Huma's page

Yeah the fact there doesn't need to be an extra smite feat.

Smite is enough as is and much more powerful than any of what the other "extra" feats give (in most cases... stares meaningfully and menancingly at the oracle and its revelations).

Smite is only usable on evil targets. While it is incredibly powerful against evil targets, it's completely worthless against anything of any other alignment. Sure, most groups in most DnD campaigns will more often than not be fighting opponents with an evil alignment, but my usual DM has PLENTY of neutral or non-aligned targets.

There should be a feat that adds one smite per day.

Question about Aura of Justice...

For the paladin, what kind of action is it to use Aura of Justice? For the allies, is it only a free action (not a swift) to use the granted smite evil when their turn comes up?

"At 11th level, a paladin can expend two

I would say when the allies use smite evil, they use smite evil which is a swift. So the note about it being a free action is talking about the paladin using aura of justice in this way.

Anyone who has ever shot a bow in real life knows it would be very silly to have a blowgun take longer to reload than a bow.

Nocking an arrow requires you to rotate the arrow nock so that the "V" is appropriately positioned in relation to the bowsting. You also have to ensure this nock is placed on the bowstring at the correct place (normally between two small markers on the bowstring). This step alone in my opinion takes longer than putting a dart in a tube.

This is all supposed to be done while the bow is pointing in a safe direction so as to not misfire on an ally. Then you have to point the bow and draw the arrow in one motion. This is the "fluid motion" most people are talking about.

After that step you can aim and release.

In my opinion, loading a bow is a free action because of how many people think of archery in fantasy combat. A great example of this can be seen by Legolas and his ridiculous reload action in the Lord of the Rings movies. While he's supposed to be an epic character, and the argument can be made that in Pathfinder a heroic archer could be just as epic...I would think those epic skills could be used to reload a much easier device such as a blowgun.

The rules assume such critters have been averaged, not given max and not rolled. The rules assume they have a set amount at any set level.

The rules assume they do. The rules do not require they do. They assume they do for ease of use for a DM.

I am still gonna say by RAW yes you take average, Just like by RAW you get max HP for your first class level HP. The book stills says for NPC's and monsters "Assume the rolls are average" at lest twice.

The context of those sentences makes it quite plain what they mean. They are saying that when you look up a monster in the bestiary and are looking at their stat blocks, when it lists their HP that number should be assumed to be the average.

It never says you have to use the average, and I don't think it makes sense to list the average HP AND the type of hit die to use for a roll, and then say that you're not supposed to roll it. If that's what they wanted, they would have listed their HD level and hit points per level and be done with it.

But a far better explanation in my opinion is that they listed the average and said we should assume the HP listed are an average is because they wanted to make it easier for a DM to roll up enemy encounters quickly, but give them the information and detail to roll things up completely from scratch.

Yeah, I'd do two checks.

Having a spell resistance can be entirely negative if a party member is trying to heal you as I dont believe you can volunteer to fail a spell resist check.

I've always been under the impression you can do that, just like you can volunteer to fail a save.

A low level LG character lives in a backwoods rural town. A caster/being of immense power sneaks into town and starts to control others, essentially trying to set himself up as mayor/lord of that area. The LG character figures this out, fights against it, angering the caster.

The caster frames the LG character for some horrible crime (rape or murder of children, desecration of bodies, something to that effect) and messages him. If he does not turn himself in and admit to this crime the caster will turn this town to ash and disappear. If he attempts to tell anyone else of what has really occurred he will level the town and disappear.

It has been made clear to the LG character he has absolutely no chance of fighting this being, and knows this caster will find out if he attempts to ride to another town to warn others. To make matters worse his wife and children live in this town. They will all die if he doesn't turn himself in. Reluctantly, and at the end of his rope, he does so. They mark him with some sign of incredible shame, like a tatoo, etc.

The night before his execution the evil caster secretly rescues him and sets him free, completing his vengeance upon him since he loves the idea of a good person tormented like this. He must wander the earth an outcast, hunted, spit upon. He must never tell a soul of what truly transpired here or the caster will go through with the destruction of the town.

What does this character do, or any good adventuring party that meets him and figures out the true story? Plenty of law vs chaos role playing and spice!

Have your character start urinating on things.

My friends and I that play have played together many years. We've had an assortment of DMs that have come and gone, and there was one who acted this exact way.

We kind of made a pact to start being reckless, etc, because it wasn't that fun of a campaign anyways. So when the dragon would tell us to complete this quest or we'd die, someone would inevitably urinate on his leg. Or when the king thanked us for saving his daughter, someone would grab her ass and urinate on the banquet table.

Sometimes it takes a few tries to get the hint across. But as DM their job is to create, to make things fun. Their job is NOT to satisfy a lack of self confidence by killing off PCs and pretending there is some kind of contest in this imaginary world where they play god. If they can't handle that, urinate on the game world.

