jupistar's page

After the first several attempts at taking on Thistletop resulted in the posse returning to Sandpoint for recuperation (free healing and restorations by the priests), Nualia became more and more frustrated trying to figure out the solution to the secret door.

This is great, of course, because I have long term plans now for this NPC to return. Should allow for some cool RP potential.

jupistar wrote:

Both are derived conclusions from RAW, but you seem to categorically assume the former is accurate and the latter is not.

I see where you're coming from, but your description of my position is just a tad off.

I thought better of the rhetorical "categorically" and changed it to "arbitrarily", because that's more to the point, I think. But 'eh.

Now, my stance of letting go as a free action is based in part on being able to drop an item as a free action. So far, that leaves it on equal footing with the buckler argument that (you and I believe) Jodokai is making. But the free action stance is also supported by James Jacobs. Definitive? No. But it now has two pieces of support instead of just one.

Now, I notice you described my stance as "If I can drop a weapon as a free action, then I can let go of a weapon with one hand as a free action *and gain Deflect Arrows benefits*." and emphasized the Deflect Arrows bit.

Let's be careful not to roll DA in with the free action thing. Letting go as a free action may or may not be correct. However, Deflect Arrows is far more explicit. The ONLY requirement it lists for being able to use it is that your hand be holding nothing. It doesn't say you can't have attacked with that hand, just that it can't be holding anything.

But it's important to roll them together (which is why I emphasized it). See, I don't think I or Jodokai have a problem with "removing a hand as a free action" or "returning the hand as a free action" inherently. I think that is finely conceived. The problem only occurs when so doing provides an exploitive benefit. My plain understanding of the rules implies that it might be exploitive to use an attack action with a two-handed weapon (or one handed wielded with two hands) and then to drop a hand to gain the kind of advantage provided by Deflect Arrows.

But I also see your point that you can get a similar advantage by dropping (throwing) a weapon entirely or being disarmed.

I suppose it is a correct judgment that a player is not denied these options (except the buckler) in such a case. I just also happen to think it odd that the buckler is excepted while none others are.

I think it clear, however, if you release your hand as a free action at the end of your turn, it's not available for attacking for AoOs.

I'm just curious, how does a weasel ever hurt anyone and not heal them with a bite that does 1d3-4 dmg. I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I kept getting lost in all the Negative Damage posts.

Indeed. And never underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize unethical behavior.

And never underestimate the human mind's desire and capacity to classify as rationalization that which goes against their own opinions. I experience a lot of that around here.

As for me, I'm pretty certain that I'm NG -> CG.

Thanks for saying all that so I don't have to, Grick.

+1

That should seal the deal right there. If a character knows Invisibility is being cast on them allow a saving throw (with appropriate modifiers) and go with that.

I don't see that. I see that if you make the saving throw, you are not invisible.

I give myself, the DM, 2 hero points per session, similar to the players' from the APG. I use those hero points to fudge things once in a while in the players' favor--to prevent death. But ultimately, they like their characters, they bond with their characters, and they know I don't want their characters to die. But they know their characters can/will die, if there's no natural, non-DXM way out of it.

There is nothing more pointless-feeling, *in my opinion*, that knowing that when you go into battle you're going to come out the other side "ok", regardless how bad you screw up. To me, the thrill of success is only as powerful as the reality that critical failure is looming. It is the possibility of failure that makes success so enjoyable.

Lex Starwalker wrote:

What you're trying to do here just spreads negativity.

It's not a negative thread, unless you're 'one of those GMs'.

I think the forums are a perfect place to vent.

I'm not sure 'finding a new GM' is the 1st thing you should do (most GMs try to please) or the easiest thing to do, but if you're not enjoying yourself and the GM really wants to run things this way, it's probably the best idea.

I don't feel too bad for GMs that take the time and effort to come up with campaigns if that GM also doesn't listen to his players. It's a two way street. If it's all about you as the GM, you might find yourself without any players.

I agree. Firstly, it can be funny to see some of the silly things us GMs do. But, secondly, and more importantly, I'm getting criticism without it being about me. I like to think I have a pretty non-existent ego, but I know I do have some. I think other people will agree with me that non-attacking criticism is kind of nice. If someone does something that I also do and I find it irritates people, well, I can learn from that.

Thanks OP.

We use a variation on the crit rules.

If you roll a 1, you miss, then roll again at the same Attack Bonus. If the second roll would miss as well, it becomes a critical fumble.

If you hit with the second roll, it is just a miss. This allows for a fighter who is good at what they do to roll a 1 but still recover from it easier than someone who has a worse attack bonus, thus working around the "experienced warrior shouldn't fumble as much as a novice one" idea.

I'm a big believer in confirmation of fumble, just like confirmation of critical. The downside to your approach is that the confirmation is dependent on the difficulty of the creature, not on the skill of the fighter, which means it never gets easier for fighters to *not* fumble, even though they're clearly more skillful at higher levels. The one approach I saw online that I actually like a lot is a test of fighting skill more than a test to hit the creature. It works like this (I can not take credit for this - these rules are based on 3.5ed):

Your target number is DC20. If you fail to beat DC20, then you have confirmed the fumble. You may only fumble once per round. It is possible to fumble on a 2 (hey, if you can crit on a 19, why not?), but only in certain circumstances.

To beat DC20, you get use the following modifiers:

+BAB
+Dex Bonus
+1 for combats feats as relevant, such as: (Imp) Wpn Focus, (Imp) Wpn Spec, Wpn Finesse, [Gtr/Imp] TWF, Imp Bull Rush/Disarm/Trip/Sunder/Overrun, Mtd Cbt
- any penalties for multiple/offhand weapons, wrong-sized weapons, non-proficiency in weapon or armour, mounted archery
-2 if Charging
+1 for Masterwork non-magic weapon
+2 for a +1 to +2 magic weapon
+3 for a +3 to +4 magic weapon
+4 for a +5 or better weapon
+1 for a 2-handed weapon (not a double weapon)
-2 to -10 for an Improvised weapon (eg -2 for a chair leg, -10 for a sofa)
-4 for a flail, spiked chain, nunchaku or other flexible weapon
-2 to -20 for situational penalties (eg slippery or treacherous ground, water, strong wind, steep slope, darkness, etc)

If your modifiers are less than 0 (as might happen for a clumsy 3rd level wizard fighting stirges on an icy ledge in a high wind), you may fumble on a 2 or on other attacks in that round. In this case the DC is 0.

==================

So, that's a lot of modifiers, but it's not nearly as problematic as it seems. Most of that stuff is able to be predetermined as a separate confirmation number for fumbles. Figure it once and set it aside as a "fumble avoidance number" and then all the DM has to do is provide a situational penalty, if appropriate. I find it works fairly well. It scales with improved opportunities. It scales with improved skill.

