Phillip Hargreaves |
Everybody's jumping to superheroes and here I am thinking of this sort of vigilante... or a better way of showing the traditional Jekyll and Hyde story without Alchemist mutation aspects.
You're right that it needs to be the 'right' sort of group though.
Joana |
Well, the Scarlet Pimpernel, closely followed by Zorro, was the original dual-identity hero that Superman and Batman and the rest just copied.
For DM usage, someone pointed out that the class finally gives a way to do the king's-trusted-advisor-who's-really-the-BBEG trope without the PCs seeing through it immediately by mid-level.
I'm not sure the dual alignment thing is really all that helpful when limited to one step, except for when it stops you pinging evil to the paladin. What pair of alignments would you use for Jekyll and Hyde?
Phillip Hargreaves |
Original story Jekyll was definitely Neutral - as he created the phial to allow himself to indulge in his evil tendencies without fear of recourse. He only got cold feet once Hyde murdered and tried to arrest the changes - but was too far gone by then. So probably TN for Jekyll and NE for Hyde.
Point taken with the one step being less useful though, maybe there will be an archetype to suit going deeper cover?
Gristav |
It would seem to me they'd missed an opportunity for artful reference if they did not have an archetype that was called The Reborn Identity.
That might be a theme for a group, all having gathered for the scenario by programmatic instinct, then finding the alchemical inks on their forearms only show in the reflected shine of full sun from a swallowtail's irridescent wings.
Joana |
I guess Banner/Hulk could be TN/CN. I'd really prefer the mechanic be redone, though, as a way to mask your true alignment while you're in your social persona rather than implying that wearing a mask actually changes your moral outlook. While it works for Jekyll/Hyde or Banner/Hulk, I don't think Bruce Wayne and Batman, or Sir Percy and the Scarlet Pimpernel, or Don Diego and Zorro, are different alignments as much as skilled at concealing their true inclinations.
Phillip Hargreaves |
I suppose the ability doesn't read as harsh as that to me... as in that it 'changes' your moral outlook. I sort of see it more as putting on a cloak of the social identity, and maintaining the facade. But leaving topics open to table variance on things involving alignment is never a good thing.
Joana |
Yeah, they probably should reword it, at least, to saying that you detect as the second alignment rather than that you actually have a different alignment when in your other persona.
Then again, you have this text --
For the purposes of meeting
a qualification for a feat, class, or other ability, he is only
eligible if both of his alignments meet the requirements
--which sounds like you really do have two alignments, not one real one and one which you pretend to as a cover. For instance, you couldn't take Summon Good Monster as a Good vigilante (or Summon Evil Monster as an Evil one) if your social persona is Neutral.
Phillip Hargreaves |
Blech - that does make it a bit squigglier then...
Had a more detailed read of the Stalker and I have to say that I like their bag of tricks.
Hidden Strikes from any range, HiPS, DR/Hardness reduction through Dirty Trick, Mighty Ambush, Silent Dispatch and Throat Jab.
It's actually a solo character that's got enough skills in the bag to take out sentries and such without crossing their fingers on an initiative check. Not terribly party friendly... but cool nonetheless.
Gristav |
I see there being two possible meanings of "alignment powers must agree with both alignments". One is that the alignment power will leave/break in the presence of convincing masquerade of an unfavored alignment, and the Vigilante is declaredly convincing at such masquerade, so convincing even his divine powers are tricked. As if he'd UMD'd at Take 20. Another is that there's actually two minds in that head, that more than being convincingly Percy/Pimpernel, you're both quite real. (This seems more likely for Bats/Bruce, actually. And certain for Cap/Billy.)
I think I'd prefer if they'd have let the Vigilante 'Moral Masquerade' as a demimondaine, without that actually trespassing on alignment restrictions of powers/items. I suppose the designers had to choose what loopholes to close.
I don't envy the team designing for everyone. I find challenge in designing only for the local players.