I personally have a strict no-cheaters policy in my games. I don't cheat as a GM (and I don't fudge dice, give bonus Hp, and so forth; not even to save your butt). I'll sometimes use a screen or something for quick references (and having a cool piece of art on the PC side is nice), but most of the time I'll be rolling on the table in the open ('cause many times I don't have a screen handy), or using my arm to make secret checks like Perception and the like. My players know I don't cheat, ever.

The GM is all powerful, omnipotent, makes the rules to the universe when they run a game. You quite literally are god, author, director, whatever you want to call it in the fantasy realm everyone at the table is taking part in. I don't think there is any way to "cheat" as GM. You simply create.

I've made the argument before that a GM who runs a game that the party constantly wipes in is not good at GMing, same as a GM whose combat is easy to steamroll every time.

I would agree though that enabling a player to cheat is not wise nor is it being their friend, and the ways to break it to them vary. There are ways to tell them that let them know at the same time you want them to remain a friend, and there are ways that will turn their embarrassment into resentment.

That's due to the dog's statistics, not the rules for Intimidate. Nothing stops a dog having a high Charisma, skill ranks and feats to make him intimidating. A designer could even give some breeds racial bonuses.

Almost every single healthy bull terrier, mastiff, doberman, or shepherd has the ability to kill a person or seriously maim them. It has nothing to do with their charisma. It has everything to do with what they can do to a person and common knowledge of what they can do to a person. That's what I'm getting at. Intimidation checks don't take into account the ability of whatever it is that is trying to intimidate you to harm you.

NPCs can act rationally based on their own knowledge without any skill checks being rolled. The level 30 wizard just can't make an arrogant young barbarian reconsider when she starts thinking she can take him before he gets a spell off.

That wizard has no bonus to intimidation based off of his innate power. His intimidation check is just as easy to save against as a level 1 shop keep. The skill is quirky.

My group is full of optimizers and the way our DM handles it is that it is understood his things don't have to come from the book.

The point of DMing is not just to follow the rules to create a fun combat. The point is to create fun combat (and role playing, etc, etc).

Example: Our DM has told us this exact thing happens several times a campaign when he's running. He spends a few days creating a powerful monster to give us one hell of a showdown. He uses things from the books. He doesn't cheat.

During combat, we take it to half health in the first round and we are hardly scratched. Out comes the old pencil and adds a zero to the end of it's initial HP pool, and a ten get's added to pretty much any attack, defense, skill, and ability check.

Altering a monster mid combat is cheap, but if you do it right and don't change anything they have already figured out (such as they already hit a 30 AC so you can't change it to a 40 AC now) then it can be seamless and make the combat more surprising.

I guess I'm just totally confused here. It appears very straightforward to me.

RAW: After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities.

I cannot wrap my brain around the idea that even though the book clearly states this is a consequence that happens minutes after the successful intimidate check, some people think it should happen immediately regardless of success or not, which flies directly in the face of RAW and in my opinion all but the most illogical and wrecklessly subjective RAI.

Oh. I thought it was vice-versa. I thought "EVERYONE" (virtually - I'm not one for overdramatic absolutes) agreed that the OP got a bit borked with the ruling that the NPC wasn't affected at all.

Everyone agrees if the check was successful there would be consequences when it wore off. What people are in disagreement with is the idea of what happens if the check succeeds. Some people seem to think nothing happens if the check succeeds and you skip right to the negative consequences. This goes against all logic.

And the OP certainly disagreed that there would be any reason to call the guards (the "no no no, I'm not intimidating like that" defense). So I'm not sure your "NO ONE" statement applies, either.

The OP disagreed the guards should have been called right away if the check succeeded, which he was fairly certain it did. The OP had NO problem with the consequences stated in RAW that come after the intimidate check wears off. He has said several times he was anticipating enjoyment from the role play of those consequences.

And I never said differently. In fact, I clearly said: "The NPC may or may not report you to local authorities - at his/her discretion." Why would you think otherwise?

I don't, I failed to read the last sentence of your post before responding apparently. Others have continually implied calling the guards was the ONLY option upon success or failure of the intimidate check.

The reason I emphasized the NO ONE and EVERYONE is because for some reason there has been erroneous post after post citing the negative consequences of successful intimidate checks as what should happen immediately, and it continues to surface here on page 7.

Huma wrote:

RAW plainly states how Intimidate affects NPCs and what it is capable of.

Indeed it does. And it also says: "After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities."

So when people cheeseball their way through Intimidate and say "No no no! I'm not intimidating that way!" ... well, yeah, y'are. Whether you like it or not.

The NPC may or may not report you to local authorities - at his/her discretion. Using Intimidate gives them the legitimate reason to do so.