The essence of debate is the clash of arguments. Engage with mine instead of evading, or you will never uncover truth.

I will permit you another chance at rebuttal, since the near entirety of your argument rests again on your near-sighted parroting of an earlier argument. And I will spell it out: the whole of your thesis rests upon your assertion that the essence of Lawful nature is the spread of man's laws across the whole of the world, without exception. Let me assure you: I did, once, agree with you when I was younger and more short-sighted. The Starfall Doctrine is the spread of Cheliax and her laws to all the peoples of the world, that all the world might be elevated. One kingdom, one empire, unity and strength. The Hellknight ideal.

But the principle of Order is not the laws of men. Proof? There are paladins that obey laws other than those of Cheliax. Kings and so-called "quorums of good nations" build laws and begin wars with Cheliax, and somehow these codes retain some legitimacy.

And you cannot answer the simple questions of why and how this peculiar twist of fate comes into being. You seem capable only of whining and gnashing your teeth. The nearest to a contention you have offered on the matter is the insultingly primitive standard of 'a temporal authority is legitimate as soon as I enter its territory unless I declare it illegitimate and make war upon it,' which is embarrassing in its simplicity. Because it is an inconsistent model.

There was no evasion, just dismissal. One doesn't evade the mosquito, one merely brushes it aside as inconsequential. Your argument, the mosquito, relies upon a ludicrous premise: That the standard individual cannot reasonably determine the boundaries of nations and thus he has just cause to pretend to the illegitimacy of those nations and the rulers there so as to ignore the social contract. It is a vulgar equivocation. I will not stoop to debate the merits of the legitimacy of any singular nation. I leave that to you and your betters (which, I sorely hope exist). Just know that if you are permitted entry into my country and you break the law, then you are creating disorder and you will be punished accordingly. You have no right to exercise any authority in my land. However, if you doubt my right to rule in my land, then by all means, take up arms, but you will not pass, for you are as a bandit on the road.

And while I agree that an individual might specifically doubt the legitimacy of another nation or the legitimacy of it's self-proclaimed borders, to question them all is beyond hubris, it's simply blindness. But more, it equivocates so to intentionally ignore the quid pro quo of international itinerants. If I cross the borders of Cheliax, am I not expected to abide by your laws? How then can you cross the borders of my land and not feel equally obliged, unless you come in with hostile intent?

I repeat, coward: You are a protector of Law and Order in Cheliax. You said it yourself, "The Hellknight Orders are given explicit extra-legal authority to enforce the laws of Cheliax". It is your duty. Why do you allow the Ulfen to enter Cheliax, if you would not demand their compliance with the law?

If you would defend your thesis further, you must address some basic weaknesses:

• Who determine what borders form what territories? The lion's share of your argument rests on the integrity and legitimacy of land claims, but the gods do not often offer commentary on the territories of men and women.

No, in our world, it usually starts with "might makes right... and boundaries" and then "respect of boundaries give them legitimacy". I don't see you bringing armies in full scale war with Andoran, thus you enter their lands by their sufferance. If they permit you entry, then it's under the implicit agreement you will abide by their laws, else your passage would be barred. So, the answer is: you and the rest of men determine what borders form what territories. Even if you don't recognize the nation as "legitimate", you operate as if you do when you agree to the implicit bargain that permits passage.

• If there are other, legitimate codes of law and temporal authorities beyond that of Imperial Cheliax, than when these codes come into conflict how do you determine which has the greater legitimacy? Either hierarchy alone is enough, in which case other nations ought to be subject to the edicts of Abrogail Thrune II and anyone acting on her authority acts within the law -- and I would remind you, the Hellknight Orders are given explicit extra-legal authority to enforce the laws of Cheliax -- or there exists some other mechanism of determining the relative legitimacy of competing codes.

Asked and answered. Conflict of codes may lead to war, however that is not at issue. When in Cheliax, do as the Chelaxians. Meaning, when I enter your lands, I do so by your sufferance and under the implicit understanding that your laws are sacrosanct to me. Else I am nothing more than a lawless vagabond that you must turn away. Sure, I may follow some personal code, but my subjective personal beliefs/oaths have little value to you and your duty or to the contract presented to me when I step within the borders of Cheliax. Being the honorable sort, I must obey the law.

• Defend your standard of warfare or obedience to temporal laws with no middle-ground. Why can I not carry the law with me without declaring personal war? IS there no middle ground? And how is your warfare model any different from the so-called vigilantism that you decry? Under the standard you provide, I may mentally decide 'these are my enemies' whenever I dislike local laws and so act at liberty ... or does this violate some larger principle of Law? Or do you instead mean that it is necessary for a ruler to declare war, in which case how do we explain the dark ages prior to the establishment of monarchies?

Because, "I'll try my best to follow your laws" is not sufficient for me. Either accept my law or don't come in. "Do and enter" or "do not and leave", there is no "try".

I need not defend or even establish a deep philosophical policy as to when one must decide to go to war or not to maintain this argument. What's clear is what I've said in the two answers before now. You may carry the Law of Whatever-You-Wish, with you, whereever you go. But if you tread on my land, then it is with the understanding that those laws are subsumed to my laws while here. That's right. There is no middle ground. I don't say, you may trespass on my lands as long as you obey some laws and disregard others. This is not a garden from which you may choose arbitrarily the vegetables to put in your evening stew.

The difference between the vigilante and war is that in the former, you do not doubt the legitimacy of the ruler, you merely do not accept the ruler's authority over you; you break the social contract, and in the latter, you actively challenge the ruler's right to rule; you declare either to yourself or to your hosts (if you have the courage and honor) that you do not (now) regard them as legitimate.

So, it is either the throwing off of the implicitly understood contract of behavior or it is acquiescing to it. Your hosts do not offer you a middle ground.

But now you demand I justify war to you? Where will your tangents stop? Wars are fought for many reasons. Some wars are just and some are not. This is not within the scope of our argument. All you need to understand is that you are honor-bound to abide by the Law of the Land or to denounce it.

• On a related note, you must decide whether you acknowledge the existence of the cosmic principle of Law. And if you do not, than you must explain the relationship between this Law and the laws of men. Consider the hierarchies of Hell and Heaven in your answer.

This is just nonsense, clearly. I can't in one breath say that I do not acknowledge the existence of something and then in the next breath explain how that non-existing thing relates to something else.

