Uncertainty Lich's page

I can't believe I missed the last stock of these by like a couple weeks.
The minute they are available, I'm snatching up at least a couple decks.

Sometimes its hard to find that sweet spot between a hard choice and a non choice, especially with classes who have mechanical impacts based on alignments(like the monk).

Eh. Worst that happens to an unlawful monk is that they can't take anymore monk levels, not that terrible. Could even set up for an awesome redemption storyline. Maybe there's something worth it to the monk to walk the unlawful path, maybe not. It's more about tempting it than anything else. Working out how to best make a really important decision can be challenging and fun. It doesn't need to be a raw deal bad trade either. That's an extreme example though. There are plenty of tough choices that can affect the PC's relationships to NPCs & factions without being connected to mechanics, but that's an obvious attention grabber.

Just gotta be careful with non choices. A paladin player is almost always going to pick the good thing to do for example, and most people aren't keen on being forced into falling. Seriously, ask the forum about fall-fall scenarios and watch the fireworks.

I recommend hard choices, not non-choices. The GM is worried the PC will get bored from making easy consequence free choices; attack, go after the next bad guy, ect. There's not much threat of the PC dying, so maybe something else is in order? Just noting there are other strategies to keep things interesting without dwelling on battlefield number crunching. Tempting alignment change is an option, so are sacrificing personal/group goals or choosing to accept a handicap.

I would still like to challenge him, so what options are available to me?

All these other answers address how to challenge him mechanically; make his numbers fight these other numbers, put those numbers on a hill with cover to make them bigger numbers, ect, ect. You still may want to do all that, but there's also ethical challenges you can set up to challenge him. You could set up situations where you dare him to change alignment, situations where you introduce sacrifice and hard choices. Use his invincibility against him.

Give them absurdly easy battles, give them the anticipation of a BBEG who inexplicably surrenders, put them on a self doubting path where they feel they're walking into a trap. Then make an exact clone of him to have him fight. Mwha ha ha!

So my intent is for the PCs to RP thier way in ...find the water sources at the main camp...poison them...await the results and escape with minimal combat.

How hard should it be for them to convince the slavers they want to join up?

Depends on if there are any vacancies. Even so, I'd imagine their HR department would want to check references and start them off as probationary employees.

Will a simple Bluff check get the leader to let them in temporarily?

Did the mindflayer thrall the drow for its good looks or its business acumen? I'd imagine slaver administrators see their share of double crosses. It should take a while to build the drow's confidence in the PCs. Waltzing in and getting the keys to the executive washroom on day one is unrealistic and all video game questy.

"Welcome to SlaveCo, here's all our slaves and our water supply. Lock up when you're done."

Any thoughts?

You could offer a gauntlet of oppertunities to increase/decrease the slaver's trust. Anybody too eager to be friendly would stick out. Gaining a reputation as an unsavory character probably would do more to put slavers at ease. Getting into organized crime typically requires a great resume and even then it's still mostly nepotism. It's a business though, so the slavers should get something of value to show for adding new members, but short of a "donation" of slaves. I'm sure there's work in & around a slaver camp that can't be done reliably by slaves, but that slavers still would depend on to operate.

Is this character possible?

Looks possible to me. This archer has kinda fallen behind the other optimized archers, but if you're comfortable missing out on reliably dealing range damage for more defense, a little battlefield control, skill points, and better melee attacks then I suppose it's fine. I get the impression that in the attempt to do all that other stuff this character may miss out on being a competent archer though.

I just started a Zen Archer Monk the other night, so I can't say for certain, but it seems to do everything in that department well on its own.

So all in all, is this character possible? If so, any Ideas for a 20 point stat build?

Improved trip's prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise. So yeah... No dumping INT, which I guess you weren't going to do anyway as a Lore warden.

STR: 12 DEX: 20 CON: 12 INT: 13 WIS: 10 CHA: 7 Maybe? With the +2 going to DEX? You probably should have some STR bonus for composite bow damage, need the INT for trip, you kinda lose out on CON & WIS, which really sucks for a half monk, and CHA can get dumped. DEX doesn't need to be that high I guess.

STR: 12 DEX: 18 CON: 12 INT: 13 WIS: 14 CHA: 8, The figures can be swapped around.

It DOES say the a monk in light armor loses flurry, but it DOES NOT say anywhere that he loses the monks method of unarmed striking, i.e. kicks and punches. If so, this is what I'm concerned about.

Giving up flurry seems wasteful, but for me it seems like inventments in melee attacks seem wasteful for an archer. If you went ZAM you could flurry with your bow and that'd be better than rapid shot.

The percentages work out in your favor to get the second attack even if both are slightly penalized than to take one at a slightly higher percentage.

I don't recommend Snake Style. Your AC will already be decent (especially if you can snag a mage armor from someone) and using immediate actions for that means not having swift actions for extra attacks via ki points, once you have them. Also, it only protects from one attack; relying on it is just a crutch, you should just focus on keeping AC up. Its not hard, AC boosters are cheap and you can vary them to get the most bang for your buck, rather than keep enhancing the same item at exponentially increasing cost.

But honestly, if you make it to Level 11 Zen Archer in PFS, at that point, you're just dipping rather than multi-classing. Ma:-)

I think that's probably what will end up happening, a dip at the end of the career at one of the last two break points. I'm not opposed to going full ZAM and I generally play all my characters single class anyway. I've got time to think about it. The Qinggong monk ruling is a big thing, I know for a while it was assumed not to mesh with ZAM. That should really help.

Thanks!

Ok racial traits.

I've decided Urist should make use of Sky Sentinel; which replaces defensive training, hatred, and stonecunning.

Urist can't swap out hardy without losing the Steel Soul feat.

Greed can be swapped out, Urist won't get much use from a +2 to appraise. Craftsman fits better with a +2 to Profession & Craft of metal & stone. I know day job checks don't really matter much unless you're a bard, but it's better than nothing. Lorekeeper's +2 looks good too. History is in-class & Dwarves have some good enemies/history. Neither are super useful. Any opinions?

