
You can bully, bluster, blackmail, threaten, etc, in a negotiation, but its still a negotiation which =diplomacy.
If you are completely conning someone that would =bluff
If you are using intimidate you are threatening them or a loved one with direct bodily harm.
At least this seems to be the RAW of it. Personally, I would let a player use either if they explained it like you did, but there would be a lot worse consequences in anger and upset if you failed your roll.
'That's absurd. There are different ways of intimidating someone. Suppose I just shoot them an angry look...that's just as likely to get me reported as threatening to smash their head in?'
Only if you actively use your inimidate, as your GM said...
'if you use the dice on an Intimidate check , its up to the dice to decide what happens.'
As indicated above, I think that's completely ridiculous. Half the reason I'm taking the Intimidate skill is because its both a social skill AND a combat skill (I plan to take Dazzling Display [Intimidate check to all creatures in a 30 foot area]) with the other half of the reason being that my class gives it a pretty major boost (1/2 Inquisitor level). If its only useful in combat - for fear of failing my 'deal with the guards roll' -...I'm infinitely less keen on taking it.
It's actually an anti-social skill. Diplomacy is a social skill. You can role-play out mild threats and innuendo, at which point the GM makes a judgement call on how upset or, moved to action, the NPC is. When you actively make an intimidate roll you are choosing to gain the benefits of that skill, which involes direct threat and explicit negative repercussions.
I really don't want to slow down gameplay dealing with the 'gray' issues - like shooting a threatening look or saying something like...
You can shoot as many threatening looks as you like, and if you shoot your mouth off it's up to the GM to decide the reaction to your potty mouth. None of these automatically provoke a negative reaction, choosing to use intimidate does. It's your call, just don't whine when an NPC takes offence (and if this slows down the game then you chose the wrong time/place/person to intimidate).
Then wtf good is intimidate for given that diplomacy does the same thing only better?
You said in your original post that you get a bonus to Intimidate, which makes it a more effective skill for you to roll than Diplomacy.
You just have to use it at appropriate times. If you want people to remain friendly then use Diplomacy, even if your chances of success are less. If you don't care what they think, you are going to move on, or feel that your actions can be easily explained to the local law then use Intimidate as you are naturally better at it.
Intimidate does, as other posters have said, have uses. Be careful where you use it. If consequences were not an issue then you might be asking.. "wtf good is gold given that I have a sword and a dead shopkeeper charges nothing?"
I may or may not agree with your DM.
When you are in combat, you don't say "I cut out his throat with my dagger" and make an attack roll, because if your attack roll hits, then you may deal 1 damage to a high level NPC and your group is suddenly wondering how he can take a throat wound and still be alive.
Reflexively, your mind probably justifies that as cutting at his throat, but only getting a flesh wound. Which is exactly my point.
A more related example is when people try this with Diplomacy:
Player 1, wanting to get into the castle, has a conversation with a guard where he reveals his noble bloodline and an item of moderate concern to the king, outlining rewards if he gains an audience with the king yet nothing but risk for the guard if it is denied. He makes a Diplomacy check -- maybe it fails, maybe it succeeds.
Player 2, with powergamed Diplomacy, walks up to the king. "Hello," he says extending his hand, "I am here to murder the king. Will you let me inside?" After all, even if the DM applies ludicrous circumstance penalties, if he succeeds the roll with his insane bonus then what he said works, right?
So I would find your Intimidate to be somewhere in-between -- a dirty look is not going to be an passport to anything, anywhere with anybody. Some NPCs respond to different triggers, and Intimidate checks are the relevant ability to know what those triggers are and to execute them with finesse.
For your Intimidate, I would actually say that his reactions may be unnecessary. There are a lot of ways to Intimidate people that aren't threatening to kill them. You can glare at some people; you can idly display your weapon sheath; you can get angry with a merchant and demand a discount because you served in the town guard risking your life for the community; a possession destroyed; some can be slapped; and so on. Coercion with negative emotions and damaging relationships. Were I in the mood, I might consider toying with the combination of the seven deadly sins with persuasive methods, but I'm not.
