Wizards already destroy those checks anyways.
Fighters have a strength score and more than enough skill point to be useful during the 30%. Thankfully out-of-combat contributions have for more to do with player skill than class features.
Rogue on the other hand cannot role-play his way through combat.
Fighters are 70% of the time fighting; they just need the skills to be useful for the rest.
This may be off the subject, but does anyone else feel like Wizards should be able to add half their class level to Knowledge(Arcana) and Spellcraft checks? Just saying, it fits their area of expertise.
I don't understand how you can be a wizard and ranks in spellcraft is technically optional so I'm in favor of it.
Why would a caster ever use UMD?
I don't think skill points are within the martial sphere
i find Skills are useful to build character concepts. their effect in the game power balance is minimum, even the fighter ends flying instead of climbing. But they are necessary to make characters living and breathing. If you want to prtotect the (already destroyed) rogue niche, you need to make him access to skill tricks. Everybody cpuld climb a wall, a rogue could climb a dragon in combat. The paladin and fighter (abd cleric and sorcerer etc) having enough skills to fill a character concept beyond combat capabilities is a good thing in my book
Endurance is a cool skill from 4th Ed, but relies a lot on 4th Ed mechanics to work. Idk what you are calling endurance, but that is what first came to my mind.ENDURANCE (CON)** spoiler omitted **...
Now separate HP from wounds (say, you only take wounds when hit after HP=0 or take a crit) and let players make an Endurance check to self-heal HP after each combat and after a night's rest. Heal check grants a bonus to the Endurance check.
Fighters have a strength score and more than enough skill point to be useful during the 30%. Thankfully out-of-combat contributions have for more to do with player skill than class features.
This is a play style that can be good for your group (it does for my when I DM).
But with more typical DMs it does not matter if your fighter have str 24, If he have diplomacy +0 he most likely would not persuade anyone of anything.
If he have +0 sense motive he would never notice that someone is bluffing even if you (the player) know about it.
If he have +0 Knwoledge (X) he would never identify a monster, or a legend, or the local laws (Even if you the player know about all those things).and the like.
Now, if somebody point out that a fighter coudl spend his 2 skills in let say, diplomacy and knowlege (nature), notice how now the figher have serious risk of drowning if a crature attack him while in the waters.
Our groups do not meta game that much. Social skills don't work on PCs as per the rules anyways. So if you can discern that a person is lying you don't need sense motive.
Our DMs don't have us roll diplomacy whenever we try to talk because most fantasy stories do not feature skilled diplomats.
If your DM goes out of his way to misinterpret the rules, then I can see how the Fighter can have a lot of problems.
*Oh and the strength score allows you to move objects and break doors. Something casters are hesitant to spend spell on.
I'm one to argue that we play with the actual rules and the ones where DMs prevent the fighter from going to bathroom because he failed his gather information check are making up house rules that do little but reinforce their own biases.
Diplomacy and the like are meant for persuasion, not light conversation.
Are we still on the "more skills will fix the fighter, clearly, you raving idiots" part of the discussion?
I don't think 4 skill ranks/level will fix them, because people will complain that the fighter has nothing good to spend those 4 skill ranks on, which is why I don't think it's too much of an issue before we come up with something for the fighter to actually do out of combat that's fighter-y.
Did anyone actually like my idea of letting fighters, through an extraordinary ability, be able to identify the properties of magic weapons and armors for free? Or have his ranks in Craft (weapons and armor) count for something other than actually crafting them, like a check that the fighter can make instead of a spellcraft check with detect magic and/or identify going.
I move that "Fighters Need More Skill Points!" and "No They Don't!" get split off as a separate thread. A couple more skill points won't salvage the fighter past 5th level, so I'd hardly consider them "The Main Problem with Fighters."
Are we still on the "more skills will fix the fighter, clearly, you raving idiots" part of the discussion?
I don't think 4 skill ranks/level will fix them, because people will complain that the fighter has nothing good to spend those 4 skill ranks on, which is why I don't think it's too much of an issue before we come up with something for the fighter to actually do out of combat that's fighter-y.
Did anyone actually like my idea of letting fighters, through an extraordinary ability, be able to identify the properties of magic weapons and armors for free? Or have his ranks in Craft (weapons and armor) count for something other than actually crafting them, like a check that the fighter can make instead of a spellcraft check with detect magic and/or identify going.
