StrangePackage |
StrangePackage wrote:I don't have access to see the exact wording for Cornugon Smash so I can't say how I'd rule it. Either way, what does any of this have to do with the OPs original post anyway?anthonydido wrote:What about a Raging Barbarian with Intimidating Prowess, Power attack, and Cornugon Smash in a silenced area?StrangePackage wrote:This seems to be a clear case of specific trumps general. The dazzling display feat cleary says "..you can perform a bewildering show of prowess..." which means it seems to be based on sight alone and not verbal cues. I would let it work in a silenced area.anthonydido wrote:So a raging barbarian with Intimidating Prowess and Dazzling Display cannot intimidate anyone if the spell Silence has been cast upon him?
I would also like to point out that the intimidate skill says "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." This, to me, means they have to see you for it to even work.
Just that I can see where he's having problems.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your best bud bbt has a really well articulated thread about this specific issue on condition vs effect.
Saying "its an effect not a condition" is rules lawyering chicanery, not an argument. Trying to use arguments like that will undercut your credibility when you have legitimate complaints.
Rapanuii |
Rapanuii wrote:your best bud bbt has a really well articulated thread about this specific issue on condition vs effect.Saying "its an effect not a condition" is rules lawyering chicanery, not an argument. Trying to use arguments like that will undercut your credibility when you have legitimate complaints.
you're layering semantics and interpretation, where I'm doing so with actual rules
Sub_Zero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone in one of my games wanted to intimidate a demon, I might look at the rules and say "Yep, I don't see anything in the rules that says you CAN'T, except...how do you intimidate an immortal creature of innate evil...?"
//Me: Watch your step demon. I have layers of magic woven around me and my allies, that will annihilate you if you so much as move. This magic comes from the highest heavens and deepest abyss, this magic can sunder worlds and create them. I've used this magic to slaughter many of your kind. Your only hope at keeping your pathetic life is to surrender, and hope I spare you. //
Do I expect this to make him surrender? no
Might the demon be slightly apprehensive about attacking me if I pull off a really high intimidate role that makes this sound convincing? yes.
shaken doesn't have to mean they're literally terrified of you (there's rules for that), the penalty could literally just mean that their a bit reserved in how they proceed because you've caused just a slight bit of paranoia.
taldanrebel2187 |
Lots of people missing the point here. OP was trying to cause an attitude shift using intimidate. DM is well within his rights to require that this is roleplayed. A demon might not be intimidated by a mere mortal. Especially if he has no idea what the guy is saying. Did the PC have knowledge planes sufficient to know what language to speak in. Does he know Abyssal? All these are relevant details.
Matthew Downie |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intimidation-focused Bilbo:
"You can't see me, can you, worm? Do you know how I do that little trick? Do you not wonder what other powers I might possess? And I couldn't help noticing a little gap in your scales. Why, I think even a fool with a spear might slay you, if he were stealthy. I know how you dragons like to sleep. Will you slumber soundly, knowing I got into your cave, and saw your weaknesses, while you cannot see me at all? Let us play a game. I will ask you three riddles, and if you answer them to my satisfaction, I will permit you to live..."
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
If someone in one of my games wanted to intimidate a demon, I might look at the rules and say "Yep, I don't see anything in the rules that says you CAN'T, except...how do you intimidate an immortal creature of innate evil...?"
You know, there's a feat for tieflings (Ancestral Scorn, I think?) that lets you tack on extra penalties (I think sickened?) on top of the normal effects when you intimidate a demon.
This is of course predicated on the assumption that without that feat, you can already intimidate demons for the normal effects.
The Beard |
Lots of people missing the point here. OP was trying to cause an attitude shift using intimidate. DM is well within his rights to require that this is roleplayed. A demon might not be intimidated by a mere mortal. Especially if he has no idea what the guy is saying. Did the PC have knowledge planes sufficient to know what language to speak in. Does he know Abyssal? All these are relevant details.
