Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Intrigue (PFRPG)

3.30/5 (based on 18 ratings)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Intrigue (PFRPG)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Print Edition $44.99 $22.49

Add PDF $9.99

Add Non-Mint $44.99 $33.74

Facebook Twitter Email

Words Cut Deep

In the right setting, a single scathing word can prove deadlier than a poisoned dagger. Behind the scenes of heroic battles and magical realms lies a seething underbelly of danger and deception. This world of intrigue holds endless possibilities for adventure, as heroes duel with words instead of steel, plot daring heists, and engage in battles of wills against relentless nemeses. A high-stakes game of shadows and secrets is yours to master—if you have the wits!

Whether the heroes are taming the blood-soaked back alleys of their favorite metropolis or jockeying for the queen's favor alongside highborn nobles, Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Intrigue is an invaluable companion to the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. This imaginative tabletop game builds upon more than 10 years of system development and an Open Playtest featuring more than 50,000 gamers to create a cutting-edge RPG experience that brings the all-time best-selling set of fantasy rules into a new era.

Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Intrigue includes:

  • The vigilante, a new character class that lives two lives—that of an unassuming member of the community, and a cloaked crusader with his own agenda!
  • New archetypes for alchemists, bards, druids, hunters, inquisitors, investigators, mesmerists, rangers, rogues, slayers, spiritualists, and more!
  • New feats and magic items for characters of all sorts, granting mastery of street-smart combat, impenetrable disguises, and misdirection.
  • Dozens of spells to manipulate tense social settings, whether to reveal adversaries' secrets or hide the truth.
  • A complete system of influence, providing new goals and rewards to challenge players and link their fortunes to nonplayer characters and organizations.
  • Systems and advice to help Game Masters introduce a variety of new encounters into their games­—daring heists, extended pursuits, and tense searches for buried secrets.
  • Rules for social combat and verbal duels, allowing characters to use words as weapons to sway hearts and humiliate foes.
  • ... and much, much more!

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-826-7

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Print Edition:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Non-Mint:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO1134


See Also:

16 to 18 of 18 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

3.30/5 (based on 18 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Very Disapointed

2/5

I have to say that I haven't been this disappointed since Ultimate Magic. I will list the things I did like and the things I didn't.

The Good
-Section on various problem spells like divinations, enchantments, etc. The only thing missing was true seeing.
-Section on many skills was useful.
-A few good spells, feats, magic items, and archetypes.
-The Vigilante is a interesting concept.
-A Paladin archetype with some alignment flexibility.
-The artwork.

The Bad
-I like the idea of the Vigilante class but taking most of the options out of the base and making them prestige classes was a mistake. If we had most those options in the base class you get really interesting concepts. Plus making some abilities avenger or stalker only limited the choices of those prestige classes.
-Disappointed in many of the archetypes I was excited about. Especially the druid one that was originally going to be a spontaneous caster.
-Many archetypes seemed to be giving up more then they were getting.
-The design of the magical child didn't give it anything stereotypical of a magical girl except for transformation and a magical pet/guide. There is no way to get anything else like holy, healing, or purifying based powers or at will energy blast. Plus the loss of perception puzzles and annoys me very much.
-No feats that give extra skill points
-To many feats had a lot requirements.
-Still no polymorph spells to change into fey, oozes, constructs, and outsider subtypes other then elementals.
-The weird dislike of dex to damage feats continue with a slightly nerfed reprint and another specialty feat. Why not just a feat that lets you choose one weapon that is weapon finesse friendly.
-Wasn't impressed with most of the spells or feats.
-No archetype should lower classes skill points.
-I didn't care much for any of the optional rules but then again Pathfinder Unchained is the only book that there are stuff like that I like.
-No new racial feats, even one that adds +2 to one or two racial skill bonuses would have been nice.


One of the Best

5/5

This book couldn't have been better aimed at my group if the devs knew us personally. It is a cornucopia of social class options and systems as well as one of the best value for money books in the Pathfinder line.

