I can't get through to my GM in PFS


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 400 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
1/5

To be clear, I really like this dude, and I have a lot of fun of this guys tables. I want to leave things anonymous, so he doesn't feel disrespected, or gets anything negative from this thread, so I'm strictly going to leave it that way.

This person isn't a normal GM, but someone with a higher ranking I guess. I'm not sure how it works, but given this fact, I have higher expectations for how things would have been handled in this situation. Ultimately, I was told that in his game the mechanics of the game don't work like they should normally. I told him that people expect the rules to be followed within PFS, and he told me that different judges will rule things however they like at their table. I'm all for having liberties, and calling things to move on with the game, but basic mechanics should work correctly in the game in the way they were meant to work.

Pretty much this issue is my character using intimidate, and it was specifically on a target that couldn't see me. This wasn't a matter of demoralizing, but rather to take the full minimum 1 minute to convey to the creature that I'm someone they should adjust their attitude with. I was told it automatically doesn't work because the creature cannot see me, and that it wouldn't feel threatened by me anyways because he is a demon, and I'm just a human that isn't even at least holding a knife to it's throat. I am further told that I can only use intimidate if I can make the creature feel like I will kill it, which I tried to explain that isn't necessarily true at all, but was told I was wrong. I tried to after the game, and outside of the game to discuss the matter, and was told that I absolutely need line of sight, due to the skill specifically saying so. I tried to point out that it only applies to demoralize, and the first application of intimidate to change attitudes specifically says that 1 minute of conversation, and was told I wasn't reading correctly.

A situation came up again the next game, where I tried to demoralize a summoned drake in combat, and I rolled a 27 to demoralize. I am told that I failed. After the game I ask about it, and he said that a human isn't going to likely intimidate a drake, which I agreed, because of the HD and size etc. but I'm told it was strictly because the drake gets a bonus because it's a drake, and I'm a human. I am also told that it was impossible that it couldn't work because it was a summoned creature. I am told that a 27 indeed beats it's DC, but he got like a lot of extra bonus' beyond what the skill says it should get, because it's a drake, and I'm a human.

Does a summon creature bypass any attempt to use any form of intimidate on it?

Do I need to absolutely have a life threat to a creature as the only possible way to use any form of intimidate against that creature?

Do I absolutely need line of sight to use the first attitude affecting version of intimidate or else it auto fails/don't get it?

I'm not sure about the first one, but I'm pretty sure that the other two are no's.

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? Like a feather duster shouldn't matter, and the fact that it's a gnome only matters due to the size of the creature vs the creature it's using the intimidate on, right? The only bonus' to intimidate for or against would come from specific abilities, feats, items or race templates only, right? So if Balor doesn't say a demon or him specifically gets additional DC increase against an intimidation vs a gnome, or a small creature, then what other things are legal to add onto the DC for this check? Gnome beats a 45, and the gnome gets to demoralize, or to adjust the attitude to friendly, right?

I was told that a Demon being intimidated against my Human would get an additional +8 to the DC because he is a demon, and a demon is from hell. He also would get additional bonus' because the demon feels like his particular participate feels like he can't be threatened to die, especially with having DR and elemental resistance, which I think is absurd.

I feel clearly this is a case of house rules vs how the games should be ran, and he somewhat 100% admitted to me that he is running the game how he feels it should be ran. In PFS, is this even allowed to do? My intimidation based character can't work when I roll a 20 to just barely have enough in all my bonus' to make use of my social skill, and the DM gives a +5 just because he feels the monster doesn't care enough.

How do I deal with this? Is there anything I can reference and show, or really good advice? I have been extremely polite and talked with him outside of the game while being very easy going, but he only got very passionate/loud/frustrated about it. I fear that I might get him to become passive aggressive with pushing the issue, with an "Alright, you want the rules to be followed to the T, then here you go" and then get hard mode initiated. I don't think he would do that, but it happens to people you least expect.

I'm really drained with this, and I feel horrible that my character is denied working like it should in game. I thought having a social option for PFS would be a great thing for the entire table, and now it's looking like it's a complete waste. I literally have half my feats and a lot of my valuables invested into this skill, and have a lot more planned. I fear going to all other tables in my area, and this will keep happening to me.


Sheesh. I'd hate to be playing an Intimidate-focused PC in this guy's game.

It's like playing a miner and being told I can't outmine a dwarf because dwarves get a huge bonus.

"But they don't. Kobolds do, but dwarves don't. Wouldn't that be listed if it were the case?"

"Obviously it's what the designers intended."

House rules aren't allowed in PFS, to my limited understanding of things, and these are quite clearly house rules. It sounds like he doesn't like his monsters losing their dignity.

If you really want to avoid conflict, just start playing a new character (with dumped Charisma). If he asks why, tell him you don't feel your character is viable at his table.

EDIT: Also, I think you should talk to your Venture Captain about this. I'm pretty sure that's what they're there for. You shouldn't have to get in a fight with any PFS GM just to play your character.