More skills would still be a nice step forward.
Identification of magical items is hardly a noteworthy ability. You could let the Fighter do it but all it does is skip a step of asking the party mage, hardly giving him a unique/important contribution to make.
Feats should just be better.
There are already a few racial feats for flight handing around for the Sylph and Aasimar by lvl10, maybe we could just drop the race restriction there. Flight becomes pretty standard at that level, and it's about keeping up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters have a strength score and more than enough skill point to be useful during the 30%. Thankfully out-of-combat contributions have for more to do with player skill than class features.
This is a play style that can be good for your group (it does for my when I DM).
But with more typical DMs it does not matter if your fighter have str 24, If he have diplomacy +0 he most likely would not persuade anyone of anything.
If he have +0 sense motive he would never notice that someone is bluffing even if you (the player) know about it.
If he have +0 Knwoledge (X) he would never identify a monster, or a legend, or the local laws (Even if you the player know about all those things).and the like.
Now, if somebody point out that a fighter coudl spend his 2 skills in let say, diplomacy and knowlege (nature), notice how now the figher have serious risk of drowning if a crature attack him while in the waters.
Our groups do not meta game that much. Social skills don't work on PCs as per the rules anyways. So if you can discern that a person is lying you don't need sense motive.
Our DMs don't have us roll diplomacy whenever we try to talk because most fantasy stories do not feature skilled diplomats.
If your DM goes out of his way to misinterpret the rules, then I can see how the Fighter can have a lot of problems.
*Oh and the strength score allows you to move objects and break doors. Something casters are hesit ant to spend spell on.
well, if your group doesn't use skills, sure 2 is enough. Or zero. Our group wouldn't allow me to talk my way in a convesration if my char doesn't have diplomacy for exactly the same reasons they wouldn't allow my char to have unarmed combat for free just because I'm black belt. That YOU are silver tongued doesn't mean your CHAR is. That's why it's called "roleplay". Because you play a Role. Not every character James Wood plays is a genious just because he has 140+ IQ
well, if your group doesn't use skills, sure 2 is enough. Or zero. Our group wouldn't allow me to talk my way in a convesration if my char doesn't have diplomacy for exactly the same reasons they wouldn't allow my char to have unarmed combat for free just because I'm black belt. That YOU are silver tongued doesn't mean your CHAR is. That's why it's called "roleplay". Because you play a Role. Not every character James Wood plays is a genious just because he has 140+ IQFighters have a strength score and more than enough skill point to be useful during the 30%. Thankfully out-of-combat contributions have for more to do with player skill than class features.
This is a play style that can be good for your group (it does for my when I DM).
But with more typical DMs it does not matter if your fighter have str 24, If he have diplomacy +0 he most likely would not persuade anyone of anything.
If he have +0 sense motive he would never notice that someone is bluffing even if you (the player) know about it.
If he have +0 Knwoledge (X) he would never identify a monster, or a legend, or the local laws (Even if you the player know about all those things).and the like.
Now, if somebody point out that a fighter coudl spend his 2 skills in let say, diplomacy and knowlege (nature), notice how now the figher have serious risk of drowning if a crature attack him while in the waters.
Our groups do not meta game that much. Social skills don't work on PCs as per the rules anyways. So if you can discern that a person is lying you don't need sense motive.
Our DMs don't have us roll diplomacy whenever we try to talk because most fantasy stories do not feature skilled diplomats.
If your DM goes out of his way to misinterpret the rules, then I can see how the Fighter can have a lot of problems.
*Oh and the strength score allows you to move objects and break doors. Something casters are hesit ant to spend spell on.
you hush about james woods! the man is a gift, a gift I say!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a caster ever use UMD?Just pointing out that wizards don't have many healing spells and clerics don't get incredibly useful spells till 3rd-4th level. Also, has anyone tried out a 4+INT skill fighter? maybe someone should playtest it to see if it works.
i gave 1 skill point to everybody last campaign. Nobody played a fighter, but the paladin was quite happy. It helped a lot to him to fill his character concept (finished having a decent amount of proffesion: lawyer.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, has anyone tried out a 4+INT skill fighter? maybe someone should playtest it to see if it works.
