Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Healing in combat isn't necessary if the GM sticks to the CR = APL.

I run a CR+4 to +5 encounter almost every game, if they have healing or not. Usually people just keep dying until someone makes a cleric.

Silver Crusade

Gorbacz wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Doesn't matter! -10 is still the cap that kills you so all you need is to be able to heal 11 points and the person is back to 1. You may need to play in a few more games because from the sounds of it you haven't had much experience.

I don't need to, but it seems like you might want to read Pathfinder rules finally, because the cap that kills you is -CON.

:)

:P

Still doesn't change much. Another thing that makes Channel Energy so great is the fact that it is ranged. Used to you had to take a move action to walk over to them and then use a standard action to cast the spell and touch them with it, which could open you up to enemies. Now Channel Energy doesn't provoke and attack of opportunity and if it was made into a swift action or even a move action the cleric wouldn't have to move, unless he is really far away, be able to heal that person back up and then be able to cast something else such as an actual heal spell, a buff, or even attack.


jupistar wrote:

I agree with you. I also think Burlew's approach is useable. I would just like to see some further considerations given to it (dealing with issues of trust and reception, dealing with resulting attitudes as in "that varmint horn-swaggled me!").

But on the other hand, giving some consideration to your word usage, perhaps that's what it *should be* - some form of lesser charm person. If I have a high Charisma and a high Diplomacy (I'm trained in the art of persuasiveness and conversation and charm), maybe it's exactly like that - a minor form of mind control. Let's call it "mind influencing". I don't know, just spitballing, here, but what's wrong with that sort of perspective?

Mind Influencing to me is more like the suggestion spell. Mind control is more like what the charm and dominate spells do.


shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

In-combat healing using cure spells and channels is suboptimal. You won't be able to keep up somebody who's being full-attacked by a CR-appropriate monster, and having channel as a swift/move will change little in this regard...

The only serious use for channeling is out of combat use to reduce your happystick usage.

My experience runs counter to this. Casting a cure spell on someone who is one hit from going down or dying is very efficient. And if a monster can take someone from full health to minus in one round without a series of lucky hits or a crit, then the CR of the encounter is off.

I find your philosophy fairly common among those who don’t work as a party, and treat PC’s as just disposable pieces of paper- “I can always write another” .

That is incorrect. I am willing to bet that the GM arbitrarily raises the difficulty of the encounters to make people want to heal in combat, because if not then healing in combat is not worth it, and if the party works together they won't get in serious trouble. Of course there are always exceptions because the dice gods are fickle but generally speaking healing can wait until combat is over.

As to your comment about someone being one hit from dying I will say that is one of those exceptions. Of course it is cheaper to keep someone alive than to raise them. I don't think Gorbacz was ever advocating allow anyone to die. The idea is that the person normally never gets that close to death if the party plays well. Prevention of damage is more efficient than trying to cure it.
I'm afraid I can't agree with you here Wraith. I've played in a lot of games over 27 years and I have seen many many times when healing, even a little, has been the deal breaker of the encounter. One thing that needs to be taken into account is as long as you have 1hp you can still do everything perfectly fine. Getting that other healer up, that caster or that fighter can make the difference...

If I heal the person getting attacked he still might die. If I kill the monster attacking him the threat is over. If the person being attacked had better defenses he would probably not be so close to death. Using summoned monsters and other means can also make sure he does not get that close to death. Now once all my stopgaps have been bypass then I might heal.

Normally the stopgaps work in games I play in, and observe unless the GM goes out his way to get past them as if the monsters have a blueprint to my tactics.


shallowsoul wrote:
Are there any rules or combos that you would like to see fixed or toned down?

Here's my two biggest gripes that I'd like to see fixed in the game:

* "Christmas tree" effects at higher levels. PCs have so many magic items and spells going on that tracking becomes a bookkeeping chore rather than fun (though I suppose plenty of people find that bookkeeping fun).

