Chevalier83's page

actually, he kinda plays all "centered on you" spells like that, so I could've known. That's also part of the reason why I'd love to see a FAQ.

bump

What Splendor said: Its a mechanic to make the game run easier.

However, that's why the game has GMs. Sometimes a GM just has to rule on something and it may not be entirely RAW. For example, if you wanted to cast emergency force sphere, BUT there is for some reason no grid intersection that would allow a legal 5' radius force sphere under the Wall of Force rules about being continuous and unbroken, but there is in fact a legal 5' radius that doesn't align with the grid intersections, the GM can simply allow the PC to cast the spell centered off the grid intersections in the legal space available.

Actually, the case that made me write this post was a GM that fumbled the emergency force sphere because I was in a 2x2 area and he ruled that as the sphere is centered on me it would take half a square of squares that were occupied.

Indeed. That leads to a lot of confusion and I've seen GMs (also in PFS) rule both ways,

The difference is, that the latter is not a 5' radius; it is denoted as "everything in reach"; a Paladin Aura that reads "every target within 5'" would have the same result and is entirely different to the templates for spells.

TL;DR: non-spell rules usually not speak of a radius but of "within X'"; spells give a specific radius for areas of effect

Please hit FAQ ;)

bump. I really would like to hear other opinions on this and maybe get an FAQ ;)

That is what I was thinking, however, a lot of people rule differently. I could also not find anything official (e.g. FAQ on this).

+ in that case an antimagic field would not make any sense on a dragon

I've had problems with Spells that state "centered on you" as part of the area (or effect) description.

Examples would include:

Antimagic Field (http://paizo.com/prd/spells/antimagicField.html)

Emergency Force Sphere (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/emergency-force-sphere)

Similar: Magic Circle against evil (http://paizo.com/prd/spells/magicCircleAgainstEvil.html)

From my understanding, all spells have a clearly defined shape.

Let us start with the Antimagic field as an example:
It states "Area 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you"

http://paizo.com/prd/magic.html:
An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/image/SpellAreas.jpg

We now know what that shape should be, the big question for me is the placement. Nowhere in the chapter "magic" I could find an example of an area effecting spell NOT originating from a grid intersection. However we have the what seems to be more specific rule of "centered on you".

As the area is fix, a spell centered on a field would, from my perspective, have to influence 50% of certain fields. Something I do not know how to handle. This ruling gets even more bizarre when looking at Magic Circle against Evil:

"10-ft.-radius emanation from touched creature"

This spell does not include specific as to how to place the emanation on the creature (i.e. there is no "centered"). This however means, the general rules kick in, stating that emanation has to originate from a grid intersection.

It gets even more complicated when looking at Emergency Force Sphere. Considering that you would go with the "centered on you", that would mean you could under no circumstances cast the emergency force sphere in a 2x10 tunnel, as you cannot stand on a grid intersection. Instead you would need a 3x10 tunnel.

So my question would be: does "centered on you" mean, that I have to chose a specific grid intersection on me or what does that mean and how do you handle that in your games?

Oracle / Dervish Dance Magus / Mystic Theurge / The new broken Prestige Class from Inner Sea gods

Your AC isn't going to be that great, even with Int to AC. In order to use spell combat you have to be spellcasting in melee, which means either moving out of position with 5t steps or casting defensively to avoid AoOs and has the potential for wasted actions.

Since you have a STR of 8 I would willing self nerf power attack and not use it even though it is being given for free as it normally requires a 13 STR.

What arcana do you have?

My 7th level Kensai has an AC of 35 when buffed with shield + mage armor... that is enough for most situations.

Actually the attribute build itself is pretty strong, the feat selection is rather weak. Kensai don't need armor, they get int+dex bonus as dex bonus to AC.

A magus can dish out pretty insane amounts of damage. But you can also run out of resources rather quickly.

Do you get to rest after every encounter? If so, that might be a mistake (unless you bought tons of pearls of power).

@Conman: So, I have 4 players who want to play a marriage. And I have one player that wants to be a jerk because his selection of feats, traits and equipment allows him to do so by RAW. Your solution would be to let him and let him ruin the experience for everyone. My solution would be not to let him, so that 5 out of 6 people have a good time.

Both point of views can be justified using the campaign guideline. I have not experienced, that a Venture Officer has criticised my way of running scenarios yet.