I have instituted a rule that fighters get 4 skill points, and have Perception as a class skill in my Jade Regent campaign. They're only level 4, so we'll see for the rest of the game, but thus far it hasn't been an issue. I got an okay from all the players, not just the husband and wife that are playing fighters, before instituting the rule. It has thus far been used for Perception (duh! The fighters now roll initiative on more surprise rounds! Yay!), and knowledge skills, intrestingly enough. Ours is a heavy roleplaying group, and it's been a blast as people get into it.
I am a player in a game where everyone got +2 skill points / level. I'm loving it for my cleric, I must say! she's all mental stats, and it's a lot easier to play the religious sage (my favorite type of cleric) with some support for a skillful cleric. I wish the cloistered cleric archetype didn't say "These two skill points are so powerful for your character that we'll remove one domain and spellcasting power!!!" I'd much rather the 3.5 type of cloistered cleric, where they trade BAB for skills - to me it much better fulfills my image of the archetype.
|
i gave 1 skill point to everybody last campaign. Nobody played a fighter, but the paladin was quite happy. It helped a lot to him to fill his character concept (finished having a decent amount of proffesion: lawyer.)
I have instituted a rule that fighters get 4 skill points, and have Perception as a class skill in my Jade Regent campaign. They're only level 4, so we'll see for the rest of the game, but thus far it hasn't been an issue. I got an okay from all the players, not just the husband and wife that are playing fighters, before instituting the rule. It has thus far been used for Perception (duh! The fighters now roll initiative on more surprise rounds! Yay!), and knowledge skills, intrestingly enough. Ours is a heavy roleplaying group, and it's been a blast as people get into it.
See markthus, no problems with skillful fighters
It seems most people here are in favor of more skill points and more skills for the Fighter for those times when he's out of combat. There are a couple or so that are with the Fighter's skill points and skill list being unchanged, and they're sticking with that, so it doesn't seem very pointful arguing with people who aren't going to change. I also think Fighters adding half their class level ( rounding up ) to all physical ( Str, Con, Dex ) skills is a good idea to give the Fighter the advantage he logically would have in those areas.
Jess Door, glad to see these rules are working!! I still think it should be limited to a trait ( not all Fighters are trained, of course ) or a Feat that can be taken later on, but I'm glad to see the success of this method in one campaign.
|
|
I still think it should be limited to a trait ( not all Fighters are trained, of course ) or a Feat that can be taken later on, but I'm glad to see the success of this method in one campaign.
Not all fighters are trained, yet, not all barbarians are raised in the rough. Barbarians get 4+INT skills even though they may have been a prince (note that this is unlikely yet more possible then a lot of things in PF), so why shouldn't fighters?
I believe it's part of the Barbarian class that he comes from a primitive society, where it's neccessary to know things like Survival. I'm definately not arguing against 4+Int skills for Fighters - and the inclusion of Heal, Perception and Sense Motive - just that there is a certain logic to Barbarians having 4+Int skills. The problem is, the Fighter needs a way to boost his skills.
4 + Int skills
Perception, Heal, Sense Motive added to skills/readily available with a trait/feat
Half class level added to Str, Dex and Con checks
Everyone's talked so much about skills, but what about other ways to improve the Fighter? Skills alone won't make the Fighter a major factor in the game after level 8. What other bonuses should be given to the Fighter?
well, if your group doesn't use skills, sure 2 is enough. Or zero. Our group wouldn't allow me to talk my way in a convesration if my char doesn't have diplomacy for exactly the same reasons they wouldn't allow my char to have unarmed combat for free just because I'm black belt. That YOU are silver tongued doesn't mean your CHAR is. That's why it's called "roleplay". Because you play a Role. Not every character James Wood plays is a genious just because he has 140+ IQOur groups do not meta game that much. Social skills don't work on PCs as per the rules anyways. So if you can discern that a person is lying you don't need sense motive.
Our DMs don't have us roll diplomacy whenever we try to talk because most fantasy stories do not feature skilled diplomats.
If your DM goes out of his way to misinterpret the rules, then I can see how the Fighter can have a lot of problems.
*Oh and the strength score allows you to move objects and break doors. Something casters are hesitant to spend spell on.
Our groups like to do more than roll dice. It is a role playing game after all.
If you can't hold a conversation with someone else because you are not a skilled diplomat, you are ridiculous.
By your logic, if a commoner has no ranks in diplomacy he cannot speak. So it doesn't matter how high your gather information check is, if the people you are asking questions to do not have the requisite ranks in knowledge(location of bathroom).