Gristav |
Or a Diplomacy to be seen as gently reminding them, he has made a commitment to repaying a stone of pence for every pound?
No wait, their Sense Motive against his Bluff, to send a secret message?
Joana |
You took 10 on Bluff and got lucky enough on Intimidate, Mark. :)
Thanks for sticking around, Gristav. I'm not as busy as I was last week, but I've been trying to catch up on all the stuff I didn't get done last week because I was too busy then. I just haven't had the creative energy to get you and Snake out of the green room. :P
Phillip Hargreaves |
But I'm not attempting to force them to act friendly to me... merely Bluff them into conflating the fact that Phillip's a worshipper of the Wasp Queen into that meaning that he's in tight with the whore-mistress of the town. Also, it's semantics... but he's not actually explicitly threatening them... just hoping that they add 2 and 2 together to get 5 and use their own imagination to fill in the gaps.
Plus I'll only take 6-12 seconds to make the attempt... whereas for an Intimidate check I'd need to be talking for 60 seconds minimum :P
Phillip Hargreaves |
Bluff: If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true.
Intimidate: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you
The way I view the social situation of the PF world is that NPCs have their own views and instinctive ways to act. That's partially reflected by the conceit of having the attitude levels (unfriendly, helpful, etc) and also just how they actually see the world around them. Certain characters are more caring, kind, helpful than others are.
The social skills are the PC's levers to interact with and force changes within that frame of reference.
Diplomacy and Intimidate are the easiest to understand in that respect - as they explicitly call out forcing and changing the target's attitude. It's essentially short-circuiting their established world view and forcibly imprinting your own through either fear or silver tongued convincing.
Bluff is different... in that all it mechanically (RAW) allows you to do is convince the target of something that isn't true. Explicitly here - making the half-orcs believe that Phil was somehow attached to the Calistrian church. Or he could've tried to convince them that Braddon was a feared Sczarni elbow chewer or the like.
Bluff only actually has legitimate social power if a successful bluff check changes the social situation without needing a follow up Diplomacy / Intimidate check or through the provision of a tangible mechanical bonus to other checks.
Take a bouncer at a bar that has a mild cover charge - his social view at the time would be to deny entry to a random person that comes up to the door.
You could scowl and threaten to punch his lights out - Intimidating your way past.
You could attempt to bargain your way in 'I'm hard on my luck, can't you give a man a break?' - Diplomancing your way in.
What about if you instead successfully Bluffed that you're a friend of the owner? - if the mark believes you, is it possible that his social view has changed sufficiently to automatically grant passage? - or would the entry still be gated by a follow-up Diplomacy / Intimidate?
Phil's got a +12 to Bluff (which can be pushed out to +18 if he leverages all his advantages) - if that was Diplomacy he'd be effectively able to take 10 an Unfriendly character into being Friendly; or an Indifferent one into Helpful.
- if it was Intimidate, he could take 10 your average 7th-10th level character into being friendly for 10-60 minutes.
Why is the power of Bluff diminished when Diplomacy and Intimidate are so powerful as per RAW?
Note: this isn't meant to be narky, just putting it out there
The flipside of course is that Joana could just as easily have decided that the half-orcs would've been happy / ornery / comfortable on their turf enough to risk the wrath of Shorafa regardless of what Phil convinced them of... and that's perfectly cool. Oily Phil would've found another way to try and slip his way out of the situation then (either through Diplomacy, or potentially Intimidate if needed).
Joana |
Re social skills:
The thing with Bluff is that it can quite easily be made to substitute for both of the other social skills: "I'm friends with the king so he'll reward you if he hears that you helped me" can take the place of Diplomacy, and "I'm friends with the king so he'll be angry if he hears that you didn't help me" can take the place of Intimidate. But if you really were friends with the king, you'd still have to make a Diplomacy and/or Intimidate roll to change the NPC's attitude by using the fact as a carrot or stick. By investing in Bluff instead of Diplomacy and/or Intimidate, you're basically getting all three for the price of only one set of skill points (albeit without the Demoralize option of Intimidate, but with the added bonus of the Secret Messages and Feint options of Bluff).