I am empathize, but at the same time from the perspective of a real scenario it just seems unlikely intimidation would work on a demon unless you are a caster of greater power or, maybe, mighty warrior. Generally I think it makes no sense that intimidate is not simply attached to measurable power and the ability to demonstrate it.

However, even if RAW, you should have this ability it seems your GM won't permit it. The best approach might be to simply point out that you built a character designed to intimidate. That is he is going to add impediments to the design ask him if you can rebuild the character. It's direct without being too confrontational. Then come to a solution you can both live with.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I am empathize, but at the same time from the perspective of a real scenario it just seems unlikely intimidation would work on a demon unless you are a caster of greater power or, maybe, mighty warrior. Generally I think it makes no sense that intimidate is not simply attached to measurable power and the ability to demonstrate it.

It's not that hard to scare somebody you can't actually kill. House spiders know this. Sometimes you just unsettle people.

Demons are given Wisdom scores specifically to protect against mind-affecting effects like this. If those scores aren't enough, it simply means the intimidator is just that badass. I mean, demons aren't exactly known for being great paragons of valor in the outsider community.

Pitt wrote:
However, even if RAW, you should have this ability it seems your GM won't permit it. The best approach might be to simply point out that you built a character designed to intimidate. That is he is going to add impediments to the design ask him if you can rebuild the character. It's direct without being too confrontational. Then come to a solution you can both live with.

This is PFS. Ain't no rebuilds at higher levels unless you own that Ultimate Campaign doohickey. And he wouldn't have to ask his GM for permission for that.

Overall, the problem is that this GM is acting like he has more power than a PFS GM should. At least, I believe he is. I don't do much PFS.

1/5

What legally can a DM add to bonus' they want to add for whatever reason? I thought the maximum situational bonus was a +2 bonus or a -2 penalty. The HD reflects the creature already, and you also have the will mod, and the size difference. The Mechanic seems plenty straight forward, and if the creature can't see mine, then any circumstantial visual bonus doesn't apply.

Like, if I am the skinniest gnome ever, who cross dresses with clown facepaint, I don't see why that matters at all. I roll the DC, and somehow my character just does it. "There is no one that could possibly intimidate this creature" "Well, today, you meet THE ONE!"

I see intimidate as just saying something even if it's like "Want some butter" in some way that the other person is just like, "I need to tread very lightly here with this guy"

I was asked if I expect someone to use a feather duster to intimidate, and I just, "Imagine me with a feather duster" and proceeded to go berserk in front of him, and other players, to display that I could very well, even in real life, hold an object and reference it, and make people feel intimidated. The GM just dismissed me and said that it wouldn't work, which I said that in game the skill check is what shows if things did or did not work.

I was given an example of one of his games where a paladin lost his wife, and a PC tried to use diplomacy to allure the Paladin. She got a 38 on her diplomacy, but since she purposefully showed her cleavage very openly to the paladin, the GM said that she automatically failed, because the Paladin would NEVER EVER accept something like that. I explained that the 38 to Diplomacy shows otherwise, and that dude went up some attitude, and was told I was wrong.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I am empathize, but at the same time from the perspective of a real scenario it just seems unlikely intimidation would work on a demon unless you are a caster of greater power or, maybe, mighty warrior. Generally I think it makes no sense that intimidate is not simply attached to measurable power and the ability to demonstrate it.

It's not that hard to scare somebody you can't actually kill. House spiders know this. Sometimes you just unsettle people.

Demons are given Wisdom scores specifically to protect against mind-affecting effects like this. If those scores aren't enough, it simply means the intimidator is just that badass. I mean, demons aren't exactly known for being great paragons of valor in the outsider community.

I agree in the Pathfinder universe that this may be true. But I believe that in real person-to-person dynamics intimidate is impacted by the power of that person to enforce the intimidation. Understanding that PF is not the real world, social dynamics and skills should be as accurate as possible.

But as I said above, you are correct, as PF goes you should be able to intimidate if you beat their bonuses. The best way to bring that sort of the thing up is to be straightforward, ask him if he's going to persist in penalizing the use of intimidate. If so, ask to create a new character as would only be fair.


I would imagine that not being able to see someone/something would make it easier to intimidate (as a charisma based skill) done scrawny midget with health problems calls you on the phone and starts to threaten you and your family, if he threatens well enough maybe you'll think he's some gargantuan death machine. Likewise the giant guy could fail to threaten that way, you would be like, "come over and fight me then ya n00b!" Then Arnold rolls up to your house in his hummer.


The drake situation is just wrong. IF you beat the DC then the drake should had been shaken, nothing more to add.

About the demon, it is more grey. I have the impression that in PFS some adventures just say how the NPC/monster react, and for example just say something like "PCs can not intimidate this guy no matter what", so perhaps that was the case.

IN my homegame I absolutely would allow and intimidate check, but if the demon is not dumb then the attitude change will be just for short time, unless the PC can show to be ultimately more pwerful than the demon, or at least make the demon belive so.


