Also, the OP didn't use Diplomacy; he used Intimidate.
I made an Intimidate check to get them to stop firing at us and to open up a dialogue, getting a whopping 34.
Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
I think the way I would rule it would be first to evaluate whether the attempt is an auto fail or not.
Unfortunately unlike bluff. Intimidate does not have nice lines like "Some checks always fail". And I really hate house-ruling against the players.
Also Ravingdork's character has the feats Orator and Skill Focus (linguistics) along with raiment of command means that it will pass all reasonable (or even fairly unreasonable) social checks on a one (31). Therefore all social check come down to a binary solution set. If a check alone is enough he passes. If it is not he does not. All checks are ether auto succeed or auto failure.
I suppose that I could argue that raiment of command does not apply to Linguistics checks, but that seems mean-spirited.
In this case I had cast chastise as well. SO that's a feat, maxed out skill, and two spell buffs to...fail automatically?
Ah, I had misunderstood the situation at the gates of Varnhold. Ravingdork had said that the arrows did not harm them, and "calmly continued our approach hoping that our brazen fearlessness might cow the shooters." Intimidate says it works through verbal threats or displays of prowess. Brazen fearlessness sounded like a display of prowess.
If Ravingdork was using the Orator feat to make an Intimidate check with his Linguistics bonus, then he was persuading the guards verbally, finding the right words to sway them. Therefore, it would take a minute.
I was basically doing both. Shouting at them (in the manner that a leader shouts at underlings) while brazenly moving forward against their barrage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said earlier the only real defense against well built Diplomancers is to hit them with pointy things until they stop talking.
Completely untrue!
There's pointy things, bashy things, slashy things, fiery things, icy things, charmy things, rifts into alternate dimensions of reality thingies...
More broadly speaking, I'm a bit shocked by somebody with 20,000 posts on this forum probably playing the game for years to be asking "Guys, do you think the social rules might be broken?" Because in most other respects, they clearly are, and I run into this like every 20 minutes playing. I'm pleasantly shocked though, because OP, have social rules been working all the rest of this time in your campaigns? If so, I would be very Very VERY interested if you could put together a tutorial or something about how your table uses that that has allowed for this outcome. I'm sure lots of other people would be too. Maybe you guys have some truly inspired house rules/interpretations/whatever in place?
In my home games, we tend to wing it a little bit when it comes to social encounters.
This was for an online PbP, in which the GM has proven much harsher in some respects, and much more lenient in others.
So they've always been broken I guess. It just wasn't evident until I played under a GM who didn't gloss over that fact.
|
You're not orcs. Why are humans shooting humans coming to their keep?
Maybe those guys took over the fort, and are now shooting everyone on sight that approaches so word of their takeover do not spread.
If I was the GM I would have asked for a STR check to see how loud you shouted at them, then have them make perception checks to determined if they heard you. "Hear the details of a conversation" has a Perception DC of 0, but they take a -1 penalty for every 10 ft distance. If your STR check was 20 or higher, I'd say that they can use the "Hear the sound of battle" Perception DC of -10 instead.
If they have clearly heard you, which you should be able to tell with a Sense Motive of 15, and keep shooting, you know something is wrong with that castle. Attack immediately. These guys are bad.
If they heard you and stop shooting, and some kind of sergeant tells you that one of you may approach unarmed to parley, send in the bard. Chances are you'll at least get the reason why the gates are closed and they're on high alert, but worse case scenario, they'll tell the bard that the party is not welcome there for X reason(s) or that they have standing orders to repel any visitors.
If the latter applies, leave. Initiate trade embargo up / toll booth down the road. And dispatch messengers to friendly kingdoms to apprise them of the situation.
Addendum: yeah, there's no amount of Intimidation that will work against an army behind a wall. Sorry.
In D&D, a setting with high end magic, I wholly disagree.
To an army without them, a tank casually strolling up next to the fortification would be intimidating as hell.
|
|
Nat 20. x3 crit on my arrow.
Arrows don't work? heat up the tar cauldron. In the meantime, you 6 start shooting the ballistaes at this freak. You 8 start winding the two catapults. Go!
The men behind the wall are soldiers. It is their job to defend the castle. Not to open the gate to every moron showing up with a casual stroll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's a reason that people approaching a potentially hostile force to parlay fly a white flag or similar item - something to show "hey, we're approaching to talk."
And yeah, I'd say the GM was right to say that an entire wall of hostile armed guards would not immediately stop shooting merely because some magic jack-ass started yelling at them.
Though
Changing attitudes ultimately requires your audience to actually have any interest in listening to you.
(Or another way to put it - a diplomacy check can't normally save you from being murdered/sacrificed/executed =P)
Ah fair enough, fair enough. Okay yes one of the totally broken instances then.Not anywhere near so broken as allowing a Diplomancers to stop any fight with a 1 round skill check.
As I said earlier the only real defense against well built Diplomancers is to hit them with pointy things until they stop talking.
So why is it wrong for well-built Diplomancers to succeed at the one thing they built their character to do? (Especially if ending the fight in one round with a AoE or battlefield control spell is perfectly OK?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are defenses(saving throws, spell resistance, counter-spells) against AoE and Battlefield control spells. I can't think of any defenses against mundane mind control.