I'm sure your low Wis Wizard cannot solve puzzles either, because while is memory his good, his reasoning is subpar and thus cannot contribute to puzzle solving.
Just because your group likes to willfully misinterpret the rules, does not mean the fighter has problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not misinterpreting the rules.
You can have conversations, yes, but you can't wring info from someone not forthcoming without Diplomacy or Intimidate.
To do otherwise is to make the skills worthless, in which case you should just remove them from your games.
well, if your group doesn't use skills, sure 2 is enough. Or zero. Our group wouldn't allow me to talk my way in a convesration if my char doesn't have diplomacy for exactly the same reasons they wouldn't allow my char to have unarmed combat for free just because I'm black belt. That YOU are silver tongued doesn't mean your CHAR is. That's why it's called "roleplay". Because you play a Role. Not every character James Wood plays is a genious just because he has 140+ IQOur groups do not meta game that much. Social skills don't work on PCs as per the rules anyways. So if you can discern that a person is lying you don't need sense motive.
Our DMs don't have us roll diplomacy whenever we try to talk because most fantasy stories do not feature skilled diplomats.
If your DM goes out of his way to misinterpret the rules, then I can see how the Fighter can have a lot of problems.
*Oh and the strength score allows you to move objects and break doors. Something casters are hesitant to spend spell on.
Our groups like to do more than roll dice. It is a role playing game after all.
If you can't hold a conversation with someone else because you are not a skilled diplomat, you are ridiculous.
By your logic, if a commoner has no ranks in diplomacy he cannot speak. So it doesn't matter how high your gather information check is, if the people you are asking questions to do not have the requisite ranks in knowledge(location of bathroom).
I'm sure your low Wis Wizard cannot solve puzzles either, because while is memory is good, his reasoning is subpar and thus cannot contribute to puzzle solving.
Just because your group likes to willfully misinterpret the rules, does not mean the fighter has problems.
A few misconceptions you had there.
First, wisdom is common sense, not reasoning. Reason is Intelligence. Directly from the PFSRD: "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons"Second, of course your character can talk. But talking, and convincing people, are two completely different things.
Your very very weak attempt of reductio ad absurdum fallacy does not hold water though. Yes, your character need diplomacy to be diplomatic. It's not enough that you, as the player, have a silver tongue. Just like your character won't have any known language even if you speak russian, french and chinese, unless he pay for Linguistics, and just like your character doesn't jump without the skill, even if you play in the NBA. And just because you can access to PFSRD monsters stats doesn't mean your character doesn't need Knowledge Arcana/planes/nature to know about the weakness of the creature. And so on. Now I see why you think fighters don't need more skills. You play without them. Diplomacy? The player talk. Sense motive? The player decides if it's a lie. A cliff? the player climbs... (see what I did? Reductio ad absurdum)
Just because your group willfully give max ranks to everybody in diplomacy, bluff, intimidate and sense motive, based on the player ability instead of the character ability, doesn't mean fighters don't need more skills
It's not misinterpreting the rules.
You can have conversations, yes, but you can't wring info from someone not forthcoming without Diplomacy or Intimidate.
To do otherwise is to make the skills worthless, in which case you should just remove them from your games.
1. Those situations are rare enough that most out-combat activity has nothing to do with that.
2. In the rare event. The caster can cast charm person. The rogue can use a skill check. Or I can kill him and ask the guy's buddy nicely.
He suggested that he could not "get into a conversation" without a diplomacy check. As in he is not allowed to speak until he rolls a check for it. That is dumb.
How about this? An alternation on an idea I gave earlier:
Trait that gives Perception, Sense Motive and Heal switches to "choose 3 bonus skills for your Fighter to learn.", available also as a Feat in case you miss it at first.
The rest is still good.
1. Those situations are rare enough that most out-combat activity has nothing to do with that.
No, they really aren't.
2. In the rare event. The caster can cast charm person. The rogue can use a skill check.
Yes. They can.
The Fighter cannot. That is the issue.
Or I can kill him and ask the guy's buddy nicely.
No, you can't. For a multitude of reasons.
1.) It's not covered in the rules (therefore many GMs won't allow it, and PFS certainly will not).
2.) Who says the guy's friend would talk to you anyway?
3.) Who says the guy's friend knows what this guy knows?
4.) Who says this guy HAS friends?