Chevalier83 wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

I'm not quite understanding this. You mean to say that your venture officers are allowing GMs to go against RAW? If so, would I be allowed to drop in some extra NPCs for high-pet parties? That's the "common sense" thing to do, right? You see why this is a bad idea?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, that if you play "The Blakros Matrimony" and your character is coming naked to the ceremony, the guards will throw you out, even though you bluffed them into believing the bride ordered it that way, because that would be common sense in this situation.

I am not sure this is quite the right way to look at this. There are two ways common sense can play into this. It likely doesn't make a lot of sense to the guard that the bride would order the PC to show up to the wedding naked. So common sense, in this instance, would have a serious effect on the DC of the bluff check. It would not cause an auto-fail though, because if history has taught us anything it is that human beings can be made to believe anything. If the bluff check still succeeded, though, then the guard would indeed believe that the bride had ordered the PC to show up naked. Common sense then needs to be applied to how the guard would behave based on actually believing that was the case. My personal experience when you give a functionary a really important decision to make is that they are going to bump this up the chain of command so that they don't take the fall for it just in case they handled it wrong. So common sense to me here would be that the guard would get his commanding officer involved.

Ultimately, by RAW Bluff with that high numbers WILL ruin a scenario if a player insists on it, as there is a set modifier for succeeding on impossible lies.

The bluffing would go up the command chain until the bride arrives. The player could than bluff the bride into believing that she must've forgot, but that according to Erastil it brings luck to touch his private parts. I would rather have stopped the scene right in the beginning.

Chevalier83 wrote:

@ David Bowles: exactly. If one builds a tiefling (rakshasa blooded) sorcerer (rakshasa bloodline) with beguiling liar alternative racial trait and buys the mask of stoney demeanor, maybe gets skill focus bluff and deceitful and manages to pick up a viper familiar, I will not have him ruin all my NPC interaction with bluff, even though the circumstancial modifier for telling an impossible lie is only -20. I will find ways to preserve the consistency of the game and I will find ways that everyone else at the table is still having fun.

For all I know, the player could simply say: I use bluff to get cross the guard naked. I don't know a good excuse, but my character does, as he has bluff +36 and the guard has a sense motive of only +3. In that case (and if the player doesn't accept loopholes e.g. the guard offers you some clothes before letting you in) I will not let him get through with it.

I think this is a case where there is just no possible bluff that's going to work for a naked guest, even though the PC in question can bluff the guy on a nat 1. I haven't actually had too many problems with this kind of thing.

It's not like this happens often. But by RAW, the guards believes. And I have talked to one player with such kind of build before. I am perfectly fine with him bluffing, as long as it's within boundaries that don't ruin the whole scene for everyone else. And if he's being creative and not being a jerk, that actually adds a lot of fun to the scene.

And the problem in this thread is, that there are very little information, aside from "it works by RAW so I am in the right". Yes, intimidation works like that by RAW, buy I am not sure, if I would like to have that scene on my table. Based on the information, I can't judge but I feel that it's unlikely (not speaking about the demoralization part).

@ David Bowles: exactly. If one builds a tiefling (rakshasa blooded) sorcerer (rakshasa bloodline) with beguiling liar alternative racial trait and buys the mask of stoney demeanor, maybe gets skill focus bluff and deceitful and manages to pick up a viper familiar, I will not have him ruin all my NPC interaction with bluff, even though the circumstancial modifier for telling an impossible lie is only -20. I will find ways to preserve the consistency of the game and I will find ways that everyone else at the table is still having fun.

For all I know, the player could simply say: I use bluff to get cross the guard naked. I don't know a good excuse, but my character does, as he has bluff +36 and the guard has a sense motive of only +3. In that case (and if the player doesn't accept loopholes e.g. the guard offers you some clothes before letting you in) I will not let him get through with it.

Chevalier83 wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

I'm not quite understanding this. You mean to say that your venture officers are allowing GMs to go against RAW? If so, would I be allowed to drop in some extra NPCs for high-pet parties? That's the "common sense" thing to do, right? You see why this is a bad idea?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, that if you play "The Blakros Matrimony" and your character is coming naked to the ceremony, the guards will throw you out, even though you bluffed them into believing the bride ordered it that way, because that would be common sense in this situation.

That's totally different. That's not a mechanical effect. GMs have total fiat in regards to NPC reacts that aren't scripted by the author. The GM can not prevent the guard from being bluffed, but the reaction in this case is completely appropriate.