I can't wait to put this all to use when Crimson Throne gets its big hardcover later this year.


One of the Best Supplements Yet

5/5

Just finished up reading my PDF copy of this. This book is pretty amazing. It gives a lot of support for mystery-type(and of course, political intrigue) games, and also has a bunch of other interesting things.

Other Interesting Things:

-Fey Trickster and Enimga archetypes for the Mesmerist have transformed it from a class that I dislike to one that I would love to play, at least for these archetypes. I really like fey stuff and the Enigma is really good at what it does.

-Cipher is as glorious as I was given to believe. Really, really good for stealth builds.

-Urushiol + Skinshaper = Best Druid combo forever.

-Secret Broker definitely takes the cake for most ingenious mechanics for an archetype in this book, with how it deals with the exchange of secrets.

-As a student who spends a lot of time hiding in the library, the library portion was nothing short glorious.

Most of the material in this book was pretty great, but the stuff in the spoiler was what stuck out to me the most. This was a really well-made book, and I had somewhat high expectations when I started to read it. It was a privilege to read and I can't wait to use it in my next game.


16 to 18 of 18 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
1,451 to 1,471 of 1,471 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
People have pointed this out. Similarly, their spell list includes the various protection from law spells and dispel law while they should probably have the inverse.

Not switching the spells was for the better- now the archetype stacks with spell-free archetypes.


That is honestly a good point, though it is a weird artifact of how the system works rather than something that is good for the class itself. Ideally they could create a tag for a modified ability that may still be eliminated (like adding extra bonus feats to a list or slightly changing spellcasting), but otherwise I guess that would be a good point not to fiddle on (much like not changing one silly class skill).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question: what, exactly, are the differences between using Diplomacy as outlined in the Calling for a Cease Fire subsection of Diplomacy (located the Skills In Conflict section) and using the Call Truce feat?

To me, it seems like the former has no set DC explicitly stated (although it is implied that you would use a base DC equal to 25 [for a hostile creature] or 20 [for an unfriendly creature] + the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group + any other relevant modifier). The latter has a set DC of 30 + the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group + any other relevant modifiers. Are there anything else that I missed about the differences between the two?

Also, why is the DC higher for someone who has the feat (including the prerequisites feat, Persuasive)?

It just seems counter-intuitive to me that the feat itself is mechanically harder to accomplish than without the feat. Am I missing anything here?

CB out.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Canadian Bakka wrote:

Question: what, exactly, are the differences between using Diplomacy as outlined in the Calling for a Cease Fire subsection of Diplomacy (located the Skills In Conflict section) and using the Call Truce feat?

To me, it seems like the former has no set DC explicitly stated (although it is implied that you would use a base DC equal to 25 [for a hostile creature] or 20 [for an unfriendly creature] + the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group + any other relevant modifier). The latter has a set DC of 30 + the highest Charisma modifier in the opposing group + any other relevant modifiers. Are there anything else that I missed about the differences between the two?

Also, why is the DC higher for someone who has the feat (including the prerequisites feat, Persuasive)?

It just seems counter-intuitive to me that the feat itself is mechanically harder to accomplish than without the feat. Am I missing anything here?

CB out.

Call Truce lets you usually call for a truce as long as they aren't mind-controlled or losing the upper hand, but calling for a cease-fire otherwise only works if it legitimately sounds like it's in the best interests of the opponents to go for a truce instead of fighting, which won't always be possible. Call Truce's DC is based on the hypothetical possibility of asking for dangerous aid from an unfriendly person (30 + Cha modifier), so it's actually +5 better for you if they're hostile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does that not seem absurdly circuitous, especially for a book that is supposed to be about such things? I mean, the two sections obviously weren't written with the same hand, and the difference is tiny and vague.

Further, your statement isn't even true, that is only a vague suggestion. The book says:

Quote:
In this case, and in other instances of requests made to unfriendly or hostile characters, the GM should consider only allowing such requests that are couched in such a way that they seem to be in the target’s best interests.