And so, I also take issue with his ruling. It sounds like every other time you Intimidate a subject, they're going to come in with the guards and demand your arrest, which I disagree with. Rather, I see it as most NPCs are going to be angry and spiteful, and will carefully weigh their desire for justice or vengeance against their wish for no more trouble; and what help they summon will vary with the situation.
If you mess with a man at the bar demanding more information, he may ask the bartender to throw you out. Mess with a hobo and he may have his friends follow you and watch you -- nothing else, just watching you, and complicating any shady business you had planned. Mess with a church-goer and his priest may preach a sermon with you as the thinly-veiled inspiration at the next mass. Just ask yourself, if somebody wronged you and you decided to get back at them but they hadn't done anything illegal, what would you do? Those are the sorts of things the NPCs may resort to.
So basically, intimidate is utterly useless and avoid it like the plague unless you enjoy tempting the fates to kick your ass.
Maybe in some scenarios. But from what you've shared, there's a 50% chance that the offended party even goes to the authorities. Do the authorities act? If your DM is reasonable, probably not. Worst case scenario though, your DM gets the bright idea to flip a coin to decide whether they charge you with a crime.
Next, what do they do? Do they give you a fine? Put you in jail for a night? In jail for life? Do they execute you? Let's see, that's 4 possibilities, so I guess your DM is going to roll a d4.
But now the question is, can they catch you? Oh hell, we'll make that a die roll too. Give you a 75% chance of escaping, and a 25% chance of being caught.
In the end, with an extremely unreasonable DM, you have a 1.5% chance of being executed every time you attempt an intimidation roll. I can see why you're upset.
I forgot to mention that one thing I would shy away against is thinking of higher Intimidation checks as increasing severity. Your DM may be the kind that sees checks in the 30s and 40s and immediately imagines cutting off the NPC's fingers. In my opinion, that's as ridiculous as having a high-levelled character's unarmed strikes kill commoner NPCs just because it's a lot of subdual damage. After all, isn't incredible control and precision the mark of a master as much as power? If a master swordsman should know just how much pressure to apply and where (rather than wastefully applying as much as possible), then so too could a social operative.
Also remember that blackmail goes both ways. There are times when the NPC you are talking to has done something wrong, even small (or imaginary) and you're threatening to do right(~) by the law and reveal it to the authorities. Not everything is "It would be a shame if this shop burned down in the night." No reason to go full-villain.
"Officer, officer, there is a criminal in town!
I am a crooked merchant, and this guy comes in and threatens me! He says I better be honest with him about some information about the thieves' guild I am fencing for or he'll call the city watch on me!
You have to stop this villain!"
"....
....
You're under arrest."
"What for?"
"One count of fencing. One count of withholding information about the thieves' guild. One million counts of stupidity."
Also remember that blackmail goes both ways. There are times when the NPC you are talking to has done something wrong, even small (or imaginary) and you're threatening to do right(~) by the law and reveal it to the authorities. Not everything is "It would be a shame if this shop burned down in the night." No reason to go full-villain.
There is a bit of a debate in this thread about whether that kind of blackmail qualifies as Intimidate or Diplomacy. In my opinion, Intimidate has to be immediate, and it has to have a physical element.
That said, a good DM could apply circumstance bonuses to an Intimidate check for good use of blackmail, in addition to the requisite physical threats. And he probably will waive the d100 roll to check if the NPC tattles.
My GM replied stating something akin to 'if you use the dice on an Intimidate check, its up to the dice to decide what happens.'
Reading between the lines. it could be his GM saying "Try role-playing your conversations and I will bear in mind you are an intimidating individual. If you choose to roll the dice then we use the rules."
Edit: It strikes me that too many people want to use the benefits of Intimidate without accepting that it is a shoddy way of treating people and that the negative reaction described in the rules reflects that. In my games any PC can explain the consequences of failure to comply with their requests, and the NPC will respond as I feel is appropriate to them. If the PC then pushes to make in Intimidate roll it has clearly gone beyond conversation and progressed to active threats.
Sorry but since Diplomacy has no chance of you going to the local jail its intimidate. Really you seem to think anything not breaking a knee with a club is diplomacy whereas the best threats are the ones that scare you just enough to keep you quite not the ones that land you at the healer.