I believe in a cosmic principle of morality. I believe that morality is reasoned from an ethic of reciprocity. I believe that Just laws are generally derived from this ethic. I believe that the laws of man are imperfect insofar as they represent the imperfect reasoning of man in trying to rule itself by this reasoning. I believe that the Lawful Good gods and goddesses must endorse such reasoning (if not the exact examples of it) or fail in their wisdom.

• What is this 'sovereignty' you speak of? Asmodeus' clerics are fond of inventing words like this and investing them with legal meaning, but outside of Cheliax I have seldom heard the word. If it is merely a statement of legitimacy, than how can Andorran or Galt have any sovereign power, given that they are rebelling citizens of Cheliax and often Chelaxian peoples.

If you understand sovereignty as it applies to Cheliax, then you understand the word and are now just playing for the audience. Quit strutting, peacock. You have already asked this question and I will not repeat myself.

• And, finally, you must address the most basic problem of theology in our world: how can there be two paladins with different views if your interpretation of the dictum of paladinhood is so absolute? Can paladins fight on both sides of a war without falling from grace? I remind you that Hellknights fought Hellknights and Paladins fought Paladins during the wars of Chelaxian Succession. History has already answered this question for you.

Because two different people may reason to different conclusions. Some stupidly, as you do here, and some correctly, as I do here. Of course Paladins can fight on both sides of a war without falling from grace, for they follow the law of their land and engage in a struggle for the light of Goodness as they see it; they do not defer to the beliefs of their opponents. I will again refer you to the positions above. I do not agree that Paladins must all abide by the same law at all times and places, but I do believe that Paladins must abide by the Law of the Land in which they find themselves unless they come with hostile intent. They cannot pick and choose the laws they will abide by, for doing so results in chaos and disorder.

And improve your insults. Even a novice has more vitriol than you.

You are a simpleton putting on airs. I do not insult, rather I observe. You insult yourself with each thing you say, I merely hold the mirror that you may see it, too.

You must not know me well.

The little that I do know informs me of my blessing, for your prating is grating and you express your arrogance by your churlishness. You preen and parade for the audience. This unintentional self-mockery of your accusation of rhetorical arguments is contemptible. Again, I entreat you to improve your arguments or return to Cheliax, as I don't permit your lawless and distasteful self access to my country.

Y'know I'm not gonna do a long post. I'm just gonna say this:

Read AM HELLKNIGHT's post on what being Lawful means. That's what being Lawful means, both to me and in all the published material I've seen presented.

Read Finarin's spost immediately above. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

If you still disagree, I'm never going to convince you otherwise and (more importantly) you've profoundly redefined what a Lawful alignment means in your games to the point where people (or at least Paladins) have to be Lawful Stupid to abide by it, and where it no longer properly represents either reality, or any great number of fictional characters.

And if this kind of mechanic isn't reflecting either reality or good fictional characters and thematics any more, what's the point?

What you and others have been saying doesn't adequately address the points I've brought up. But I think you basically explain yourself well with the "it would then be Lawful Stupid". I suspect you simply don't like the position and therefore discard it and rationalize discarding it.

You're right, you probably won't convince me of this. Nor will you probably convince me that I'm "profoundly redefining" anything, either. In fact, it's my opinion that "profound redefinition" is exactly what you've done, so keep the exaggeratedly emotive rhetoric to yourself ("deep disservice", "vaguely insulting", et. al.). In fact, I think your distaste for what it means to be a Paladin according to the rules is so great it drives you to look for any alternate explanation you can, even if it's not sensible. You want Paladins that can act non-Paladin-like, because you think a Paladin's belief system is "stupid". But it's not. It's just different than yours.

Many, many deontologists live in this world and make a strong case for abiding by law and order, even when mistakes are made, because it leads to the greatest good. And many consquentialists admit (myself included) that behaving according to a personal, subjective conscience can lead to unintended and evil consequences. Why can't a Paladin have that same perspective? Why must Paladins be played according to your consequentialist philosophy? I've been keeping this argument on the track of a Lawful Good society so as to avoid equivocation, but I think it can be argued that a Paladin in a land like Cheliax is also bound to follow the law or declare the country an enemy state.

Further, I have no idea how my explanation about the behavior of a fictional and hypothetical Paladin (strange how that's not redundant) with a Lawful Good alignment can properly or improperly represent reality.

Also, I have very few examples where a fictional character in literature is defined as being a "Paladin". Was Michael Carpenter a Paladin? If so, how can I know that? Was Constantine a Paladin? If so, how can I know that?

Adherence to a Code is not at issue. The question is two-fold, does a Lawful Good person do Chaotic Good things? And, does the Code support breaking the law of a Lawful Good society for Chaotic Good purposes? It doesn't matter to which law you appeal, it's certainly not codified anywhere, unless you (the player or DM) do it yourself. The best you have is the Code in the CRB and that clearly states you respect authority and honor tradition and help those in need when that help does not lead to chaotic results. Breaking a prisoner out of jail violates all three.

You admit that the behavior (means) is chaotic, just with good intent (you claim Lawful ends). But the Code of Conduct is all about behavior and much less about results. Your various justifications (not legitimate authority, appeals to different authority, etc..) are all just ways of masking what you've already admitted: it's a chaotic act.

You might as well just say the Paladin is able to act dishonorably to save innocent life; that he can lie, cheat, and use poison (to knock someone out); that he can act quite unPaladin-like to achieve his goals. In fact, consider the question: is there anything a Paladin cannot do to save innocent life other than killing other innocents? If there is nothing or very little, then perhaps you really ought to rethink your position on what the Code of Conduct means.

Of course, that also means that no Paladin ever considers himself subject to the laws of any land, which of course, begs the question again as to what really separates him pragmatically from the chaotic good individual who may also operate according to some personal ethic. I can imagine a world where countries constantly have to worry about Paladins breaking into their jailhouses in the name of Goodness and springing prisoners. They could make it their life's work, to free the innocent, setting up Underground Railroads and all that.

"Your Majesty, another Paladin broke another prisoner out jail."
"Again? That makes 10 this month alone. This is an epidemic. Remind me again, aren't they supposed to be good and law-abiding citizens? Aren't they supposed to be about an ordered society?"
"Yeah, but this is their idea of law and order and goodness."
"How?!?!?"
"Because, in their minds, we're breaking their God(dess)'s law by punishing people they've deemed are innocent."
"I see. Why did my ancestors ever allow that church and its agents in our country? I mean, it sounds like they rule us and not the other way around."
"Because they're popular and would be difficult to defeat."
"So what? If they can't abide by our laws and our rule and respect our sovereignty inside our borders, then they're the enemy."
"Yes, your majesty."
"I think we've had enough with Paladin arrogance - expel that church. This is probably going to be a messy situation, but it ought to be done for the good of the nation. Maybe the other countries have also gotten fed up with Paladin interference in matters of state."