The DM is actually not well within his right, however. Succeeding on the check is succeeding on the check. I will concede that it wouldn't work in the cited instance if the demon could not speak common (or the intimidating individual could not speak abyssal), but otherwise it should function so long as the DC is met. Now, if this was an instance where the demon is an NPC the party was supposed to fight, I believe it would fall under the creative solutions clause. PFS GMs are expected to be sufficiently fluid as to roll with what the party does (so long as it's supported by the rules). That being said, most creatures you attempt to intimidate prior to a scripted combat are just going to react by attacking you. They may begin with the shake condition because of it, but they will probably still attack. Even considering these things, it's not appropriate to simply decline for it to have any effect at all when it's clear the DC was met or beaten.
Sub_Zero |
Lots of people missing the point here. OP was trying to cause an attitude shift using intimidate. DM is well within his rights to require that this is roleplayed.
first, no I don't think alot of people are missing the point. The OP has stated that he had no problem role playing the situation. So there is no reason to think this was a roll play vs role play. The question is more does the GM of a PFS game have strict fiat to hand-wave off abilities because... reasons.
A demon might not be intimidated by a mere mortal. Especially if he has no idea what the guy is saying. Did the PC have knowledge planes sufficient to know what language to speak in. Does he know Abyssal? All these are relevant details.
As stated by the GM, it had nothing to do with language. The GM just said, nope, can't happen. Unless the OP is lying to us, in which case, were stuck, that was not the reason.
taldanrebel2187 |
GM's rationale might reflect that he was merely annoyed with the player. Unprofessional, sure. But in the end the PC would need to make himself understood to stand any remote chance of intimidating an intelligent demon. If the creature is unintelligent, then it's even harder to intimidate them.
This is a case of RAW being pretty shabby IMO. I think we need a FAQ on intimidate. How should it affect unintelligent creatures? What about creatures that can't linguistically understand you?
PFS is one thing, I didn't read that part. In this case the GM should play it RAW. Provided this was roleplay'd, made the DC and the character was able to communicate (for at least 1 full minute) with the creature (i.e. probably speaking in Abyssal or using tongues). Then yeah it should have worked.
Problem is after the duration expires you have an even more pissed off demon. It doesn't last terribly long and demons have the means to track down the offending PC and his party afterwards (unless it's summoned, I guess).
Meh, this needs clarification from on high. I concur with sentiments to email Brock about it.
BigNorseWolf |
Anyone tell me with absolute certainty and cite information the exceptions in pf Where intimidate just doesn't work? Wording of frightful is fluff and I need a justification to follow fluff to equate it to immunity to fear which is an immunity to effects and not conditions or attitude changes
You need justification to ignore the alleged fluff, especially when you want to make an argument completely contrary to common sense.
If you insist on slavish devotion to raw, the "fluff" IS raw. If you declare some parts you don't like fluff you're no longer in raw.
If you insist on an iota of common sense, fear is mind effecting. You can't scare something that doesn't have a mind.
Having "whatever gives me the most mechanical advantage" is a horrible basis for an argument- its pretty much the definition of munchkining. Once you go munchkin, no one is going to take your objections seriously: ever. If you accept the rules even when they're against you (and they are in this case), THEN people might listen because they know you're being fair, not angling for more power.
The "in your favor" side of the argument is fine with just an argument, but the "against you" side of the argument requires absolute proof. That isn't honest.
Matthew Downie |
I would guess the GM was making assumptions about how demons feel. "Dude, I literally live in hell. I expect to spend most of the rest of eternity being tormented by the higher ranking demons. What exactly are you going to do to me that's worse than that?" Probably wrong for the setting, but understandable.
taldanrebel2187 |
One line I happened to like from the old 3.5 SRD...
"A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can non-intelligent creatures."
To me this makes sense. Can you intimidate a lion through the use of verbal charisma? I mean honestly, probably not. That's what handle animal is made of IMO. A creature immune to magical fear being intimidated by verbal tricks just goes against flat out common sense. Especially if they live in a plane predicated upon eternal torture, torment, suffering and agony.
Brad McDowell |
Lots of people missing the point here. OP was trying to cause an attitude shift using intimidate. DM is well within his rights to require that this is roleplayed. A demon might not be intimidated by a mere mortal. Especially if he has no idea what the guy is saying. Did the PC have knowledge planes sufficient to know what language to speak in. Does he know Abyssal? All these are relevant details.