* Front-loaded and back-loaded builds. Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5, but there are still plenty of classes that are just too good to dip into (barbarian and rogue, for example) and plenty of characters that have to "suffer" for several levels before coming into their own (arcane tricksters and mystic theurges, for example).


wraithstrike wrote:
If I kill the monster attacking him the threat is over...

*IF*!!! Healing almost always works, there’s no saves, to hit or Spell resistance.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some sniping. Let's all act like grown-ups, please.


wraithstrike wrote:
Mind Influencing to me is more like the suggestion spell. Mind control is more like what the charm and dominate spells do.

I meant that only terms of a perspective on the skill. Let's say I'm meeting the local Count and Countess. I walk in and notice that the Count is jovial and welcoming, but the Countess is shooting me daggers... maybe because her husband stayed home to meet with me rather than taking his wife to the sea for holiday. I sweet talk her a little (role-play a little coaxing here) and ask to roll Diplomacy. I roll high enough to take her from Unfriendly to Friendly (I meet the DC + 5). In my perspective, that is a form of mind control. I've influenced the Countess to let go of her resentment towards me.

As long as the DC is fairly arrived at, I don't see a problem with this. My character has the 17 charisma, not me. :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I kill the monster attacking him the threat is over...
*IF*!!! Healing almost always works, there’s no saves, to hit or Spell resistance.

And then the monster takes away that healing and you're right back where you were a round ago.

Silver Crusade

TOZ wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I kill the monster attacking him the threat is over...
*IF*!!! Healing almost always works, there’s no saves, to hit or Spell resistance.
And then the monster takes away that healing and you're right back where you were a round ago.

Depends on initiative order. if 3 fellow players go before the next enemy then that can mean the difference as well. One, two or even all three could be caster types that are able to assist with more healing, more buffing, or able to kill the next enemy etc....

Initiative order and holding actions is all a part of tactics. It's not always about "Rockem Sockem Robots".

Shadow Lodge

So you're saying I should heal and hope someone else goes before the monster and can kill it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I kill the monster attacking him the threat is over...
*IF*!!! Healing almost always works, there’s no saves, to hit or Spell resistance.

Healing only works when it is enough healing to negate the next attack. Killing the monster or at least finding a way to stop him from harming you prevents said attack from taking place.

Just to be clear here is what I am saying:
1.Have good defenses such as high AC, saves and so to prevent damage
2.Have casters use spells to prevent damage, and boost party offense.
3.If Murphy's Law is invoked then heal.

Normally 1 and 2 make sure 3 does not happen.


jupistar wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Mind Influencing to me is more like the suggestion spell. Mind control is more like what the charm and dominate spells do.

I meant that only terms of a perspective on the skill. Let's say I'm meeting the local Count and Countess. I walk in and notice that the Count is jovial and welcoming, but the Countess is shooting me daggers... maybe because her husband stayed home to meet with me rather than taking his wife to the sea for holiday. I sweet talk her a little (role-play a little coaxing here) and ask to roll Diplomacy. I roll high enough to take her from Unfriendly to Friendly (I meet the DC + 5). In my perspective, that is a form of mind control. I've influenced the Countess to let go of her resentment towards me.

As long as the DC is fairly arrived at, I don't see a problem with this. My character has the 17 charisma, not me. :)

Yeah I can see that.


TOZ wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I kill the monster attacking him the threat is over...
*IF*!!! Healing almost always works, there’s no saves, to hit or Spell resistance.
And then the monster takes away that healing and you're right back where you were a round ago.

Yep. Except if you didn’t heal, then the PC is dead/down, and can’t contribute to the combat anymore. If you heal him, he can keep doing damage to the foe, and hopefully the rest of the party isn’t standing around whistling with their hands in their pockets.


Conan d20 had Reputation, which modified Intimidation and other social skills if your rep was known. This varied from a -5 to +5 depending on circumstances. I liked it. Something like that would be nice for PF

I think that for sake of clarity, Separate Charge and Mounted Charge into their own individual Full Actions. As it stands now there are discrepencies that lead to abuse/confusion as to what applies to which. So if this is done, you list in Charge abilities that they apply to Charge, Mounted abilities apply to Mounted Charge, and stuff that applies to both say applies to Charge and Mounted Charge Actions.