Are you saying the feat exists to force the GM's hand in such matters? Though even then it won't, because despite only listing surrender, loss, mind control, or zealotry, Call Truce also offers "GM discretion" or arbitrarily increasing the DC. In practice I don't see the difference.

Let us face it: the feat does nothing. It changes "GM discretion" to "GM discretion." There is really nothing it could do that would not be a silly feat tax on a character wishing to use Diplomacy, as whether a situation works or not is still entirely the GM's discretion in either case and has to be.

Either that or it breaks GM discretion and I can stop rampaging Orcs, ravenous Ghouls, or anything else I can talk to and we are in a "Diplomancer" situation. The middle ground is so vague as to be essentially meaningless, and not referencing each other makes the two sections even worse. Honestly, this sort of thing is one of the biggest issues with the entire book.


Call Truce has a duration of 1 minute or until attacked, whichever is less. The Cease Fire option doesn't have a set duration but I imagine it would probably be the same duration, or at least a couple of rounds for the opposing group to hear the diplomat out. In either case, extending the duration would be a type of request via Diplomacy, no?

Finally, would it be fair to say that in either case, a valid circumstance modifier to the DC for calling a truce/cease fire would be similar to a request that is "giving dangerous aid that could result in punishment?" After all, if you are asking for an evil cleric, via the Call Truce feat, to stand down and allow parley between the adventuring group and the evil cleric's group, wouldn't the evil cleric be going against the dogma of his deity/divine patron by choosing not to continue the battle (assuming neither side has significant combat advantage over each other, whether it be due to spells, number of members, tactical positioning, or even simply due to class or racial abilities)?

Cheers!

CB out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Barachiel Shina wrote:
I gotta say, I am really liking the Ruse spells in this book. I hope to see more of them in the future.

I'm glad to hear it! Those were my brainchildren. :D

Kevin Mack wrote:

Have I missed something or do a couple of the feats in the book not really do anything?

specificly the sense assumption/relationship ones since arent they already coverd by the sense motive skill anyway?

Good question! As the author of those two feats, I can't offer official rulings, but I can explain why I wrote them this way. Sense Motive's default "get a hunch" function has generally been interpreted to provide less specific information than these feats do. Note that you don't have to talk about things obviously related to the relationship or your potential lie in order to use the feats; they represent being exceptionally adept at figuring out little clues in just about any interaction that meets their limitations. Without such a feat, you can still improvise that use of the skill as your GM deems appropriate (more below).

Xethik wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm seeing a lot of what I was afraid of here: Rumormonger like options. Options that don't expand the use of skills, bur rather by their existence constrain the use of skills only to people with a feat or special ability- feats skill focused characters don't have to spare.

Determining that two people have a relationship is just a sense motive check, not sense motive and 2 feats. Knowing whether a fib is going to be outrageous or easy is something the player/character should have some idea of before they start spinning their yarn. Aiding someone's disguise with a bluff is just a creative aid another, not a feat. Telling if someone knows how to use that sword at their hip is something fighting types know,

One of the reasons people complain about caster/skill disparity is that the expanding system has expanded the capabilities of magic. "Abilities" that already do what the skill does constrains them and makes just getting a spell to do it an even better option.

Yeah, I hate to agree... but I do. I really love the rules make cool things like these are codified into the rules, but I wish it didn't take a feat to do it.

Expanding the existing skill system or utilizing the skill unlocks would be fantastic.

I guess a good reason to keep it in feats is that it keeps the game simple. As soon as they put rules in for using Sense Motive to determining two people have a relationship, people familiar with that rule may feel that they need to make use of that option whenever a situation arises. It clutters the skill page on the PRD if they include it. It is difficult to find if they don't include it directly on the skill page. At least with them as feats, only the people who took the feat will spam the skill use and it keeps the information contained in a relevant location.

Still, definitely lame for feats to remove something you've been doing without a feat.