Thank you, TR. This is what I was trying to get to. There's also that "1 minute to attempt" rule in there that hostile creatures aren't going to wait for.
Human/Gnome/Whatever-"hey, big guy, come over here so I can attempt to engage in thoughtful dialogue in hopes to successfully change your hostile attitude towards me. Would you have a minute to spare?"
GM-"Let's roll initiative."
Owly |
Owly wrote:
If someone in one of my games wanted to intimidate a demon, I might look at the rules and say "Yep, I don't see anything in the rules that says you CAN'T, except...how do you intimidate an immortal creature of innate evil...?"
You use your imagination.
"Listen very carefully to me demon, I have bound, defeated and annihilated the essences of more of your kind than I can remember. Unless you step aside I will beat you and I will bind your soul to my command. Then, over the next decades, day by day, week by week I will consume your life until there is nothing left of you, until your previously immortal essence is gone, not the slightest part of you will remain, you will cease to exist, a potential existence of forever stolen from you because of this one, foolish choice. So I tell you again. Step. Aside."
/roll intimidate or whatever.
This is a good reply. I don't think you and I are in disagreement, but it does illustrate how an essential part of the game is excluded from PFS play (imaginative interpretation), and how some cling to RAW as though it were religious dogma; as though it is inconceivable that someone could put their trust in a GM.
Rapanuii |
Bnw, fluff isn't a rule, so that's faw.
I'm not being a munchkin. Regardless if I maximized this skill to munchkin, this would still exist. See the objectivity and importance. This isn't a self-serving matter, but a real concern that has a bigger picture.
This is a game with rules. Common sense can be subjective so it's different from person to person. This is pfs, so we deal with rules.
To others, explain the importance with language and intellect with the rules. I just want a concrete understanding on what the rules say so I have proper expectations. Also x demon spoke common, and the gm said I could have done the fill minute which I thought I did.
You DON'T need to rp social skills. You can summarize then roll. This is a game mechanic. Point aim and fire. I however will rp, and I shouldn't get a penalty necessarily from doing so unless I'm really that reckless. The charter is reflected by stats, not necessarily by me. I can auto run mechanics with a direction to how I intend to preform.
Mark Stratton Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis |
The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are smaller than the target of the Intimidate check, you get a -4 to your roll. The GM, of course, could also apply a -2 penalty to your roll (the old GM's friend, the +2/-2).
Now, I don't know what drake this is you were attempting to intimidate, or how many hit dice, or what its Wisdom modifier was. But, considering you were liking making the check at -6 (and you should have been informed of those penalties), it is likely your 27 became a 21.
I don't know of any special bonus that, in general, drakes or demons have to resist or intimidate.
I would need more specifics as to the target (hit dice, wisdom modifier, its size, your size [which is medium, correct?]) to better ascertain the outcome.
But I don't think your GM handled it well even if, in the end, the failed result was correct.
Rapanuii |
I would guess the GM was making assumptions about how demons feel. "Dude, I literally live in hell. I expect to spend most of the rest of eternity being tormented by the higher ranking demons. What exactly are you going to do to me that's worse than that?" Probably wrong for the setting, but understandable.
"you thought hell was unpleasant, wait 60 seconds and tell me how you feel about me"
Brad McDowell |
Brad McDowell wrote:perfectly acceptable. Across the board dc adjustments to that check or to demoralize in combat is not okay. I just want to use the skill that is important to my build, and have a game that all other mechanics will have s fair shake, because this is pfs, and not a home game.So, is this Intimidate discussion about the "1 minute to change an attitude" or the "demoralize as a standard action"?
Because if it's about the former, why would a hostile creature "wait a minute" to have his attitude changed? As in, "let's roll initiative..."
Rap, could you please take a moment and answer my original question...
So, is this Intimidate discussion about the "1 minute to change an attitude" or the "demoralize as a standard action"?Rapanuii |
taldanrebel2187 wrote:Lots of people missing the point here. OP was trying to cause an attitude shift using intimidate. DM is well within his rights to require that this is roleplayed. A demon might not be intimidated by a mere mortal. Especially if he has no idea what the guy is saying. Did the PC have knowledge planes sufficient to know what language to speak in. Does he know Abyssal? All these are relevant details.Thank you, TR. This is what I was trying to get to. There's also that "1 minute to attempt" rule in there that hostile creatures aren't going to wait for.