I don't think I'm crazy enough to mess with Darkvision or Stability. Those are good just the way they are.

It's actually only the first two levels you need to be concerned about; level 3 is when you get +Wis to atk rolls.

I don't know where my mind is. You're right, only 2 levels worth of toughing it isn't so bad.

With Point Blank Master, yes you can stand toe to toe with an enemy and trade blows. Or...you can stay back and deliver a ton of attacks into his hide that go unanswered by him.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the tactical advantage of staying out of the fray. I'm just looking at Urist's defenses and coming to the conclusion that he shouldn't need to run for the hills when melee closes like some of the other archers would. I don't think it will be much of a problem attracting attention with the sort of DPR a ZAM can put out, so I'm just looking at versilitiy from a PFS perspective. If Urist gets stuck in a party of spellcasters I'd like to know whether Urist is up to take the heat.

If you need to spend a feat, I strongly recommend Snake Style.

Wow, that's a nice feat. I have to say I think I like that more than Monkey & Crane. Looks like there's less of an investment for it too. I can see getting more out of it than the others.

Thanks, GM Arkwright!

I'd consider Improved Initiative and Toughness as feats for level 5 and 7.

Those are pretty solid feats and I know they wouldn't go to waste.

I do like the Sky Sentinel trait package. It fits well with a ranged focus dwarf. I'd hate to give up hatred. I will probably go with Sky Sentinel anyway for RP reasons, but just out of curiosity I have to wonder how often aerial enemies appear in PFS? I haven't been playing long (8ish adventures) and I think there was only one occasion where some harpies were encountered. What about giants? My first character just barely made it to 3rd level so I understand that doesn't present a great picture of the sorts of challenges faced a bit later.

I preferred your earlier Stat array when all your physical stats were 14. But that's just me.

Really? I'm still concerned a 14 DEX is going to make those first three levels a real pain. As not a full BAB class & attempting to fill the role of a consistent damage dealer, I'm worried Urist just won't be able to hit anything for like a month. The sling is a good idea.

Ooh, another feat option might be combat reflexes

I like that. Even without making the AOOs with the bow, Unarmed Strike threatens anyway and so I believe can still take those AOO without putting down the bow. Love the idea of headbutting a passing monster.

I would not take Combat Reflexes and build off Reflexive Shot, it's not that good an ability, and you should avoid the front line entirely.

Is it just the poor AC that should keep Urist from the front line? Not that the goal of this character was to tank or anything, but I've been told the ZAM isn't a bad flank partner and shouldn't need to retreat as often as some of the other archers.

I had been told ZAM does sort of peak and isn't the best to take all the way with the PSF level cap. Cleric seems the most natural choice for the end game multi-class, but I haven't thought that far ahead yet. Would that be the way to go?

Thanks, The Chort, Krodjin, & StreamOfTheSky!

Level 3 gives you Zen Archery (use Wis for attacks) and Point Blank Master. You get Way of the Bow/Weapon Specialization at 6th level.

I don't know how I screwed that up so bad. I was looking at the PRD while I was typing it up, but I guess I was distracted.

Thanks.

I hadn't thought about the movement stuff. I've never played a Monk before. I was resigned to the 20ft limitation from being a Dwarf. That's cool though, opens up some neat possibilities I hadn't considered. Though I still would like to avoid feat chains that lead to losing full attacks.

Yikes about the CHA drain. I don't know if there's much I can do about that though. Urist will have some pretty good saves & CMD and the benefit of being able to deal damage away from the front line, so I think the best I can do is hope to bring them down before they get close. I don't think I can raise CHA without making the build MAD. I think it's a fairly good trade off to be that solid against everything else. While it's not great, that's still a modest Achilles' heel in the grand scheme of things.

I like the idea of dropping WIS down a digit to free up some points.

Maybe something more like this?

STR: 14 DEX: 16 CON: 14 INT: 10 WIS: 17 CHA: 5

Urist's DEX will let him hit a little better at low levels while bumping Reflex, Initiative, & AC. The impact to WIS is marginal, still expect him to have sharp perception with Darkvision. That looks much better.

Thanks, Gwen Smith.

But lowering it to a 10 and raising Dex to a 15, you could put a level bump in there for more AC and Reflex without dumping it.

Now that's a crackerjack idea. I tend to forget that the odd number thing is an option, just so used to trying to squeeze a full modifer from the start.

I say go with reactionary instead of Wisdom in the Flesh. Disable Device (in my experience) doesn't come up that often, and you are an archer not a rogue. Reactionary means you can get away from that nasty flat-footed AC.

I like that, but probably more so for the better odds at beating my own party's initiative. Urist will have a better chance at not having to fire at creatures that'll also get the added soft cover bonus to AC after the party stumble/summon something in the way. :D

Thanks, ArmouredMonk13!

Hi. Working on a Dwarven Zen Archer and could use some feedback.

"Urist" is intended for PFS.

STR: 14 DEX: 14 CON: 14 INT: 12 WIS: 18 CHA: 5

I think that's pretty well rounded for a ZA. Decent enough STR for extra composite bow damage. Decent enough CON; with the d8 HD & no other great favored class options, HP shouldn't be bad. Did not dump INT, so that's 5 Skill Ranks per level. Felt I couldn't afford a higher WIS, but that should be solid for saves, perception, and attack rolls once Urist reaches 3rd level. CHA had to be dumped, placing Urist squarely between a boar & dire boar in so far as personal magnetism goes.

Main concern with that is slugging it out for three levels with only a +2 attack. Urist will probably need to forget about Flurry of Blows until 3rd level. I expect to take Precise Shot at 1st, so that'll at least make firing into melee an option, provided there's no additional +4 to their AC for cover. I've played with reworking the stats, but I'm not sold yet on dumping INT. It's close though. DEX will still be useful for AC & Reflex, so I'm not too sure.