NO ONE has said there are no consequences to intimidation checks, successful or otherwise, including the OP.

EVERYONE agrees there are negative consequences to intimidation checks.

The problem is the OP received the consequences of a failed result, or the consequences that come when the successful intimidate check wears off without ever receiving the benefits of the successful check.

Now we could go into how we don't really know if he succeeded the check, and if it failed then yes the shop keep reacted perfectly within normal rulings. But the implication was that he succeeded in the check.

In no universe did Pathfinder's authors intend for skills used in normal situations to give the same consequence whether they fail or succeed.

1. nonviolent threats ... Like the boss threatening to fire you, or the fellow merchant threatening with mercantile repercussions.

2. Finally, its RAW. You can dislike it
3. The OP expected consequences. Nobody denies consequences. NOONE. Why does everyone keep pretending otherwise?

1) Not possible, ever. I can't be intimidated without threat of violence. I suspect most are the same.

No. Some simple examples:

Playing sports. If your 2-14 basketball team is going up against the undefeated national champs last year, undefeated this year, and their average height is 6 inches taller than your average height...someone, somewhere on your team will be intimidated a little at least.

Giving a speech to a large crowd. Standing in front of a large group to give a speech, or sing, or dance can be intimidating. They do not fear the crowd will hurt them or throw rocks, but are intimidated nonetheless. Not everyone is, but many are.

There are hundreds of books written about how to ask your boss for a raise without being intimidated. Intimidation does NOT equal threats of physical violence 100% of the time.

2) We differ on the meaning of the RAW, so saying "it's RAW deal with it" is pointless, because we both can say that.

Interpretation of the meaning of RAW is RAI by definition is it not? I think you are differing on RAI, not RAW. RAW plainly states how Intimidate affects NPCs and what it is capable of. No where does it say it HAS to be threats of physical violence, but that it can include verbal threats.

RAW says, "You can use this skill to frighten your opponents OR to get them to act in a way that benefits you." Further down, "If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, OR otherwise offers limited assistance.

RAW also states, "You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 x 10 minutes with a successful check" Force. I have yet to see someone support the idea that calling the guards is someone acting as if "forced to act friendly" towards you.

3) The OP explicitly demanded no consequences when he said he made no direct threats in the Intimidate. No threats of violence means he demanded a Diplomacy yet he rolled an Intimidate.

No where did the OP "demand" no consequences. In fact quite the opposite. He stated several times he was anticipating enjoyment from role playing the consequences he expected according to the rules. The DM gave him the consequences of a failed check when his check succeeded which is why he came here asking if he was interpreting it wrong. Not once did he demand anything.

I've already covered why no threats of violence can still be an intimidate check.

More and more of these posts are talking about how diplomacy is a better skill to use in that situation. Every post that mentions the negative consequences of intimidate and goes on to say he should have used diplomacy is not remembering the concept of role playing a character.

Recently my DM told me that my character had picked up an item that was altering the way he looks at the world. My vision of good and evil was becoming more and more black and white. He said my character was going to stop questioning tricky situations concerning good and evil, essentially that the "grey" area was fading away for him.

If an evil man cried out for mercy before I was going to kill him and stop him from harming someone, I would have NO qualms about cutting his head off. This point of view was starkly different than the character I had created. He fully explained he knew he was taking control of a part of my character and it was all part of the story. I explained I would role play it to the best of my ability, but that I didn't like where my character was going. He told me to not worry, just role play it.

There are dozens of people on this forum who would respond with, "But that attitude will make him come into conflict with certain people, it would be much wiser for him to remain merciful and compassionate." That's not the POINT. The point is to play a character.

The OP is playing a country boy who isn't used to haggling with cheating shop keeps. He is ready to confront anyone he thinks is cheating him.

The OP could have said to himself, well I want to keep my character safe so I won't be that obtuse while I'm in town...and he would have failed to play the character he created. This is beyond contestation, since HE is the one who decided that is what his character is like! I really don't get why this is so hard to understand.

He was fully prepared, in fact anticipating, the role playing that would ensue from his walking into town and having to adapt to an urban area. He should be rewarded for being such an interesting player.

On a side note: Mr Fishy, when someone calls me fat, says it's impossible to intimidate him in any way while admitting he's been intimidated by something, says he blows off guns pointed in his face and used to pedal drugs...and THEN another poster says I was trolling THEM not the other way around, it makes me snicker...

I came across this post because I had the same question, because when I found the Dazzling Display feat I was confused.

I would say the context implies a demoralize is against one opponent, otherwise Dazzling Display is utterly worthless. I think that's your answer.