==========

It's fine if you don't want to argue the point anymore, but quitting the argument with objective-seeming claims to my "ruining the game" and "incorrectly interpreting" any of the rules is classless and is tinged with hubris. A simple, "I still disagree, but don't care to continue this anymore." would have been more appropriate and sufficient.

I have read arguments on the board like: "that race is evil, it is ok to kill them". That sends cold shivers down my spine, since it is the Nazi argument.

This is the kind of slipshod thinking that drives me insane and usually ropes me into saying something. You cannot take the term "race" in RPGs to mean the same thing as "race" when it comes to humans. Because, we're not talking about races, we're talking about species (or sub-species, if you listen to some people talk about the fertility of half-orcs and half-elves).

Why does it matter, you ask? Because they're not necessarily built the same--their genetics and brain function may be entirely different. In the real world, we conflate all humans to the same level of equality. We do this for a number of reasons, but primarily from an ethic of reciprocity, in my opinion. All of us implicitly agree to the social contract, "I won't try to kill/enslave/kidnap/rob/rape/eat you and you won't try to kill/enslave/kidnap/rob/rape/eat me". But we don't equate a human murderer with the rest of humanity: they have shown they have broken the contract and they're no longer abiding by an ethic of reciprocity.

But now we're talking about a separate species altogether (goblin, orc, drow). And as such, you have to treat that species as your world has generated it. Culturally, does it believe in an ethic of reciprocity with other species? Genetically, can it even understand such things? If it understands such things, can it overcome, by willpower, the primal drives of it's genetics?

There are several imaginings, obviously:

1) Cultural - This is a species much like any other species (halfling, dwarf, elf, gnome) and can be included in the affairs of the good species, but only after it has achieved enlightment and respect for other species. We just need to educate them better and influence their culture. Of course, the fact that no such educated, enlightened tribes, nations, or even small communities of such species have ever been found tends to argue against this position. If you want this sort of specie, then you will want to address this in your world.

2) Cultural and genetic - This is a species irrationally opposed to the goodly species. Oftentimes this is presented as a direct result of their lack of empathy and compassion, or their belief in their own superiority (perhaps deity-driven). I see the drow, abboleth, and other intelligent, but dark-minded races this way. They have the arrogance of superiority (narcissism) and an absence of pity or mercy. The very intelligent ones among them will have philosophized and rationalized their elitism in a very pragmatic utilitarian way. "We are as superior to the [insert goodly specie] as the [insert goodly specie] is to the cow. As such they are our natural prey, tool, and beasts of burden." You might raise one of these specie from infancy in a goodly society and find that in spite of the love and care you give the individual, it turns into a cold-hearted mercenary at best or a serial killer at worst.

3) Genetic - This is a species that is not intelligent enough or doesn't possess enough willpower to overcome its baser instincts. They are like vicious animals, without empathy, and with cunning. Imagine if we took a hyena and gave him just enough cunning so that he could figure out how to best capture and eat humans; how to inflict pain, because it finds the screams of its victims funny. But not enough to see the consequences fully through (that it could also be the victim of such behavior) or to care or to overcome it's drive even if it does see and does care. You would then have this species.

Of the normal causes of evil (nothing divine or magical), I can't think of any others. All three imaginings are fine, if that's what you want in your world. #1 above is the one I consider the least likely for these "evil species", but is the only one worthy of giving a chance at redemption. I have yet to see a species such as this giving, in any non-aberrational way, evidence that it possesses empathy or wisdom or even a moral core, in any of the stories that I read. Treating them like they're criminals (under who's law? by what right are they judged?) that can be rehabilitated only places unrealistic restrictions on your ability to effectively prosecute these evil beings fully.

You might argue, "Sure, but the standards of goodness are not just inconvenient, they're tough."

To which I would respond, "True, but being stupid can be suicidal. Let's be both smart and good and avoid making mistakes."

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Archetypes can solve some of the monks problems, go in a specific direction. Feat choices for monks have always seemed so crucial, and lock players in heavily to roles.

Perhaps a better solution for the monk would have been to approach them a bit more like the barbarian. More choice in special abilities, improve the bab, or damage, or ac, or unlock the mythic abilities, but not give it all, because that doesn't seem balanced to me. Allow choice, allow cool creations but always want the player to push and level further, because they can't have it all, but by level 20, can have most of the abilities.

So the first level monk is a bit weak, young grasshopper ohhhh. Basic monk damage, poor bab at this stage, has not mastered his art, can defend, grant a small boost to speed. At levels 2,4,6,8,10 etc, the monk gets choices, and starts to specialise. Following the path of his masters, or creating his own style, or blending styles. I'm thinking quite a big list, but also with such things as damage die boost (which already rises normally anyway) or a bab boost. Remove the ki pool and have each monk have their abilities which don't run out. This is their way.

Thus creating a monk table that is far less cluttered, there are the basic monk parts which improve (speed, damage, ac, saves) and then it is mostly filled with... choice! You could even be quite tricky, make the monk really something, but the cost of going into their path of special abilities is to have no bonus feats, they are no longer needed and not needed for balance. The monk special abilities would then need a bit of boosting, and not to be over-powered. The monk breaks off and becomes a class to be respected, and less like others.

Not to be rude, but isn't this more or less exactly what the Qingong monk is? You swap out monk abilities for other alternate abilities.

Also, I would disagree that the first level monk is weak, relative to any other first level class.

I don't think so. I too was advocating something along these lines. The issue with Qinggong is that Qinggong seems more like a wizard/caster archetype which loses a lot of the monk feel, to me. The main point is that all of the core classes have a "variable" feel to them. You can build them in multiple ways while still maintaining the feel of the class. Partly this is due to nothing more than labeling (calling the abilities of the barbarian "Rage Powers" and that of the rogue "Talents"), but partly because they're thematic, too. So, all they're after is to give abilities options to the monk that is thematic with the concept of the monk, but also gives them build flexibility. I think the best idea is to take Master Arminas' Ascetic Monk and apply Dabbler's ideas of Paths of Mastery. Now you get an awesome class build idea with heavy monkish flavor.

I personally have two beefs, so far, with the monk:

1) Unless archetype books are allowed, player's are forced into a single partly-effective build or have a class that feels useless to a party. Other classes have many builds that are effective (to varying degrees), but the monk seems like it struggles to achieve one build that has value.