If that is done, it'll be clear to everyone and designers will have that much less to FAQ. We will then know definitively that Pounce applies to Charge, etc,.,.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

DrDeth, that is not entirely true. There are a few ways to contribute after death, if someone in your party is creative enough.

Example: My character's body was used as a weapon by our wizard(using telekinesis). Take that you dumb harpies!


Funny!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like the developers to put a simple sentence next to each ability in the next rendition of Pathfinder. The sentence is just a statement of intent.

This can be added after the fact to the internet postings of their current material.

For example:
Eidolon pounce which differs from Beastiary pounce.
Intent statement: (The eidolon is not supposed to be able to use the rake attack as part of his charge.)

or

Eidolon Rend vs Beastiary rend:
The eidolon rend doesn't limit the number of times that you can rend in one turn. In the Beastiary, the developers felt the need to specify that you could only rend once per round, but as we are using a different rule set for pounce it stands to reason that Rend may be different too. (It isn't different, but this is just an example)

Intent Statement on Eidolon rend: (You can only rend once per round.)

or

Flurry of blows.
Intent Statement: (If using a flurry with monk weapons, you may not use the same weapon for the entire flurry.)

----------------------------------------------------------------

A simple statement of intent should end a lot of the arguing that goes on in these forums and make the developer's jobs easier. The website is fairly easy to update and the players on these forums are more than happy to do all of the legwork to figure out where these holes in the rules are. Things that keep coming up as FAQ could be stopped at the source material by simply updating the website.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:


Yep. Except if you didn’t heal, then the PC is dead/down, and can’t contribute to the combat anymore. If you heal him, he can keep doing damage to the foe, and hopefully the rest of the party isn’t standing around whistling with their hands in their pockets.

Or you could do damage and avoid the PC being dead or down because you killed the monster.


Sure, buffing is better than “topping off” a PC, no doubt. But let us say your tank has been hit a few times and is down from 50hp to 10, and the foe seems to be averaging about 15pts per hit and hitting most of the time. You are a 5th level cleric, and your round comes up. Your choice is:

1.Cast Shield of Faith on the fighter and reduce the foes changes of hitting from 75% to 60%.
2. Strike the foe with your mace, with a small chance of hitting and nearly no chance of dropping.
3.Fire off a Searing Light, with a high chance of hitting and doing about 8 points of damage if you do-which is about half what the fighter does per hit. Let us say 75% chance of hitting? So, that comes out to 6 points of damage- average
4. CSW which has a 100% chance of hitting the fighter and does about 21pts of healing.

1= a great choice- several rounds ago, which may have prevented some of the damage. Not good now.
2= Weak.
3= Not bad, if you KNOW the monster has only a few points left. Otherwise…
4= Best choice. Note that healing your friend nets more than 3X what your best attack spell should do on the average. And, with any luck, the healing might keep up the fighter for two rounds. In any case, the fighter does more damage per round that you do- on the average, that is.

Also note that many fighters will just go defensive or even withdraw when he’s down to “one hit drops him”. If he goes defensive, there’s a zero chance of him doing damage, and a non-trivial chance of him being hit anyway. If he withdraws, then the monster attacks YOU.

So sure, yes- topping off is a waste of resources. Buffing is better. But Cure spells are the best option when combat gets to this- which occurs fairly often.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay, you've got one situation where healing makes sense. Would you like to create another situation for where it doesn't? I don't think we need to waste time in this thread arguing about which situation happens more often however.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Yep. Except if you didn’t heal, then the PC is dead/down, and can’t contribute to the combat anymore. If you heal him, he can keep doing damage to the foe, and hopefully the rest of the party isn’t standing around whistling with their hands in their pockets.
Or you could do damage and avoid the PC being dead or down because you killed the monster.

Sure. What mid level cleric spell do you have in mind that has a 100% kill rate, no chance of missing or saves?