But the actual text in the book for Intimidate is NOT as cut and dry as others are saying here. While people continue highlighting the places where it's used in singular form they are ignoring where it's used in plural form. "You can use this skill to cause your opponents to become shaken...You can only threaten opponents in this way if they are within 30 feet."

It is a unique skill along with Bluff and Diplomacy in that common sense would dictate it would work on more than one person at a time. Common sense would tell us that when the big minotaur roars, crumbles a boulder into dust, and says, "Your heads are next!" that the entire party may be affected by the intimidation he is emanating, not just a single target.

Intimidate is a funny skill anyways due to the fact a medium sized guard dog would have a very low intimidate check. But in a real world situation that is exactly what they are used for, to intimidate people into not wanting to break in, etc. In most role-playing games Intimidate checks do not take into account things that would most certainly intimidate many people.

Take a level 30 wizard who is hunched over, only 5 feet tall, and with no ranks in intimidate, but can turn you into dust with a snap of his fingers. The knowledge alone that he has that kind of power would cause most people to treat him with either the utmost respect or stay away from him altogether out of fear.

Lots of good and bad solutions here.

I would say don't punish the others for a cheat in the group in any way. Don't make them roll big dice, don't make them roll in a tray in front of you, etc, and don't punish yourself either. Don't alter your storyline or change your mobs or do any extra work to get around confronting a cheater.

Talk to him. In private is probably best, but talk to him.

My friends and I had to do this once to a good friend and it was just pressures in his life. We all knew he was cheating and we all talked to him, but not in a mean way, more in a "Look dude, we like you and we want to bring this up because it has been bothering us." We also brought up that it's not that big a deal, it's a dice roll in a role playing game. Emphasize that it's not about the dice rolls, it's about the fact he's being dishonest with you, and even though it's a very small matter, it has been bothering you and the others.

Our friend immediately corrected the problem, apologized, etc. The main thing was that he actually was our friend though and was really only doing it because he likes to impress his friends, be the best, that kind of thing. If your cheat doesn't care about your friendship or the others there, he will probably react negatively and the relationships may be severed or severely hurt. That's not your fault, it's his.

Bottom line, if he truly is your friend it will work out in the long run to confront him and it will make you and the others feel better too.

Well, considering personal responsibility isn't in your lexicon apparently (and I'll give you a hint: the "drug pusher" stereotype is largely fictional propaganda, drugs sell themselves, no pushing required)]

Who says I don't think people are fully responsible for their own actions. I find it comical you think someone who sells a substance riddled with theft, rape, and murder completely irresponsible for any of that though...

I just assume you exercise little in your personal habits.

I know, it's called ad hominem. Attack the debater rather than the debate.

No because now I wear the uniform of my country, and being intimidated in a conflict zone and 'becoming helpful' to an armed aggressor would have some pretty dire consequences... dont you think?

I do indeed. But again, we're not talking about you, an armed and trained military personnel. We're talking about a shop keep and a guy claiming he laughs at guns put in his face, in fact blows them off.

I'm sure they train you to take it seriously at least when a gun is pointed at you. I'm sure they train you that a gun can indeed kill you and should be respected, that when you draw your weapon or point it at someone you do so with the willingness to pull the trigger...

I think the part you are missing is that Intimidate is really NOT about 'I want 10cents off a Snickers or I'll write a bad blog about you', thats trivialising the skill beyond belief.

Yes...it can be. That's the entire point. You're sticking to "Intimidate can only mean threats of physical violence"? Several different examples have been given to prove that is completely untrue.

Anyways, I'm out for the day. Cheers.

Another part of my life experience: people who are easily intimidated have a lot of fun in prison. Much better to get your ass kicked a couple times and prove your willing to fight than cave in like a punk.

A successful Intimidate check does not mean your opponent caves in.

Furthermore, I didn't "ruin" anyone's lives any more than Hostess or McDonalds ruined yours.

Fascinating. Are you now implying I'm fat? Have you brought out the big 'ad hominem' guns?

For real man. That's great. You pedaled drugs. You laugh at people pointing guns at you. Et cetera...

Now, trying to intimidate me is likely to get you shot... oh wait.. maybe thats not so different :p

Wonderful, two guys willing to kill someone because they said "Hey you cheat, give me a fair price or I want to speak to your corporate office."

If you think anyone is going to take you serious here...

And, believe it or not, there are quite a few people who don't intimidate easily. Feel fear? Sure. Cave because of it? Nope. Daniel Pearl proves this. Dude was scared, but he didn't cave in, knowing full well they were going to kill him. Didn't give them the satisfaction.

Some people have balls, some people go through life getting rolled because they were born without them. It happens.

Dude...

You realize we're talking about the skill in pathfinder that says they will offer "limited assistance"? No where does it say they cave in completely and are quivering on the floor. In fact someone brought up a great point as that could be the result of a failed Intimidate check on a prisoner, rendering them useless for questioning.