2) Due to it's high-frequency-attack/low-attack-damage (compared to other low-frequency-hit/high-attack-damage) it really gets it's butt chewed up by DR/hardness. Yeah, you can do something to mitigate this (buying cold iron sais, silver kamas, adamantine nunchukas, and so forth), but that option is *required*. Without the right weaponry, a barbarian or fighter that hits once for 20 damage still does 10 damage to a DR10/adamantine monster, while a monk that hits twice (FOB) for 10 does nothing.

Relaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax, it's just a discussion about a dead goblin, they aren't people (LOYALIST'S ALIGNMENT HAS CHANGED TO CHAOTIC EVIL!).

:D

I'd say it's just an alignment thread, but they sure do get heated.

Yeah, I hear you. This is "my first alignment thread". I hope it's my last. The issues involved in this discussion (moralizing, chest-thumping deontologists) tend to get my blood high and my fur up. Modern day morality is such a crock, in my opinion, even though it is the popular position and receives the popularity award for "enlightenment". So many people believe things without even knowing why they believe them or think they know why, yet lack the clarity of thought to support what they believe. These same people then go on to preach at everyone else while at the same time decrying the old ways of believing and the preaching associated with those old beliefs ("bible-thumpers", "archaic").

Their current modus operandi seems to be to state unequivocally that some action is right or wrong without explanation followed, when pressed, by pseudo-explanations filled with obfuscation and equivocation followed by flat assertions such as, "You can know because it feels right" or "It's clearly wrong/inexcusable" or "If you have to ask, it's probably X". Moral philosophy is a huge subject (I suspect most posters are not even aware of the voluminous writings on the subject by renowned philosophers and how the subject touches so many other facets of philosophy and theology) and yet we have so many amateur philosophers who "have it right" and are quick to condemn others who "have it wrong". Their self-righteousness makes me want to throw it right back at them.

jupistar wrote:

Loaba: I have intentionally stayed away from "real-world", modern-day military actions...

... because the behavior that you propose wouldn't fly in the real-world.

jupistar wrote:

I believe this is an apples and oranges comparison.

Except it's not - it's a like-comparison.

Except it's not.

Executing a helpless prisoner, in front of kin (with whom you're negotiating terms), real or game world, is not a nice thing to do. It doesn't serve Good, rather it shows that you can flip the Evil switch any time you like. And you can. But if you do it too often, you'll find that switch is set to Evil permanently.

Killing Drow babies and Goblin prisoners, because they're Evil, may be fun for you. And that's cool. Rationalize it however you like.

Your smug self-righteous condescending elitism aside, you're still wrong. You conflate sentience with sapience and you conflate sentience with morality. You anthromorphize goblins and other evil creatures with humans based upon this notion that since they're sentient, they have emotions, and if they have emotions, they must be treated like they're human criminals -- even human prisoners in today's world are executed.

Here's the thing, goblins still have free will. There is still the capacity for change.

That's another anthropomorphic assumption. But let's roll with it, for the sake of the argument.

Depending on how the GM rolls, that capacity may be a little. It may be a lot. One thing that certainly will not give that unspecified quantity of hope any chance to flourish is alleged "Good" acting anything but. Good isn't about cold pragmatism or convenience. It's about something more.

Let's say that flame burns in 1/1,000,000th Goblin. Should we dedicate policies and subject all humankind, elvenkind, gnomekind, hobbitkind, and dwarfkind (and all other goodly races) to the threat of goblins for the 1/1,000,000th of a chance that one Goblin is redeemable, possesses empathy, and can be turned from the path of voracious hungering for young human blood, canine-genocide and equine-genocide, and the destruction of all that which is civilized?

Cold pragmatism is not necessarily opposed to good, nor is convenience. But there is certainly a need for cold pragmatism, even among good races and nations, or bad things will and do happen. Regularly. You're right that Good is about something more than that, but not instead of, rather in addition to. It's not just about the slaughter of evil, it's also about sacrifice and nobility. It's about staring into the darkness and saying, "I'm standing watch tonight. No one will harm my charges tonight." It's about recognizing that value is not in the goblin baby who will *most likely* grow up to eat human babies, but in the human baby that can be nurtured into a loving and caring human adult who must stand up and protect the next generation in turn from baby-eating goblins.

Going off what we know of the situation though, in a vacuum, the player's actions smack of evil.

No, it just sounds evil because of our constant need to empathize. I didn't see where the OP expanded on the story, but I saw a guy who discarded an extremely dangerous tool when that tool was no longer useful. Evil things should not be left around to do more harm later.

And wiping out a race because of maybes and mights is inexcusable.

The only inexcusable thing I see here is that you believe you have some sort of objective tap from the Cask of Objective Morality. I'm not aware of anyone having won this argument anywhere other than in the popular mind (argumentum ad populum).

I see something that I consider deplorable, as well, and that is according to you, somehow, regardless how few members of a race might be redeemable (whether it be 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000), the goodly races must endure the threat of their horrific actions anyway. We can't just ride in and put the little beasts to the sword.

Your argument is like finding out that HIV is, in reality, sentient. So you find some method of communicating with the community of viruses and tell them, "you're killing us". They don't stop. And thanks to thinkers like you, we stop trying to eradicate them because, "wiping out a race because of maybes and mights is inexcusable". This thinking has it that our lives lose value because of another race's sentience, regardless of their constant horrific behaviors.

Overall age/starting age/no difference in accumulation of XP is an insoluble mess that it's best to ignore, IMO. Elves learn way slower than humans for undefined reasons, until they become 1st level, then they solve that problem and learn at the same rate, via an undefined mechanic.

This!

I always found the idea of staying children for 100 years silly and had them mature to adults at the same rate as humans approximately.Maybe thats why they rarely have kids.Can you imagine having a child for 100 years?

And this!

This is the question I've always had. Are you seriously telling me that elves start their "adult lives" after the age of 100 and with no more skill or knowledge than their human counterparts at the age of 18?

<rolls eyes> Come on... after 100 years of life, they should be, at least, 10th level rangers, 10th level druids, have studied the arcane arts, and be accomplished acrobats, climbers, swimmers, and riders (all that tree and forest living). They've had 100 years to learn and perfect themselves. To learn. Can you imagine what it would be like if you had 100 years of childhood before living for an additional 500+? You'd be so well-educated in so many facets of life, the only things unknown to you would be things not in the purview of your race (nobility, local history of various places, certain arcane/religious knowledge [but rare]).

I could, with 40 years of schooling, have an M.D. (even be a neurosurgeon), have several Ph.D.s in Mathematics, Computer Science, Literature, and Physics. So the kid blows off 60 years just being a kid (not all at once). But seriously... and coming out of the forest 100 years later, he can't beat up a 18 year old 5th level fighter? What are they teaching these kids, really?