I expect to get Glory of Old as a dwarf from the Five Kings Mountains for the boost to magic saves because it goes great with Steel Soul.

The second trait ties back into the DEX dilemma and depends on if it's worth dumping INT for more DEX.

Defensive Strategist (LG - Torag): Keeps Urist from losing DEX bonus to AC.
UPSIDE: If INT is dumped this means a more reliable +3 to AC.(Flatfooted AC = 17 vs 14)
DOWNSIDE: Urist has a solid perception, +8, and shouldn't be getting caught unaware too much. From a RP perspective, what's a mind-over-matter monk archer doing worshiping heavy metal hammer god? Also I get the impression being LG in PFS puts Urist at a disadvantage in faction selection. I'm leaning towards either Qadira for the trade stuff or Taldor for the Noble Title.

Wisdom of Flesh (LN - Irori): Gets Urist Disable Device in class and allows him to use WIS in place of DEX.
UPSIDE: If Urist doesn't dump DEX, he'll have the INT to keep this maxed. Synergizes well with the added Dwarf Racial trait of Stonecutting for trap finding. Since I can't count on a rogue being around, this may be important.
DOWNSIDE: PFS doesn't play too hardball with traps anyway, right? Since Urist is a monk and not a rogue it's pretty clear that trapfinding is low on the overall goal of the character.

The combat feats mostly take care of themselves.

1 - Steel Soul, (B)Precise Shot, [ZA]Way of the Bow: Weapon Focus
2 - (B)Point Blank Shot, [ZA]Point Blank Master
3 - Deadly Aim, [ZA]Way of the Bow: Weapon Specialization
5 - ?
6 – (B)Improved Precise Shot

I could probably put off taking Steel Soul, but I still have an open slot at 5th I'm not too sure what to do with yet. Something defensive maybe? I don't think Urist qualifies for much in the way of archery after that. I've only planned up to 6th. I've heard ZA sort of peak at around there and don't pick back up until midteens. I'm not oppose to mutli-classing around there if there's something another class can offer. Rogue/Ranger/Fighter/Cleric? Maybe?

Without dumping INT I'm looking at maxing Perception, Acrobatics, Sense Motive, & Stealth. I'll probably put a point in Profession: Weapon Smith for the Day Job Roll, but mostly for flavor. If Urist snags Wisdom of Flesh for Disable Device, then that too.

So yeah... That's where I am now. It breaks Urist's dwarven heart that all the crossbows suck for a dedicated ranged PC. Fighter & Ranger aren't bad, but it'll irk me to be told how much better it would have been to play human instead for that extra feat in those archery feat intensive builds. I think this is what I'm shooting for. Any thoughts? ...apart from how tricky it's going to be to find an unarmored dwarven archer minature?

So just because something totally makes sense in real life doesn't necessarily mean it applies to the game... I'd REALLY like to have a definitive ruling on how Stealth and Sneak Attacks are supposed to work, though.

As written? It isn't clear that a stealth check denies a target their DEX to AC. Without the DEX denied, no sneak attacks. All that the errata adds to mention of the stealth check is:

Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had total concealment.

You can assume "not aware" equates to "denied their DEX to AC", but for something that big I'd imagine they'd just write it themselves.

Every GM I've gamed with has ruled it just grants concealment. That's how I've always thought it was intended to work. Though thejeff's post indicates the developer intend a successful stealth check to deny a target's DEX to AC. Depends on if you want to run it currently as written or as the developer posted they intended it. Think either way is fair so long as it's consistently applied.

But for the purposes of this discussion it's a moot point either way, because it isn't the condition of Concealment per se that allows the rogue to remove Dexterity bonuses. You can have the condition of Concealment, even total Concealment, while singing a merry tune or shouting at the top of your voice.

Would anyone argue that in such a case a PC should be able to deprive an enemy of Dexterity modifiers?

In such a case as a singing sneak attack? I suppose not?

Yep! But it also means that you never get more than one attack a round since snipping is its own special action.

Exactly. While other archers could expect to be getting triple digit DPR at end game, this one probably won't. I'm just trying to pin point where this build falls on that spectrum. It isn't likely to crit as often either. It's got great survivability, but I don't think it'll keep up with a TWF Rouge.

Edit: Rogue; typo.

The first sentence says when you leave cover you can remain unobserved if you succeed at Stealth and end up concealed, but that does not apply if you make an attack, because the second sentence says your Stealth immediately ends as soon as you attack. Now, if you use sniping tactics, you can RE-ENTER Stealth with a successful roll at -20 (or -10 if you have the appropriate abilities), but that doesn't mean you didn't break concealment to start with.

I just noticed these parts.

Breaking Stealth

When you start your turn using Stealth, you can leave cover or concealment and remain unobserved as long as you succeed at a Stealth check and end your turn in cover or concealment. Your Stealth immediately ends after you make and attack roll, whether or not the attack is successful (except when sniping as noted below).

Sniping

If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

I interpreted that to mean a sniping attack doesn't break stealth. To me it sounds like they aren't re-entering stealth, if they successfully maintain it then they never left it.

I think we could all easily imagine the scene with a halfling popping out from behind a bush or up from some grass, getting off a shot, and popping right back.

So enemies would still have miss chances to hit with ranged attacks vs. the halfling in this circumstance from his concealment.

I could be wrong, but I think that these checks count towards total concealment. I don't think he can even be targeted. :/

Got to be careful: Concealment absolutely does not deny DEX to AC.

A successful Stealth check does.

Opps. Yeah. That's what I meant. There's no Hidden condition, is there?

I understand the space limitations, but damn that's no small piece of information to overlook.

I still get the impression that this build should shortly fall behind some of the other archers, but I'll have to spend some more time comparing them now. Except for those open fields in broad daylight without cover, this build could be pretty nasty.

Would it have killed them to have spared a line for "concealment denies DEX to AC for target" somewhere official, preferably with concealment rules or stealth rules? That's kind of a big deal.

