Influence Skill Group - why no Intimidation?, Skills Options

[Jizmack]

Why isn't the Intimidation skill part of the Influence Skill Group?
You can "influence" others with Etiquette, but making people do things using coercion is not influencing them!?
Anyone care to explain this, please?

[Yerameyahu]

It already has *four* skills in the group. I guess you could swap out Leadership, but the groups shouldn't be 'optimal'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Karoline]

Because Influence is just a name, and it is the name for a group of skills that is used most commonly in social settings. You will always need to observe proper etiquette in a social situation. You will always need to negotiate. You will often need to con (lie), and you will often need to lead. You will only occasionally need to intimidate.

Basically a skill group can only have 4 skills in it, and the group has the four that would be most needed under a 'normal' negotiating situation. Like I said, Influence is just a name.

Edit: Kind of like Outdoors is just a name. The skills that fall under it work just as well indoors as out.

[Critias]

Why isn't the Intimidation skill part of the Influence Skill Group?
You can "influence" others with Etiquette, but making people do things using coercion is not influencing them!?
Anyone care to explain this, please?

If it's that big a deal, you could probably ask a GM to houserule it and let you swap in Intimidation for something else (Leadership, maybe)? It's really pretty much just a game balance thing, as others have mentioned, to keep there from being a Skill Group with too many skills in it.

Remember, some Skill Groups only have three. Getting four in Influence is already a heck of a deal, especially considering the "must have" nature of a few of them (Etiquette in particular).

[Hound]

You will only occasionally need to intimidate.

no offense, but I think this statement is based on playstyle. For many of my players, intimidation is their main form of interaction with NPCs. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[phlapjack77]

Isn't Intimidation just a form of aggressive Negotiation? "Tell us / Do what we want, or else" ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Aku]

Isn't Intimidation just a form of aggressive Negotiation? "Tell us / Do what we want, or else" ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Nope, it is a charisma linked skill,

And as to why, because that would put 5 skills in the skill group, which would be a bit unbalanced, imo.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

Flight is in the Athletics Group, making it 5 there, too.

[Karoline]

Flight is in the Athletics Group, making it 5 there, too.

Yeah, but flight is used by... what, two races? Two races that are very out there. Two races that when they have the option to fly, don't have the option to run? An absurdly circumstantial 5th skill isn't very good president for a 5th regular skill.

no offense, but I think this statement is based on playstyle. For many of my players, intimidation is their main form of interaction with NPCs. nyahnyah.gif

I'm not talking about playstyle, I'm talking about typical social encounters. Not for the PC in question, but for social encounters as a whole. If you look at all social encounters ever, you will see etiquette being a factor all the time, you will see lying being a factor nearly all the time, you will see negotiation nearly all the time, and you will see leadership (remember it includes persuasion) nearly all the time. You will see intimidation some, but it is not the social norm for social encounters as a whole. That's why I figure it isn't in the influence skill group when compared to the much better candidates.

[StealthSigma]

Flight is in the Athletics Group, making it 5 there, too.

Flight isn't included in the core rulebook. Intimidation is.

[Axe]

Yeah, but flight is used by... what, two races? Two races that are very out there. Two races that when they have the option to fly, don't have the option to run? An absurdly circumstantial 5th skill isn't very good president for a 5th regular skill.

I'm not talking about playstyle, I'm talking about typical social encounters. Not for the PC in question, but for social encounters as a whole. If you look at all social encounters ever, you will see etiquette being a factor all the time, you will see lying being a factor nearly all the time, you will see negotiation nearly all the time, and you will see leadership (remember it includes persuasion) nearly all the time. You will see intimidation some, but it is not the social norm for social encounters as a whole. That's why I figure it isn't in the influence skill group when compared to the much better candidates.

I dunno, we aren't really talking about social encounters as a whole so much as social encounters in Shadowrun as a whole, where the person playing the troll street punk prefers to grab someone by the throat and give him an up close look at his retractable spurs than to have a simple chat with them.

[sabs]

because 1 point in a skill group is equal to the cost of 2.5 skills worth of point.
That means that you're getting the 4th skill for free. If there were 5 skills in a skill group, you'd be a freaking idiot not to buy the skill group. Paying 1/2 price for every skill in a group? Sign me up.

[StealthSigma]

because 1 point in a skill group is equal to the cost of 2.5 skills worth of point.
That means that you're getting the 4th skill for free. If there were 5 skills in a skill group, you'd be a freaking idiot not to buy the skill group. Paying 1/2 price for every skill in a group? Sign me up.