Rapanuii wrote:

What legally can a DM add to bonus' they want to add for whatever reason? I thought the maximum situational bonus was a +2 bonus or a -2 penalty. The HD reflects the creature already, and you also have the will mod, and the size difference. The Mechanic seems plenty straight forward, and if the creature can't see mine, then any circumstantial visual bonus doesn't apply.

Like, if I am the skinniest gnome ever, who cross dresses with clown facepaint, I don't see why that matters at all. I roll the DC, and somehow my character just does it. "There is no one that could possibly intimidate this creature" "Well, today, you meet THE ONE!"

Hey, even dinosaurs fear clowns.

Rapanuii wrote:
She got a 38 on her diplomacy, but since she purposefully showed her cleavage very openly to the paladin, the GM said that she automatically failed, because the Paladin would NEVER EVER accept something like that. I explained that the 38 to Diplomacy shows otherwise, and that dude went up some attitude, and was told I was wrong.

Actually, he was right there. Diplomacy has a very firm clause stating that there are some things a guy will never accept. Intimidate lacks that loophole.

Pitt wrote:
But I believe that in real person-to-person dynamics intimidate is impacted by the power of that person to enforce the intimidation.

I dunno, I think even a guy tied to a chair can intimidate people (though outside of PFS, I'd expect him to roleplay it damn good—Hannibal Lector style). Say there's a guy in a straitjacket. Maybe you'll help him with his requests just because he creeps you out and you want to stop having to deal with him.

Now, that's still power. It's the power of fear itself. He is using your fear of him to coerce you.

Anyways, I'm threadjacking.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:


EDIT: Also, I think you should talk to your Venture Captain about this. I'm pretty sure that's what they're there for. You shouldn't have to get in a fight with any PFS GM just to play your character.

Pretty much this.

Nothing in the game prevents you from intimidating a drake except that it gets a small bonus due to size.

Intimidate doesn't necessarily mean that you need to threaten to kill it.

1/5

Talking to my venture captain might result in this guy from being upset with me. I really want a friendship with this dude, but this is hurting my personal PFS experience as well. Like, I want to use my character in these particular sessions, and for me to travel out and play, and have to choose something else just stinks. I rather not have to resort to switching characters, but maybe I'll have to.

Like I said, this dude has a high title, and I'm unfamiliar with his title, exactly. How does the ranking system work even?

1/5

Kobold, the woman using diplomacy on a character that has a subjective thing about possiblity not accepting boobs in his face doesn't reject the idea that she was being diplomatic as a whole to convince him to change his attitude. To just flat out reject a 38 roll because of that is absurd. The character boob showed at a 38, and that is a very nice boob show, even for someone that normally wouldn't tolerate such behavior. Doesn't need to be all about the boobs, but overall, that was a very diplomatic show of diplomacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The roll makes absolutely no difference.

The PRD wrote:
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

The GM was in the right on this. The paladin was in mourning. It's perfectly fine to say that any sexual themes immediately put him off.


Not familiar with PFS, but in any ranking system lieutenant is below captain.

As much as I dislike how PFS works, arbitrary adding of bonuses the way he's doing would be crappy even in a home game. I might agree to penalties and bonuses based on situations, but he seems to be pushing it a bit much. Considering how anal PFS is, my guess would be he isn't allowed to do mods this much.

1/5

Kobold, this wasn't a request. This was to improve the attitude. The roll should have absolutely worked.

1/5

A +2, or even a +1 bonus is a big deal. Making the DC tougher because the DM thinks a human shouldn't intimidate a drake is not fair.

What exactly restricts an intimidate from working on the basic use, and a demoralize? Intellect, language, any sort of immunity?


Quote:
a PC tried to use diplomacy to allure the Paladin.

This implies more than simple attitude shifts.

Regardless, it's kind of pathetic from a roleplaying perspective, but there aren't any technical rules against it, and PFS will be PFS. Fair enough.

EDIT: Also, a 5% bonus is not a big deal. That's the equivalent of a cantrip. The thing is that your character presents no plausible threat to his target and should find it more challenging to scare them. A +1 or +2 is perfectly sensible, as long as it's PFS legal (and something which can be alleviated with good roleplaying).

The Exchange 3/5

Rapanuii wrote:

Talking to my venture captain might result in this guy from being upset with me. I really want a friendship with this dude, but this is hurting my personal PFS experience as well. Like, I want to use my character in these particular sessions, and for me to travel out and play, and have to choose something else just stinks. I rather not have to resort to switching characters, but maybe I'll have to.

Like I said, this dude has a high title, and I'm unfamiliar with his title, exactly. How does the ranking system work even?

There are really only two "titles" which is Venture Lieutenant and Venture Captain. He could also be a 4 or 5 star GM which are often held in high regard due to their dedication to the game.

Either way, if it turns out he(The GM in Question) is the Venture Captain for your area you can always PM Mike Brock who is the PFS coordinator. He is a really great guy and quite responsive to issues.

