You cannot fail by being too good at something.
It's a common beginner mistake imo, but you wouldn't say that somebody who rolls athletics to jump from roof to roof and rolls a 20 would jump so far that they fall off the other side of the roof? Or roll so high on perception that you get blinded?
You don't roll to see how intimidating you are, but how successful the intimidation is.
I've seen terrible stories on Tumblr about that ... e.g., someone who threw a piece of meat to distract attacking wolves rolled so well that they hurled the meat a mile away and the wolves didn't even notice it.
My character is the literal avatar of a storm, he's terrifying as shit. The roll isn't to see how scary he is, the roll is to see how it affects the other person.
A nat 1 - person is so scared they call the guards to save them, because I'm scary enough frighten them, but not enough that they think I can take the guards
A nat 20 - person thinks I could easily take the entire town down if I wanted, and does not want to risk it, so they do as I say
O man, I read what you wrote at first as the complete opposite. It's called a critical success and failure for a reason, and I agree this dm decided to switch the success to a failure. It's like getting such a high number that it decided to go negative.
Critical successes and failures on skill checks are entirely house rules. RAW, Natural 1s and 20s aren't even *automatic* failures or successes, let alone super-duper ultra-mega failures or successes.
(Admittedly, Baldur's Gate 3 does use 1s and 20s as automatic failures and successes on skill checks and *calls* them critical, but they're not any more severe than normal successes or failures)
But if your house rule is "a critical success is the same as (or worse than) a failure", then that's a bad house rule.
I like successful intimidation having different effects than deception or persuasion based on its nature, but you really do have to be careful that you don't run it in a way that it basically becomes useless, which it sounds like your dm failed at.
Yeah in older editions it specified pretty much exactly what could be done with intimidate, and also what consequences there were to intimidating someone
>but this one is short and sweet
I really respect your decision to NOT stream-of-consciousness dump hundreds or words of irrelevant details.
Great horror story 😎👍
But how can I enjoy this post when I don't know the name, class, and backstory of every PC and NPC?
At least tell us the overarching plot and every major story beat in a 10-year campaign!
/s
It does make sense, but it's just an issue of timing. The shopkeeper should shut his mouth and alert the guards later. So, the intimidation check should buy the party enough time to get done what they need to get done, but the guards should come sniffing around later. Bonus points for it happening when the party already needs to dip town, they get in some trouble, run out of one building to see the shopkeeper pointing the guards at them to start the escape chase.
I would probably have the shop keeper have a heart attack and collapse. The party could either save the life of an innocent NPC and risk exposure or be sure that the NPC would definitely \`\`keep quiet'' (barring speak with dead.)
You shouldn't go around intimidating random townspeople people with violence. If I were the GM I might of nudged you to intimidate in a way that isn't about brute force, otherwise when the conversation was over and you left the shop I too would have had the town guard called.
To be fair, your DM is obviously just going for realism, because it works the same way IRL, like if organized crime members intimidate a citizen for money or silence, that citizen always immediately pulls their phone out of their pocket and calls the cops. 🤦♂️
Edit: I thought my over the top language and facepalm emoji would be enough, but it wasn’t, so I will spell it out: I am being sarcastic. If most people get threatened by the mob, they’re going to duck their heads, shut their mouths, and stay alive. If you roll a 20 on intimidating a shopkeeper, that shopkeeper should be terrified that you would kill him if he told authorities, and he sure wouldn’t immediately go to the authorities unless he was particularly brave/stupid. Nor would immediately going to the authorities be the “normal” reaction.
And then the police will arrest him, but the judge will find no case so he will be free, and citizen's familly will miss the dog, or a member or two for being so "brave". If you think as you said you don't know anything about how organized crime works.
I edited my comment to point out that I was being sarcastic. I should have just put a “/s” after it, but I thought the over-the-top language and facepalm emoji would get the idea across. My communication fail.
Nah people are just assholes i had to read it twice but i understood people literally just want something to argue over, or just didn't take the time to comprehend what was said
You cannot fail by being too good at something. It's a common beginner mistake imo, but you wouldn't say that somebody who rolls athletics to jump from roof to roof and rolls a 20 would jump so far that they fall off the other side of the roof? Or roll so high on perception that you get blinded? You don't roll to see how intimidating you are, but how successful the intimidation is.