DrDeth wrote:

Sure, buffing is better than “topping off” a PC, no doubt. But let us say your tank has been hit a few times and is down from 50hp to 10, and the foe seems to be averaging about 15pts per hit and hitting most of the time. You are a 5th level cleric, and your round comes up. Your choice is:

1.Cast Shield of Faith on the fighter and reduce the foes changes of hitting from 75% to 60%.
2. Strike the foe with your mace, with a small chance of hitting and nearly no chance of dropping.
3.Fire off a Searing Light, with a high chance of hitting and doing about 8 points of damage if you do-which is about half what the fighter does per hit. Let us say 75% chance of hitting? So, that comes out to 6 points of damage- average
4. CSW which has a 100% chance of hitting the fighter and does about 21pts of healing.

1= a great choice- several rounds ago, which may have prevented some of the damage. Not good now.
2= Weak.
3= Not bad, if you KNOW the monster has only a few points left. Otherwise…
4= Best choice. Note that healing your friend nets more than 3X what your best attack spell should do on the average. And, with any luck, the healing might keep up the fighter for two rounds. In any case, the fighter does more damage per round that you do- on the average, that is.

Also note that many fighters will just go defensive or even withdraw when he’s down to “one hit drops him”. If he goes defensive, there’s a zero chance of him doing damage, and a non-trivial chance of him being hit anyway. If he withdraws, then the monster attacks YOU.

So sure, yes- topping off is a waste of resources. Buffing is better. But Cure spells are the best option when combat gets to this- which occurs fairly often.

I am not used to that being a common theme. A fighter should not be getting getting hit a lot by a CR 5 opponent. Even if the monster is a CR 7 the combined forces of the party has it down by round 2, 3 at the latest.

Things like ambushes and crits happens, but those are not the norm. A fighter should be able to go defensive and still hit also. I just would not power attack. That +2 to AC can force a monster to have to roll a nat 20 to hit depending on the fighter build.

Now if you go total defensive that prevents you from being offensive, but I don't see that happening unless the monster really has you in trouble, and you are trying to just hold out. Unless the monster has reach you better off withdrawing.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Okay, you've got one situation where healing makes sense. Would you like to create another situation for where it doesn't? I don't think we need to waste time in this thread arguing about which situation happens more often however.

I did. Like I said, “topping off” during combat is generally a waste of time. Damage, battlefield control and esp party buffing are all far better options then.

Healing is just one tool in a PC’s arsenal, and you need to know when is the best time to use each of those tools. In fact during the early rounds of combat, situations when you should buff or battlefield control come up FAR more often than my situation, no doubt. In any given round, a party buff spell will likely be a better choice than a cure spell. BUT!

This is why clerics get to cast Cure spells Spontaneously. Usually there’s better options, which you thus to pick ahead of time. But when you REALLY need it, you NEED a Cure spell. (Or, for PF, Channel Divinity.)

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
Healing is just one tool in a PC’s arsenal, and you need to know when is the best time to use each of those tools.

Okay, we're in agreement then.

Silver Crusade

So what's wrong with being able to heal and buff?

Shadow Lodge

Nothing.


shallowsoul wrote:
One thing I can't stand is a rule or combo that has been left alone even though it's broken. I don't like playing in a game where the DM has to jack up the stats of his monsters in order to challenge that one PC while destroying everyone else.

Who has to do this, exactly? I frequently have to be a bit gentle or else I'll end up TPKing my party with core stuff that follows the regular guidelines.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can we add stuff that is under powered that needs to be fixed?

If so, I would like to add Solid fog and Heirloom Weapon.