But unless there is a *mechanical* reason a medium humanoid can't intimidate a red dragon, the GM can't stop this from happening in PFS. Just as I can't turn off a cat's bite and claws.

Thank you, now we understand each other. I have no problem with the demoralization attempt. I would always allow demoralization where possible by RAW (e.g. vermin or mindless creatures can't be intimidated). But I would not have all NPCs reacting in a way desired by a particular player, just because of a successful roll, if I feel that the desire does not fit the scene I am playing. And by RAW, this is exactly what can happen with exploitation of social skills.

Chevalier83 wrote:

Maybe they shouldn't, but what do you want to do? Call Mike Brock from your table? And seriously, are you GMing because of the goodies or to "win"? I am not. I am GMing to have a fun time with my players. And usually that will not be the case when a TPK happens. When I GM, I find that I rather will bend the rules to help players in threat of a TPK, for example by not applying the most optimal tactics,

You're not really supposed to do that, either. TPKs are supposed to happen from time to time to keep the threat of failure real. In general, the NPCs are often at a huge disadvantage and it's usually not an issue to be as brutal as possible. Because the druid pet is going to eat them regardless of how brutal you try to be :)

Many encounters have different ways to be played. For example, I can cast silence on a player, allowing him a save DC or I can cast silence on a part of the room, forcing the casters to come to the front-line and get owned by the minions without having the possibility to save. Or I could use another spell this round, for example by deciding the BBEG is rather worried about the brute that seems to cut through his minions than by the casters.

I'm not quite understanding this. You mean to say that your venture officers are allowing GMs to go against RAW? If so, would I be allowed to drop in some extra NPCs for high-pet parties? That's the "common sense" thing to do, right? You see why this is a bad idea?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, that if you play "The Blakros Matrimony" and your character is coming naked to the ceremony, the guards will throw you out, even though you bluffed them into believing the bride ordered it that way, because that would be common sense in this situation.

Maybe they shouldn't, but what do you want to do? Call Mike Brock from your table? And seriously, are you GMing because of the goodies or to "win"? I am not. I am GMing to have a fun time with my players. And usually that will not be the case when a TPK happens. When I GM, I find that I rather will bend the rules to help players in threat of a TPK, for example by not applying the most optimal tactics,

"use common sense and make the experience good for everyone"

That is for cases not covered in RAW. You can't break RAW using the excuse of "common sense". Common sense is a misnomer anyway, because just like "don't be a jerk" common sense is completely subjective from person to person.

PFS GMs just don't have the power they do in homebrew. That's part of the compact when you sign up to GM PFS. You can't overrule a PC if they have RAW on their side. This comes up a lot when GMs try to get creative with grappling and other mechanics that hose up NPCs. Intimidate is no different than grapple in this respect.

I can only repeat myself. I have not made the experience, that this is the way Venture Officers enforce the rules. If it was, I'd simply blacklist people.

Some people seem to be under the impression that either the player has to get his way or the GM has to get his way. I don't see a lot of discussion here about compromise. I don't see a lot of discussion here about just sitting down with the player and explaining how his behavior is causing other people to not have fun, so could he please tone it down some.

I do agree with that statement. Ultimately, a consensus is the way to go. If I understood OP correctly, he and GM talked and they couldn't come to one. Ultimately, after a discussion, if there is no consensus, one has to get his way. And that will always be the GM. The question is whether the GM ignored RAW (which he did) and whether it was justified that he ignored RAW (which is hard to tell, but my impression is no for the demoralization and yes for the shifting alignment part).

Chevalier83 wrote:

You do realize my point is not about the NPCs winning? My point is about players exploiting certain game mechanics in a way that is beyond common sense and in a way that ruins the fun for everyone else.

For me as a GM running a scenario is not about winning. If everyone (or let's say the majority) had fun playing a scenario, than I've accomplished my goal. And if that includes closing an exploit by using loopholes myself or ignoring RAW to some extend I will do that.

The most important thing about playing in PFS is: don't be a jerk. And if someone tries to be one, even within RAW, I will not let him.

That's not your call to make. You are bound to follow RAW as a PFS GM. The "don't be a jerk" rule is really a non-rule, since the interpretation of "jerk" varies from person to person. I could just as easily say you are being a jerk for not letting the PC function as clearly allowed by RAW, so you are the jerk.

This is why we follow RAW. If some features are really too powerful, that needs to be addressed by campaign leadership. Like with master summoners.