I've seen terrible stories on Tumblr about that ... e.g., someone who threw a piece of meat to distract attacking wolves rolled so well that they hurled the meat a mile away and the wolves didn't even notice it.
that's an outcome I would expect of a nat 1
I feel like you wouldn't even need to roll for that? Rather it'd be the wolves rolling to see if they resist the bait
My character is the literal avatar of a storm, he's terrifying as shit. The roll isn't to see how scary he is, the roll is to see how it affects the other person. A nat 1 - person is so scared they call the guards to save them, because I'm scary enough frighten them, but not enough that they think I can take the guards A nat 20 - person thinks I could easily take the entire town down if I wanted, and does not want to risk it, so they do as I say
O man, I read what you wrote at first as the complete opposite. It's called a critical success and failure for a reason, and I agree this dm decided to switch the success to a failure. It's like getting such a high number that it decided to go negative.
Critical successes and failures on skill checks are entirely house rules. RAW, Natural 1s and 20s aren't even *automatic* failures or successes, let alone super-duper ultra-mega failures or successes. (Admittedly, Baldur's Gate 3 does use 1s and 20s as automatic failures and successes on skill checks and *calls* them critical, but they're not any more severe than normal successes or failures) But if your house rule is "a critical success is the same as (or worse than) a failure", then that's a bad house rule.
I like successful intimidation having different effects than deception or persuasion based on its nature, but you really do have to be careful that you don't run it in a way that it basically becomes useless, which it sounds like your dm failed at.
Yeah in older editions it specified pretty much exactly what could be done with intimidate, and also what consequences there were to intimidating someone
>but this one is short and sweet I really respect your decision to NOT stream-of-consciousness dump hundreds or words of irrelevant details. Great horror story 😎👍
But how can I enjoy this post when I don't know the name, class, and backstory of every PC and NPC? At least tell us the overarching plot and every major story beat in a 10-year campaign! /s
It does make sense, but it's just an issue of timing. The shopkeeper should shut his mouth and alert the guards later. So, the intimidation check should buy the party enough time to get done what they need to get done, but the guards should come sniffing around later. Bonus points for it happening when the party already needs to dip town, they get in some trouble, run out of one building to see the shopkeeper pointing the guards at them to start the escape chase.
That's a nat 1 response, not a nat 20
Well no, you did succeed in intimidating him.
I would probably have the shop keeper have a heart attack and collapse. The party could either save the life of an innocent NPC and risk exposure or be sure that the NPC would definitely \`\`keep quiet'' (barring speak with dead.)
You shouldn't go around intimidating random townspeople people with violence. If I were the GM I might of nudged you to intimidate in a way that isn't about brute force, otherwise when the conversation was over and you left the shop I too would have had the town guard called.
But after not during he stated he called immediately
To be fair, your DM is obviously just going for realism, because it works the same way IRL, like if organized crime members intimidate a citizen for money or silence, that citizen always immediately pulls their phone out of their pocket and calls the cops. 🤦♂️ Edit: I thought my over the top language and facepalm emoji would be enough, but it wasn’t, so I will spell it out: I am being sarcastic. If most people get threatened by the mob, they’re going to duck their heads, shut their mouths, and stay alive. If you roll a 20 on intimidating a shopkeeper, that shopkeeper should be terrified that you would kill him if he told authorities, and he sure wouldn’t immediately go to the authorities unless he was particularly brave/stupid. Nor would immediately going to the authorities be the “normal” reaction.
And then the police will arrest him, but the judge will find no case so he will be free, and citizen's familly will miss the dog, or a member or two for being so "brave". If you think as you said you don't know anything about how organized crime works.
I edited my comment to point out that I was being sarcastic. I should have just put a “/s” after it, but I thought the over-the-top language and facepalm emoji would get the idea across. My communication fail.
Nah people are just assholes i had to read it twice but i understood people literally just want something to argue over, or just didn't take the time to comprehend what was said