DrDeth wrote:

Sure, buffing is better than “topping off” a PC, no doubt. But let us say your tank has been hit a few times and is down from 50hp to 10, and the foe seems to be averaging about 15pts per hit and hitting most of the time. You are a 5th level cleric, and your round comes up. Your choice is:

1.Cast Shield of Faith on the fighter and reduce the foes changes of hitting from 75% to 60%.
2. Strike the foe with your mace, with a small chance of hitting and nearly no chance of dropping.
3.Fire off a Searing Light, with a high chance of hitting and doing about 8 points of damage if you do-which is about half what the fighter does per hit. Let us say 75% chance of hitting? So, that comes out to 6 points of damage- average
4. CSW which has a 100% chance of hitting the fighter and does about 21pts of healing.

Seems strawman, why are you a blaster cleric?

Searing Light? Seriously!
5th level:
1) Burning Disarm: 5d4 fire dam if he doesn't drop it. Effectively killing him or removing the threat (unarmed).
2) Cause Fear (Will save bad for Mr. orc)
3) Command (again Will save bad)
4) Hold Person: Will save bad.

Now, I guess someone fighting non-undead will use Searing Light, but it seems a bad idea compared to even 1st level spells and a few 2nd.


Starbuck_II wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Sure, buffing is better than “topping off” a PC, no doubt. But let us say your tank has been hit a few times and is down from 50hp to 10, and the foe seems to be averaging about 15pts per hit and hitting most of the time. You are a 5th level cleric, and your round comes up. Your choice is:

1.Cast Shield of Faith on the fighter and reduce the foes changes of hitting from 75% to 60%.
2. Strike the foe with your mace, with a small chance of hitting and nearly no chance of dropping.
3.Fire off a Searing Light, with a high chance of hitting and doing about 8 points of damage if you do-which is about half what the fighter does per hit. Let us say 75% chance of hitting? So, that comes out to 6 points of damage- average
4. CSW which has a 100% chance of hitting the fighter and does about 21pts of healing.

Seems strawman, why are you a blaster cleric?

Searing Light? Seriously!
5th level:
1) Burning Disarm: 5d4 fire dam if he doesn't drop it. Effectively killing him or removing the threat (unarmed).
2) Cause Fear (Will save bad for Mr. orc)
3) Command (again Will save bad)
4) Hold Person: Will save bad.

Now, I guess someone fighting non-undead will use Searing Light, but it seems a bad idea compared to even 1st level spells and a few 2nd.

Slightly sexier since clerics can auto-maximize all their spells with some incense of meditation. Druids too. Makes them actually pretty awesome blasters. Still, searing light is pretty terrible. :P

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Okay, you've got one situation where healing makes sense. Would you like to create another situation for where it doesn't? I don't think we need to waste time in this thread arguing about which situation happens more often however.

What situation happens more often is a large case of YMMV. I will say that in Arcanis, it was a lot more common than you might think, especially since the organisers of the campaign expected the players to munchkin, and created the opposition in the exact same philosophy.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


Slightly sexier since clerics can auto-maximize all their spells with some incense of meditation. Druids too. Makes them actually pretty awesome blasters. Still, searing light is pretty terrible. :P

Because players always have 8 hours a day to meditate and almost 5k in gold to literally burn on a daily basis.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Slightly sexier since clerics can auto-maximize all their spells with some incense of meditation. Druids too. Makes them actually pretty awesome blasters. Still, searing light is pretty terrible. :P
Because players always have 8 hours a day to meditate and almost 5k in gold to literally burn on a daily basis.

Well they all come from the same country as Schrodinger's Wizard and and his cleric dad, Father Schrodinger, who always have the right spells for the occasion prepared.


ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Slightly sexier since clerics can auto-maximize all their spells with some incense of meditation. Druids too. Makes them actually pretty awesome blasters. Still, searing light is pretty terrible. :P
Because players always have 8 hours a day to meditate and almost 5k in gold to literally burn on a daily basis.

Who said anything about daily basis? O.o

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You'd think ciretose was reading things that weren't there.


I get ciretose's point. People on these boards bring up expendable magic items as if they come standard and you always have them, which is how the incense thing came off.

I've never played a wizard that had much spare cash for scrolls, let alone big ticket expendables.


cranewings wrote:
I've never played a wizard that had much spare cash for scrolls, let alone big ticket expendables.