And that's just the obvious, not touching on "That's murder, now you're a fugitive" or "This guy is as powerful as you or moreso, and now he can retaliate along with his buddies because you didn't actually kill him" and such.
First, wisdom is common sense, not reasoning. Reason is Intelligence. Directly from the PFSRD: "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons"
Second, of course your character can talk. But talking, and convincing people, are two completely different things.Your very very weak attempt of reductio ad absurdum fallacy does not hold water though. Yes, your character need diplomacy to be diplomatic. It's not enough that you, as the player, have a silver tongue. Just like your character won't have any known language even if you speak russian, french and chinese, unless he pay for Linguistics, and just like your character doesn't jump without the skill, even if you play in the NBA. And just because you can access to PFSRD monsters stats doesn't mean your character doesn't need Knowledge Arcana/planes/nature to know about the weakness of the creature. And so on. Now I see why you think fighters don't need more skills. You play without them. Diplomacy? The player talk. Sense motive? The player decides if it's a lie. A cliff? the player climbs... (see what I did? Reductio ad absurdum)
Just because your group willfully give max ranks to everybody in diplomacy, bluff, intimidate and sense motive, based on the player ability instead of the character ability, doesn't mean fighters don't need more skills
1) Social skills do not work on PCs. You can decide a person is lying without a check. Sense motive allows you to know he is lying.
2) You don't need diplomacy to create meaningful dialog.
3) If pathfinder was a LARP and you told me a couldn't climb a cliff without some meta points in the climb skill, instead of giving me climbing gear as my climb skill went up, I would find that incredibly dumb and immersion breaking.
4) Most of your examples about jump and knowledge checks are as per the rules and don't remove the player from the experience through arbitrary abstraction.
5) If I have fought vampires and know I need magic silver weapons to cut through their DR, do I need to pass a knowledge check for my character to remember an event that happened three sessions ago?
Just because you willfully exaggerated what I said does not make you right.
He suggested that he could not "get into a conversation" without a diplomacy check. As in he is not allowed to speak until he rolls a check for it. That is dumb.
Maybe it's a matter of english not being my first language. I mean I can't solve things through speech just because I do speak very well, if my character can't. Of course everybody can speak, as long as they have a language. What they can't, is try to convince people. That's what checks are for.
And we enforce roleplaying the character too. If you have a Cha 7, Int 7 character with ranks only in climb, you shouldn't talk like an Erudite with Shakespeare's prose.
1. Those situations are rare enough that most out-combat activity has nothing to do with that.
No, they really aren't.
2. In the rare event. The caster can cast charm person. The rogue can use a skill check.Yes. They can.
The Fighter cannot. That is the issue.
Or I can kill him and ask the guy's buddy nicely.No, you can't. For a multitude of reasons.
1.) It's not covered in the rules (therefore many GMs won't allow it, and PFS certainly will not).
2.) Who says the guy's friend would talk to you anyway?
3.) Who says the guy's friend knows what this guy knows?
4.) Who says this guy HAS friends?
And that's just the obvious, not touching on "That's murder, now you're a fugitive" or "This guy is as powerful as you or moreso, and now he can retaliate along with his buddies because you didn't actually kill him" and such.
Killing people is not covered in the rules?
NPC self preservation is not covered in the rules?You need intimidation if you want to persuade a person. (implied threat)
You don't need intimidation when you become a threat a person is trying to survive from. (Actually doing something)
For example, the party is fighting the BBEG. His health starts to get a little low, but since no one in the party has ranks in intimidate, he fights to the bitter end instead of running away because no one in the party can scare him.
Does that make any sense to you?
I believe it's part of the Barbarian class that he comes from a primitive society, where it's neccessary to know things like Survival.Survival is really just profession: hunter/gatherer. Either everyone should have a profession, craft, or perform skill figured into their skill point calculations or no one should.
True enough. Would if everyone started in at least 1 non-PC class to represent his/her life before adventuring?
He suggested that he could not "get into a conversation" without a diplomacy check. As in he is not allowed to speak until he rolls a check for it. That is dumb.
Maybe it's a matter of english not being my first language. I mean I can't solve things through speech just because I do speak very well, if my character can't. Of course everybody can speak, as long as they have a language. What they can't, is try to convince people. That's what checks are for.
And we enforce roleplaying the character too. If you have a Cha 7, Int 7 character with ranks only in climb, you shouldn't talk like an Erudite with Shakespeare's prose.