Your situation is a difficult one, an understanding exists that we as PFS GM's must understand that we work within a framework to tell an exciting and engaging story. It can be hard to know where the line is drawn at times between too far and too little leeway with rules. In the end, my favorite aspect of PFS is that the rules should work the same with every GM, at any table, in any city.

Like I said, contact your local Venture Office, lieutenant or captain and if that avenue is unavailable you can always give Mr. Brock a shout.

My last suggestion would be to perhaps e-mail or talk to the guy first, we are all adults and sometimes talking to someone when they aren't a "GM" can go a long way. At times when we are up and in front it can be hard to be willing to admit we are wrong without fear of losing trust with our players.


Rapanuii wrote:
Kobold, this wasn't a request. This was to improve the attitude. The roll should have absolutely worked.

As pointend out, the Diplomacy skill totally allow the DM to deny that roll without any kind of houserule.


That being said, if this was a homegame, I'd be calling a whole lot of bullshit on a lot of this. Intimidate with a featherduster? Diplomacy on a widower paladin via "boob show"? We're talking penalties, and lots of them. You want to convince me that gnome is scary? Prove it. :P

With that in mind, I believe a good peaceful solution is to cut back on questionable acts like that. If you don't want to pick a fight, there's not really anything else to do.

EDIT: To clarify, I wouldn't just make the checks impossible. If you aren't willing to justify the terrifying feather duster, though, it's gonna give something like a -8. Just like I'd give a penalty on Intimidate checks if you're surrounded, unarmed, and naked: It just makes sense.

1/5

@Kobold, I'm saying that a +1 and +2 is a good enough bonus as is. Adding +7 or +9 for "just because he is from hell" is going way beyond. a +1 or +2 "just because" is plenty generous already. Understand?

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Character starts getting threatening, DM runs a stop watch

"At 53 seconds, he lights you on fire"

"What the hell!?!?"

"Takes a minute to change his attitude, and you threatened to turn him into a set of luggage.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons when you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

1/5

BNW, I am totally willing to abide to the minute ruling, and you're aware of this. The GM and I went over this, and he said that even with legally getting the roll after the minute, he'd rule the same.

@Codanous, as previously stated, I have been talking to this person outside of the game a lot. I assure you I have been doing the mature thing about it, and I want to avoid going to others in order to save face all around.

@Kobold, from what I understand, the penalty that can be issued is only at most a -2 to the roll, and the DC for a request would be reflected by the given chart. Just because in the diplomacy to convince through conversation in that given check included boobs shouldn't throw in anything besides a -2, and it shouldn't be an automatic fail.

It might seem absurd, but I've been on a NYC bus, and I've seen people intimidated by a guy talking to himself while holding an egg. I assure you someone can be very intimidating with a feather duster. The skill check is made, and your character based on that check, and beating that DC will reflect success.

1/5

I have my questions listed above, and I have my most important question, which is what should I do? I want to avoid talking to someone above him, because wouldn't you be upset if you felt like you got "tattled" on? It's not the end of the world if I go to a PFS event, and he plays by house rules, but it certainly hurts my experience to a good degree for me to come on here and ask for help. Maybe convincing information, or something? I am just in a hard place here, and I feel like my expectations from what PFS tells all players isn't being met.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Rapanuii wrote:
BNW, I am totally willing to abide to the minute ruling, and you're aware of this. The GM and I went over this, and he said that even with legally getting the roll after the minute, he'd rule the same

I know, but lighting player..erm... characters on fire is always funny... :)

1/5

I feel the best way to intimidate is to be subtle with your threats, but not too subtle where the threats can't get across, but being completely blatant is when you run into the creature going into hostile real quickly. Being tactful with intimidation is completely reasonable. I should know... I do it all the time in real life.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

And they wonder why people are returning to old school.

Silver Crusade 1/5

From what I can tell. The imtimidate should have worked. You've convinced the drake that maybe you're not a good choice for food. Just like one can intimidate a bear by being big and loud and convincing the bear that you're not to be messed with.

HOWEVER because the boob-showing diplomacy check was against a character who was in mourning, I can see it not working. Yes she rolled diplomacy, however her actions were not diplomatic to the situation. They were undiplomatic, the guy was mourning his lost wife for pity's sake. If anything a boob show would offend him, not make him friendly towards the person.

1/5

So we can move on from the boob show, understand that the character is speaking diplomatic things. Yes, the guy is in mourning, and he doesn't have to be like, "It's boobie time, yum yum yum, oh baby!" but the diplomacy check will just improve his attitude with the PC. Having his attitude adjusted doesn't do anything for him being sad and in mourning, but he sure will feel differently than he did before about certain things on the rules in regards to attitudes. "Ma'am, I feel very friendly to you, but please out of respect of my wife, could you please cover your bewbiez?"

I could have not heard correctly, and it might have been a request, and if it was a request, then good luck beating that DC, or perhaps, it is indeed an auto fail.

Ultimately, if it was just an attitude change, it would work, or at least your roll will be accepted.

*

Intimidate to make a drake shaken should have worked absolutely.