The campaign guideline says "stick to RAW", but it also says "use common sense and make the experience good for everyone". You seem to rather tend to the first part of the guideline, I tend to the latter. As stated before, I see this as a grey area and seriously, if the rules would be enforced by campaign management as you state (which I feel is not the case), I would simply blacklist players that I feel are ruining my table.

You do realize my point is not about the NPCs winning? My point is about players exploiting certain game mechanics in a way that is beyond common sense and in a way that ruins the fun for everyone else.

For me as a GM running a scenario is not about winning. If everyone (or let's say the majority) had fun playing a scenario, than I've accomplished my goal. And if that includes closing an exploit by using loopholes myself or ignoring RAW to some extend I will do that.

The most important thing about playing in PFS is: don't be a jerk. And if someone tries to be one, even within RAW, I will not let him.

Legally speaking, the GM can do nothing. That's on the players if that's how they want to roll. As long as their build can stand up to an audit. You must follow RAW to minimize table variation. The "invalidating tactics" clause is not a license for GM fiat. If the NPCs get owned, they get owned. It's really on the authors' heads to set difficulty in scenarios. It is NOT the GMs place to set the difficulty. That's for home brew.

So your solution would be to waste 4-5h of time of 5 people plus the preparation time of the GM just so that one person can have his way?

Mark Stratton wrote:

trollbill wrote:

Is it okay for a PFS GM to put aside RAW for the sake of fun? That depends. Is it okay for a U.S. Judge to put aside the Constitution for the sake of justice?

I admit that is a bit of an extreme example, but in both case you have someone meant to uphold the rules putting themselves above the rules for what they perceive as the betterment of the society.

Actually, those are both good questions, but in the case of PFS, the guide itself DOES provide some authority for GMs to do just that (though, the ability to do so is rightfully constrained.)

The text from the guide you quoted above gives GMs to right to put aside the scenario as written (under heavy constraints). It expressly states GMs don't have the right to put aside RAW.

There are plenty of times in PFS where the rules simply aren't clear and making a judgment on those rules is, in fact, one of the reasons we have GMs. But when you have a GM saying, "I know what RAW is but I am going to ignore it because of X reason," then I think there is a problem.

I have a simple question for you: there is one player trivializing a whole scenario. 4 players and you as a GM don't have fun. You asked the player to stop doing that, but he insists it is his right. His interpretation of the rules is correct. What do you do?

Is it okay for a PFS GM to put aside RAW for the sake of fun? That depends. Is it okay for a U.S. Judge to put aside the Constitution for the sake of justice?

I admit that is a bit of an extreme example, but in both case you have someone meant to uphold the rules putting themselves above the rules for what they perceive as the betterment of the society.

If you say a GM can't than the only solution for a GM would be to ban players he thinks undermine the fun of the table. If that is better from your point of view, that's totally acceptable. That being said, there is one major flaw in your argumentation: a judge's mission is to uphold the law. A GM's mission is to make a session fun for everyone, within the rules. While the Judge has only a single goal, the GM has actually two goals and has to balance both.

@Mark Stratton: I couldn't agree more with that.

Given those information, here is what I would have done:

"The demon gives you a location. [Roll covered sense motive check] Unfortunately you cannot determine whether he tells the truth."

You simply do not get to ignore the rules in PFS, and you seem to know what the rules are. Its not a grey area, you have the rules outlined for you for how intimidate works therefor you are not entitled to go against them. You can choose to do otherwise, but you are in the wrong by PFS rules.

In the example you gave above ("it doesn't matter I just kill you"), you basically ignored the result of the successful bluff check by using a loophole. How is that any different?

I disagree with your last line. I also disagree that the book calls for you to hand waive numerical values. I don't think it makes sense from an "impossible lie" to be listed at -20, but I also don't have to. I am specifically told that it is not my job to. Just like it is not my job to say the mid level barbarian doing 300 damage a round doesn't feel right to me so I am going to say those numbers don't matter.

How would I handle the bluff? If it was at the start of combat, I would probably ask the player to not break the game for everyone else. If he persisted I might deem that the chaotic evil nature of the demon left him just as motivated to kill PC even if he was telling the truth. If this player routinely tried this tactic to invalidate combat, I probably wouldn't sit at his table as a GM or player. If he did it as a last ditch effort when the party was about to wipe, I might roll with it without thinking anything special needed to happen. What I would not do, is say "Numbers don't matter, and because you are at my table your build is wasted."