This and Ravingdork's Intimidate thread have thoroughly convinced me that Intimidate and Diplomacy should just be the same skill, since it seems that everything players actually want to do with Intimidate is actually diplomacy. Just put 'em together, rename it 'Coercion' and have done with it.
Ingenwulf: Consider this--under the DM's proposed system, if the absolute monarch personally conscripted a peasant, "because I'm the King, and you do as I say", then there is a 50% chance that the peasant tries to call the authorities on the King.
Go ahead and let the NPC report you. In fact, follow after him and watch as the "authorities" laugh in his face.
CITY GUARD: Wait, wait, wait. Let me get this strait: you've come over here, bothering my associates and I, interrupting our afternoon tea, just because a guy LOOKED at you funny? *stands up menacingly* When we finish with you, EVERYONE'S going to be looking at you funny.
Hopefully, after a while, your GM will realize the ridiculousness of it on his own.
Ingenwulf: Consider this--under the DM's proposed system, if the absolute monarch personally conscripted a peasant, "because I'm the King, and you do as I say", then there is a 50% chance that the peasant tries to call the authorities on the King.
1) Only if you decided that the King was using intimidate, otherwise he is stating a fact.
2) If you really saw it as intimidate, and wanted to use the GM's 50% rule the peasant could indeed approach any member of authority and say... "The King threatened me."
The GM would then judge the consequences of the complaint "Hmmmm does this spark a rebelion? Will the approached party tackle the King and make him apologise? Probably not. No action would be taken. Game can continue with one more aggreived peasant in the game-world."
All this would take a nano second or two out of the game experience, possibly while the GM enjoys an ice cool sip of bubbling beverage. No harm done.
P.S. If the monarch is the PC then I may keep in mind the amount of peasants he chooses to intimidate over time. If he is abusing his power regularly, and does so to someone with more clout, or decent powers of persuasion then suddenly rebelion is not so remote an idea.
This and Ravingdork's Intimidate thread have thoroughly convinced me that Intimidate and Diplomacy should just be the same skill, since it seems that everything players actually want to do with Intimidate is actually diplomacy. Just put 'em together, rename it 'Coercion' and have done with it.
Diplomacy only nudges up the NPC's base reaction by incriment e.g. Unfriendly to Indifferent.
Intimidate leaps directly to "Friendly" but has penalties associated with it.
Both are useful in the right place.
Then wtf good is intimidate for given that diplomacy does the same thing only better?
The combat?
Only worthwhile way to use intimidate in combat, imo, is if you take Dazzling Display...which requires you to take Weapon Focus in whatever weapon you're gonna display with. So blow two feats to use a skill effectively? That seems a little ridiculous...
Corrugun Smash
My GM replied stating something akin to 'if you use the dice on an Intimidate check, its up to the dice to decide what happens.'Reading between the lines. it could be his GM saying "Try role-playing your conversations and I will bear in mind you are an intimidating individual. If you choose to roll the dice then we use the rules."
I read it more as "I am passive aggressive and still pissed that characters are different from players."
The correct and reasonable response, of course, is "Okay, screw the dice and character sheets. I attack the merchant" and hit the GM in the face with a sword. After all, using dice is bad.
Okay, maybe not correct and reasonable, but the thought still makes me chuckle.
If one runs to the authorities 50% of the time, you're bad at intimidating. The mafia would not exist that way.
My advice: Show your DM the logic consequence, which means that your char kills the telltale. (or at least catches him and makes sure he won't tell anybody, whatever that means)
Also, why does everyone act like intimidating even means to acutally SAY something? Picture the antihero of a western - a scruffy, silent guy with a threatening aura, he walks into a bar he's never been in and suddenly talk ceases, everybody shuffles away from him, the keep starts sweating - then the guy orders a drink in a deep voice, drinks it and goes outside, everyone is relieved, especially the keep even tough the guy didn't pay. That's intimidating and if the keep runs to the sheriff, he's quite dumb or suicidal. Most people avoid trouble, the cost of the drink is not worth risking to be killed by some lunatic.
And now think about the guy being a mercenary or bounty hunter and some days after the bar event, same guy walks into town with the severed head of a fierce bandit lord who terrorized the town for quite a while.