And Daniel Pearl? Are you saying you think he made his statement of his own volition? You know, the whole anti-Israel, anti-American, and comparing Guantanamo Bay to being beheaded on video statement? You sure you don't think maybe part of that was thought up by his anit-Israel, anti-American captors? lol...

Okay, I'm not being drawn into such an off topic subject anymore.

Considering the business I was in, caving in would have been far more dangerous. And when Snickers bars go for $20k a kilo, I might die for one...

Ooookay houstonderek, I'm sorry man but a Pathfinder Intimidation thread is not the place to bring up your drug pedaling criminal background as evidence for alteration of a skill and the reasoning behind your beef with it.

If you're being honest, I'd point out that you were in fact intimidated by the outcome of giving in to his request, at least it sounds that way. As I said, people in that rough of a situation know who not to cross and who's "intimidate checks" to not blow off.

I'd also ask you how many kids you think OD'd on your product, how many lives were ruined, and how you feel about that. I'd point out, if I believed you, that dying for 20k is pathetic. I can understand why you would laugh at a gun pointed at you when you're willing to die for $20k. I'd also question how you survived in such an industry when your life was so meaningless to you.

I'd ask as well if you were NOT intimidated by the consequences of stealing $20k or more of product? I'm sure you DIDN'T do that out of good old honest loyalty right? lol...

Suffice to say, I think you should cut the crap. I'm pretty good at smelling BS and...*joker points a finger at the TV*

I guess I'm not human. I've had a gun held to my head in Mexico and thought it was kind of funny. I thought it was a poor way to try and get me to change suppliers, actually.

You obviously didn't believe he was going to pull the trigger, and you were obviously correct. That's a failed "intimidate check" my friend. That means your wisdom was high enough to tell his threats weren't serious.

Unless you're seriously suggesting you were willing to die rather than change suppliers...what on earth else are you willing to die for? Candy bars? That crosses the line between brave and stupid, no offense.

And the whole concept of intimidate making someone "friendly" is a farce. It makes them intimidated (if the check succeeds), and if they have any kind of power, it makes them resentful and dangerous.

That's the point of the skill check in the first place. People can attempt to Intimidate someone and fail. What happens when they do? Generally that person because "resentful and dangerous" depending on the level of physical violence that was threatened.

You're taking the position that some people are so immune to intimidation that no check, no matter how high, would work on them. No one can say that's impossible. But even someone working in a rough place in a rough neighborhood would know the people to not mess with. They would know the people that if they don't believe the "intimidate check" they will die.

kingpin wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Someone tried to intimidate me once when I was a merchant. It didn't go well for them.

He failed his roll then.

No, some people just don't take well to the attempt in general. In my case, dude could have rolled a natural 20 and had 20 ranks and I still would have blown him off.

No, it means he failed the roll in the Pathfinder universe. You're saying if he walked in with dynamite strapped to his chest, a detonator in his hand, and a very very crazy look in his eye and said, "Give me that snicker's bar for 25 cents or I won't wait to kill myself till after I leave your shop!!!" you would shrug, remain unaffected, and what...blow the guy off?

We're not talking about real life, we're talking about Pathfinder rules. Regardless, there is a point at which you would be intimidated or you're not human.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I've given my answers. And asked for yours, which you have not given.

I can, I figured you knew my position.

1. I don't think (except is very unique situations) any successful use of a skill should result in exactly what the book says a FAILURE will result in. That's what happened, the shop keep reacted unfriendly towards him which should only happen on a failure or after the Intimidate wears off except in very extreme situations.

2. I most certainly think any skill, including Intimidate, should be useful in more than one or two rare situations.

3. I do indeed consider that statement intimidating to a cheating business owner, and I have used it on one hapless airline business, and it did indeed work.

4. I do not consider the statement to be threatening violence, nor do I consider that to make it a failed intimidate check automatically as you do.

5. N/A since I don't think it's fair to add the negatives of a skill check before you actually get to use the skill check. I believe that makes the skill worthless, and I'm pretty sure that's not the intent of the authors.

6. When I said role play is role play, I meant some people play their characters "wrong" according to others so as to induce role play. Getting too drunk on purpose before you have to take turn at standing watch isn't playing "wrong", it's playing a character. Why does this need to be explained?

7. I do not find the shop keeps actions to be friendly. I find them to be exactly what he would do upon exiting the effect of intimidation or upon a failed check IF the intimidate check had been threatening physical violence. I think the DM screwed up big time for punishing someone for rolling high.

Let's just leave it at the fact that we disagree.

My viewpoint is that there are times that intimidate will not get you any outcome that you want, whether or not you succeed. If you substitute the word Linguistics, or Acrobatics, or Stealth. Making a "massive" roll in any of these would still fail to gain you a higher price for your goods. As they are also inappropriate skills for the situation.