Look, when I say "I would not have the Balor believe the lie", I'm not saying that I will say to the player "I don't care". I will look for a solution to ignore the result, without just saying "no", as you describe with the chaotic nature. The result however is the same.

My job as a GM is to make a session fun for everyone. And if I have to use common sense on a design flaw I will do that. If the player thinks, this was unjustified he can talk to my venture captain about that. Ultimately this will most likely result in me not GMing for that player anymore, if I feel that this is a consistent thing. As a GM I too have the right to enjoy running a scenario. This game is about consensus, not about "being right by RAW".

That being said, this is how all GMs I know handle running a scenario. Some will allow more shenanigans than others, but ultimately all will use common sense to stop players from what they feel would destroy a scene.

You seem to be pretty much admitting that you would be in the wrong to disallow the intimidate on a demon is PFS. You would be wrong to not allow it, you appear to be aware of that but you would do it anyway?

Your example is easily dealt with by a sensible GM, "If that is true then if I kill you I will never have existed to kill you, guess I have nothing to loose ragggghhhh!"

No, I do not admit that I'm in the wrong for disallowing. I say, that it is perfectly fine if a GM uses common sense to handle skill checks and that different GMs will judge differently.

By the way: the "dealing by the sensible GM" is exactly what I would have done in my example - not letting the player have an advantage through that skill roll, because it is nuts. However, there seems to be a fraction that claims "I succeeded on my roll, screw the credibility of the world" and that is an attitude I dislike.

My point is that social skills can be exploited. Part of a GMs job is, to decide at what point he feels that a skill check should work (given there are no specifics on the roll in the scenario). I also expressed, that I would have been fine with the demoralizing (i.e. applying shaken condition on a drake), but not with the intimidation (change of behaviour) of a demon / devil given the described circumstances. I think however this is a grey area case and GMs will decide differently here.

And the reason for the "ridiculous extreme to make my unsupported argument appear to hold water": people in this thread keep saying, that "it's in the rules so it must work". My +56 Bluff is also in the rules. Should it work? My point is, that whether it should work or not is to be judged by the GM at the table and as long as he is consistent in his decisions that is perfectly fine.

You have however the right to talk to a venture officer about this.

This does not
mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in
this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right
for your table during cases not covered in these sources.

Fine, let me give an example. I can (did it on herolab) create a PFS legal character that has +56 on bluff when telling a lie (10th level).

Say this character meets a balor with +30 on sense motive. Say this character wears a clown costume and a wooden sword. The Balor for some reason wants to kill the character and the character says:

"I am a time traveler and about to become your father. If you kill me now, you will cease to exist. If you don't obey my command, I will not impregnate your mother and you will cease to exist."

Now this is an impossible lie (modifier -20). Even though, the character would beat the Balor's sense motiv with a 73% possibility, I would not have the Balor believe the lie.

Having said that, the difference between this example and intimidating a demon is only a matter of interpretation.

Fine, if you want to talk rules, let's talk rules:

The leadership of this organized play community

assumes that you will use common sense in your
interpretation of the rules. This includes being
courteous and encouraging a mutual interest in
playing, not engaging in endless rules discussions.
While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the
others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them
from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

It is impossible for the campaign management staff to

cover every possible situation or rules interpretation. As such,
you may encounter rules combinations or questions during
the course of a scenario that aren’t covered in this book or
the official Pathfinder Society FAQ. In these cases, the Game
Master has the freedom to adjudicate the rules as needed to
ensure a fun and fair gaming experience is had by all.

A Game Master (GM) is the person who adjudicates the

rules and controls all of the elements of the story and world
that the players explore. A GM’s duty is to provide a fair
and fun game.

A GM has to find a balance between fair and fun. If he thinks, that a player is exploiting a rule beyond common sense, he may interprete the rule otherwise. He has the freedom to adjudicate the rules as needed to ensure that everyone has a fun and fair gaming experience.

From a RAW perspective the intimidation was perfectly legit. However your GM took his freedom to adjudicate the rules as he felt this was needed to ensure the fun of the rest of the group. Is this unfair to you? Probably! Would every GM have done this? Probably not.

Rapanuii: This is a public forum. If you dislike people expressing their opinion in a public forum, don't visit one. PFS is a public game. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, don't play it. Neither PFS nor this forum is about you. It's about consensus and getting along with each other and I feel you have a problem with that.

