You are indeed threatening someone. Not always with direct "Do this or I will hurt you", but you are frightening someone with threats that imply violence of retaliation.
In the real world, things like "do I need to get in contact with your manager," or crossing your arms as someone speaks to you are perfectly valid uses of intimidate that in no way threaten the person or are in any way, shape, or form illegal.And this I cannot agree with.
While these are not illegal, they are threats. The first is a threat to "give me what I want or I will take action to hurt your job position (get you fired, get you a bad review, etc.)". The second, as in the skill description, is an implied threat of physical violence.
You've confused me,
You say that with Intimidate, you are "frightening someone with threats that imply violence of retaliation" which is why you disagree with Caineach.
However, you go on to explain that example Caineach gives: that of getting someone fired or a bad review, is a valid threat but it contains no violence - obvious or implied.
Police intimidate suspects or criminals without implying violence - indeed they are prohibited from doing so. Further still, a prosecutor in a court of law could be said to be making Intimidate checks when performing a cross-examination of a defendant's witness..
Intimidate without violence (real or implied) is possible.
Intimidate without violence (real or implied) is possible.
This is what it turns on, i think.
btw, someone asked how to get 25 in Intimidate at 6th lvl.
...
...
...
...
Ranks - 6
Class skill bns - 3
Charisma bns - 3
Inquisitor bns - 3
Favoured class bns - 3
Half - Orc - 2
Trait bns - 1
Intimidating Prowess - 4
Intimidate is not friendly, and simply put, you are cowing people into 'seeing things your way'.
It is a short term solution wth many negative drawbacks once it has finished, and is not really a reaplcement for Diplomacy.
Diplomacy is the art of making a point without making an enemy.
Intimidate is simply standing over them with a threat, either direct or implied, and getting your own way.
Sociopathy is looking at those two descriptions and not seeing the difference.
PF phb page 99, =
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
You're emphasising exactly the wrong parts here. Yes, you can frighten, but you can also make them act in a way that benefits you.
And note that there are a lot of very, very legal threats not involving violence out there
Illegal and violent, yes
Demanding fair treatment would be using the Diplomacy skill.
Demanding isn't using Diplomacy. It's famous for it. Asking nicely is Diplomacy. Making a convincing argument while it should be given without asking is Diplomacy.
Demanding is just opening your mouth and stating what you want.
Just like a mere threat isn't Intimidate.
When you Intimidate your bullying someone to do something they do not want to do.
Exactly. And if there's one thing a merchant doesn't want to do it's paying more money.
*) Argue and Complain about prices and try to talk the merchant down = Diplomacy skill.
Again, whining and demanding stuff isn't diplomacy.
*) Bully, Threaten, Blackmail the merchant into lowering his prices = Intimidate skill.
Yeah, if it it's done right, of course. Otherwise it's just threatening.
And one important thing you overlook: Your examples are by no way exhaustive. Just because something can be used in a certain way, it doesn't have to be used that way.
I can kill people with my car, but that doesn't make me a murderer whenever I drive.
Never said that Intimidate was illegal, just said that using intimidate on a merchant might cause him to complain to Authority's, Thieves Guild, and Other Merchants about the PC.
Authorities: You can't complain to the authorities if nothing illegal was going on (Well, you can, but it will fall on deaf ears. "He wanted better prices and was annoyed when I tried to rip him off!" is not something that will get the watch on your side (unless you bribe them)
Thieves' guild, merchants: So? I don't see anyone denying that. In fact, it's to be expected probably. When you use intimidate, you'll get the guy to be cooperative for a while, and then he doesn't like you any more and might take steps.
The big point is the "you'll get the guy to be cooperative for a while", because that's where the GM made an error.
I also don't believe that the merchant becoming unfriendly afterwards would always result in them calling the watch or doing anything bad to you. Yes, they are unfriendly but they would then balance that out with the fear of retribution.
Exactly.
Sure, some merchants might try to soothe their wounded pride by hiring some thugs or something like that, but not everyone will do that. After all, adventurers do have a reputation. Chances are they defeat the thugs and keep one alive just long enough to find out who hired them. And then they might not restrict themselves to Intimidation. Some merchants who have done stuff like that have never been found again. And of those who have been found, some were never identified....
Others will restrict themselves to "economic" retribution. Warn other merchants and get them to turn against the PCs and give them worse deals.
But that, too, is not something common. It's not as if every merchant is every other merchant's very best friend.
And, as you have said, some will do nothing at all, because they know they can't get the watch on their side - not every watch is full of corrupted watchmen, so you often need a legitimate grievance to get them to do something, your indignant shouts "but I pay taxes!" notwithstanding. (And some merchants won't want to remind the authorities about themselves, taxes, and the connection between the two) - don't want to spend money on some retribution, and/or know that this could backfire.