Enjoy your game. I'll enjoy mine. Cheers!

I agree sometimes a skill won't work no matter how big your roll. But I ask AGAIN, do you think all shop keeps are immune to intimidation? You consider intimidation to be just as inappropriate as linguistics when haggling?

Those are indeed inappropriate skills for the situation, as none of them can force someone to act friendly towards you upon succeeding. Again, this wasn't him asking the king for his crown, or asking the shop keep to kill his son. He was essentially haggling, and anyone who has haggled in real life knows that intimidation is indeed a great tool when dealing with someone dishonest. The more you discuss this, the more it appears you have never confronted anyone on the price of anything you have ever purchased.

We shall indeed agree to disagree.

To the OP, I would recommend linking these pages to your DM or at least copying and pasting some of the countering logic and giving it to him.

Let me esplain...no too long, let me sum up:

Brother Elias, you agree his roleplay was not threatening violence, and therefore assume the check failed because of that since it was an intimidate check. You also assume any successful intimidate check must incorporate physical threats of violence.

Yet you also say a failed check should result in something like

hehe. Nice try sonny. Tell it to someone who cares. Now, are you going to take my offer, or not?

Beat it punk. I don't need your crappy merchandise.

yet you don't agree that what actually happened ("Get out now, I'm calling the guards!) was a tad overreaction? Didn't you also say much earlier that he reacted that way BECAUSE the Intimidate check succeeded?

When the situation in which you are using intimidate is inappropriate, then you should not be rewarded as though it were. Really, a failed check would probably have resulted in the shopkeeper laughing in your face for trying to, and failing to intimidate him. "You give fair price or me smash you!!!" "hehe. Nice try sonny. Tell it to someone who cares. Now, are you going to take my offer, or not?"

So you think no one has ever intimidated a shop keep into giving them a better price since intimidate is an inappropriate skill to use in that situation?

Also, you really think the shop keep will continue to barter with someone who tried and failed to intimidate him, but if they succeed he will kick them out and call the gaurds? I ask again, is it impossible to intimidate shop keeps into giving a better price lol?

Sure. "Hey, look at those ruffians coming at us down the street." "How much money you got, esse??" "Yeah, If you were half as smart as you are ugly, you'd just keep walking down the street." (Intimidate as you approach on the street).

I said answer with something that fits your paradigm. In this instance your first sentence would have been about 10 seconds in. They would have known you were trying to intimidate them and stabbed you or knocked you out to take your money according to your interpretation of Intimidate.

Considering how pro-business most BBB's are known to be, this might be an example of the failed intimidate check, where the shopkeeper laughs in your face. Or it could be a bluff without any teeth. In any case, any shopkeeper is free to offer any price they want. Threatening to report them to some agency for not offering a higher price for used goods, I'd probably just label as weak.

I specifically said the statement was made to a shop keep who was indeed trying to cheat you. And no, the BBB is not a joke to dishonest business owners and any who do not take that statement serious if they truly are cheating customers will not enjoy the consequences.

Nope. No threat of violence there. Which would go with it being a failed intimidate. You made threats, which had no teeth, and you got laughed at. Though it could be classed as threatening slander, which would only earn you the ire of a merchant.

I forget what fallacy of argumentation this is called, but you're implying an outcome off a failed argument to support your position. You are correct it is not a threat of violence, but it is most certainly not a failed intimidate check, not for a business owner who is truly cheating someone.

The rule says that an intimidate check takes one minute of conversation. It would be my assumption that this minute is speant making the threats and physical displays. Perhaps you feel otherwise. There is nothing in the rules, or in any part of common sense that declares that the opponent (and that is the word used under the rule) must stand around and do nothing while you conduct your intimidation tactic. If it helps you to visualize it better, think of a spell which takes a minute to cast. Nothing says that the target of the spell can't spend that time either disrupting the spell, leaving the area, putting up protective wards, or otherwise countering your effort.

Common sense actually dictates the skill is useful. Your paradigm renders it nearly completely useless. You also failed to realize this in your attempt to show opportunities to use Intimidate successfully. You're assailants in the alley would have 60 seconds to pull a gun on you, stab you, or just take your wallet while you're busy working up to the Intimidate. Please keep in mind I agree Intimidate should be useful in that situation. I'm simply pointing out that according to you it is too, but then according to you it isn't.

Intimidate, and do not put them into other social skills, it seems obvious that you are more likely to try to use Intimidate in situations that are not appropriate for the use of the skill. And the fact that the OP was trying to say that he should have gotten what he wanted based on a die roll rather than the role play, seems to indicate to me that the OP might have been thinking "Roll play is role play."