The way 3.x trifurcates social interaction is admittedly artificial, although no more so than dividing Wisdom and Charisma and then basing Will saves on common sense and intuition rather than force of personality. It's kind of like Combat Maneuvers: You can be good at grabbing an enemy's arm or at grabbing his weapon or at grabbing his jewelry, but if you want to be do all three without provoking, you have to invest three feats, even though you're basically doing the same thing.
If it helps at all, just displaying your holy symbol at the initial meeting made them believe you're affiliated with Shorafa so you've been getting the benefits of the association without requiring a roll at all. It's the main reason Luca's been so conciliatory.
FWIW, I think Intimidate is way overpowered by RAW. The DC is so low that level-appropriate encounters are easily overcome by taking 10 by anyone who makes the slightest half-hearted nod toward an Intimidate build.
(Also, if you're going to base it off Charisma, it's unfair to give the penalty for small size like it's a physical-stat skill. And don't get me started on why half-orcs are more intimidating than full-blooded orcs.)
Gristav |
FWIW, I think Intimidate is way overpowered by RAW. The DC is so low that level-appropriate encounters are easily overcome by taking 10 by anyone who makes the slightest half-hearted nod toward an Intimidate build.
(Also, if you're going to base it off Charisma, it's unfair to give the penalty for small size like it's a physical-stat skill. And don't get me started on why half-orcs are more intimidating than full-blooded orcs.)
I'm not sure that 'shaken' is quite 'easily overcome', and that's what's usable in a fight. The minute required to defeat a purely social encounter with Intimidate is long enough that doing it artlessly can get you interrupted/attacked. (Not so true by email, true...)
Let's remember, too, that even an undevoted Intimidate build is also then less of some other trick. We want the PCs to be good at some things, surely. We could perhaps agree on two from Column A, and three from Column B, but it's a way bigger menu than that, now.
Orcs are ugly, but the half-orc can actually emote his ugly intent. (Is how I've defended that, locally.)
Joana |
In combat, sure, Intimidate's useful, but at that point, you should be comparing Demoralize to Feint and the distraction/Stealth combo, not the whole Intimidate skill to the whole Bluff skill. (Diplomacy doesn't even have an in-combat use, unless you can stand around absorbing blows for 10 rounds while talking your enemy from Hostile to Indifferent.)
PCs should be good at things, yes. PCs should not necessarily auto-succeed at things at level 1, however. Let's compare what a reasonably-invested-but-not-one-trick-pony build can do with skills at level 1, defining that build as achieving +4 to any particular skill (one rank in a class skill, or one rank and a high ability score).
Acrobatics: By taking 10, the PC cannot move across a 6-inch wide surface without falling or make a long jump of 15 feet with a running start. He has a 50% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Appraise: By taking 10, the PC cannot ascertain the value of a common item. He has a 25% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Climb: By taking 10, the PC cannot climb a tree or an unknotted rope or pull himself up while dangling by his hands. He has a 50% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Disable Device: By taking 10, the PC cannot pick a simple lock. If he spends 100 gp of his starting wealth on masterwork tools, he has a 35% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Escape Artist: By taking 10, the PC cannot escape from a net or an entangle spell. He has a 25% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Handle Animal: By taking 10, the PC cannot teach an animal a trick. He has a 25 - 50% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Heal: By taking 10, the PC cannot stabilize a dying character. He has a 50% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Knowledge: By taking 10, the PC cannot identify the aura of a cantrip, know proper etiquette, recognize a plane he is currently on, or know common mythology or tenets of a religion. He has a 50% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Perception: By taking 10, the PC cannot find an average concealed door. He has a 50% of succeeding if he rolls.