In any case, MrMagpie, good luck tracking down Rambo Frodo. I recommend a Watcher in the Water and a half dozen Ring Wraiths.

I'm not sure about this myself, but the rules allow one to use concealment to enter Stealth, and he argues that as long as enemies don't know where he is and he's within 30 ft, he should get his Sneak Attack because enemies are denied their DEX bonus.

He's the Sniper Rouge, right? He'd get SA within 40ft at 3rd level.

Still, I don't think he gets to deny them the DEX just by having concealment. He is harder to hit, can't be attacked with total concealment, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't also make everyone else easier to hit.

If that's not how it works then his whole strategy is suspect because in that case he shouldn't be able to Sneak Attack at all except during the surprise round or something.

That's what I'm thinking. I haven't played this myself, but I've heard people often complain about that limitation when playing Sniper Rouges.

However, few people have called this into question here, so I assume that his interpretation of the rules is indeed correct. Zog argues that as long as enemies know ROUGHLY where you are (perhaps because they smell you, or perhaps because they have one of your arrows sticking out of their ass and pointing in your general direction), they shouldn't be denied DEX bonus against your attacks and therefore you can't Sneak Attack them anymore. I'm really not sure if that's how it's supposed to work, it does make sense... but Sneak Attack itself is such an abstract mechanic that it's hard to determine when it does or does not apply, common sense doesn't necessarily cut it.

Yeah, I've been looking at other threads on the topic. I linked that one. I think there was some talk way back that the developers were going to allow it to work the way your player is using it, but I think they chose not to. The main arguement for it working like how your player is using it is from just this one line in the glossary under AC:

"If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC."

The assumption is that if you can't see where the attack came from that you can't react to it, but that's not actually written anywhere.

Flatfooted is explicit though and so are the other means of denying DEX bonus, like feint. Invisible creatures get to deny DEX, but they are invisible, not concealed. I don't know, but I'd probably lean towards concealment doesn't remove DEX from AC, just because it takes a few different places to justify that ruling. If concealment were intended to work that way I'd imagine it'd read that way under concealment in the core.

In fact, I have his planned-out selection of feats right here... He might change them later, but here they are regardless:

Dodge, Disorienting Maneuver, Deadly Aim, Extra Rogue Talent, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Blind-Fight, Improved Blind-Fight, Greater Blind-Fight and Weapon Focus

Now, I'm sure he won't be able to take ALL of those feats, but that's what he indicated on his sheet as likely choices.

But he's already level 3 and has delayed getting those important starting archery feats. That puts him behind the 8 ball compared to optimize archers.

He also seems to intend to craft smoke sticks, smoke pellets and such. I suspect he intends to use these to provide concealment to himself in the open while using the Blind Fight feats to Sneak Attack enemies.

I'm not sure about the ability to use SA like that. Is there a source that states firing from concealment removes the target's DEX bonus? I'm looking for one and I'm not finding it.

- Don't forget to apply the -4att. if the target is in melee with an ally AND the possible cover (another -4att.) the ally gives the shooter.

^ That.

Archery is a pain to pull off without investing in it. It kinda sounds like this PC put most of his feats into being better at stealthing. That will probably cripple him very shortly, if you're ruling ranged combat correctly. Being great at hiding won't help him hit. -8 to hit really sucks and all it takes is a tree or ally in the way to ruin this sniper's day.

I'm not sure about the whole losing DEX to AC each round for the SA either. I've always been under the assumption stealth is useless after the first full combat. I could be wrong, but after NPCs act they aren't flatfooted, I don't know if SA can be used there because I don't think stealth itself bestowes flatfooted. Again, I could be wrong.

Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

I'd also keep an eye on this. I could be wrong, but I don't think he can pull off all that full attack awesomeness archers aim for. Compared to other archers, I don't think this one is that OP.

I understand now why the dwarves keep losing their fortresses. :/
It's the crossbows.

Thanks to everyone who kept smiting this undead horse; it's been educational.

Think the class really informs how these stats might translate. A Necromancer Wizard & a Barbarian might both have low Charisma, but it may be for different reasons and potrayed.

1. INT:19 + CHA:10 ?

Brilliant with average force of personality. I'd play that as an introvert who doesn't show off how much he knows. Not necessarily meek, but just unassuming.

2. INT:7 + WIS:18 ?

3. INT: 7 + WIS:18 + CHA:7 ?

Not quick at learning new tricks, but awfully cunning.

I like playing my goblins like that. They don't have much patience or aptitude for working out the right answer to a puzzle, but they're sharp when it comes to improvizing solutions.

6. INT:18 + WIS:7 + CHA: 7 ?

Bright, immature, & meek maybe? I'd picture a meek genius who's easily scammed. "Send 500gp to help a Mwangi Prince? Sign me up." Or maybe just a complete sucker for the opposite sex.

The GM probably knew which version of intimidate the player wanted, and thats all well in good. But the player role played the version that demoralizes.

That wasn't what made it demoralize. The GM wrote why he went the other way with it. It was because he didn't like how the PC handled the situation and wasn't going to allow the Barbarian to be frightened off. The GM's issue wasn't in how it was roleplayed, though he clearly didn't like it, just an issue that it was attempted and succeeded.

I don't think either side will ever agree with the other or see it in any other light. Can we all just make a gentelman's agreement to shut up about it and only worry about it when it comes up in our games?

At this point I'm not even arguing that what the GM did was wrong. I don't even think that.

I'm just disappointed with the numerous posts in this thread that state the GM's decision was fair because of what he could have done.

If anyone wants a TL;DR recap of this thread, here it is.

The point is the GM *could* have on all those, but didn't. So reading opinions based on what the GM actually did would make me happy.

What did happen, and is the point of this thread, was:

Player tried to intimidate the Barbar to "F&%& off", not to demoralize. The GM said his player succeeded, but ignored the roll and proceeded to attack the player anyways.

^That.