For the five bazzilionth quazillionth time, the OP knew there would be consequences and was looking forward to role playing them. But the consequences he faced were that the skill was useless. You are equating uselessness with inappropriateness. No one disagrees diplomacy would be much better in that situation. This doesn't mean you CAN'T use intimidate. You are saying you CAN'T use intimidate. Again I ask you if you think a shop keep exists anywhere that is capable of being intimidated into giving a better deal.

Act friendly: "Take it easy buddy. We're all friends here." [while pressing silent alarm.]

Act unfriendly: "Beat it punk. I don't need your crappy merchandise."
Key word (and it is actually used in the rule - "ACT" Note that Diplomacy actually changes the attitude of the person, whereas Intimidate gets the opponent to act in a certain way.

First, the shop keep didn't act "friendly" then even according to you. He shouted to get out or he'd call the guards. Second, Intimidate also says it "forces" the person to act that way. They aren't pretending to act that way. They are acting that way. They aren't pretending to act friendly while the hit the silent alarm. They are FORCED to act friendly. Get it?

I've actually seen people walk into pawn shops and try the intimidate route when they were offered almost nothing for something they thought had value. Their intimidate checks are misplaced as all of the pawn shop clerks have sidearms and successfully intimidating them will generally end up with a gun to the face, and police on the way.

Exactly...guess what...that's a FAILED Intimidate check! And if someone came in who WAS able to intimidate them, say the leader of the mafia, or John Rambo they would act in a friendly way.

Huma wrote:

And in that case the effect of my "intimidate" would have made him realize I was indeed about leave and gossip about his dealership, but that my knowledge of blue book prices or math in general was too low to realize I wasn't being cheated.

Right, so you made an 'Appraisal' roll, coupled with a Sense motive check and determined that not only was the price very likely too low, but also that he was activley trying to rip you off.

After making a Diplomacy check and asking him whether his prices were accidentally off the mark (which you may not have rolled high enough for) you simply used Intimidate to cut to the chase and call him out on the bad behaviour.

That was a scenario I brought up. It wasn't what actually happened. I was trying to explain what might have happened had I attempted the same intimidate check on a salesman who was NOT trying to cheat me. Also I'd like to point out at no time did I need a sense motive. He seemed like a very nice young salesman trying to make a living for his wife and kid. I also didn't make an appraisal check. I simply did the math. Knowing that paying more than half the price of the car in interest is insane could be seen as appraisal I suppose.

Awesome.

But the Half Orc WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back did none of the above.

The player simply decides he doesn't like the price (not REALLY knowing if it was valid or not), and Lug The Half Orc goes to Angry mode.

Thats a big difference between the tales.

No, he stated they had attempted to appraise the item. Not just him, but the party.

Regardless, the words he used with his intimidate check were NOT threatening violence, not yet, and the reaction of the shop keep was way off the mark ESPECIALLY since the intimidate check most likely succeeded. Did you answer the questions in my previous post for yourself? Do you think a success with intimidate should result in the same reaction as a failure according to the rules?

Huma the main problem in it (where it may relate to Intimidate) is that the guy was indeed trying to rip you off.

The thing that we are saying is the problem with Intimidate is that it is a skill that can also be used where people are NOT ripping you off in order to manipluate or cooerce them to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do, via a threat of a repercussion they will find unpleasant.

And in that case the effect of my "intimidate" would have made him realize I was indeed about leave and gossip about his dealership, but that my knowledge of blue book prices or math in general was too low to realize I wasn't being cheated. A normal car salesman, even dishonest ones, in that instance would have attempted to politely explain to me how he was NOT cheating me so as to still get the sale. He still wouldn't have kicked me out, called the police, etc. Huge overreaction by the DM. In this case, the shop keep was very likely cheating him.

Now let's imagine I threaten physical violence. Sure, if my "intimidate" check works, he will act "friendly" according to the rules. He will fully believe physical violence will ensue if he doesn't change his attitude. But he's not going to sell the car to me and lose money, nor is he going to fail to call the cops at the earliest opportunity as soon as he can do so without risking physical violence with me.

Intimidate is a great skill that is handy for a multitude of situations, possibly even as an AID to Diplomacy, but for people to claim it shouldn't have a marked consequence is stretching it a bit far.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The rule clearly states this. We all get it. Not to harp on you Shifty but this statement has been made a bazillion times in here and everyone understands there is a negative impact to using Intimidate vs Diplomacy. That's the point. He's playing a character. It's a skill in the game and it should be useful if someone role-plays it correctly.

It would seem there are huge glaring holes in the way some of you think about social interactions.

I ask the following of anyone who agrees the OPs DM made the right call by having the merchant panic, kick him out, and threaten to call the guards:

First question: In what situation should a successful use of Intimidate, or any skill, result in the exact same outcome as a failure according to the rules? We're not talking about a extreme situation here.