Ride: By taking 10, the PC cannot spur his mount to a greater speed. He has a 50% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Sense Motive: By taking 10, the PC cannot determine if the person he is talking to is an impostor or trustworthy. He has a 25% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Sleight of Hand: By taking 10, the PC cannot pickpocket a small item from a person. He has a 25% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Spellcraft: By taking 10, the PC cannot identify a cantrip as it is being cast. He has a 50% chance of succeeding if he rolls. By taking 10, he can't decipher a scroll. He has a 25% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Survival: By taking 10, the PC cannot avoid getting lost or stumbling into quicksand. He has a 50% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
Use Magic Device: By taking 10, the PC cannot use a wand for a spell not on his spell list. He has a 25% chance of succeeding if he rolls.
By contrast, with the same +4 bonus in Intimidate, the PC can successfully intimidate virtually any 1-hd creature or NPC and up to, say, a 5th-level fighter with an 8 Wisdom by taking 10. He can successfully intimidate your average guard/soldier/merchant/what-have-you with a die result of 7 if he rolls. That's a 70% chance of success. Compare that to what the same investment gets you in other skills. Yeah, the scaling means that you can't intimidate the king or the BBEG (right away, anyway), but you can bully your way through the commoners of an average town without rolling a die.
Joana |
{Bluff and Diplomacy have similar scaling issues, though not as bad. Because Bluff is opposed by Sense Motive, there at least exists the possibility of the opponent's resources scaling up faster than just by hit die. And Diplomacy, in Core, has the limitation of not being able to improve attitude by more than two steps, although I know there are options now that get around that. Also, the DCs are higher unless the NPC is already favorably disposed to the party.}
Braddon Hurst |
The thing with Bluff is that it can quite easily be made to substitute for both of the other social skills: "I'm friends with the king so he'll reward you if he hears that you helped me" can take the place of Diplomacy, and "I'm friends with the king so he'll be angry if he hears that you didn't help me" can take the place of Intimidate. But if you really were friends with the king, you'd still have to make a Diplomacy and/or Intimidate roll to change the NPC's attitude by using the fact as a carrot or stick.
This is a very valid point. I guess the way to get around that is to have them make the Diplomacy or Intimidate rolls as well as the Bluff check. One assumes it would change the DC.
But social combat is a very different beastie to physical combat and the oversimplified dice rolls do not do it justice.
Which actually makes little difference to my style as I'm a "Roll d20 and see what happens" kind of guy. If they roll below 5 or above 15 it usually makes the adjudication a lot easier :-)
Joana |
My "favorite" gap in the social-interaction rules is when you have to convince someone of something unlikely that is, nevertheless, actually true. Feels like it should be some sort of check opposed by the other guy's Bluff ("What? That's ludicrous! I'm your closest advisor; why would I be working for the evil lich?"), but what do you roll?
Phillip Hargreaves |
On the power of Intimidation: Not to mention the fact that skills scale infinitely better than hit dice... so that take ten can easily start to accommodate things like giants and other 'should really be harder to cow with a constipated stare' creatures.
I will note of course that I have no vested interest in making Bluff more flexible and powerful...
Bluff: 1d20 + 12 ⇒ (11) + 12 = 23
... honest... it's got nothing to do with the fact that it's Phil's lever of choice...
The reason it's a bit annoying is that both Diplomacy and Intimidate have a RAW position of strength in being able to tangibly affect NPC opinions... and Bluff doesn't. Probably just needs to fall back on modifiers and circumstance bonuses - which is why Phil's got a point in Diplomacy anyway.