They can report to the authorities but that doesn't mean anything will happen. If you haven't broken any laws then what will the authorities do. All it gains you a bad name in the town.
Obviously this is highly contextual and up to your DM to adjudicate, however it sounds like he's erring too heavily on the side of punishing you for being effective in a manner he is not comfortable with. My advice: don't make too much of an issue of it at the table, work on your DM by appealing to his common sense with sound points, but don't make it an endless tirade, and don't over-utilize intimidate for the time being, as it may be something the DM views as needing counterbalance (thus his overreaction).
But in my opinion, "shooting someone an angry look" is not an Intimidate check.
Depends.
Intimidating Andy is a half-orc fighter with high STR and CHA, and the Intimidating Prowess feat. He has low INT so he doesn't say much.
Intimidating Andy stares you down. You do what Intimidating Andy wants.
Also remember that blackmail goes both ways. There are times when the NPC you are talking to has done something wrong, even small (or imaginary) and you're threatening to do right(~) by the law and reveal it to the authorities. Not everything is "It would be a shame if this shop burned down in the night." No reason to go full-villain.There is a bit of a debate in this thread about whether that kind of blackmail qualifies as Intimidate or Diplomacy. In my opinion, Intimidate has to be immediate, and it has to have a physical element.
That said, a good DM could apply circumstance bonuses to an Intimidate check for good use of blackmail, in addition to the requisite physical threats. And he probably will waive the d100 roll to check if the NPC tattles.
I didn't see any debate of that nature come up until you made this post. Is there supposed to be a link in there? Somebody mentioned Ravingdork's thread, which I intend to look over ...
I didn't see any debate of that nature come up until you made this post. Is there supposed to be a link in there? Somebody mentioned Ravingdork's thread, which I intend to look over ...
I only meant that some have been asserting that intimidate requires the threat of physical force, while others have said you can intimidate with "just a look".
I don't know. I've always been very much for letting dice be a driving random element- but I think the 'report to the authorities' line may be a bit over-generalized.
Sure, a merchant might well report you to town guards if you threaten to burn down his shop if he doesn't give you a discount. But I think the phrase makes more sense that the target has a 50% chance of responding to or reporting to someone/something. This could well be the local authorities, or a merchant guild, or heck even pray to a god.
Looking at the guy's example of the jerk parties that go into a crowded restaurant and intimidate for a table- yeah it'd be silly to call the cops on them, but I'd easily give it a 50% chance that the waitress informed the chefs and they did something to the food.
The rules are just vague because there's so much you could do with intimidate. The report should be of an appropriate nature and scale to the intimidation. And the effects of said report need not be immediate. If some Trade Exchange or gang keeps getting reports of some uppity inquisitor putting the the squeeze on their members, they will do something.
Oh and I lol'd at the diplomacy guard example with "I'm here to kill the king" line. If you can pass the check with all those penalties, clearly that guard has some grudge against the king and would like to see him dead.
This game uses dice, and getting your imagination to keep pace with the unexpected is a bigger part than any power-gamy nonsense. Put bluntly, this game is about rolling with it.
Can I get a hallelujah?
Any way you cut it, Intimidate is the bullying skill. Your threats could be implicit or explicit, but they give the desired compliance because they're threats. He's not doing it because he really like you, he's doing it because he's afraid of what you'll do if he doesn't.
So, what do people do when they're bullied? For one, they don't like you for it. Maybe they'll try to get someone else to do something about it, like tell a town guard that you're going around being a menace with your bullying attitude. Maybe they'll just swollow it.
Rather than a flat 50/50%, I might have ruled that if you over achieved on your check, the target would be so intimidated they don't dare cause you trouble even after the initial impact wears off, but regardless whether your coersion was express or implied, it worked because the guy got the same message either way -- "do it, or else...".
Also, fair's fair - The consequences of that success should be the same because the beneficial results are the same. If you want the GM to reduce the consequences of bullying based on your making a softer threat, then likewise you shouldn't get the same benefits as a full on arm-twisting either. For example, it should only bump to indifferent, with more limited options to make requests to go with it.
Edit: Oh, and - Hallelujah
Can I get a hallelujah?
Hallelujah.