Unless, of course, you're only going to use two skills from the group. In which case you'd be a freaking idiot to take the group and waste that .5 worth of points.

[Ed_209a]

I have thought about renaming the RAW Influence group "Nice Influence" and make an alternate skill group, "Nasty Influence", that replaces Leadership with Intimidation.

[Karoline]

I have thought about renaming the RAW Influence group "Nice Influence" and make an alternate skill group, "Nasty Influence", that replaces Leadership with Intimidation.

People often seem to forget that leadership includes persuasion, since they're always so quick to drop it. If anything, it should drop negotiation, since someone who resorts to holding their gun to someone's head is still going to be persuasive but not so great at negotiations that don't include an open weapon.

[StealthSigma]

People often seem to forget that leadership includes persuasion, since they're always so quick to drop it. If anything, it should drop negotiation, since someone who resorts to holding their gun to someone's head is still going to be persuasive but not so great at negotiations that don't include an open weapon.

Nasty Leader.

Violent Bloodthirsty Warlord.

[Karoline]

Which would kind of fall under my theory of dropping negotiation to add intimidation instead of leadership.

[Shinobi Killfist]

The real question for me is why did they feel the need to break things down as far as they did. How about etiquette, negotiation, persuasion and that is it. Things like con could be specializations of one of those. Skills cost too much and cover to specific of a area IMO. I don't need 27 different ways to say I'm sneaky or good at talking to people.

[Karoline]

I think five is reasonable. Maybe could have trimmed it down to 4 by combining negotiation and leadership.

And as for stealth? There is infiltration, palming, and shadowing? That hardly makes 27, and all are highly distinct.

[sabs]

I think five is reasonable. Maybe could have trimmed it down to 4 by combining negotiation and leadership.

And as for stealth? There is infiltration, palming, and shadowing? That hardly makes 27, and all are highly distinct.

Don't forget Disguise.

[Shinobi Killfist]

I think five is reasonable. Maybe could have trimmed it down to 4 by combining negotiation and leadership.

And as for stealth? There is infiltration, palming, and shadowing? That hardly makes 27, and all are highly distinct.

The stealth group has 4. It adds disguise, then in overall sneaky guy stuff escape artist and locksmith fit. Do I really need 6 skills to cover I am a sneaky guy?
As for distinct shadowing and infiltration are two different uses of the same idea they don't see me. Sure if you were shadowing someone correctly it would be a team thing and might play out differenlty, but end of the day you don't want to be noticed by bob over there. Either because you are sneaking past him or following him.

Sure the rest are kind of distinctive, but you could easily combine them to some degree. Escape Artist could become part of gymnastics, palming part of the sneaky, sneaky infiltration/shadowing. Locksmith is a bit off, but roll it into using maglock pass key's and other door openers and it probably covers enough. '

Crap in 1-3e all of this except locksmith was under a single sneak skill, it didn't break the game. Now you have to buy a crap ton of skills at a high cost while lots of times a single attribute will cover a wide range of skills for a still absurdly cheap cost in comparison. Increasing both the relative cost and narrowing the application of what a skill covers was a double whammy of doom.

[StealthSigma]

I think five is reasonable. Maybe could have trimmed it down to 4 by combining negotiation and leadership.

And as for stealth? There is infiltration, palming, and shadowing? That hardly makes 27, and all are highly distinct.

Combining Leadership with Negotiation isn't feasible. Negotiation, Leadership, and Intimidation are three distinct routes to achieve similar results. Negotiation is coming to agree with another party. Leadership is taking charge of a situation or dictating what someone will do due to your superior standing. Intimidation is using the threat of force to coerce someone to listen.

[Yerameyahu]

Entirely renovating the skill system isn't really on topic, either (whether or not it's a good or fun idea), and the game is presumably balanced for the current setup.

The simple point is that skill groups are priced for 3-skill sets. 4-skill sets represent a major bargain (usually balanced by one 'rarer' skill), and 5 is unthinkable. You're not required to use groups at all, if you want Intimidation. You can also beg your GM swap it, as several have said.

[sabs]

Sometimes I think the game would be better with no skill groups at all.

[Karoline]

Sometimes I think the game would be better with no skill groups at all.

I like them. They're a good means to get skills you may not otherwise bother with.

Do I really need 6 skills to cover I am a sneaky guy?

You're right, we should just have 7 skills:
Combat Skill
Physical Skill
Computer Skill
Social Skill
Mechanic Skill
Drive Skill
Magic/Resonance Skill