Never have built or played a fighter with less than 10 int, wis, and cha.
If you dump all you mental stats, you should expect your conversational skills to be lacking.
This still doesn't remove all the uses a high strength score gives out-of-combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Social skills do not work on PCs. You can decide a person is lying without a check. Sense motive allows you to know he is lying.
But they work on NPC. You need to pass a bluff check to deceive someone.
2) You don't need diplomacy to create meaningful dialog.
No. You need it to convince NPC.
3) If pathfinder was a LARP and you told me a couldn't climb a cliff without some meta points in the climb skill, instead of giving me climbing gear as my climb skill went up, I would find that incredibly dumb and immersion breaking.
Fortunately, it's not a LARP, so the point is moot.
4) Most of your examples about jump and knowledge checks are as per the rules and don't remove the player from the experience through arbitrary abstraction.
Convincing NPC also have rules.
5) If I have fought vampires and know I need magic silver weapons to cut...
No. But if you haven't fought vampires, you can't use your PLAYER knowledge in your CHARACTER advantage. Just like if you can speak very well, you can't use that PLAYER skill into your CHARACTER advantage, and save points in social skills to spend them in climbing, because nobody let you to climb for your character and your group let you to use *your* oratory in place of your character's
1) Social skills do not work on PCs. You can decide a person is lying without a check. Sense motive allows you to know he is lying.But they work on NPC. You need to pass a bluff check to deceive someone.
2) You don't need diplomacy to create meaningful dialog.No. You need it to convince NPC.
3) If pathfinder was a LARP and you told me a couldn't climb a cliff without some meta points in the climb skill, instead of giving me climbing gear as my climb skill went up, I would find that incredibly dumb and immersion breaking.Fortunately, it's not a LARP, so the point is moot.
4) Most of your examples about jump and knowledge checks are as per the rules and don't remove the player from the experience through arbitrary abstraction.Convincing NPC also have rules.
5) If I have fought vampires and know I need magic silver weapons to cut...No. But if you haven't fought vampires, you can't use your PLAYER knowledge in your CHARACTER advantage. Just like if you can speak very well, you can't use that PLAYER skill into your CHARACTER advantage, and save points in social skills to spend them in climbing, because nobody let you to climb for your character and your group let you to use *your* oratory in place of your character's
At this point you are either ignoring points I have made or are attacking points that I haven't made.
Try rolling a diplomacy check to make yourself feel better and then join our conversations.
(No I do not feel that English as a second language is an excuse here. I myself am barely coherent and my statements have lacked cultural specific idioms.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Killing people is not covered in the rules?
It is.
NPC self preservation is not covered in the rules?
It is not. You're free to search and try to prove me wrong if you wish.
You need intimidation if you want to persuade a person. (implied threat)
You don't need intimidation when you become a threat a person is trying to survive from. (Actually doing something)
Different people react to different threats in different ways.
Intimidate implies that you are choosing the correct one for this person.
Just murdering someone is just as likely to send them running or make them hostile (this especially) than make them talk.
It's also a pretty hefty evil act.
For example, the party is fighting the BBEG. His health starts to get a little low, but since no one in the party has ranks in intimidate, he fights to the bitter end instead of running away because no one in the party can scare him.
Does that make any sense to you?
As I said. Different people have different tactics and react to imminent death differently.
The Fighter does not control these tactics. They're just as likely to run, surrender, or fight to the end than anything. Intimidate allows you to influence this somewhat.
Hitting them with a stick does not.
You need intimidation if you want to persuade a person. (implied threat)
You don't need intimidation when you become a threat a person is trying to survive from. (Actually doing something)
becoming a threat doesn't necesarely mean you get what you want.That's why there are torturers of diverse degree in the world, and that's why there are diverse torturing methods, some of them better "refined" than others. If just becoming a threat were enough, those methods wouldn't had been invented, you just need 2 guys and a knife. Kill the first one, and the second one will talk. It doesn't work that way, though
The other NPC can easily think that, being a brute, you are going to kill him regardless. That's what intimidate are for.
For example, the party is fighting the BBEG. His health starts to get a little low, but since no one in the party has ranks in intimidate, he fights to the bitter end instead of running away because no one in the party can scare him.
Does that make any sense to you?
