question regarding an rp situation

[*Abby]

I certainly don't see a problem with countering Intimidate with Intimidate simply because two people with the same skill are more likely to recognise each other's crap for what it is.

That said... in my own PnP games, I dont use intimidate. I only have Bluff and Diplomacy. These two skills more than accomplish what "Intimidate" is for.

Essentially, Intimidate is just another way of bluffing.

The only time I generally use RP skill rolls is against NPCs. Ill usually ask the DM if I can attempt to use diplomacy to sway an NPC, then say my bit and roll. This exhibits the idea that what im saying is just text, but the way Abby presents these words is done with a practiced ease, drawing on her physical virtues to make the information more presentable.

I will "never" use a Charisma based personality skill to try and win a debait or philosophical argument, because I think players should be free to make their own choices about what they think or believe.

Bluff I only use when im lying about something that we both know OOC is to be a lie. For example, if my con artist wants to try and sell a normal sword and lie, saying that it is a +2. Or if I am in disguise and trying fool others that its not really me.

If the other player has no OOC info, then there is no reason to use Bluff. If he asks me where ive been, and I want to lie, ill just lie. Its up to him to decide if he wants to believe me or not. Though you could use the argument that your character's bluff may be better than your own... I hate giving out OOC info, and if you roll a bluff check, you've done just that.

As to intimidate... why is the suggested counter d20 + level + fear mods? A Will save w/ fear mods of course or vs. intimidate roll makes much more sense to me.

Fighters, rogues and other classes with low will saves simply are not as brave as those classes that get high will saves unless they choose to boost wisdom and take appropriate feats. These types train their physical bodies and spend their time learning to fight, rather than studying and understanding the supernatural and unexplained.

Wizards expose themselves to horrors that would drive normal men mad in their persuit of arcane knoweldge. Their broader understanding and knowledge prepares them for things that others fear becaues they do not understand. Their minds are powerful and used to shape and control magic. The level of mental dicipline by neccesity harden's a wizard's will, and so he is less likley to panic than a fighter.

A monk practices rigerous self dicpline, mental and physical. Absolute mental conditioning allows the monk to opperate when a fighter would run screaming for his life.

A cleric has zealot-like faith. Not only does he have many of the advantages that a wizard and monk has, but he has the knowledge that a god is within him, watching him and protecting him. Because of this, and his devotion, he is far more brave than a fighter. Who wouldn't be brave knowing that they had a god in their side?

[*cdnspr]

I've seen it recommended before that people counter intimidate, bluff etc rolls with other skills. From a strictly fairness point of view, i'd recommend it too, since skills scale proportionally with level and you're more likely to get that 50/50 probability.

I myself emote the counter before rolling it, since it gives your counter some rp value and your choice of skill some legitimacy. After all, rolling Disable Device to counter Intimidate will leave the first roller confused, but a creative player can justify justabout anything with a good emote.

Assertions about fighters being less brave because they focus their training on the physical are, no offense, pure conjecture, especially when you consider that a person's reaction to the threat of harm is as much a physical one as anything else. For those interested in the subject, I'd recommend reading On Combat.

D&D is crude, though, and lumps their resistance to such effects in with all mental resistances; they're assumed to be as likely to be afraid as they are to believe an illusion or resist a dominating spell. For that reason, i'd think a will save is only appropriate to resist magical fear.

[*cryptc]

Bluff I only use when im lying about something that we both know OOC is to be a lie. For example, if my con artist wants to try and sell a normal sword and lie, saying that it is a +2. Or if I am in disguise and trying fool others that its not really me.

If the other player has no OOC info, then there is no reason to use Bluff. If he asks me where ive been, and I want to lie, ill just lie. Its up to him to decide if he wants to believe me or not. Though you could use the argument that your character's bluff may be better than your own... I hate giving out OOC info, and if you roll a bluff check, you've done just that.

That is exactly same way I use bluff :) I would never use it unless it was an obvious lie, and if someone suspects a lie I would take it from there, and even then not roll a public bluff check (I'd tell him "you suspect that he might be lying", but not confirm it with a bluff roll)

[*Lost and not Found]

As to intimidate... why is the suggested counter d20 + level + fear mods?  A Will save w/ fear mods of course or vs. intimidate roll makes much more sense to me.

Bluff: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/bluff.htm
Diplomacy: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
Intimidate: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm

The DC for both Bluff and Diplomacy is determined by skills. As a social skill, what makes intimidation so different that it would require considerably weaker DC for deciding the success?

If we look at the formula, it can be compared to a skill roll. It is on the same level with all the other social skill Dificulty Checks. And with closer inspection, we can argue that the intimidator is actually slightly better off when trying to beat the DC.

Of course it has been quite popular to use will saves against intimidate.
Some have even considered it as a sign of good RP.

Anyway, here is an example; that level one Barbarian rolled a natural-20, thus intimidated the local epic wizard because it was "enough" to beat the Wizard's will roll. But if the same barbarian had used Bluff instead, I doubt he would have been able to beat that same Wizard's buffed Spot Check.

Well, either you find that utterly ridiculous or you don't.

And the social skills certainly do not grant permanent effects...

So, using Cryptc's example, Player #2 might end up writing Player #1's name in a dead-book if they meet later on in a dark alley/etc.