Intimidate to change attitude may or may not work. It's very clear in some senarios that an intimidate attempt does nothing or has negative effects even if the roll does succede. So I agree with the GM on this one.

Diplomacy vs Paladin. Should have worked to change attitude positively, though I don't know what you were ultimately hoping to accomplish. To not allow it will make it less fun, (rollplay vs roleplay). Instead of making a fun theme it will be 'I roll diplomacy to change attitude' especially in PFS.


The most amusing part is the fact you've posted this on the paizo forums. You've also done it in a main section. Do you think giving something this specific that if he sees it he won't know its you posting? Just talk to your venture captain since I'm sure the Players Fiat Society will back you on this

1/5

Yeah, he just mentioned the diplomacy thing for how the 38 just auto fails, and that is somehow related to our issue. I was confused.

Absolutely 100%, there was nothing with the scenario in regards to it saying the creature could not be. He was transparent in how he ruled it, and said that regardless, any demon I talk to would feel the same way. He said that I would need to put a knife to the demons throat in order for it to consider my intimidate, and that is absurd, because all that would do is give me that +1 or +2 at most bonus to do it.

The issue with the drake with him was mainly the fact it was a summoned creature. I just conceded saying, "I don't know much about summoned creatures, but I think they're just creatures who are.... summoned." He said that the creature fought to the death, and I didn't know how that meant anything in regards to my demoralize to debuff. If I can't even debuff the creature in combat, then how the hell do I even make this skill useful at all? I have so much just invested into this skill, and I can't even use it!


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The thing is that your character presents no plausible threat to his target and should find it more challenging to scare them.

I'd figure making yourself look like a plausible threat is a core part of the intimidate skill to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rapanuii wrote:

BNW, I am totally willing to abide to the minute ruling, and you're aware of this. The GM and I went over this, and he said that even with legally getting the roll after the minute, he'd rule the same.

@Codanous, as previously stated, I have been talking to this person outside of the game a lot. I assure you I have been doing the mature thing about it, and I want to avoid going to others in order to save face all around.

@Kobold, from what I understand, the penalty that can be issued is only at most a -2 to the roll, and the DC for a request would be reflected by the given chart.

That's PFS. Non-PFS games don't have to abide by RAW when the RAW is flawed.

Rapanuii wrote:
It might seem absurd, but I've been on a NYC bus, and I've seen people intimidated by a guy talking to himself while holding an egg. I assure you someone can be very intimidating with a feather duster.

Of course he can be. He just takes a penalty. It's a whole lot harder than being intimidating with a shotgun.

EDIT: Perhaps, Chengar, but consider two situations:

The enemy general has you surrounded. You are unarmed, alone, and stripped naked. You attempt to intimidate him.

OR

You are dueling the enemy general in single combat. You attempt to intimidate him.

One of these situations is clearly meant to be the default—the assumption being that things are at least somewhat even. The less even things get, the harder Intimidating should be.

In other words, the situation needs to make a difference. That's why we have situational modifiers. There's no rule for having rubber duckies strapped to your feat affecting Stealth, but that doesn't mean the GM wouldn't be hecka justified saying a penalty needs to be assigned.

1/5

@Kobold, I can assure you, this guy took no penalty. It's a charismatic skill, not a "Hey, I'm here holding an egg" but rather "Guragah hahaha, AHHHH, THIS IS MY BRAIN, AND I WILL EAT IT! I WILL EAT MY BRAINS IN MY BRAIN, AHHHH! MY BRAIN! hehehehe, ohhhhh, where is my stop? I'll stay on and I'll leave tomorrow...." Yeah, like, don't screw around with that guy condition was instantly put on. If anything, that guy got a bonus with that egg as part of his intimidate. All you need to do is intimidate someone to have their behavior go into friendly, so they avoid pushing you to do... WHATEVER! You don't need to threaten to hurt anyone, ever, and I don't get why people equal intimidate to that without exception.

I am talking about PFS. I am not concerned with home games and house rules here. He can play whatever he wants at home, and I'm perfectly okay with that. When I come to PFS with my character rolled up, then it's like "surprise, basic mechaincs don't work!", and you wasted your turn and are useless, then that is where things suck hard.


That is a good Intimidate check. It still would have had the penalty—he just roleplayed well enough (or rolled well enough) that it didn't matter.

And I know you're talking about PFS, but you sidetracked things to argue with me when I said a home game would be a whole other matter. I'm threadjacking again, so I'm gonna bow out.

1/5

Anyone have the rules for situational modifiers? I feel it could help me to understand some of the reasoning from the other side of things.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To the best of my knowledge there is no maximum circumstance modifier that can be applied to a given situation. It's your understanding. Please cite it. I'm happy to learn. Note, I'm not saying it's cool to do whatever, but I don't think it's quantified. While PFS doesn't support houserules,it also doesn't hamstring a GM from applying reasonable modifiers for a circumstance. Please note I'm not making a comment about whether the described example are reasonable.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. This is the advice forum. If you want rules advice, go to the rules forum. If you want to know how to deal with GM abuse of rules go to the PFS forums.