Human/Gnome/Whatever-"hey, big guy, come over here so I can attempt to engage in thoughtful dialogue in hopes to successfully change your hostile attitude towards me. Would you have a minute to spare?"
GM-"Let's roll initiative."
this has been addressed like crazy. .. like.. CRAZY!
This has been admitted to being a thing, but it's not relevant, since I've pointed out that the gm didn't care either way. He transparently said so specifically
Mark Stratton Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis |
In his initial post, Rapanuii wrote:
"Can a gnome with a feather duster get an attempt to intimidate Balor? 10+ 20 (HD) + 7 Wis + 8 (Large vs Small Gnome)=45 right?"
You are calculating this wrong. If the Gnome is doing the intimidate check, he gets the penalty to his roll, the target doesn't add that to his defense. While the net effect is the same, that is, it is now 20% more difficult (a difference of 4 X 5% = 20%), the size penalty is taken on the die roll, not added to the DC. [Yes, I am totally simplifying the math here to make this point.]
So, using your example:
Balor: 10 +20 (HD) +7 (WIS) = 37
Making the check, the Gnome would roll d20 + Intimidate Skill Modifier - 4 (gnome is smaller than the Balor.) (According the PRD, the size penalty is -4; it doesn't say that it is -4 for each size category smaller, so it's just -4). And the DC, absent any other modifier, adjustment, or penalty, would be 37.
Rapanuii |
Rapanuii wrote:Brad McDowell wrote:perfectly acceptable. Across the board dc adjustments to that check or to demoralize in combat is not okay. I just want to use the skill that is important to my build, and have a game that all other mechanics will have s fair shake, because this is pfs, and not a home game.So, is this Intimidate discussion about the "1 minute to change an attitude" or the "demoralize as a standard action"?
Because if it's about the former, why would a hostile creature "wait a minute" to have his attitude changed? As in, "let's roll initiative..."
Rap, could you please take a moment and answer my original question...
So, is this Intimidate discussion about the "1 minute to change an attitude" or the "demoralize as a standard action"?
as the terminator would say, "ALL".
I clearly stated from the start and throughout what was happening. I meet requirements to preform the action, then just because bonus is added against me, or auto fail.
I read other comments and came back to yours to respond, so I apologize for not addressing you properly, and I hope this is enough of clarification
BigNorseWolf |
Bnw, fluff isn't a rule, so that's flaw.
What makes it fluff? You have declared it fluff. That does not make it fluff. BIG difference.
Shaken is explicitly a fear condition. Things immune to fear cannot be shaken.
I'm not being a munchkin. Regardless if I maximized this skill to munchkin, this would still exist. See the objectivity and importance. This isn't a self-serving matter, but a real concern that has a bigger picture.
There is no objectivity when you decide that one side of the argument requires absolute proof and the other side does not. You have picked the winner by altering the meta argument in your favor, side stepping rational argument and any legitimate attempt at rules interpretation.
And yes the rules DO need to be interpreted. I don't think that english can be written tightly enough to eliminate all ambiguity, but I KNOW the pathfinder ruleset is not written that tightly.
This is a game with rules. Common sense can be subjective so it's different from person to person. This is pfs, so we deal with rules.
You still deal with common sense. That is in fact, a big part of the DMs job, even in pfs. ESPECIALLY in pfs.
I just want a concrete understanding on what the rules say so I have proper expectations.
The rules say you can't Intimidate paladins, undead, oozes, constructs, plants or vermin. You should expect that to be the interpretation of 90+% of DMs you play with.
Blackblood troll having an argument to the contrary does NOT make the argument to the contrary true. I find his argument to be bad, because it assumes that conditions and effects are mutually contradictory, when they're not.
Also x demon spoke common, and the gm said I could have done the fill minute which I thought I did.
Rules or not, you should not expect to be able to talk the big bad at the end of the dungeon into surrendering to you. Even if the module doesn't explicitely call it out (and it probably does), its going to be rare dm that lets one player get such an anti climactic end to the fight.