My philosophy is that the feat is only there to do these things better. A feat is not an excuse to forbid improvisation—it's a lower bound on how challenging it should be to improvise. By all means, let the player use Sense Motive after a lengthy exchange to guess a relationship or how believable a lie is without a feat. Just consider imposing a penalty or raising the DC such that the feat is worth it, and remember feats often let you accomplish something without as much to work with or without navigating as many roleplaying hurdles. Without the feat, you might be at greater risk of being found out or encountering other challenges.

Thanks for reading!

Anguish wrote:

Tenacious Spell...

Is awesome. Very cool. Excellent for PCs and NPCs alike. I look forward to the look on my players' faces when they dispel some ultra-important buff on a BBEG only to discover it lingers for another 1-4 rounds.

That's mine, too! I'm glad you like it. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David N Ross wrote:
My philosophy is that the feat is only there to do these things better. A feat is not an excuse to forbid improvisation—it's a lower bound on how challenging it should be to improvise.

Interesting, and I think you're right, particularly when you consider:

Quote:
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.

So for feats without a normal entry, you're not restricted by not having the feat, it's just not as easy as if you do have it. That might change a few rules arguments.

Community & Digital Content Director

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. Suggesting a "Gaydar" feat in this thread is completely inappropriate and not in the spirit of the community we'd like to foster here on paizo.com.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm wondering. if the Meta-morph Alchemist has Shape-shifting, mutagens and increased resistances, would it be possible to use shape-shifting in a minor way to give natural weapons(like claws) for a brief period of time.

Also i am in love with the tyrant Archetype. They don't lose very much but they become infinitely more easy to play as a result. Kind of makes me want to play a Griffith character that doesn't then go on to sacrifice the band of loyal followers he has gathered. Because while i might want ungodly powers, I'm not going to put my hand in with the powers of hell unless i can exploit them for my own benefit. Plus people that are loyal are quite useful to me and i don't want to create a Guts chasing after my head.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David N Ross wrote:


My philosophy is that the feat is only there to do these things better. A feat is not an excuse to forbid improvisation—it's a lower bound on how challenging it should be to improvise. By all means, let the player use Sense Motive after a lengthy exchange to guess a relationship or how believable a lie is without a feat. Just consider imposing a penalty or raising the DC such that the feat is worth it, and remember feats often let you accomplish something without as much to work with or without navigating as many roleplaying hurdles. Without the feat, you might be at greater risk of being found out or encountering other challenges.

That is definitely the best way to handle it; There are definitely a lot of posts countering my statements and I agree that this theoretical issue is almost entirely a non-issue in real play. I don't think any GM would run a game disallowing sorts of things. These feats, especially in non-combat scenarios, will almost definitely be handled fine.

In combat, I could see one GM allowing a player to scoop up nearby mud and hurl it at an enemy as a ranged dirty trick attempt. I could totally see another GM requiring a player to have the Mud in Your Eyes feat (Heroes of the Street). A third may allow it by the Mud in Your Eyes rules, but with a penalty. All GMs are right in my opinion. Is that feat existing a bad thing? No! There should definitely be rules for such a tactic. Should it require a feat? Tough to say for me.

I'm rambling and talking to myself at this point, but it is an interesting design problem to me!


I rather like the item section of this book, very happy with the puzzle box, and weapon special abilities like unseen and liberating.


I have to say that while I like the Mask of Stolen Mien, I do kind of wish it didn't sound so gruesome. Made out of patches of human faces? Sounds like something that Leatherface would run around with.

Okay, there's nothing evil about using it, but rather like the hand of glory, I wonder what sort of funny looks you'd be getting from people when you try using it.


Eric Hinkle wrote:

I have to say that while I like the Mask of Stolen Mien, I do kind of wish it didn't sound so gruesome. Made out of patches of human faces? Sounds like something that Leatherface would run around with.

Okay, there's nothing evil about using it, but rather like the hand of glory, I wonder what sort of funny looks you'd be getting from people when you try using it.

I wonder what sort of funny look you're giving them when you try using it. ;)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Any chance we'll get additional codes of conduct for the tyrant archetype?