The BBEG would behave depending on HIS demeanor. If he is a coward, he might run in first blood. If he is a zealot, he might fight to death. You don't need intimidate to let NPC to behave as they want. You need intimidate to change such behavior
Killing people is not covered in the rules?It is.
NPC self preservation is not covered in the rules?It is not. You're free to search and try to prove me wrong if you wish.
You need intimidation if you want to persuade a person. (implied threat)
You don't need intimidation when you become a threat a person is trying to survive from. (Actually doing something)Different people react to different threats in different ways.
Intimidate implies that you are choosing the correct one for this person.
Just murdering someone is just as likely to send them running or make them hostile (this especially) than make them talk.
It's also a pretty hefty evil act.
For example, the party is fighting the BBEG. His health starts to get a little low, but since no one in the party has ranks in intimidate, he fights to the bitter end instead of running away because no one in the party can scare him.
Does that make any sense to you?
As I said. Different people have different tactics and react to imminent death differently.
The Fighter does not control these tactics. They're just as likely to run, surrender, or fight to the end than anything. Intimidate allows you to influence this somewhat.
Hitting them with a stick does not.
Oh no you lack perfect control over other people!
I didn't know complete mind control was required to perform out-of-combat well. WELL if that is the standard then the fighter's goose is truly cooked.
I'll just be over here, using my creativity to get by.
You need intimidation if you want to persuade a person. (implied threat)
You don't need intimidation when you become a threat a person is trying to survive from. (Actually doing something)becoming a threat doesn't necesarely mean you get what you want.That's why there are torturers of diverse degree in the world, and that's why there are diverse torturing methods, some of them better "refined" than others. If just becoming a threat were enough, those methods wouldn't had been invented, you just need 2 guys and a knife. Kill the first one, and the second one will talk. It doesn't work that way, though
The other NPC can easily think that, being a brute, you are going to kill him regardless. That's what intimidate are for.
The BBEG would behave depending on HIS demeanor. If he is a coward, he might run in first blood. If he is a zealot, he might fight to death. You don't need intimidate to let NPC to behave as they want. You need intimidate to change such behaviorFor example, the party is fighting the BBEG. His health starts to get a little low, but since no one in the party has ranks in intimidate, he fights to the bitter end instead of running away because no one in the party can scare him.
Does that make any sense to you?
A lot of your success depends on your ability to read the NPCs behavior and use the appropriate tactics.
I'm starting to think that people (not just you) are a little too dependent on their dice to solve every situation.
It's like when my GM describes and sets up a really intricate puzzle and after 5 minutes someone asks "What check do I need to roll to solve this?"
This is a role playing game. You need to understand what skill actually do before deciding that you can't do anything without them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a role playing game. You need to understand what skill actually do before deciding that you can't do anything without them.
Yes, it's a roleplaying game. Which means you play a role. You should try to act like your character is. If your character isn't intimidating, then you shouldn't roleplay him as if he were Batman. Skills help to define your character and allow you to achieve your character's concept. For example, if I'm trying to build a character based on Batman's concept, I'd try to put him points in intimidate.
HAving intimidate 0, and then ignoring that fact and trying to make him scare people anyway is poor, in my opinion. That's why I preffer all classes to have a few extra points, it's easier to make character concepts that way.
What about this : Allow a Fighter to use Str as his base attribute in Intimidate checks, and combine this with adding half his class level to physical ability skills? In addition to the option for 4+Int, plus Perception, Sense Motive and Heal added to his repitoire?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh no you lack perfect control over other people!
I didn't know complete mind control was required to perform out-of-combat well. WELL if that is the standard then the fighter's goose is truly cooked.
Sorry if this post is hard to read, I'm finding it difficult to see with my eyes rolled so far.
The problem isn't that you don't have "complete mind control" and you know that if you're not dumber than you seem to be.
The problem is that you have no way to influence people AT ALL. Without Diplomacy/Intimidate it's a crapshoot at best and worthless at worst.
I'll just be over here, using my creativity to get by.
There is no mechanical/rules justification for "I kill a random dude and then this other random dude tells me what I want to know". What a specific GM allows is irrelevant, as it will vary from table to table.
Your "creativity" is limited by GM flexibility, which leaves you with in-game recourse.
If you do not have Diplomacy or Intimidate or a spell, then you do not influence attitudes or gather information as per the rules. Period. Your entire line of reasoning is null and void, return to start and try again.