Regarding the reading comprehension part: Yes, mechanically, Xerxes would be your b+$$!. However I would not allow this at my table, because I don't like that scene. Get it now?

You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.

I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.

Yeah, Xerxes was clearly acting friendly and intimidated after Leonidas intimidated him successfully. Maybe that's why he sent his army and had them all killed.

And the limit is never the imagination. The limit is the question whether the group has fun or not. And when I'm feeling, that an action by a player spoils the fun for the rest of the group, the action won't work. On an unrelated note: if I feel that something is fun for everyone, but I don't find a mechanical reference for it, I may allow it nonetheless.

@Chevalier83, your views on how the mechanic of intimidate make me not want to talk to you ever, and not respect your opinion. I'm not trying to be offensive, but honestly, that is too much.

You obviously lack reading comprehension. To quote myself:

Yes, you are probably right in your statement about the rules.

I role play, and you have offended me quite enough, especially by saying otherwise with your ignorant position of assuming I'm a min/max player. I invest a lot of time into this game, and you have been acting pretty subtle in disusing your insulting behavior at me.

Again, I expressed that I don't see min/max as a judgement and that I min/max myself. I only expressed, that there a people who dislike that kind of play style. And looking in you previous thread titles ("PFS Bluff TO THE MAX", "Intimidation boosting items (PFS)"), I got that impression. Again, that is something I see as perfectly legit, as long as you play your character in a way that suits the table.

The fluff in consideration to the rules doesn't matter, but you are telling me of how important they are while saying you disagree with this mechanic working. The fluff that I have been fighting for is how the mechanic reflects when you roll the dice. You roll, beat the check, and not your character through their stats reflects what is happening. My guy goes to the demon and doesn't give a s#~& where he is from. HE IS THE DUDE THAT INTIMIDATES DEMONS, AND THAT'S THAT! That demon could have absolutely no respect for humans, and off-handedly disrespects them being weak or whatever. Well today, he met THE GUY, and he is feeling unpleasant about it.

And this is exactly the point where I don't like you attitude. If you go to the enemy warchief alone and he is surrounded by his army your +100 intimidate isn't worth s$*~. Period. If you don't like that, go find yourself someone who wants to play your game. And this is exactly where I can understand your GM.

This game is not only about rules.

And again, yes, mechanically you were right.

The second a character starts a hostile action, I let them roll initiative. And casting a charm monster is definitely that.

Furthermore, there is a severe difference between spells and skills: skills can be used all day long and the bonuses can very easily be exploited. A 8th level PC would probably never be able to charm a Balor with a +25 Will save. A 27 (-4 on the check due to size) on an intimidate check is far easier to accomplish though.

E.g. +3 Skill Focus, +4 Cha, +3 Class Skill, +4 Intimidating Prowess, +8 Ranks makes a +22 before items, giving a chance of over 50% even before magic items. Does this mean I let this character attitude shift intimidate all NPCs in an adventure? Heck, no!

Chevalier83 wrote:

He was trying to change the attitude of a demon with intimidation. And people are making comparisons to illustrate a point. Just because a character works mechanically by "RAW", doesn't mean it is a fun or good thing to do. And if a character destroys an adventure because "it is the build", I am going to stop that at my tables.

He was using a skill check to impose a debuff condition. That's how the game works. Get off your righteous high horse.

To quote myself from Page 2:

Usually I would allow a demoralize check for most opponents since you sacrifice a standard action. Furthermore the game impact is not as severe as in the first example.

However, he had 2 examples, one being to change the attitude of a hostile (?) demon by applying intimidation. And I'm not on a righteous high horse, I'm simply saying that I don't think, that this is a scene I would like to have in my adventure.

@ Rapanuii: Roleplaying adventures are about imagination. To the most, fluff is more important than pure mechanical rules. Yes, you are probably right in your statement about the rules. However, I feel that the action (for BigDTBone: the attitude shift, not the demoralization attempt) destroys the atmosphere of the encounter and can understand the GM and would have probably done the same. And this has nothing to do with "it's not magic".

He was trying to change the attitude of a demon with intimidation. And people are making comparisons to illustrate a point. Just because a character works mechanically by "RAW", doesn't mean it is a fun or good thing to do. And if a character destroys an adventure because "it is the build", I am going to stop that at my tables.