Agreed. I like the Pathfinder ruleset above 3.5. The developers appear to have taken a mums-the-word sort of approach these days. So don't know what's going on, exactly. It would be rather cool, I think, if they had some sort of production schedule made public so we didn't have to bother them all the time about when something is going to happen.

Oh well.

Ok, so, here's Vrood's mark. It took awhile as I looked for some additional fonts to make it work. I actually created three versions because I wasn't quite sure how I wanted it to look. Honestly, I'm not fully happy with either of the first two, but I think the third works. The goal was to really emphasize the V for AV's high opinion of himself, but I didn't want it to be reminiscent of V for Vendetta.

The first seemed too simple and second too fancy for someone like Vrood (and may have worked better for AA). The third seems to strike just the right middle note, but I'm curious what you all ultimately think.

Also, I did make it gray/black but added a hint of sickly green to it, as well. I hope that's alright.

AurenVrood.png

AurenVrood2.png

AurenVrood3.png

Sorry for the delay. I was in the middle of writing the letter Kendra left for the characters and as I was making a seal for her, as well, noticed that I hadn't scaled the mark well in the previous seal. So I recreated that, deleted the old document, and uploaded a new version.

Letter to Kendra
Letter from Kendra

Those are both PDF documents. I tried to upload the Word documents, but the font is lost and on one the image doesn't seem to upload. So, here's what I'm thinking:

1) You can print what's there now, obviously.
2) If the text has any value to you, you can copy and paste what's there.
3) If the image is what you need, you can copy and save the image(s) by right-clicking on them.
4) If you need a higher quality image, I will gladly upload them separately.

Any other thoughts?

My characaters are about halfway through TotB. A little background, one of the "grounding" ideas to keep the characters in Ravengro was more than just money. Lorrimor charged his friends/proteges with seeing to the disposition of his daughter. After a few days to finally make up her mind and while the PCs were working through Harrowstone, she decided that she would keep her country home here in Ravengro, but that she would pack up most of her belongings and move back to the University (it was more home to her than Ravengro).

So, the PCs spent time clearing out Harrowstone (delaying Kendra's trip, but she was patient, understanding, and appreciated and desired both the help and the escort). When they were finished, Kendra had already hired some local youths to pack up a couple of wagons full of books, curiosities, and Kendra's belongings (leaving the furniture behind and covered). They closed up the house and bid farewell.

They met the Kin, did that stuff, and with only one other incident made it safely to Lepidstadt and all that was going on there. During the second day of the trial, the PCs got the idea of bringing in the highly-esteemed Lorrimor daughter as a character reference, only to find her gone. Dr. Crowl presented the PCs a letter to Kendra from AA to come to him in Caliphas. Kendra brought it to the good doctor seeking counsel. As the PCs were gone and with no time to lose (see the letter), Kendra left a note at the temple of Sarenrae (one PC is a cleric of Serenrae and another an Inquisitor of Sarenrae) apologizing for her speedy absence and wishing them luck and goodbye.

Here is the letter with a wax seal for Adrissant:

Invitation Letter

You will, of course, note AA's ironic and public display of a seal that can be used both upside-up and upside-down for his own purposes.

EDIT - two things: The note was delivered to Kendra in Lepidstadt after the original rider was forwarded there by people in Ravengro where the courier and AA originally expected her. Needless to say, Kendra was in a serious hurry.

By the way, I saw in an earlier post that someone had instead had AA send a letter of commisseration to Kendra while she was still in Ravengro. This letter has much much less of the supercilious note (which that letter just so perfectly captured) and a much more conciliatory and comforting note - he's trying to *lure* her so he can't very well sound off-putting. Just wanted to point out that I very much admired the first letter and wanted to explain why I changed the tone of this one.

PPS: The style of this note also tried to capture the more locquacious and complicated style of Renaissance writing, hence the use of so many qualifier. Please excuse the poor writing (by modern standards).

I normally stay out of commenting on stuff like this (and will endeavor to do so in future), but master arminas, few adults do things because they were bullied into it or because someone badgered them to do it--let alone by a random soul on the Internet. No one endears themselves to others and encourages them to listen by calling them names and acting self-entitled.

Which is a crying shame because when you post civilly and non-confrontationally, you actually have some excellent ideas. But why would the folks in charge listen to you when you might turn on a dime and start calling the person who gave you the benefit of the doubt lazy or apathetic?

As for deleting your posts, I know I've flagged some of your posts and I wouldn't be surprised if others have too, for being abusive and inappropriate. That's the kind of attention you're earning. Sure, you're hitting nerves. But I don't think it's gaining you the "success" you think it is.

Also, what joyd and Mikaze and Gary Teter said.

I trust the devs are working on the issue and will report when they're damn good and ready---in between checking ARG blues and writing UE and working on various Chronicles and Companions and Adventure Paths, of course--and not before. I for one would much prefer a playtested, well-thought out response that comes six months from now than a hasty answer that comes tomorrow that doesn't sufficiently deal with the problem.

If we're taking sides, DeathQuaker, I stand with Arminas. I've not seen him call them names or curse at them. Questioning their intellectual integrity may be offensive, but it's not outside the realm of discussion nor is it abusive and inappropriate. The terms "apathetic" and "lazy", for example, are negative descriptors not simply trolling language. If he had said, "Because you aren't motivated to work hard on this," it would be the same thing - he would be substituting the definition of the word for the word. Is he not allowed to express his negative thoughts at all? I'm so tired of elitist people teaching other people how to communicate (usually claiming that positive approaches are the only valid ones) and then (supporting) punishing them if they take a different approach. I'm tired of elitist people who can't see that negative classifications (words with meanings) are not inherently abusive.

Furthermore, I stand with Arminas because I can't see people throwing him under the bus when he's the most motivated individual keeping the conversation and debate alive. I don't see why the hard work of the devs which is, in my opinion, more than fairly compensated by money spent by me and my friends entitles them to the additional position of not being questioned, not having their decisions challenged, or in this case, their minions (agents/board moderators) supported when abusing the clientele by banning them (kicking them out of the store and community).

If you don't like what he has to say, then you have a right to disagree. If you don't like the way he says things, then you have a right to express that opinion. If you don't want to include him in the conversation, you can simply choose to ignore and not respond to what he has to say. But I definitely thinks it's wrong to try to silence him. As a consumer, customer, and community member, repeatedly expressing displeasure should not be considered abusive. When all you have is a voice, it's all you can do.