This is a role playing game. You need to understand what skill actually do before deciding that you can't do anything without them.Yes, it's a roleplaying game. Which means you play a role. You should try to act like your character is. If your character isn't intimidating, then you shouldn't roleplay him as if he were Batman. Skills help to define your character and allow you to achieve your character's concept. For example, if I'm trying to build a character based on Batman's concept, I'd try to put him points in intimidate.
HAving intimidate 0, and then ignoring that fact and trying to make him scare people anyway is poor, in my opinion. That's why I preffer all classes to have a few extra points, it's easier to make character concepts that way.
Who's trying to scare people?
All you have to do is construct a purely logical situation where the best course of action is to do what you want.
Think Tywin Lannister. He is about as diplomatic as a dead fish and can intimidate as well as Pinky Pie from My Little Pony.
Yet he is one of the most feared and influential people in the realm. All he does is logic his way through situations.
You want to say he is diplomatic? Look how well he can persuade his kids to do what he wants? He fails. He can change nothing about them. The only time his spawn ever do what he ask is when he leaves them with no choice.
Tywin Lannister has little is the way of any skills or fighting ability. He is just crafty and ruthless.
He can't tell when people are lying (no sense motive).
He can't see very well.
At most you can say he has knowledge(nobility).
There is role playing your character and then their is filling in the parts about him that mechanics do not cover.
Who's trying to scare people?
All you have to do is construct a purely logical situation where the best course of action is to do what you want.
Think Tywin Lannister. He is about as diplomatic as a dead fish and can intimidate as well as Pinky Pie from My Little Pony.
Yet he is one of the most feared and influential people in the realm. All he does is logic his way through situations.You want to say he is diplomatic? Look how well he can persuade his kids to do what he wants? He fails. He can change nothing about them. The only time his spawn ever do what he ask is when he leaves them with no choice.
Tywin Lannister has little is the way of any skills or fighting ability. He is just crafty and ruthless.
He can't tell when people are lying (no sense motive).
He can't see very well.At most you can say he has knowledge(nobility).
There is role playing your character and then their is filling in the parts about him that mechanics do not cover.
I happen to disagree. Tywin Lannister has a huge amount of Intimidation. Just like Joker, or Batman, being intimidating is a matter of Charisma. And Charisma is the expression of the force of personality, and Tywin has a bit bunch of that.
However, your example is quite good. Let's say Tywin doesn't have diplomacy, so he can't make their childrens love him. He can't make anyone love him, actually, which by PF rules means he can't upgrade their attitude. Yes, he can still talk and produce meaningful conversations. And yes, he can still get some things from a conversation, mainly through bribery or threats. Just like you can buy "love" from a prostitute. However, you can't influence other people, and that's why
I agree with your last sentence, though. Some characters don't need that much skills, and may pass without them. However, most of them do, just to get what the character concept suggests.
As I said a few posts ago, before this last discussion, skill ranks are used (for me at least) to "draw" the character. They aren't really part of the balance, because Combat-Spellcasting is *somewhat* near in balance, but skills are not, really. As you found in a recent thread, rogues are even more hopeless than fighters, because the third pillar, "being skilled", is even more trumped by magic than combat. I'd give every class more skill ranks, and then give rogues (And other skill monkeys) some "tricks" that only them can do. So everybody has skills, but rogues are special using skills (example given: everybody can climb a tree, a rogue can climb a treant in combat, gaining advantages in combat (like counting as flanking?). That will both:
a) allow people like myself, who use the skills to "draw" the character
b) protect the rogue's niche from power creep.
Buffing everyone and then the rogue to compensate is the definition of power creep.
Not that the rogue doesn't have a host of problems already.
Buffing everyone and then the rogue to compensate is the definition of power creep.
I know. That's what I'm trying to say. Maybe English is messing with what I try to express again :)
Giving more skills to everybody would be power creep. That power creep will threaten the (no longer existant) position of rogues as skill-monkeys. That's why rogues need *different* things, not simply more skills.Not that the rogue doesn't have a host of problems already.
Which won't be solved with rogues having more skills, or everybody else having less.
Not everyone needs all the buffs, though, just Fighters, Rogues, Monks, and Cavaliers...
Hence this thread for one of those. . . .
The 2+Int characters whose main attribute *isn't* Intelligence need more points for skills: An option for 4+Int helps this to happen.
Rogues need a bonus in Dex-based skills equal to half their level.