In 3.5, diplomacy abuse was a problem in organized play. In PF, intimidate seems to have gotten some of that. Social skills killing off combat encounters rarely are dealt with well in organized play, primarily because expectations can vary a lot from person to person. This variance is why the 3e family tried to formalize them; and they still don't work as formalized skills vary well.

If you're looking for advice: building a character that relies on diplomacy or intimidate to walk around combat encounters is not always going to be well received in organized play, regardless of how close to written rules they should be run or what variability is acceptable. If you like playing at the guys tables, then consider a different character that doesn't hit one of his buttons regarding response. You may have more assertive actions you could take, but you've indicated you don't want to, and there is some relationship risk in doing so.

Liberty's Edge

Rapanuii, I do agree that your GM is being a little unreasonable on how he is handling the intimidation skill. He is making DCs more difficult (or impossible) based on his own views instead of actually rules in the game. While it is within his purview to make judgements for situations the game rules do not cover, this really isn't that type of situation.

If you GM is not willing to reconsider his position (and it sounds like he is not), then you have the option to report him to your Venture Captain. If you don't want to take it to that level (or beyond), then your only other choices are to accept it as it is or find another GM.
.
.
One thing about 'bad' GMs. If you don't report them, they will keep GMing. If enough people encounter problems with a GM and report them, the people running the PFS events will probably do something about it...which may result in the GM reconsidering how they are GMing...or they may be asked not to GM.

For example, we had a GM that moved to our area and started coming to our PFS. He had a few stars to his credit and we were told by the PFS organizer that this guy was a very good GM and it was awsome that we had him at our location. While he did know his Pathfinder, he would make the occasional mistake like anyone else. Besides being a bit arrogant, he usually refused to change incorrect judgements when a player would correct him. On several occasions, he would also refuse to allow players to take certain actions in game because he thought it wasn't fair (not because of anything related to rules). After a few very disappointing and frustrating games, I refused to be a player at his table. One session, I switched to a different table when I learned he was going to GM the scenario. When the organizer asked why, I told him flat out that he was not a good GM and I would not play at his table again. After a few more months, that 'bad' GM stopped coming. I learned later that the PFS organizer had received a number of complaints about his 'play style', so he does not GM at that location any longer.

1/5

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

That is a good Intimidate check. It still would have had the penalty—he just roleplayed well enough (or rolled well enough) that it didn't matter.

And I know you're talking about PFS, but you sidetracked things to argue with me when I said a home game would be a whole other matter. I'm threadjacking again, so I'm gonna bow out.

I didn't realize I was engaged with you in talking about home games. I'm sorry if it seemed I was, but to tell you the truth, for some reason, the paizo website on this computer is MESSED UP, and it's hard to read things. I am currently looking for some fix as I am participating in this thread.

I simply don't understand why the man on the bus with the egg got a penalty for. Just because he has an egg? What if he didn't have an egg, then what? Like that's the absurdity of someone being subjective to something purely irrelevant. Someone just laughs at an egg, but that guy went from some weirdo looking dude starring silently at an egg, into super saiyan 3 Goku wielding a spirit bomb. Why shouldn't the egg get a bonus now? Why does it matter how my character looks, or what he is holding/wearing when I make my check? The skill doesn't say, "ask what the PC is wearing and holding, then give penalties based upon that.

Dr Hawking enters hostile Balor who is willing to listen to him for a minute. Hawking doesn't look hulking or physically intimidating at all, so you'd just give him a penalty, but he articulates that he will send Balor into black holes and other crazy things that exist in the universe, and Balor ends up pissing his bands. Why does his appearance have anything to do with adjusting for a penalty or a bonus? Hawking already has an intimidation bonus, a D20 roll, and a Charisma score.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Perhaps, Chengar, but consider two situations:

The enemy general has you surrounded. You are unarmed, alone, and stripped naked. You attempt to intimidate him.

OR

You are dueling the enemy general in single combat. You attempt to intimidate him.

One of these situations is clearly meant to be the default—the assumption being that things are at least somewhat even. The less even things get, the harder Intimidating should be.

A higher DC/penalty when the situation seems especially stacked against the intimidator seems reasonable enough to me. I'd probably also tweak circumstance modifiers depending on how exactly the action was described. I could see a quiet and confident death-glare still being fairly intimidating, while screaming threats would seem a lot less impressive.

1/5

Someone I trust that's involved in PFS told me about the +2 -2 was something to exist, but I have no concrete evidence. This is why I word what I say to reflect that I don't absolutely know this. I would like to know what is within the rules, and if anyone could cite them that would be great. A lecture about the sections on the forums is unneeded, and I am indeed looking for advice. Educating myself on what is and isn't proper and legal seems like a great way of taking a step forward with helping me brain storm solutions. Perhaps I find something I feel can't be wagged away by the GM, and they'll be more reasonable. At the same time, I want to recognize that I might have a bad perception on things, or could be wrong, and if people want to correct me so we can figure out that I am or not, that too would be helpful.