You SHOULD be able to demoralize demons- not letting you do that is unfair.
You might have more luck if you describe it as twirling your blades through the air and confusing them as to which directions your attacks are coming from next, or impressing them.
Rapanuii |
In his initial post, Rapanuii wrote:
"Can a gnome with a feather duster get an attempt to intimidate Balor? 10+ 20 (HD) + 7 Wis + 8 (Large vs Small Gnome)=45 right?"
You are calculating this wrong. If the Gnome is doing the intimidate check, he gets the penalty to his roll, the target doesn't add that to his defense. While the net effect is the same, that is, it is now 20% more difficult (a difference of 4 X 5% = 20%), the size penalty is taken on the die roll, not added to the DC. [Yes, I am totally simplifying the math here to make this point.]
So, using your example:
Balor: 10 +20 (HD) +7 (WIS) = 37Making the check, the Gnome would roll d20 + Intimidate Skill Modifier - 4 (gnome is smaller than the Balor.) (According the PRD, the size penalty is -4; it doesn't say that it is -4 for each size category smaller, so it's just -4). And the DC, absent any other modifier, adjustment, or penalty, would be 37.
woah, thanks for pointing out the one time penalty, and yes, that want calculated right. My mistake.I personally try and enforce ac and attack bonus /penalties because they might matter
anthonydido |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, answer me this. How did you know you even beat the DC? You couldn't have possibly known what the DC was without having metagame knowledge of said creature. Which goes back to my earlier question: If th GM would have simply said "it didn't work" would you still be this antagonistic?
I also want to reiterate that this is a ROLE-PLAYING game first and foremost. The ROLL-PLAYING is just a means to an end and a mechanical way to describe what is taking place. The rolls are by no means the end-all be-all of this game.
The GM has every right to alter things in such a way to make it enjoyable to everyone (even somewhat in PFS). Maybe he didn't want you to get sole enjoyment from the encounter and wanted the group to fight it so everyone could have fun but decided to let you role-play it anyway so you could have some fun with that (which apparently you didn't).
Rapanuii |
I don't presume to know the mechanics of the game as the gm runs in especially in aspects to a monster having some unique exception. Issue here is rule applied at all times and that isn't allowed. I have no problem following the rules, and I'm happy to follow them. If I question anything I do so as respectfully as possible, and I don't expect an explanation during the game. Maybe they overlooked something, and I ended up helping.
I in no way am saying bbt is just absolutely correct, especially since it's been a long time reading it. I asked you to look at it and then respond.c thanks for that, and if you could link it, that would be tight, but if not, I'll look it up when I get home.I am absolutely being objective with what I stated. Regardless if someone min/max, objectively the rules apply to all. You can't change the rules because a player you feel is a munchkin.
.
If the bbeg says I can't do it, then I can't do it. Simple. If I can, then I can. The end. I only expect rules to work. Bbeg might not care enough for my one minute speech, and that's that. Let's roll initiative and boogie, and I'll be happy to do the dance of my people.
I don't have super understanding of the extent of fear effects and all rules that exist, but fluff is fluff and are not rules. A "fear condition"i think is a great argument to prove immunity to fear works here, and I just wanted clarity to understand. I still don't have a reference for it being listed as such, but I'll look when I get home
Rapanuii |
OK, answer me this. How did you know you even beat the DC? You couldn't have possibly known what the DC was without having metagame knowledge of said creature. Which goes back to my earlier question: If th GM would have simply said "it didn't work" would you still be this antagonistic?
I also want to reiterate that this is a ROLE-PLAYING game first and foremost. The ROLL-PLAYING is just a means to an end and a mechanical way to describe what is taking place. The rolls are by no means the end-all be-all of this game.
The GM has every right to alter things in such a way to make it enjoyable to everyone (even somewhat in PFS). Maybe he didn't want you to get sole enjoyment from the encounter and wanted the group to fight it so everyone could have fun but decided to let you role-play it anyway so you could have some fun with that (which apparently you didn't).
demon never fought anyone. Demon was a douche who talked in common as such. Quit this maybe stuff, because I've explained what is and isn't. We spoke at length about all the details and I respected his decision during the game. I asked base dc then I was told. I beat it, but +8 because...