Also and maybe more important PC's are immune to it so I can't even go tit-for-tat.
Well now that they got into the fort I can give a spoiler
The fort had been taken over by Spriggans. A CE fey race from the first world that can only feel joy from making creatures from this world suffer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Powergaming DM: consider practising the following mantra:
"I've heard your arguments and considered them. There is merit in them. However, you know only part of the situation, and the outcome of your attempts depends also on some factors as yet unknown to you."
Acknowledging that the tactics the PCs are using make sense in a vacuum can go a long way. Due to stuff the players don't know, their clever plan can still be doomed to failure, but you can reassure the players it's not because you're being randomly obstructionist.
Also, you seem to be trying hard to present a fair game to your players, which is laudable. But keep in mind:
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
It's okay to change the rules to improve them, as long as it's done in a fair and open fashion. Although I've found to my own damage that writing good houserules can be a tricky process. If need be, don't be afraid to admit that a particular houserule didn't work out how you'd hoped and retract it.
Personally I'm curious if Ultimate Intrigue will have updated and improved social conflict rules. Because the core rules for them are rather 'meh'.
Not really asking if the GM was in the wrong (we all know he technically isn't). More like asking if the rule itself is wrong. It just doesn't make much sense as written.
That is why GM's are supposed to take the rules as a starting point and then adapt them to make sense given the situations that arise during play.
It never ceases to amaze me how your group is constantly stunned that all the situations that could possibly happen in a game are not covered completely and in detailed fashion in the game rules.
There is a reason your supposed to excercise common sense and that GM's exist to facilitate game play.
Social interactions especially are complex and completely unique to any given scenario, so trying to apply rigid DC formulas and time requirements to them doesn't tend to work.
Honestly the whole skills section should have been written more like guidelines instead of hard and fast rules, but then people would complain about 'table variation'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ask the GM how the guards would have reacted to a travelling merchant approaching the fort...
Easy they would kill it in the most painful way available.
I'm surprised we didn't realize they were spriggans during 11 rounds of bombardment. We weren't always 180 feet away. ;P
They were shooting though arrow slits.
Ask the GM how the guards would have reacted to a travelling merchant approaching the fort...Easy they would kill it in the most painful way available.
Indeed! In light of what those guards actually were, a mere traveling merchant would have been easy prey, and probably subject to a significantly worse reception than a mere fusillade =P
|
Not really asking if the GM was in the wrong (we all know he technically isn't). More like asking if the rule itself is wrong. It just doesn't make much sense as written.
It shouldn't take a bank robber with an AK and an obvious mean streak a mile wide a full minute to get everyone in the bank to lay down on the floor and the guard to give up his pea shooter.
To force someone with a easy check to be collaborative with you.
NPC beavyor is the reign of the GM, the diplomatic checks and several spells can take control of that, but outside of those forced actions the GM should rule how people will react on the basis of their personality/goals/initial attitude.
It is not a problem of broken rules. If you are trying to convince a guard to stop firing on you when it has orders to fire on unknown people or what he perceive as threat, or if he is too afraid to have things get near and will fire on everything and everyone, changing his beavyor shouldn't be easy or immediate.
The possible problem is that the GM should be reasonable when he decide how the NPC should act. The enemies choices aren't always win or die.
Run to fight another day exist, as talk even if you are hostile, as "these creatures are too big for me", "I am a herbivore, unless they come too near he will not attack2 and so on.
|
|
I agree. This situation doesn't immediately call for a skill check. You can just say what you want to say and either they'll stop trying to kill you or they won't.That is exactly what social skill checks are for.No it isn't. Social skills are used to get people to behave in ways they normally wouldn't.
They aren't (or at least the roll vs DC parts aren't) for dealing with people in ways that they normally would. You don't need diplomacy to convince a shopkeeper to sell you an apple, you don't need intimidate for him to give you change and you don't need bluff to convince him that your absolutely genuine money has value.
I share your design aesthetic on that point, but unfortunately, Pathfinder does not.
Do you realize that the Diplomacy rules literally go so far as to codify asking people for directions? I kid you not, the first entry in the table listing modifiers to the "Request" DC is for asking directions. When you look it up and do the math, asking some random indifferent stranger how to get to City Hall actually requires a Diplomacy check at a DC of 10 plus the stranger's CHA modifier. It's not until they have an attitude of "Helpful" (the "best" attitude) that you reach the point where "the creature gives in to most requests without a check". An indifferent, or even friendly dude on the street? Sorry, Pathfinder says you actually need to use Diplomacy's "request" function to get him to tell you how to get to Sesame Street. Oh, and since the DC includes their CHAmod, make sure you don't ask a hottie for directions, since they're more likely to inexplicably snub you.
That is (in Pathfinder) how the social skills work. Maybe not quite as extreme as your shopkeeper example, but closer than I think you realize (and certainly closer than I prefer).
Go out at 13.30 (what is lunch hour in your city) and ask directions for the city hall or the hour to random people in a crowd.