I haven't read all of the posts in all of the threads, but I understand how passionate people can get in their argumentation. Did you ask him to tone it down and he ignore you before you started flagging his posts? Did he resort to name-calling (this is different than using words to describe something he means that happen to be negative descriptors: the difference is as simple as comparing a meaningful word such as "lazy: unmotivated" vs. a word that *only expresses negativite judgment* "scum: bad person") or did he resort to cursing at people? I've read many many of his posts and the extreme preponderance of what I've read suggests that he's been a very civil advocate of his positions. So, even if he did write some posts that I missed that were less than stellar, when weighed against all of the good things he's said, I certainly don't see how something said in the heat of things (unless it was extraordinarily abusive) warranted banning, regardless of how temporary.

So it really comes down to this: what are the devs and moderators doing here? Are they here to take a hostile position or a healing one? Again, I've not read everything, but what I sense is "Here's the way it is." (the rules) "Oh, you don't like it? Well, tough... you're wrong and I'm right." (about objections to the decree) And, "Oh, you can't leave it be? We don't like what you're doing or saying, so we're going to shut you down." (the ban)

All that said, I agree that Arminas was starting to get a little shrill. Starting. Certainly not ban worthy. Perhaps, community-warning worthy. You should have said something. Others who agree with the devs should have said something. Politely. Nicely. Not jump on the devs side like the kids who went to the teacher and tattled and after the teacher punished poor Tommy for saying mean things to little Annie sticking out your tongues and saying, "See? You should be nicer."

Allowing it to be done as a Swift action instead of a Standard would also mean that it would no longer be a choice between healing X amount of HP or inflicting Y amount of HP damage on a foe, instead the cleric could do both. One of the issues I had as a cleric in 3.5 was having to spend my action healing a fighter who went headlong into combat and got struck down, and thus losing out on a chance to do something cool myself.

I have yet to see it in action, but I would be interested in seeing how a Cleric in a 3.5 game with Sacred Healing (PHB2) would work out - they can as a Swift action use a Turn Undead attempt to heal d8+Cha damage to everyone in 60 feet (and at the same...

I hear you man, but I have to tell you... putting everyone in terms of DPR is the reason I couldn't stand 4th ed. I don't want my cleric trying to compete with my fighter... that's why he's a priest and the other is a warrior. They have two different callings in life. I like flavor to be every much a part of this game as good mechanics. Balance is for Monopoly.

OK.

Here is another one.

Why is intimidate based on CHA and not STR?

Intimidate... being the primal reaction it is should be based on STR.

I accept that an intelligent or charismatic person may be able to bluff that they are more dangerous than they appear (even if its true in the case of a sorc for example)

in fact there is even a skill for that

Taunt: it allows the person to use the bluff skill to intimidate instead of the intimidate skill.

so why not make intimidate bassed on STR, bluff bassed on CHA and leave the feat as is?

I'm actually "ok" with it being CHA-based. Not just from a meta-gaming point of view (it's good to have CHA-based skills), but also from a reality point of view. Intimidation isn't about strength or fearsomeness. It isn't about the intimidator, at all. Intimidation is about fear and uncertainty. It's entirely about the target. You're only looking at one method of trying to instill that fear and uncertainty. But Conan is more likely to make someone run away than to have them stand around and do what he wants them to.

Intimidation is, in fact, a very nuanced skill and it requires the use of whatever tools that are at your disposal to instill fear and/or uncertainty (they don't both have to exist) in just the right amount. Strength is just one such tool. Bluff is another. Weaponry, support, and even legends of your name all work as tools to intimidate another person. This belongs as a Cha-based skill as you create a force of personality that intimidates another, in my opinion.

On number two especially, the inquisitor may succeed against a target, but does that mean all targets nearby are also affected? On the knights and the bureaucrat, the inq can intimidate the bureaucrat, or a knight, but this is no guarantee the other knights won't decapitate the proud inquisitor, start mockery or drive the inq off. Bands of toughs with good morale do stick together after all.

I like intimidate, and I like to see it used, but the inq isn't in my games because its all over the place and not close enough to real inquisitors for my liking. They should be scary yeah, but their real power comes from representing an evil and powerful church--which makes them far better as npcs, with guards, back-up, funds, sacred authority. Perhaps aristocrats with maxed out intimidate, religious and legal knowledge or clerics along the same lines. Feats also used to that effect.

If the player over-uses the intimidate, remind them of its limits. The inq intimidate ability also makes me smirk. Should it go off easy as pie when used against someone of an alternate belief system, someone actually committed to their faith and in opposition to yours? I wonder if assistance should just be given like that.

I agree. I've already told my player - just because you intimidate one person in the room doesn't mean you've intimidated all the persons in the room. On the other hand, is there room for passive intimidation ("Good thing he's talking to Kraven, I think I might've wet my pants!")? How does one intimidate a group, for instance, of children? Remember Wyatt Earp (in the movie of the same name) pulling out his two pistolas and intimidating the 3-4 ring leaders of a mob come to lynch a prisoner? The ringleaders were actively intimidated and the mob was passively intimidated. How does/should the mechanic take that into account (multiple targets, collateral intimidation)?

But many seem to miss the larger point. For example, magicdealer and blue_the_wolf have both responded with role-playing judgment responses which are entirely in keeping with being a GM. And that's fine. But it's not fine to the player when the player wants to use a mechanic that appears to allow for these things, in which he has invested valuable and limited resources, and who's GM just appears to be looking for ways to stifle his ability. blue_the_wolf writes, "if they rebel then that is a problem that goes beyond the scope of this thread". It's not about rebellion, it's about satisfaction with the game system, game world, and ultimately, the game. My goal isn't to oppose them to the point of rebellion, my goal is to give the player an enjoyable game. I don't mind giving him limitations, but how can he make informed decisions each and every time without running into the "No" wall, without an understanding of how the mechanics are supposed to or going to work?

- Player wants to swing his sword to hit the bad guy and the GM says, "I'm sorry, but no, you can't do that."
- "Why not?"
- "The hallway is too tight for large weapon work."
- "Ummm, ok, but maybe you could have told me that before I pulled out my sword. Alright, I'll drop my sword as a free action, draw my dagger, and stab the bad guy."
- "No, you can't do that."
- "Uh... why not?"
- "In the dark, you didn't notice your dagger sheath had been cut away from your belt by some sneak thief."
- "Oh God... alright, I spit on the bad guy and 'withdraw'."
- "You can't do that either, your mouth is too dry in this desert air and you haven't had anything to drink for some time now, so you can't produce any spittle."
- "Well, then what can I do, GM?"
- "You could grapple the guy."
- "Ok, GM, I'll do whatever you tell me I can do."

GM makes a Sense Motive check to notice the player is not having any fun and fails because he has no ranks in it and his wisdom modifier appears to be negative.