When the intimidation doesn't even work to demoralize a creature in combat, because of additional DC going up, that is when I don't know what to do anymore other than try to talk to the GM, and that didn't work out so well. My character can't even succeed on beating it for that purpose, even though the GM tells me that I did...

@Howie23, could you cite me anything in regards to the best of your knowledge saying that there is no cap to these "just because" modifiers? If I don't have a position, then I very much would like to know for sure, instead of just thinking I might. I don't like to assert things as fact when they aren't.


It says in the Gamemaster section a rule of thumb is +2/-2 and I think the example they use is tripping an iron golem on a magnetized (repulsion) floor. It doesn't say situational modifiers can't be higher and that they can't stack as circumstance mods do stack. Common sense would tell you that trying to intimidate a Dragon by waving a hot dog at it will not follow some "-2 max" penalty. Hell, bluff has on there a -20 for impossible lies, so why wouldn't Intimidate follow something similar for absurd intimidation attempts? But RAW says...ya I know. I would say that a real er I mean house DM is well within his right to assign modifiers going as high as he wants, as long as it's reasonable and he isn't arbitrarily doing it as an F.U. to mathematically make it impossible for your character to succeed: "Oh you want to intimidate my BBEG? That's a -100 modifier, thanks."

Oh...and if you want to go Intimidate specialist in my game I think I'm going to require you to perfect your Joe Pesci/Deniro impersonation for the game.

"What? You think I'm funny? Do I make you laugh? Am I a clown? Do I amuse you? What exactly ARE you sayin then? HUH?"


Core Rulebook, page 403 wrote:
One handy rule to keep under your belt is the Fiat Rule - simply grant a player a +2 or a -2 bonus or penalty to a die roll if no one at the table is precisely sure how a situation might be handled by the rules.

This is a guideline only, and not a hard and fast rule. There's nothing in the CRB that says a GM is limited in giving out bonuses or penalties depending on the circumstances. I'm only passingly familiar with PFS, so I have no idea if there's something specific in there about limits to situational modifiers.

1/5

MattR1986, Joe Pecci talking to Ray Liotta is a great example though. He simply asks if Ray thinks he is funny, and he scares people. He is a short man, and all he is doing is asking a question if people think he is there to amuse them, but he isn't getting a penalty, is he?

No matter how ridiculous, the dice roll is reflecting that you somehow pulled it off. Showing a hot dog to a dragon could just mind screw the dragon so bad that someone would dare to threaten with a hot dog, and the dragon will apologize and do anything he can to help the character out.

Bluff has specific rules about in regards to how you present your bluff. Intimidate is your character just doing it. Even if you play a complete dumbass who can't even speak words properly, you can still be dealing with a very scary person, and they'll show you just how scary when they roll that skill check.

1/5

To be clear, I don't plan to present some silly situation like hot dogs or holding an egg on a bus, but showing a point. I don't understand why you just go "He is a Demon, and you're a human. It's not going to happen!"

Where in the rules does it say that you just give a bonus for that? I won't really have an issue most of the time for some exceptions on the bonus' for certain things, but just taking no consideration for my character, and saying your NPC just gets a bonus for no reason other than your subjective views on how that NPC feels about the opposing race in regards to yours is unfair. Gnomes=Not intimidating, but then a gnome heavily invests and is like, "I'll show you!" and then the GM is like, "You beat the DC by 60, but like I said, you're a Gnome, and no one is scared of gnomes. FAILED!"


Rapanuii wrote:

Spoiler:
snip

Pretty much this issue is my character using intimidate, and it was specifically on a target that couldn't see me. This wasn't a matter of demoralizing, but rather to take the full minimum 1 minute to convey to the creature that I'm someone they should adjust their attitude with. I was told it automatically doesn't work because the creature cannot see me, and that it wouldn't feel threatened by me anyways because he is a demon, and I'm just a human that isn't even at least holding a knife to it's throat. I am further told that I can only use intimidate if I can make the creature feel like I will kill it, which I tried to explain that isn't necessarily true at all, but was told I was wrong. I tried to after the game, and outside of the game to discuss the matter, and was told that I absolutely need line of sight, due to the skill specifically saying so. I tried to point out that it only applies to demoralize, and the first application of intimidate to change attitudes specifically says that 1 minute of conversation, and was told I wasn't reading correctly.

A situation came up again the next game, where I tried to demoralize a summoned drake in combat, and I rolled a 27 to demoralize. I am told that I failed. After the game I ask about it, and he said that a human isn't going to likely intimidate a drake, which I agreed, because of the HD and size etc. but I'm told it was strictly because the drake gets a bonus because it's a drake, and I'm a human. I am also told that it was impossible that it couldn't work because it was a summoned creature. I am told that a 27 indeed beats it's DC, but he got like a lot of extra bonus' beyond what the skill says it should get, because it's a drake, and I'm a human.