Let's see how many reply.1 in 3? 1 in 4? In a peaceful city where strangers are generally trusted.
Starting attitude indifferent 15, cha mod 0, Give simple advice or directions –5. DC 10, you are successful 55% of the time with a cha of 10 and no skill.
Time needed 1 round (make requests)
To me it seem that you have a better than Real Life chance of getting a reply.
I suppose that I could argue that raiment of command does not apply to Linguistics checks, but that seems mean-spirited.I would not see it that way, but rather clear cut.
With Orator he is using the Linguistics skill for different effects. The Raiment Spell only helps with the Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. To work with the other Skills it would need to have a line like "for checks to appear as a authority figure to blah blah... +5".
On the other hand stuff that raises his Linguistics now helps with social interactions, like other spells and Magic Items.
They were shooting though arrow slits.
Oh yeah! You did mention that, didn't you? :P
I suppose that I could argue that raiment of command does not apply to Linguistics checks, but that seems mean-spirited.I would not see it that way, but rather clear cut.
With Orator he is using the Linguistics skill for different effects. The Raiment Spell only helps with the Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. To work with the other Skills it would need to have a line like "for checks to appear as a authority figure to blah blah... +5".
On the other hand stuff that raises his Linguistics now helps with social interactions, like other spells and Magic Items.
I'm still making an Intimidation check; it just uses the Linguistics modifier. Ergo, the bonuses should apply.
|
If you can channel, the 1 minute issue goes away for 50gp. Just Scale. It'll only help raise their attitude by one level, but that might be enough to make them stop shooting.
Has anyone here actually tried to fully and properly intimidate or negotiate with someone that is hostile? You simply need to find a way for them to listen to you but be unable to attack your character. Unless they, for some reason, choose to listen to you, you won't be able to say enough in a quick enough amount of time under the right atmosphere to make someone who is hostile to actually think.
Twice, both involving the character Moonrider played by my wife. Moonrider was a lyrakien bard whose job was serving as a messenger and emissary from Desna to other gods. In other words, she was a professional diplomat. Her class was a variant of the Bard Geisha archetype that gave her the ability to protect herself with Perform and Diplomacy. She was on vacation on Golarian, but really Desna had unofficially sent her to aid the party.
In the Fortress of the Stone Giants module in the Rise of the Runelords adventure path, the party was harassing Mokmurian's army of stone giants and then teleporting to Magnimar to a nice inn to rest until the next day. But Mokmurian was a wizard, so he scryed the party. He gave a sorceress minion a scroll of Teleport and sent her to lead a team of commandos to attack the party at the inn. Totally off the module, but it was one of the most amusing battles of the module, because Mokmurian had chosen the team to counteract the party's best abilities, such as assigning a True Neutral mercenary to hold off the paladin. To aid the commando team, he sent his Hounds of Tindalos, too, because they could teleport on their own.
Moonrider could speak any language, so she talked to the hounds to use her Diplomatic Immunity against them. To quote the module:
The hounds loathe being bound like this, yet the planar binding spell prevents them from acting against Mokmurian. They have been ordered to guard this chamber, or to come to Mokmurian’s side if he calls for them. The hounds lurk in the room, eager to vent their frustration upon anything that moves.
She learned how Mokmurian had bent the rules of their Planar Binding contract, invited them to chase her up among the highly angular rafters of the inn, and ended their contract in a minute.
In the next module, the situation was reversed: get hostile PCs to talk to NPCs. It actually was much like the Orator feat that Ravingdork's character invested in. The perfect five words caused the party to stop the battle and listen.
The Sins of the Saviors module featured the Runeforge, a weapons research lab hidden in the astral plane. It was established as a joint effort by the seven Thassilonian kingdoms 11,000 years ago, and abandoned when those kingdoms fell. Now it was inhabited by undead, demons, constructs, and simulacra. I altered the module and threw a lost tribe in there, the descendents of the researchers trapped there. They had become ferocious and cannabalistic, but still held to three Thassilonian gods: Lissala, the Peacock Spirit, and Desna, except that the first two had become silent. They were in an unending war with the undead that inhabited another part of the Runeforge. Three generations before, they had been at war with a splinter faction of the lost tribe that worshipped the demon-goddess Lamashtu, so to them human strangers meant cultists of Lamashtu.
The party entered their section, destroyed the golem that was their automatic first line of defense, and then the guards rushed them. Both sides were entirely hostile to the other, convinced that the other had attacked first.
The second guard who dropped to negative hit points managed some dying words of encouragement to his fellows in the ancient Thassilonian language, "Save the children. For Desna."
Both Moonrider and the party leader, a lore master, understood ancient Thassilonian. They told the party to switch to defense and asked the guards, "Desna? You worship Desna?" Diplomacy began.
I did not follow the Diplomacy skill check rules; instead, I held a conversation in the middle of battle. Sense Motive was rolled a few times to verify truthfulness. The battle oracle healed the dying guard. The guards remembered that their ancient temple to Desna was decorated with images of lyrakien. They invited the party in as emissaries of Desna from the mythical Prime Material Plane.