'Tis a bit galling though that Phil could ably and thoroughly convince a mark that he's a bloodthirsty assassin who's killed fifty men with a blunted spoon through disembowelment... but can't actually scare him unless he rolls well on his pitiful -1 Intimidate ;)
Phillip Hargreaves |
Which actually makes little difference to my style as I'm a "Roll d20 and see what happens" kind of guy. If they roll below 5 or above 15 it usually makes the adjudication a lot easier :-)
Which is the key of making an effective character in your chosen area of expertise. A fighter would be able to make some of those rolls below 5 still hit the target especially when mopping up minor foes and what not.
Social skills focused characters want to get in a position where the actual number on the die is less important (for minor social foes at least) because your static bonuses are high enough to carry the day.
Gristav |
On the ease of effectiveness of Intimidate:
At what age should this stop being easy? Because it's a playground bully's trick, literally child's play. And it's not "I will hurt you", it's "I will break the rules you're relying on". That's Intimidate.
It can be about pain, or finances, or secrets. And it's about loss, not just pain. In combat, we're already fighting to the death, what can intimidate you? The prospect that I'm not fighting the same fight, perhaps? For bloodlust, instead of duty, for duty, instead of profit? For something, whatever, that makes the target doubt or fear, his abilities, tactics, equipment.
I guess, maybe, they're the same thing.
And I don't think it's terribly hard, to remind a man of how mortal he is. Or a teacher, of parental oversight. A junior official, of the impatience of superiors.
Jake Blues: "My brother and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner..." That could be diplomacy, or bluff, (honestly), a decent script, but it sounds to me like intimidate. And Mr. Fabulous, who surely didn't fear violence from his former bandmates, understood his maitre d' gig was over.
Social intimidate takes one minute, and angers the target when they get their nerve back. Most of the leverages that can be applied are even illegal (another layer in the Intimidate argument: how easy must it be, if it can be done by remote control with laws?).
Joana |
I don't think putting skill points into Intimidate ought to get you a greater chance of success than investing them elsewhere. And it may be "child's play," but it's doubly unfair in that it's a skill that PCs can utilize against NPCs that the NPCs don't have in their toolbox to use on PCs. Intimidate in combat to demoralize? That's fine; that goes both ways. But a 15th-level half-orc paladin with Intimidating Prowess, Skill Focus: Intimidate, and Persuasive cannot force a 1st-level wizard with 8 Str and Wis to give him information. Not only is it unfair, but it totally breaks my suspension of disbelief. You may think it's not hard to remind a man he's mortal ... but it's mechanically impossible for an NPC to remind a PC of the fact.
There are some instances when it's just wrong from a narrative viewpoint for the PCs to be able to Intimidate an NPC, no matter what their bonus is. I was running a game several years ago in which the party was working with a small elf army to fight a drow encampment. The PCs encountered a drow necromancer and her apprentice; having killed the necromancer, they interrogated the apprentice for information.
From a verisimilitude point of view, if a drow can be scared by what a bunch of goody-goodies working for the surface elves might do to him, it destroys my entire conception of drow society. The most horrible thing the good elves could think up to do is something drow kids were probably doing to each other in elementary school; certainly, the worst day in an elf prison is probably going to be better than the best day of working for a sadistic, sexist, demon-worshipping boss with the literal power of life and death over him. But the PC got a very high Intimidate result. So what do I do?
Well, mechanically, the player made the roll so they got the information. But flavor-wise, he didn't give it to them crying and begging for mercy. I decided that he hates the drow he worked for enough that, now that he's out of the fight and out of the reach of their vengeance, he really enjoys the thought of having the power to frustrate all their plans. So he tells the PCs everything he knows with great pleasure, envisioning the defeat and humiliation of his former superiors in exacting detail. The party got what the dice said they should without their enemies looking weak, pathetic, and otherwise not really that hard to beat ... because the usual result of Intimidation is to make the PCs look like badasses and the NPCs like contemptible losers.
Gristav |
Firstly, recognizing we're accepting 'combat' intimidate. The following concerns 'social' intimidate, with success giving d10 minutes of friendly attitude (or similar, not looking up numbers).