For the record, I don't think what the GM did constitutes a war crime, it doesn't right? (someone check the latest errata real quick) The worse one could assume is that he punished the player for a cocky move, which is no unforgivable sin.

I think he could have been more flexible with the adventure material. I don't think the player is unjustified in feeling the ruling was unfair.
The GM is entitled to do anything per the rules, including break & bend the rules. That's why I write that it's only kinda unfair. What makes it kinda unfair is that the GM changed the rules on the player without telling the player. Ordinarily a default intimidate check works one way, in this case it didn't and that's inconsistent. GM felt the NPC wouldn't leave, so pulled a fast one to keep him around. There's no rule that states an NPC can ignore a successful intimidate check if they are angry enough, that was ruled on the fly. Had the player known in advance that's how this GM would play intimidate then he probably wouldn't have found it unfair when it happened. Like the GM notes, his players got the hint and just stopped using the social skills.

Part of my issue with it is that I don't think diplomacy, bluff, or intimidate should be skills at all, but rather role-play exclusively.

That's one way to handle it.

I think the articles at the Alexandrian on the subject of Diplomacy sum it up.

Even with the fixes in pathfinder to the main issues with 3.5's social skills, these parts as written are a bit broken. It probably has to do with how fundamentally different they are from the rest of the game. They're more qualitative (hostile, indifferent, helpful, The lie is unlikely, The lie is far-fetched) where as the rest of the game is pretty solidly quantitative (5 HP, 2d6 Greatsword, DC X + 1/2Y + 10). Application of these rules differ greatly depending on your GM. Eh. We all try to make do. What this GM did wasn't wrong, but it could have probably been done in a way as to not leave the player feeling cheated while still maintaining the plot/realism/tone/ect.

I just can't get into the headspace of a player who finds the game more enjoyable if the GM punishes them for having a different idea of what 'Intimidate' means.

I think it's just that posters are coming into this discussion with a lot of preconceptions and baggage they're projecting on this. That's why I think it's gone on so long with the tangent rule talk while ignoring why the GM said he ruled the way he did. There's always that obnoxious player you used to game with who'd drag a game down or abuse the rules. Think that's what's being projected here.

Telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is ALWAYS the wrong method unless you want to start a fight. End of.

Which is why the PC didn't just tell a drunk & angry viking to "*** off". The PC intimidated the drunk & angry Viking and won the roll. This viking wasn't a special viking. Wasn't a superhuman viking without fear or an appreciation for the threat of death and/or personal injury. Drunk & angry vikings, at least according to the RAW, don't ain't not never scared.

It boggles my mind that anyone would think that telling a drunk, angry Viking to "*** off" is the way to handle any kind of situation you don't want to end in combat.

I don't know. Think that statement asserts the PC isn't afraid of the NPC and the latter part, "or I'll kill you", asserts the NPC ought to be afraid of the PC. If you're inclined to believe the NPC can't be frightened then I don't get why you'd be comfortable with the idea that he could be reasoned with. Afterall, the viking isn't *that* drunk or *that* angry. He just wanted gold and was even willing to hear the PCs explain that they didn't do it. This was no uber-badass by any stretch of the imagination. Homeboy's intimidation DC was exceeded.

By your first sentence I'm not sure if you realize how the intimidate skill works.

Did you get past the first sentence? Anyway, given the context, were you at all confused by what I meant? Did you believe I specifically meant demoralize each time I wrote intimidate check? If you can't distinguish context we probably ought to agree not to respond to one another ever again.

If out of combat a player says they want to intimidate an NPC are you likely to believe they mean demoralize over an intimidate check to make them friendly for 1d6x10 minutes? The GM had no trouble understanding what was attempted. The GM & player were on the same page. Both understood it was not a demoralize check. The OP explained why he applied that instead and it had nothing to do with miscommunication or length of the threat.

To say again.

An attempt to Demoralize IS Using the Intimidate skill check, just like the attempt to make them friendly is through an Intimidate check. Same skill used, two different possible uses.

It's pointlessly vague to have "Intimidate" mean either Intimidate (any function) or Intimidate (change reaction specifically).

Seems like the OP was ruling the Intimidate was a demoralize.

I see that. The reason it was converted to demoralize had nothing to do with the length of the threat or misconstruing the player's intention. That's the point.

Making an NPC shaken does not guarantee that they will flee. It makes it more likely . . . but not a guarantee.

Which is why the player didn't say "I demoralize him." Nobody would. Common sense. The GM understood what was intended and chose demoralize not because of the length of the threat or because he thought that was what the player wanted. GM said exactly why the NPC attacked instead of leaving.

Adn yes the utter disregard of the man's actual situation was what made me decide to attack instead of the other options.

^ There. That's why.

The PC just failed to communicate which part of the skill they wanted to use.

This was never an issue of miscommunication. Both the GM & player knew it was an intimidate check and not a demoralize check. The reason the GM chose to make it a demoralize check was...

Adn yes the utter disregard of the man's actual situation was what made me decide to attack instead of the other options.

So yeah, attempting to justify it as the threat was under 59.9 seconds is dumb. It was never the issue. That excuse is something that the rest of you have come up with after the fact.

GM: You find a trapped door, what do you do?
PC: I disable device. Success!
GM: You unlock the door and the trap goes off.
PC: :|

One would have to intentionally misconstrue what the PC was attempting to do with "F*** off or I'll kill you" to apply demoralize instead of an ordinary intimidation check. The GM in this case wasn't misconstruing the intention nor objecting to it's application. GM had no problem with the length of the threat and that wasn't the reasoning behind the ruling. The GM just chose to not have the Barbarian leave because he didn't want the Barbarian to be successfully intimidated. That's what he wrote. It's there. What don't you understand?

DM simply ruled that a "F'off or I'll kill you" as the PC brushed past the NPC was a demoralize not a 1 minute long conversation.

The DM applied RAW. The player didn't like it because the player failed to inform the DM that they wanted to use the skill in a manner contrary to how they actually used the skill.