Silver Crusade

DrSwordopolis wrote:
Is "Ready for Anything" the victim of a missing comma, or does the feat really have four prerequisite feats?

I know this doesn't mean anything, but in the book it says, "Prerequisites: Alertness, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Quick Draw, base attack bonus +6 or uncanny

dodge class feature."

I usually translate a listing of prerequisites listed like this. As you only need one of the listed prerequisites. Seeing as it's listed with nothing but commas till the "or". Now I know my English is pretty bad. But I was under the impression that meant the statement of the prerequisites listed as such meant you need Alertness or Improved Initiative or Lightning reflexes or Quick Draw or base attack bonus +6 or Uncanny Dodge.
Forgive me if this has already been clarified or its just my horrid understanding of the English Language(to be fair it's one of the most complex languages in the world)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bryce Kineman wrote:
DrSwordopolis wrote:
Is "Ready for Anything" the victim of a missing comma, or does the feat really have four prerequisite feats?

I know this doesn't mean anything, but in the book it says, "Prerequisites: Alertness, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Quick Draw, base attack bonus +6 or uncanny

dodge class feature."

I usually translate a listing of prerequisites listed like this. As you only need one of the listed prerequisites. Seeing as it's listed with nothing but commas till the "or". Now I know my English is pretty bad. But I was under the impression that meant the statement of the prerequisites listed as such meant you need Alertness or Improved Initiative or Lightning reflexes or Quick Draw or base attack bonus +6 or Uncanny Dodge.
Forgive me if this has already been clarified or its just my horrid understanding of the English Language(to be fair it's one of the most complex languages in the world)

believe it would have to start with the word "Either" to be any individual prerequisite. As written it seems to be the first 4 feats then base attack bonus +6 or uncanny dodge.

Liberty's Edge

It looks like Ultimate Intrigue is not in Paizo's PRD yet?

Unless I'm just not seeing it, has there been any word on when it might be added?


Marc Radle wrote:

It looks like Ultimate Intrigue is not in Paizo's PRD yet?

Unless I'm just not seeing it, has there been any word on when it might be added?

Abit ago Chris Lambertz said that "PRD updates are currently on hold due to some recent staffing changes."

Dark Archive

Paizo, you managed to make perfect archetypes and classes to let us be Captain America, an Bender(Avatar: The Last Airbender), the Incredible Hulk, Batman, Nightwing, Hawkeye/Green Arrow, and even the Punisher.

Don't take this personally, but what happened with Wild Soul? Especially the Arachnid Wild Soul. I was so EXCITED when I looked in this book and saw that archetype. I read through the Arachnid Wild Soul stuff. 2nd level, spider-sense, great start. The 6th level, shooting Tanglefoot bags up to 3 + Con mod times per day. With a 10ft range increment, not 20. Not a "Web Pool" of 10 + 1/2 Vigilante level + Con mod. Just 3 + Con mod. At 12th level(when PFS characters retire or go Seeker) you gain a climb speed and can shoot weblines as ropes. Finally at 18th, I can web swing. 18th level, I have Potions of Fly or Winged Boots. I've never even played a character of 18th level in 3.5 or PF.

I honestly feel like the Wild Soul could've just replaced the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th level Vigilante talents. I would've been a big trade off with losing early Vigilante talents, but the archetype gives you access to some unique things. Or it could've replaced the 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th level Social Talents. Or a mix of replacing Social and Vigilante talents so 1 or the 2 isn't getting hit too hard. Or the Wild Soul abilities could've just been extra Vigilante talents that you could choose from. That way you could've put more abilities into the archetype, like attaching weblines to creatures, using Dirty Tricks, disarming foes, and even grabbing unattended objects.

You guys still do incredibly good work. I still very much enjoy Pathfinder, especially when I can make one of my favorite characters, but I'm still shocked by this archetype.

1,451 to 1,471 of 1,471 << first < prev | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Intrigue (PFRPG) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.