I've already stated... summary. You give it and it directs your character. The end.If you disagree then have the player in real life who is a quadriplegic preform the climb check in full plate.
anthonydido |
I went back and re-read the initial post. I'm pretty sure we've covered both of the situations that the OP had.
#1 - GM said you can't intimidate if it can't see you.
We've already pointed out that the skill description for intimidate mentions needing verbal and visual components.
#2 - GM wouldn't let you demoralize the drake and told you he added modifiers.
I agree that you should have been able to demoralize the drake. There is no rule that says summoned creatures can't be demoralized nor are drakes impervious to such things as demoralize. Demoralize just adds penalties so it wouldn't have been game-breaking if you did.
So what are we debating now?
Rapanuii |
Escape artist
Your training allows you to slip out of bonds and escape from grapples.
Damn, if only I had bonds to slip out of while being grappled. This skill is really situational. Oh darn.
Would you like another? Want to argue definitions of display and prowess?
Maybe this is fluff, and maybe they don't go together absolutely for anything covered in the skill?
Mark Stratton Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis |
Point one wasn't proven
With respect, Rpanuii, I think they have. Below, I am posting what is in the PRD, which should, again, point out to you that Point 1 has, indeed, been proven. If we are talking about demoralizing an opponent, yes, this rule is crystal clear. If it's just to force an opponent to act friendly, etc., it's slightly less so, but I think it does. The descriptor in the skill says that it includes verbal threats and displays of prowess, but nothing in the actual check itself requires it. But, if it didn't require it, there is no point in putting the "verbal threats and displays" in the skill description at all.
So, you may not agree with it, but it's right there. BTW, the bolding of part of the language is mine.
--- CUT HERE ---
Intimidate
(Cha)
You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.
Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.
Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
Try Again: You can attempt to Intimidate an opponent again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after 1 hour has passed.
Special: You also gain a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks if you are larger than your target and a –4 penalty on Intimidate checks if you are smaller than your target.
If you have the Persuasive feat, you get a bonus on Intimidate checks (see Feats).
A half-orc gets a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.
BaconBastard |
One of the big issues that I've seen with forcing role-playing for social skills is that, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, many people playing these games don't possess these social skills, especially in the same capacity of their characters.
My paladin currently has like +11 to diplomacy, I can say with certainty that he is much more sociable than I am and would be much more articulate in how he talks to npcs than I would be. The roll is to represent how well he did at social interaction, not how well I did.
The same should absolutely be true for intimidating someone to alter their attitude towards you.
Mark Stratton Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the big issues that I've seen with forcing role-playing for social skills is that, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, many people playing these games don't possess these social skills, especially in the same capacity of their characters.
My paladin currently has like +11 to diplomacy, I can say with certainty that he is much more sociable than I am and would be much more articulate in how he talks to npcs than I would be. The roll is to represent how well he did at social interaction, not how well I did.
The same should absolutely be true for intimidating someone to alter their attitude towards you.
I won't speak for other GMs here, but in home games and in public games for PFS, I don't let people generally just make Diplomacy or Intimidate checks without, at the very least, telling me or describing to me what they are attempting to do. I understand that some people may be shy, or not speak well or eloquently or whatever - I won't penalize a person for that. But, I will require a player to do more than tell me "I am making a Diplomacy check." That won't cut it in my game.
And, if what they describe (or if they are good at role-playing and play it well) is particularly creative, novel, etc., I'll likely give them a +2 bonus to boot.
BaconBastard |
Also as I posted before, to change attitude I wouldn't imagine needing to see the intimidator.
You can't yell at/threaten while in the dark if you have darkvision or are invisible?
"I can see you, but you can't see me, I'm watching the veins in your neck throb and I'm thinking about how much blood will get all over my nice clothes if I slit your little throat wiiiiiiide open..."
(Character has no weapon and is in fact a mortally wounded paraplegic midget)
I can see intimidate to influence attitude working BETTER if they can't see you because then the intimidator could be anyone wielding anything.
BaconBastard |
BaconBastard wrote:One of the big issues that I've seen with forcing role-playing for social skills is that, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, many people playing these games don't possess these social skills, especially in the same capacity of their characters.