Except, no? The GM wasn't going to allow the Barbarian to be intimidated into leaving regardless of the success. The GM felt the PC shouldn't have done that, despite succeeding, so the Barbarian attacked anyway. The OP was pretty clear.

The PC in question however failed to do so because he used the wrong method. (demoralize vs make friendly).

Ascribing a dishonest motive to the DM though just to make him wrong and the player correct isn't something I can get behind. Is there some post made by the OP (or the player) that I missed which is leading you to that conclusion?

Adn yes the utter disregard of the man's actual situation was what made me decide to attack instead of the other options.

GM didn't want the Barbarian to be intimidated as the intimidate check typically works. The Barbarian was too angry to be intimidated, but not too angry to be presuaded? Either way the Barbarian was committed for the minute long check, the check was allowed and succeeded, GM just chose not to apply RAW. The GM can do that, but that's why the player felt it was unfair... it kinda was unfair.

There is no "quiet auto-fail" here. There is the player thinking "intimidate will get this guy to back off", doing something that seemed more like a "demoralize" than an "influence attitude", and the DM found that the "demoralize" succeeded.

Supporters of the GM's decision have gone off on this tangent with demoralize and the length of the threat. The reason it was reduced from a successful intimidation check to a demoralize had NOTHING to do with the one minute rule. It entirely had to do with the GM wanting to have the adventure go as written over how the intimidate check normally works.

For me that meant however he was now convinced that they really did it, he's drunk and he feels honor-bound now to his threat before to declare a blood-feud (which apparently is a big thing to Ulfen), so while he was shaken from the Intimidate he'd still rage and attack.

While I think Diplomacy and Intimidate are powerful tools, sometimes enemies just have so compelling reasons to fight the PCs that they can't just be convinced or scared into surrendering or walking away.

GM had no problem with the length of the threat meeting one minute and didn't confuse the check with demoralize. He wanted to play an angry Barbarian who couldn't be intimidated despite the successful check.

I don't see why the player wouldn't have used Diplomacy. Intimidate just makes no sense in this situation. It just delays the inevitable and make the situation worse.

RP reasons probably. You could politely explain to someone threatening to kill you if you don't hand over your lunch money that you don't owe them anything or you could bark back at them to make them retreat. Seems valid. One could spam Diplomacy in every situation Intimidate would work and it'd probably produce better results, but what fun is that?

So I'm creating a Ranger who is a courier by trade, I figured the Ranger class fit this best, though it lacks some of the skills I'd like to see in a courier. (Diplomacy... here I come affable trait!)

I might want a race with a CHA bonus for flavour.

Gnomes get +2 CON & CHA, -2 STR

Then Human, Half-Elf, Half-Orc get those floating +2 which can be put into CHA. My favorite would be Human just for the bonus feat and that they aren't likely to attract attention just being there.

I'm making him as a switch hitter and I'd like him to still be semi-optimized for combat while making him as flavourful as possible.

Then STR will probably matter more to you than it ordinarily would. Treantmonk's Ranger Guide recommended this spread for the switch hitter; STR>DEX>WIS>CON>INT>CHA. Since you don't want to dump CHA, and aren't likely to want to dump INT either, those stats aren't going to be pretty.

STR 16/DEX 14/CON 12/INT 11/WIS 12/CHA 10

Before racial modifiers, maybe? Drop the +2 in STR, per the build guide. I think I'd dump INT & CHA and try to make up for the skill points & Diplomacy check elsewhere than sink it into stats that won't do too much else. Even if you tank CHA you can probably raise diplomacy a bit through traits, spells, & equipment to be decent. If you feel a courier needs to be excellent at diplomacy then you may just want to be some sort of Bard or Rouge. The Driver Rouge is about as close an archetype to a courier I think I've seen, but I'm not familiar with vehicle combat and I'm sure that's going to be tough for dungeon crawling combat.

What would be some really flavourful choices for a courier? Hopefully choices that are also useful.

If it were me I'd probably steer away from any archetype that misses out on an animal companion. As a courier you'd probably want to ride a horse. You could go the carrier pigeon route, but I imagine that takes the fun out of delivering messages yourself.

Depending on how you feel about spell casting you can trade in your divine spells for Hunter's Tricks as a Skirmisher Ranger. You get to use them 1/2 level + Wisdom modifier per day. They're mostly move, free, & swift actions to activate. The benefits aren't great though and only a few stick out as being reliably useful. I think the spells are better, but if it's out of place for your courier to be a spellcaster this isn't too bad.

If I build a character, I read how my powers work. And if I make a mistake on how they work, I tell the GM I made a mistake (even if it's bad for me), and then I move on wiser for the learning experience.

For me that meant however he was now convinced that they really did it, he's drunk and he feels honor-bound now to his threat before to declare a blood-feud (which apparently is a big thing to Ulfen), so while he was shaken from the Intimidate he'd still rage and attack.

Had nothing to do with the one minute rule, miscommunication between GM & player, the content of the threat, or the way it was RPed.

Ummm....I don't think thats quite how it happened. They way I read it the player picked up his dice and said "I tell him to frack off and brush by him, I rolled eleventy billion intimidate."

That's all fine and dandy, but the GM didn't ask for an intimidate role, the player just rolled one.

You're reading stuff into the OP that isn't there.

GM knew it was intended as an intimidate check, didn't have a problem with the length/content of the check, didn't disallow the check, and had no objection to the way in which the check was made. The player didn't do anything wrong.

It's just that the player chose intimidate over the options explicitly listed in the adventure and that the GM felt the Barbarian shouldn't be dismissed despite the successful intimidation check. I don't think any adventure has a comprehensive list of all ways to approach each situation that may arise. If the text in the adventure is assumed comprehensive and trumps the rules then there really ought to have been some warning.

Also, everybody is just arguing circles around one another. I don't even know why I bothered to post this. We can't have an argument because it's clear no one's opinion or position on the subject will be changed by any argument the opposing side can provide.

I'd settle for a consensus on the facts. The circles are being made by those circumventing the point.