Second question: Do you think Intimidate should ever be a useful skill other than to question someone tied up and for Demoralize? If so, please give an example that fits your paradigm.

Third question: Do you consider the statement, "If you don't give me a fair price I'm going to call the Better Business Bureau on you," intimidating to a shop keep who is trying to cheat someone? If not, explain how you consider it to be diplomacy, bluff, or other.

Fourth question: Do you consider the statement in the previous question to be threatening violence? If so, what physical violence do you think is implied in the statement...be clear.

Fifth question: Why do some of you add the negative effects of an Intimidate check during the minute of conversation without adding the actual effects of an Intimidate check? Saying that during the minute of conversation they would become agitated or call the guards right then is very very silly and neuters the skill completely.

Sixth question: Why are some of you attempting to tell him how to play his character instead of staying on topic? Saying things like "Diplomacy is better," and, "If you put points only in Intimidate and not also in sense motive, diplomacy, or bluff I would punish you," and, "Intimidate has negatives (no really?), you should not use it for things like this." Role play is role play. Let the man play an Intimidator since he accepts the negatives.

Seventh question: Do you find the shop keep's actions to be acting "friendly" and if so how would you expect the shop keep to act if he was acting "unfriendly?"

Last, I have a question for just Brother Elias:

I think it a bit odd that mechanically, if a person was hostile to you before the encounter where you intimidate them, then afterwards, they are merely unfriendly.

Are you suggesting the shop keep was hostile to him when he walked in? As in, the shop keep was willing to risk attacking him, causing him harm, etc?

Also, why do you continue to force sense motive to get a gauge for the price of the item instead of appraising it as the PCs did? What on earth do you use appraisal for? Why must a PC appraise an item, then use sense motive to see if they are getting a fair price, and THEN intimidate WITH sense motive to make sure intimidate is not apparently violent anymore? Either Intimidate can be used with non-violent threats or it can't, and using sense motive coupled with it would have no bearing on that ruling.

This is just a few of the huge gaping holes in logic I've found in the argument against Intimidate being useful in the OPs situation.

To the OP, I would agree with someone else who said it sounds like the DM is just being negative towards you. I've seen that before. Many people who enjoy games such as DnD in general, pathfinder, etc, will not be the best at expressing frustration with someone. They will be passive aggressive and let their feelings be known through making you frustrated as well.

Tanis wrote:

Is Intimidate appropriate for this type of thing?

This is an "Ask you DM" question.

If I'm DM and it's a home game, I'd hit the panic button and if guards arrive you might go to jail. Think of it this way "I'll slit your throat if you don't give me what ***I*** think this is worth!!!!!" kind of threatening. I, being an intimidating orc, could think a blanket is worth 10000 gp, which the fair price is 5000 gp.

In a PFS Game, I'd just tell them to do a Diplomacy instead.

This has been said about a dozen times in this thread and KaeYoss and others have done an excellent job of explaining the bad logic inherent in this statement.

It honestly sounds like very few people here have had to deal with a dishonest car salesman before.

Long example incoming, but if you read it I will fully explain how intimidate should have worked for our poor OP here. Cash for clunkers program was all the rave. My girlfriend (wife now) wanted a new car. Without too much detail here, we were looking at a car that was going to cost her about 13-14k after the discounts.

We found a dealership that would give us that deal after a little bit of haggling. Then came the interest. Instead of giving us the interest amount for the car loan, he simply said, "So with that price, over five years, it comes out to about $350 a month."

From experience I knew that was pretty high for a $13k car. I did the math. The total price came out to $22k for the car at that payment. Needless to say, paying $9k in interest for a $13k car is insane.

I was not nice, I was not diplomatic, and I most certainly was not bluffing when I stood up, raised my voice and let him know if he wanted to try and cheat me again he was not only going to lose my business but I was going to let everyone I knew know about this place and how they try to do business.

He did not press a panic button, nor did he call the cops. His face drained of color and he left the room. He came back with a manager who sat down with me and went through every bit of the math to show me exactly how much they were going to make after giving us a NEW price that was going to run us 270 a month, making the car $16200 total.

In real life, my successful "intimidate check" saved my girlfriend about 6 grand, not a bad reputation, not a trip to jail, and certainly not getting kicked out out the dealership.

edit: And in fact the pathfinder rule that changes their attitude to unfriendly after a certain period of time applied, but there were not consequences to his unfriendly attitude towards me. I can guarantee you that car salesman did not like me after our deal, but nothing has ever come of it. He certainly didn't call other car salesmen and tell them not to do business with me (to my knowledge, although if I were his competitor I would laugh at him). He didn't have grounds to call the police. He didn't even have grounds to kick me out, as his boss would have fried him alive for doing so.