The whole point of this thread is that, unlike in most games where the intimidate skill is used sparingly, an inquisitor is going to use it a lot for investigation, demoralizing in combat, and for cowing the bad guys. So, of course, I have to tell the Inquisitor "no", from time to time, but how do I quickly and consistently make that decision? How can he understand, from the start, that there's likely to be failure in certain situations. How do I allow him to be that intimidating bastard he wants to be?

Just like the rest of you, I'm able to make judgment calls in-game, as well. I'm trying to avoid making completely arbitrary judgment calls each and every time my player wants to intimidate someone. That will get old for both of us very quickly.

As for the bureaucrat: the point of the scenario is that the knights do as they're ordered by the person in charge. By way of example, if the bureaucrat shows cowardice, they'll follow his orders, and think to themselves, "Why is this weak-willed person in charge?" Your job as the DM is to arbitrarily decide that the player fails the intimidation check, in spite of the massive roll of 35, and explain to him that the roll doesn't allow him to cow the bureaucrat because the bureaucrat is well protected.

- "Why not? Maybe the bureaucrat doesn't think the knights will support him or that the knights will be able to support him in time."
- "Because I'm the GM and unfortunately for you [I'm truly sorry] that's my final decision."
- "Ummm, ok. Then I try to draw the bureaucrat away from his knights. I say, 'Mr. Crat, I have something to show you over behind this barn. Unfortunately, the way is a little narrow, so why don't you leave your knights here.'"
- "Mr. Crat follows you."
- "Now I try to intimidate him."
- "Still doesn't work."
- "Why not?"
- "He still considers himself well-protected."
- "Arrggh. So the roll doesn't matter. Me getting him alone doesn't matter. What does matter, GM?"
- "I don't know how to answer that. Just role-play it and I'll decide."
- "Nevermind <grumbles about role-playing skills and the waste that they are... that one should just stick ranks into combat/true-mechanic skills>."

After discussing the issue with several people under the rules discussion section of the forums (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5dk7?Intimidate-Again). Some people don't think it's an important thing to consider, I do. So, I thought I'd provide a possible rewrite to the Intimidate skill here to be more consistent with Bluff and Diplomacy as well as taking into account various factors that seem to be ignored. Obviously, as with all RP skills, common sense is your guide, but this should help provide consistency in judgment. New text uses the blue "out of character" font. Regardless of whether you consider it necessary or not, I'd appreciate your critique and suggestions of the additions here.

Intimidate (Cha)

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.

Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier + half the total Hit Die of the opponent's allies in support/immediate vicinity that the opponent believes will give support. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.

Circumstances Intimidate Modifier
The target is impressed by you or your reputation -5
The target looks down on you or your reputation +5
The target is war-like (accustomed to facing down threatening language and behavior: e.g. guard, bandit, mercenary) +5
The target holds a low leadership position (someone who leads in a world of threatening language and behavior: e.g. captain of the guard, knight-errant, bandit leader) +5
The target holds a high leadership position (e.g. battalion commanders, generals, heads of armies or army divisions): +10
The target holds the top or near-the-top leadership position of entire nations or tribes +20
The target considers helping you a greater threat than not helping you +20
The target considers the demand/request to be morally/ethically objectionable +5 or more
The target is Unfriendly +5
The target is Hostile +10

Successfully intimidated opponents may take actions that endanger it so long as it perceives the consequential danger to be less imminent, threatening, or severe than that posed by the intimidating player, at the GM's discretion. Alternatively, a highly moral person can overcome intimidation if asked to do that which is objectionable to that person's belief system. Requiring an opponent do something it would not normally do requires opposing Charisma rolls.

Circumstances Opponent’s Charisma Modifier
Give simple advice, directions, information -5
Give detailed advice, directions, information +0
Give simple aid +0
Reveal an unimportant secret +5
Give lengthy or complicated aid +5
Give dangerous aid +10
Reveal important secret knowledge +10 or more
Give aid that will result in harm/punishment +15 or more
Each failed Opposed Charisma rolls adds cumulative +5 to future rolls

Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
Try Again: You can attempt to Intimidate an opponent again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after 1 hour has passed.

Special: You also gain a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks if you are larger than your target and a –4 penalty on Intimidate checks if you are smaller than your target.

You gain a bonus equal to half the total HD of your allies assisting you on your Intimidate check (instead of the normal +2).

If you have the Persuasive feat, you get a bonus on Intimidate checks.

A half-orc gets a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.

That's a fanastic idea, waiph. I'm going to post this to the Homebrew/Homerule section of these forums soon, but my preliminary rewrite of the Intimidate rule looks something like this (critiques and suggestions welcome):

Intimidate (Cha)

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.

Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier + half the total Hit Die of the opponent's allies in support/immediate vicinity that the opponent believes will give support. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.

Circumstances Intimidate Modifier
The target is impressed by you or your reputation: -5
The target looks down on you or your reputation: +5
The target is a rank-and-file Warrior (someone accustomed to the world of threatening language and behavior: e.g. guard, bandit, mercenary): +5
The target holds a low leadership position (someone who leads in a world of threatening language and behavior: e.g. captain of the guard, knight-errant, bandit leader): +5
The target holds a high leadership position (e.g. battalion commanders, generals, heads of armies or army divisions): +10
The target holds the top or near-the-top leadership position of entire nations or tribes: +20
The target considers helping you a greater threat than not helping you: +20
The target considers the demand/request to be morally/ethically objectionable: +5 or more
The target is Unfriendly: +5
The target is Hostile: +10

Successfully intimidated opponents may take actions that endanger it so long as it perceives the consequential danger to be less imminent, threatening, or severe than that posed by the intimidating player, at the GM's discretion. Alternatively, a highly moral person can overcome intimidation if asked to do that which is objectionable to that person's belief system. Requiring an opponent do something it would not normally do requires opposing Charisma rolls.

Once intimidated, requests that target would not normally perform require opposing Charisma checks with the following modifiers:
Give simple advice, directions, information: –5
Give detailed advice, directions, information: +0
Give simple aid: +0
Reveal an unimportant secret: +5
Give lengthy or complicated aid: +5
Give dangerous aid: +10
Reveal secret knowledge: +10 or more
Give aid that will result in punishment: +15 or more
Each failed Opposed Charisma rolls adds cumulative +5 to future rolls

Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.

Try Again: You can attempt to Intimidate an opponent again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after 1 hour has passed.

Special: You also gain a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks if you are larger than your target and a –4 penalty on Intimidate checks if you are smaller than your target.

You gain a bonus equal 1/2 the total HD of the your allies assisting you on your Intimidate check (instead of just a +2 for Aid Another).

If you have the Persuasive feat, you get a bonus on Intimidate checks.

A half-orc gets a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.