Intimidate doesn't make him friendly (for any length of time) unless you spend 1 minute doing it.

GM did not have an issue with the length of the threat. The GM understood it, the player understood it. That was never the issue.

Later the player told the DM they felt cheated because they wanted to make the guy friendly. Except they didn't tell the DM that. (until 4'ish months after the fact.)

The write-up in the adventure has said what happens if the PC's don't use some method to change the person from pissed to friendly. He. Attacks.

Know what your skills do.

Again, wasn't an issue. GM knew. Player knew. It just comes down to the GM didn't want the Barbarian to be intimidated.

Ruling aside, I want some of this magic alcohol for all my PCs. It's so potent that it provides a +5 bonus to your DC against all social skills (and apparently can even negate them at will) but at the same time doesn't impose any penalty to attack rolls.

^ This.

To those still on about the time rule of the intimidate check vs. demoralize or the content and credibility of the threating remark, I ask to re-read the OP.

There isn't an issue here about time, confusing demoralize with the minute long intimidation check, or with the statement not being intimidating enough to justify the check. It isn't about a player jumping the gun and rolling too quickly. It isn't about a GM not explaining the rules. There's no miscommunication here.

The Barbarian was successfully intimidated and GM converted the check to the shaken condition because he didn't feel the Barbarian should be intimidated. Is that fair? One can go off on a rule lawyer tangent trying to justify it by calling the roll or the RP into question, but none of that is pertinent to whether what the GM did was fair.

Yes, it did. It gave the Viking the Shaken condition. That doesn't stop him from getting a crit and axe-facing the intimidator.

The PC didn't intend to demoralize and the GM knew that. The GM decided to go with that in place of what the PC intended because he felt the Barbarian shouldn't be dismissed.

It did succeed. but the player didn't like that the DM used the short version "the F'off or I'll kill you" version" rather than the minute long version despite the fact that the player described a very quick action and a very short dialogue and didn't specify that he wanted to use the longer version.

Only there wasn't any confusion over what was rolled. The GM chose to grant shaken rather than what the intimidated check would have done because it fit how he wanted to play the NPC. This is from the OP.

For me that meant however he was now convinced that they really did it, he's drunk and he feels honor-bound now to his threat before to declare a blood-feud (which apparently is a big thing to Ulfen), so while he was shaken from the Intimidate he'd still rage and attack.

It comes across like "Sure you hit him, but I'm going to half the damage he takes because you weren't suppose to hit him."

Some NPCs are above an intimidation check. Golems for example, you can't intimidate or diplomacy a golem.

Sounds to me like some people think the GM should ignore the player's stated actions, and assume the player actually did whatever the best possible option is for their intention at every step in the game.

It seems to me like some people are turning this into something it isn't. The PC and the GM were on the same page. It was intended as an intimidation check, it was allowed, and it succeeded.

Uhm, why do you think that hostility is intimidating? Hostility is an escalation of the situation.

Intimidation is inspiration of fear. Too many people mix the two up (like the player in the OP's post and you apparently). The most intimidating thing is not hostility.

I don't think it matters whether or not it is the most intimidating thing or what happens to be the most intimidating thing. I don't think that was ever the point. The GM had no problem with the application of the intimidation check. The specific questions were if the NPC's reaction to being successfully intimidated was fair and if some NPCs ought to be above an intimidation check.

I agree up to this point, but in order to intimidate the target must believe that it would be dangerous to ignore you; you must have a credible threat.

Not sure where you got that. The part that lends weight to what the character is saying is in how it's said.

"You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess."

I don't see a problem with a GM wanting to add modifiers to more realistically represent the exchange every once in a while, but that sort of tinkering can quickly become unfair. A martial character isn't likely to see the same sort of tinkering in combat encounters. "These bandits are thinking about the baby bandits they'd leave behind if you killed them, so they get +2 to AC this round."

You don't need an elaborate story; if you are a hulking barbarian with a 1000-yard stare, that's a credible threat to most people (but not to, say, an ancient red dragon), without needing to speak a word.

The trouble is that the bard did not offer a credible threat. He's not physically threatening, singing badly was not a credible threat to that Viking,

Similarly, announcing that you rolled 35 on Intimidate is pointless unless you have what is needed to intimidate someone, i.e. a credible threat.

The ability to convince others that you are a "credible threat" (whether that's actually true or not!) is exactly what the skill of Intimidate covers.

^ This.

I think a "F*** off" implies hostility in that sort of context. Whether it's Rob Zombie or Joe Pesci saying it, it'd still be pretty intimidating. Maybe for different reasons, but the game doesn't go deeper than that.

It boils down to the RP and circumstance combination.

Saying "go away you maggot" is a stupid intimidate check. That could certainly result in a bad situation if the intimidate failed, and could even give penalties (bonus to the opposed side) to the check regardess due to being ineffective.

Saying something like "look at our gear. Look at our numbers. Think about our success. Do you really think we'd do something like this? Even if we did, you'd get smashed to pieces attempting anything."
The key likelihood to keep in mind is that diplomacy statements probably shouldn't ever really too different from intimidate statements, there's just differences in tone/inflection/loudness, and a few different words used to threaten more.

I have to disagree with that. If you're basically just making a truthful logical appeal then you might as well never use intimidate and always use diplomacy because you just eliminated the distinction between it and intimidate.

I guess what I've been hearing in this thread is that it's preferred that bullies be more expressive? Intimidation IRL isn't like that. I don't see why it couldn't even be non-verbal. All the roll represent is one's ability to menace & threaten. I don't think its required to be a convincing argument IC or OOC, or particularly detailed. If my GM decided an intimidation check required a monologue he felt moved by, I'd skill the hassle, dump CHA, and aim for winning initiative instead.