...it's doubly unfair in that it's a skill that PCs can utilize against NPCs that the NPCs don't have in their toolbox to use on PCs. ...it's mechanically impossible for an NPC to remind a PC of [their mortality].
That edge of that knife is supposed to be in the RP of this G. In the same space as Snake jumping out a window, or Gris honoring the maternal position of Shorafa. I expect we might similarly honor the social effect of intimidate, however much we might not enjoy the narrative taking such a turn. Mickey Spillane, I don't remember which story, has the protagonist's voice narrate, "I'm not made of iron. I can be bent. He bent me. I bent."
There are some instances when it's just wrong from a narrative viewpoint for the PCs to be able to Intimidate an NPC, no matter what their bonus is.
Your Drow Matron had a better Intimidate, and memory of her weighed more than the glowering paladin? Your players might have accepted that. Or by the letter, Intim forces 'friendly'. How would the prisoner treat a friend? (Is how I'd think I would handle it)
As a player, I'd like to think I'd accept such a loss in good grace. As a gamer, I expect I'd try to use the rest of 'friendly' time to get whatever we could get that wasn't betraying Matron.
...my entire conception of drow society. The most horrible thing the good elves could think up to do is something drow kids were probably doing to each other in elementary school; certainly, the worst day in an elf prison is probably going to be better than the best day of working for a sadistic, sexist, demon-worshipping boss with the literal power of life and death over him. But the PC got a very high Intimidate result. So what do I do?
Well, mechanically, the player made the roll so they got the information. But flavor-wise, he didn't give it to them crying and begging for mercy. I decided that he hates the drow he worked for enough that, now that he's out of the fight...
That sounds well-done. First drow modules had about 40% of drow carrying two or more house 'loyalty' pins. Might be your prisoner had always just been waiting for a chance to stick it to house Eilservnomore. :)
I'm not well-informed on Golarion's Drow, but I've gone as far as composing prayers for Drow from the narrative begun on Oerth (World of Greyhawk).
Joana |
Joana |
There's enough balls in the air at this point that it's probably worth making a list of them:
Anything I've left out?
Phillip Hargreaves |
- Big ol' Blot in the Distance - low priority at present.
- Whoremistress - looming in the background after afflicting Dayn and threatening us. Is she really just interested in Lil... or is there more at play?
- Rot Gut Wastrels - certain members of the party might want to look to their welfare today.
Gristav |
Phillip Hargreaves |
Gristav - you've already in thread promised that you'll get the fastest ship in the fleet... but Phillip's proactively made arrangements for your failure in that regard. So either you get the Cloud, or Phillip's back-up plan is used. (Captain Teach of the Fearful Jewel - departing Moonday morning)
Phillip Hargreaves |
Braddon's under the distinct impression otherwise ;)
Braddon Hurst |
Don't go dragging Braddon into it- anyone who believes a word he says gets what they deserve. :-)
Lil Scarlet was aboard the Teeth of Araska captained by Treeg.
Whether she goes to Roderic's cove depends on whether she got the latest version of the letter we stole.
Gristav |
...and then whether she gives a damn what the scribe writes or wants.
Braddon, :) I was about to say similar, hopefully more gently.
If we go by how people have represented Gristav, perhaps we'll commandeer that vessel, and put the old salt in charge!
Phillip Hargreaves |
In other news - starting tomorrow at roughly lunchtime my time I'll be taking a four day holiday. A quick vacation across to P%*+et... or for the benefit of Paizo's confusing wordfiltery boards Pooket.
I'll have my tablet and keyboard with me - so should still manage to keep up with things as they go, but if I'm a bit tardy that'd be the reason why.
Phillip Hargreaves |
Aye a slow gradual détente, I seem to remember that one time bastard was a bit spicy on the boards as well? (or is that just the gray cells confusing me).
What gets me about the combination of ph u and k is that while p!#* is censored - it lets feck, fook, fock all through...