My paladin currently has like +11 to diplomacy, I can say with certainty that he is much more sociable than I am and would be much more articulate in how he talks to npcs than I would be. The roll is to represent how well he did at social interaction, not how well I did.
The same should absolutely be true for intimidating someone to alter their attitude towards you.
I won't speak for other GMs here, but in home games and in public games for PFS, I don't let people generally just make Diplomacy or Intimidate checks without, at the very least, telling me or describing to me what they are attempting to do. I understand that some people may be shy, or not speak well or eloquently or whatever - I won't penalize a person for that. But, I will require a player to do more than tell me "I am making a Diplomacy check." That won't cut it in my game.
And, if what they describe (or if they are good at role-playing and play it well) is particularly creative, novel, etc., I'll likely give them a +2 bonus to boot.
I think that if you can't articulate yourself well that a summary of what you day/do to influence should suffice. If you do role-play and do it well, then bonus. If you personally suck at role-playing, "my character proceeds to suggest that he will ruin the shop owner's business if he doesn't give him a discount."
nosig |
Also as I posted before, to change attitude I wouldn't imagine needing to see the intimidator.
You can't yell at/threaten while in the dark if you have darkvision or are invisible?
"I can see you, but you can't see me, I'm watching the veins in your neck throb and I'm thinking about how much blood will get all over my nice clothes if I slit your little throat wiiiiiiide open..."
(Character has no weapon and is in fact a mortally wounded paraplegic midget)
I can see intimidate to influence attitude working BETTER if they can't see you because then the intimidator could be anyone wielding anything.
did anyone else get an image of Wesley laying on the bed intimidateding the Prince in Princess Bride?
Mark Stratton Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Franks, sir.
Could you cite where the shaken condition is defined as a fear condition? I worry you are confusing shaken for being a condition under possible results of fear effects.
Try here:
LINKYand scroll down to Shaken, which reads:
"Shaken: A shaken character takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked."
Codanous |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish we knew what scenario was being run. Then it'd be pretty easy to say, "yeah, in this instance you failed to change his attitude because it says his attitude can't be changed".
Then we'd know that perhaps the GM just wasn't the best at articulating this or tried to reason it to you, which ill admit I'm sure he tried to get creative considering how you've acted here.
After a certain point, Rapanuii, I doubt you'll ever get the answer you want for Question 1 because any answer a PFS GM gives you, however logical or not, you seem unwillingly to accept because it's not the answer you particularly want. At this point, I think any PFS related issue has been resolved and you're argument would be better served being rehashed in the Rules Forum.
anthonydido |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Franks, sir.
Could you cite where the shaken condition is defined as a fear condition? I worry you are confusing shaken for being a condition under possible results of fear effects.
It says it right in the description of shaken
Shaken: A shaken character takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.
BaconBastard |
Additionally I think you should be able to intimidate without speaking if they can see you. (Maybe you're in a crowded space and you want to be subtle to get someone to carry out your wishes)
Stare at them I'm a hostile manner, make throat cutting gestures, hold up the deed to their house that you took from them to get their obedience,ect.
trollbill Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne |
I went back and re-read the initial post. I'm pretty sure we've covered both of the situations that the OP had.
#1 - GM said you can't intimidate if it can't see you.
We've already pointed out that the skill description for intimidate mentions needing verbal and visual components.
I have to disagree on this. The fact that the rules state, "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess" can mean two different things.
A) It can mean that verbal threats and displays of prowess are a component of Intimidate.
B) It can mean that verbal threats and displays of prowess are inclusive of Intimidate, i.e. it is telling you that if someone is making a verbal threat or a display of prowess then this falls under the rules for Intimidate.
Your interpretation seems to be A. But even if this is the correct interpretation, there is nothing stating that both components are required to accomplish Intimidate (i.e. the word 'include' does not mean the same thing as 'requires'). Nor does it state that other possible components are excluded.
If B is correct, then verbal threats and displays of prowess are simply examples of using Intimidate and are not limitations.
I personally lean towards B simply because I can come up with a dozen different ways you could intimidate someone in real life without using verbal threats and displays of prowess.