Does a summon creature bypass any attempt to use any form of intimidate on it?

Do I need to absolutely have a life threat to a creature as the only possible way to use any form of intimidate against that creature?

Do I absolutely need line of sight to use the first attitude affecting version of intimidate or else it auto fails/don't get it?

I'm not sure about the first one, but I'm pretty sure that the other two are no's.

To get back to your actual original questions, here is my take. I haven't played PFS, so all my advice/opinion is based on a home game.

1) Summoned creatures are effectively like beserk, fanatic, suicidal creatures on a personal mission from their god (the summoner): almost all social skills will be very hard to use on them. I wouldn't say it is impossible, but the character had better make a really good attempt at roleplaying what they are trying to do as well as get a high skill roll - and I'd say all that if a player wanted to try so they knew whether it is worth trying before they waste their action. I would expect a PFS GM to simply rule it as being impossible.
2) No.
3) No.

For your later example, of the mourning paladin vs someone trying to use sex appeal to influence him: You might have achieved a high skill total, but you also offended him. Net result: no change. A poor skill total would have reduced his attitude because of the offence; not offending him would have improved his attitude with a high skill total.


Rapanuii wrote:

To be clear, I don't plan to present some silly situation like hot dogs or holding an egg on a bus, but showing a point. I don't understand why you just go "He is a Demon, and you're a human. It's not going to happen!"

Where in the rules does it say that you just give a bonus for that? I won't really have an issue most of the time for some exceptions on the bonus' for certain things, but just taking no consideration for my character, and saying your NPC just gets a bonus for no reason other than your subjective views on how that NPC feels about the opposing race in regards to yours is unfair. Gnomes=Not intimidating, but then a gnome heavily invests and is like, "I'll show you!" and then the GM is like, "You beat the DC by 60, but like I said, you're a Gnome, and no one is scared of gnomes. FAILED!"

Now you are asking a different question here.

Is a GM entitled to add extra bonuses/penalties based on the particular situation? Hell yes!
Should they do so in the way you are claiming? No. But!

Consider this situation: Smaug vs Bilbo in the Hobbit. Smaug is a dragon, old, arrogant and complacent. Bilbo is low level and lacks any credible threat, in the dragon's opinion.

How big a penalty is fair to apply?
The built-in bonuses/penalties based on size/will/etc apply all the time, regardless of who is doing the intimidating.

Eg suppose Elessar, King of Gondor and Arnor attempts the same thing against a dragon of equal power to Smaug. Should he get the same total modifiers?

Nope, Elessar gets his own, personal bonuses due to his status. So does Bilbo.

Bilbo (or the gnome, in your example) could easily be assigned a -20 (or more, or less) penalty compared with Elessar in the same situation, just because of how the dragon regards the two characters.

Now consider your man with an egg on the bus: vs normal civilians, he could be quite intimidating. But would he be seen the same way by a Federal Marshal assigned to keep the peace on a bus after several people have complained about a creepy guy scaring them?


There is always the common sense modifyer that can be applied by a Gm,
eg the Balor vs Gnome gets a +50 DC

And using an intimidate skill should be more than roling a die.

How do you intimidate a Drake, well death by featherduster is not taken seriously by anything...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Walter Leeuwen wrote:

There is always the common sense modifyer that can be applied by a Gm,

eg the Balor vs Gnome gets a +50 DC

You're trying to "fix" the game system to your own liking because you don't feel the game system as written is an accurate enough simulation of reality. This is not a very PFS-compatible sentiment, and you should probably stick to home games with other like-minded individuals.

A Balor is already going to have a huge intimidate DC by RAW, due to their hit dice, wisdom, size, etc. The game as written, without any external meddling, already would give them a DC of 41. This is already not something that some low level gnome commoner could ever hope to achieve, without any need of "help" from common sense.

Only someone high level and supremely focused on being intimidating is going to have much luck at ever beating that DC. If that gnome happened to be a high level PC, there are various ways that they could be far more intimidating than average, and this is something that would be reflected by their intimidation ability. You don't get to just redesign that whole mechanic to suit yourself, particularly not in a PFS game. You don't need to swing it by 50 just because you feel like arbitrarily changing the rules of the game.

Bilbo is not a high level PC, nor is he trained in intimidation. The game wouldn't give him any shot of intimidating a sufficiently high level enemy, and you don't need to go adding your own penalties on top of that to fix something that isn't broken. If a mid to high level PC does have a very high intimidate skill, then they obviously aren't very Bilbo-like so it's just a flawed comparison.

What's next, are you going to just decide screw HPs, AC, attack rolls, saving throws, etc. You're house ruling that any dragon automatically gets to eat any hobbit, without having to roll anything, because dragons eat hobbits. Level 20 hobbit with decades of intense training, incredible supernatural abilities, and magical equipment? Doesn't matter. Common sense, right? Dragons eat hobbits. +1 million common sense bonus vs. hobbits.

1 to 50 of 400 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / I can't get through to my GM in PFS All Messageboards