I figure the party needs to fork over for certain expendable items.

One thing I would like to see changed is Monk. Either fix the class or erase it totally, your choice. ;)


Starbuck_II wrote:


Searing Light? Seriously!
5th level:
1) Burning Disarm: 5d4 fire dam if he doesn't drop it. Effectively killing him or removing the threat (unarmed).
2) Cause Fear (Will save bad for Mr. orc)
3) Command (again Will save bad)
4) Hold Person: Will save bad.

Where the heck is Burning Disarm?

2, 34, 4 will not KILL the foe, and I quote "Or you could do damage and avoid the PC being dead or down because you killed the monster."

And all those are subject to a save. If the monster does save, the fighter is dead.

Andoran

TOZ wrote:
You'd think ciretose was reading things that weren't there.

That it lasts for 24 hours?

Everyone who reads what I post knows the Schrodinger's approach to discussion is a major pet peeve of mine.

Andoran

cranewings wrote:

I get ciretose's point. People on these boards bring up expendable magic items as if they come standard and you always have them, which is how the incense thing came off.

I've never played a wizard that had much spare cash for scrolls, let alone big ticket expendables.

Which is exactly why I am running this.


It can be done, but it takes careful managing of money. I have had to pass up on things I wanted to get the other thing I wanted when playing AP's.

I actually write a wishlist before I start playing so I don't buy things on impulse. The wishlist is never completed, but it does help keep you on track.

Do I get the cloak of resistance or hold out for that headband of ______?

Grand Lodge

DrDeth wrote:

Where the heck is Burning Disarm?

2, 34, 4 will not KILL the foe, and I quote "Or you could do damage and avoid the PC being dead or down because you killed the monster."

And all those are subject to a save. If the monster does save, the fighter is dead.

Burning Disarm is a spell from Cheliax that basically says you take damage or you drop your weapon.

I'm going to disagree with you. Healing is rarely ever a good option. It is an option. It can, on some occasions be good, mainly when it saves another player's life from a random, unexpected threat like the DM's deal a massive crit early into a boss fight. Otherwise, you are failing your party by staying on the reactionary catch-up game. If you have nothing else useful to do in a combat besides heal, and you failed from the start in not doing things to prevent damage in the first place (the best form of healing in combat), than you are basically making a very poor trade of your resources.

This doesn't mean things can't happen. They can, but if it is that common, you should probably discuss tactics with your party. Healing, is not, at all, a 100 thing. You can fail a concentration check, or roll minimume HP. Other things can happen. Guess what happens when you get an AoO, someone Readies to attack your casting, or you fail a concentration check? It's actually worse than nothing, as you lose the spell with 0 benefit.

Andoran

wraithstrike wrote:

It can be done, but it takes careful managing of money. I have had to pass up on things I wanted to get the other thing I wanted when playing AP's.

I actually write a wishlist before I start playing so I don't buy things on impulse. The wishlist is never completed, but it does help keep you on track.

Do I get the cloak of resistance or hold out for that headband of ______?

Saving for nice things is one thing. Expensive single use disposable items are another.


Now that I think about it a reworking of the skill system in general would be nice. not too spectacular. more like a change in the way they are bonused than a change in the way they are used or advanced.


Josh M. wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Yes, so much on intimidate comes into play. I see you respect your mother, and find her a little bit frightening. I think I know the type, some women pull it off quite well, they may need to do so to survive. Now you mentioned "rip you in half" as a turn of phrase, the problem with intimidate is that an aura can only do so much. That 100 lbs lady cannot tear someone of size and strength apart, not with her bare hands anyway. I am sure she can cuss and bluster, and knows plenty of tricks but there are people of size, strength and ability that she is simply not going to be a threat to, no matter what she says.

I'll use the example of a sheriff friend of mine. A nice fellow, friendly, quite heavy and well trained. He gets a lot of threats, some people mistake his friendliness for weakness, and try their luck. He tries to keep people's actual abilities in mind and how they compare to his heavy frame. A smaller person certainly can be a danger, but they are going to have a hard time wrestling with him, or pushing him around--as much as some people try to pretend they are ready to go.