Think the issue is the GM didn't want/expect the PCs doing anything other than placating the Barbarian. An intimidate check was allowed, it succeeded, and the GM had the Barbarian immediately attack. Is that unfair? Kinda. It comes across as the GM not wanting that encounter to go off the railroad tracks or to punish the PCs for getting away with successfully dismissing the encounter. A little flexibility in that instance wouldn't have hurt, the Barbarian wasn't a major plot point and wasn't beyond persuading anyway.

Think the leg breaking qualifies as NG. Any NG comic book hero could get away with it; Batman, Punisher. Don't think one needs to be nice to enemy combatants to qualify as good. Don't think it prevents sucker punching a cocky NPC either. If you haven't a reason to show them kindness, sympathy, or pity I don't see why you'd need to. There's nothing good about letting an unrepentant enemy off the hook. The sad part is if you had killed them outright it's likely the GM wouldn't have given you grief about alignment at all.

I had a CG cleric in my party refuse to coup de grâce Undead for fear of breaking alignment. Think there's a major issue with how people understand what it means to be good and when it's applied to determines alignment. Drop a few gp in a donation box on the way out of town to balance it out if your GM is concerned you aren't being nice enough to those bad guys.

I would have had a problem if I tried to Intimidate someone, trying to scare them into "F*$§ing off", and the DM had gone ahead and rolled... but (quietly) used Demoralize instead of Intimidate because he didn't think I dragged out my RP for long enough before I described my exit from the scene, even though that kind of debuff had no chance whatsoever to actually convince the target to actually "F*$§ off".

^ This.

In this instance the check was made, the Barbarian was intimidated, it's just a matter of how he should have responded to being intimidated. Immediately attacking comes across as kinda cheap.

Heck, that's almost worse than the DM quietly ruling that I threw my glaive instead of made a melee attack.

What glaive? You never said your character picked it up after the last time they set it down. ;)

But in that case, the Barbarian was not in any way required to actually stand still for a full minute. He could attack as soon as the first 5 words were out of the face's mouth, and not be shaken at all.

I concur with that. I've never gotten much utility out of a Ranger's Wild Empathy for the same reason. Monsters are seldom inclined to wait around a full minute to be made friendly.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable for the Barbarian to wait around even while being threatened; if only because he didn't attack immediately and was wanting a response from the PCs. If the Barbarian wants to hear the PCs out then I suppose it's reasonable that he'd give them the minute it takes to intimidate him.

Basically, you want to houserule that any attempt at intimidate get's the full minute treatment on npcs, but the PC doesn't have to actually do the time.

That time increment on the skill is a limitation the developers put into the skill to balance it. Otherwise, you'd just max out Intimidation and constantly end every fight before they start by intimidating people before combat begins.

That's a good point and I totally agree. I don't think it would have been wrong for the GM to have called initiative between the "F*$§ off" part and before the "or I kill you" part.

Actually, he kinda didn't. You should read the entire skill description, instead of just the first paragraph.

The check is clearly for out of combat and demoralize is for in combat. Given that time is sort of an abstraction for IRL time, the one minute stipulation just keeps it from being abused to auto win combat in progress.

The "F*$§ off or I kill you" might very well have lasted a full minute, at least for the purposes of in game time. It could have been said and a short stare down ensues until the barbarian leaves. Regardless, doesn't seem like there's any confusion over what the player intended and the GM understood. When you start quibbling over the number of seconds it takes to say something out of combat you begin traveling down a path that can only end with living in a cardboard box full of dice and shame.

a) Did I really disregard his Intimidate unfairly?

Kinda. As written:

He probably should have came back in 1d6 x 10 minutes more determined than ever to avenge his poor dog. It wouldn't have hurt anything.

b) Should I have given him a passive Sense Motive when he did the Intimidate to tell him that's not what his character thinks is the best way?

c) Would you agree some people are just beyond Diplomacy/Intimidate when it comes to that for one reason or another? Or should that at most give them a bonus to resist it but if that's not enough they're still running, abandoning their family or whatever?

I think so. Diplomacy can be a game breaker. "All the monsters love you, you win." I don't like the idea of stacking the DC to impossible levels, it's just disingenuous. For the next to impossible it's probably better to call for a chance roll. Natural 20 or failure. This one guy, given his importance in the scheme of things, wasn't probably above a simple diplomacy/intimidate check with a moderate modifier, if that.

Isn't a "prison" basically a "dungeon"?

Regardless of who's in power locally or regionally, if they have a dungeon they pretty much have the authority to use it, right? Probably a lot of that in Taldor. What's "legal" probably always comes second to what's politically acceptable/advantageous.

Favorite god?
Razmir the Living God.
Best god ever.

I suppose there's a silver lining in knowing a character's motivation so specifically. I'd be curious how far Turok would go to get his lulosaurus pet. If you put the chance of finding the lizard between mission objectives, the interests of the party, and the goals of other party members there could be some good tension. If done well you could string it out for a long while and through tons of suffering, sacrifice, and tragedy.

At least that way it'd be more rewarding than the DM just spawning a dino within 1d4 miles of the PC as a peace offering. Once he gets it he'll probably either move on to another outlandish goal or just get bored and quit. Pity the warrior who slays all his foes.

I'm currently taking a stab at the God Wizard in PFS. Level 3 right now. The parties I end up with complain that I'm not doing more, suppose they expected a blaster. Out of combat I pick up the slack for missed Knowledge/Spellcraft checks and knowing all the popular languages. In combat I typically hang back and watch the party charge head long into battle, saving the game changing spells for when brute force fails. There's plenty I can do at level 3 to make encounters go more smoothly, but I don't tend to get much in the way of cooperation. I'm enjoying it if only for the RP challenge of playing a more reserved Deist's God Wizard. I've taken to playing him like Gene Wilder's unenthusiastic Willy Wonka, "Stop. Don't. Come back."

I've been giving more thought to the Blockbuster Wizard since reading that guide. I don't know though. I'm the only one in my area doing the Wizard thing, one of few doing the Arcane caster thing. Doesn't seem like too much incentive for that in PFS, but I'm bidding time for some of those higher level spells & metamagic.