The GM didn't say just because, he said because I find it unlikely, that a demon will change its behavior due to intimidation. He has an idea about the world he wants to present you and your actions don't fit with that idea.

I get the impression that you are a min / maxer, because you expressed that you don't care about fluff but only about RAW. Consider however, that I don't use min / maxer judgemental. I have a powergaming char myself and I like playing bonekeep with it for example.

However, if the GM feels that your build limits the fun for the rest of the group either by making encounters trivial, or by damaging the consistency of the world I can understand his reaction. When I play my Magus, I don't bother if the GM says please hold back in this adventure, because your character is too strong. If I go to the king's wedding in rags, I expect to be kicked out, no matter how good my diplomacy or bluff score is.

Rapanuii: if I recall correctly, you initiated a thread called "My GM is a madman" before. I guess this was a different one. If you are consistently having problems with GMs, you might consider, that you are the constant factor in the equation and question your behavior. You seem like a Min Maxer and some GMs don't like that. Furthermore you don't seem to take it well when people criticize you. You should be more concerned about these facts than about "winning" in this game.

To my mind, the rules for social skills in general and intimidate in particular are poorly written. Do the rules indicate that intimidate works for any opponent? Yes! However, this traits indicates otherwise:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/faith-traits/unnatural-presence-old-cults

From my perspective, the poor writing of social skills can screw over the authenticity of the world.

Regarding the intimidation of the devil / demon: if I as a DM don't want that a creature is intimidated in such a way, I will simply have it attack or discontinue the conversation before the one minute mark. The result is the same as if I just said "no, it doesn't work", the only difference is, that it's mechanically valid.

Regarding the demoralize: as stated, nothing in the rules section of intimidate indicates that it doesn't work for animals. However, the aforementioned trait does. Usually I would allow a demoralize check for most opponents since you sacrifice a standard action. Furthermore the game impact is not as severe as in the first example.

As a sidenote I'd like to add, that the first rule when playing PFS should be, that all players are haveing fun. Even if an action would be mechanically (by RAW) valid, it may not lead to that goal. If you are not losing a character over a rules question, leave it be and enjoy the game.

Got a question regarding Ocher Rhomboid Ioun Stone:

The item says activating an ocher rhomboid ioun stone is an evil act that shifts your alignment one step toward evil unless you receive the benefits of an atonement spell.

I think about GMing the scenario. Is it possible to give the boon to a neutral character and than atone him?

Hi all,

Clear Spindle resonsance power says:
"Protection from possession and mental control (as protection from evil)."

Does this mean, that the power only works against mind control from evil spells or creatures, or does this mean this power function as the spell, but works on mind control from all sources?

Actually, I'd rather take Magus / Cleric... you need 2 level of magus to gain spell strike and spell combat and you need magical lineage (Shocking Grasp). You can take Int / Wis and than use guided hand (feat) to add wis to hit.

Hi folks,

we are playing RotRL and I think about playing an EK as I have an awesome story that fits that class very well. The alternative would be to go pure wizard.

The EK would be a universalist build further gimping my spellcasting. I also lose 2 levels of spell progression due to 1 level of fighter.

I was wondering what stats an EK should have lategame (say around level 15) to be a relevant close combat fighter. A quick build I made would be around the following:

+21 / +12 / +26 (quickened true strike) to hit, 3d6 +30 +1d6 acid (15-20 x 2) (power attack / furious focus included)
40 AC; saves between +12 and +16; ~130 HP

all calculated using monstrous physique III and shield; haste is not included.

DCs for high level CC spells would be 25.

So the question is, whether the EK build will be contributing. What do you guys think?

you can substitute the spell by taking +5

@Rapanuii: I'm pretty serious. You are in rules forum and call your GM a "madman" for not following Pathfinder rules. Yet you fail to see, that even though he may have taken a specific item from 3.5, that item is perfectly legal within the pathfinder rules. You even call it "he got caught, and we fixed it immediately". Personally, as a DM, I would not like to have a player with such a behavior. Even more so, as you claim to "defend your agreement of using Pathfinder rules", while you yourself make errors regarding the rules.

Pathfinder explicitly allows the creation of magic items. He can create a wisdom item in whichever slot he pleases. If one of my players started argueing about an item I created for the game, I'd simply find another player.

yeah, if I want a level 5 cohort, I'd surely craft constructs for 12k GP each, instead of going necromancer and haveing 50 hit dices of creatures for 2.5k GP total... (and needing less feats and less time to create them)