So back to the game, there are plenty of modifiers that could be included as supplemental material. Such as, does the intimidator actually pose a threat, how much...

I think you misunderstood me. My Mom's intimidating factor is not what she'll physically do to you, it's the verbal thrashing and screeching that has made grown men cower in fear and run for the hills; literally witnessed during my parents divorce. I've seen my Dad stand against a group of men his size without flinching, but he's terrified of my Mom.

She won't kick anybody's tail in a fist fight, but she can cut a person down to nothing in just a few words. Not even just a barrage of profanities or name calling; she can literally zero-in on a person's weaknesses, shortcomings, or fears, and use them against them like a weapon. The mental scars she can leave do way, way more damage then any kind of physical cut or bruise would....

It is a good story you shared, a useful example for discussion. Glad you brought it up! The problem is, and no offence meant, but she sounds like she really gets away with a lot, and hurts people via words, looks and trickery precisely because she is in a civilised society and subject to a variety of protections. Now let us transplant this person to a settlement in a fantasy world of dragons, knights, samurai, ogres, badass adventurers and the like. Now ignoring there are some protections in place that may side with her (watch... although not if she has caused ruin to them before, magistrates etc) how are attempts at intimidation going to be successful against seasoned adventurers. She is loud, she is frightening, but banshees and ogres are loud and frightening. She can ruin reputations and exploit fears, so can vampires, courtiers and illithids (gnome illusionists too!).

There is also another possibility in here. If the high intimidate commoner/expert starts to have a go at the heroes, they literally may be able to kill her on the spot and get away with it. If agents of the king/ruling authority, samurai in their daimyo's land (killing insulting commoners as they were known to do), barbarians, rogues or monks capable of doing the job and escaping pursuit, all possibilities that should give a bonus against intimidate. Because if a non-hero tries to intimidate someone truly powerful, and lo the adventurer turns their gaze upon the angry commoner, and can end their life in but a portion of their combat round, I think they should be on giant bonuses against intimidate. I think there should be a lot of situational bonuses (or penalties) around intimidate. An expansion of the rules possibly, or a further modifier of scale. This can factor in threats possibly a lot better. Maligning reputation is also possible from such a foul and angry actor, but that too may not really be possible or a credibly threat given the aid adventurers can provide or may have provided already to the community. E.g. she smears your name and that of your fellows... buuuut, you saved nearby farmers from monsters, rescued kiddies, ended the goblin threat, unearthed corruption at the highest local authority, aided in public works, donated to the churches of the good, etc etc etc. If that too is shored up, what is the intimidator going to do?

The players are not invincible, and even a commoner can possibly insta-kill a pc with say a 20,20 depending on your rules, but the weak should not easily be able to intimidate the strong, even if they have a strong intimidate modifier and use that frequently on the common people around them. I'd like to see more added to intimidate, much in the way that many skills were broadened out in various 3.5 supplements.

P.S intimidate in the physical or community attack sense may also really not work on a high stealth with few moorings character. Someone like a rogue, ranger or assassin that is pretty much a shadow. She may bump into this person, fly into a rage, but if they scarcely exist socially, if they are a wandering jobber, there isn't much for the scary commoner to stand on. Go physical and get throat cut, go social the infiltrator merely changes disguises or disappears. The dnd world is not the streets, people and usual bu*ls*it that we run into. :D
A rogue, say a level 5 could literally bluff and go along with the intimidate, beg for forgiveness and kill the "intimidator" before they even saw the blade. They start walking off nondescript and re-concealing the weapon as the social attacker falls, so confused.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I have done in my games is to used opposed intimidate checks. The PC's tries to intimidate some guard into allowing them entry as an example, but if the guard is more afraid of his boss the PC's most likely won't get in.


I've run it pretty standard, but starting to see there is more to it.


Wraith I agree with the opposed intimidate checks also.

151 to 200 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / What do you want to see fixed in Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.