If you read the skill description:
You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.You are indeed threatening someone. Not always with direct "Do this or I will hurt you", but you are frightening someone with threats that imply violence of retaliation.
Only partially true. Sure, there's always a threat (unless you're the kind of guy who says "that was not a threat, but a promise" and then it's still a thread and clichéd semantics), but violence is absolutely not necessary.
Ah, i see.
But i still contend that Intimidate can serve to function *as* a Diplomacy check - in that it *makes* them more favourable - if only for 10-60 minutes.
But of course. It does have its downsides - the guy won't like you afterwards, and that can have repercussions if you stick in the area - but you can influence other's actions to make them more favourable.
PF phb page 99, =
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.What about the other half of that sentence?
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Just because it includes threats, doesn't mean that that's all uses of the Intimidate skill do.
Like i said :
Assuming the intimidate check succeed =
Do i think Intimidate should have worked on the merchant. Yes
Do i think the merchant would then call the law; and have the PC arrested (if possible), afterwards. Yes
Do i think the merchant would complain to the local Thieves guild about being shaken down, after paying his "Protection money". Yes
Do i think the PC will have wanted poster set out for them. Yes
As long as the players know what they are getting themself into, i see no reason why they cant use the skill. For better or Worse.
and
Demanding fair treatment would be using the Diplomacy skill. When you Intimidate your bullying someone to do something they do not want to do.
*) Argue and Complain about prices and try to talk the merchant down = Diplomacy skill.
*) Bully, Threaten, Blackmail the merchant into lowering his prices = Intimidate skill.
Never said that Intimidate was illegal, just said that using intimidate on a merchant might cause him to complain to Authority's, Thieves Guild, and Other Merchants about the PC. What these other people might do, is up to them, but in most places, they will side with the merchant (who pays their salary throw taxes) or (fellow merchant).
PS = Never said the merchant would run to the cops as soon as you tired to Intimidate them. I would think Intimidate should have worked. It is only when they lose sight of the PC should they run/Call the copes.
strange i thought i said this
It seems to me that a lot of people are trying to explain how to make sure that PCs can't use Intimidate in an effective manner in a game. That seems a sad way of doing things. Intimidate is the classic "leaning on". One way or other, you get the person to do what you want. One classic question in this is "Do you know who I am?" Having a reputation, authority or status is often enough to get people to do as you wish. Certainly, you don't get whatever you wish this way, if you murder someone, claiming to be a famous politician will likely not protect you from a policeman arresting you, but it can get people to do "that extra effort". The bureaucrat deals with your application first, you can get a better price for the paint job of your car, and so on.
Given the actual situation, I doubt you would even have to say anything. You're a big burly half-orc, and if you're coming into his store with full adventuring gear, smiling a somewhat disconcerting smile at him, that is how you get a good price for your stuff. To the merchant, you're a customer, but thanks to the danger you represent, you're a customer he's not going to try to cash in on. He's going to give you every inch of service you should have (half price), but you're not likely to get anything more than he would give, say, the mayor, or his cousin. And yes, he is going to loathe that afterward, but with a well-placed Intimidate, he's not likely to complain to the law unless you squeezed him beyond "buddy price". And the next time you enter his store, well, what do you know, he can still be Intimidated. If you deal fairly with him, and you keep making those checks, you should get a mounting bonus after a while. That's why protection rackets work. People stop protesting.
See thats where I think the line comes into play; as a big burly half orc yuo may be intimidating (note the small i?) and as such Mr Merchant thinks it is a good idea to play nice. However should you press that advantage and actually Intimidate him (big I - skill), then you are actively using that implied threat to further your ends.
By intimidating him into paying more than he bargained for, well thats hardly 'fair' treatment. And sure he might pay up, but you are still being a 'bully', and that can end messily :)
See thats where I think the line comes into play; as a big burly half orc yuo may be intimidating (note the small i?) and as such Mr Merchant thinks it is a good idea to play nice. However should you press that advantage and actually Intimidate him (big I - skill), then you are actively using that implied threat to further your ends.
By intimidating him into paying more than he bargained for, well thats hardly 'fair' treatment. And sure he might pay up, but you are still being a 'bully', and that can end messily :)
But it should at least work. The OP didn't care if it ends messily after it works, but DM skpped the working part.
The merchant lives off his ability to get a profit on the deals he makes. This means that his desired price lies somewhere where he can make a big profit - always. A generally accepted price (the 50% level) would be a good bit up from his desired price. Being a successful merchant, he would always try to get as close to his desired price as possible.
Say you're discussing... a masterwork dagger. It's 300 gp or so. A general expectation of a fair price would be 150 gp. The merchant could himself sell the dagger for 300 gp, if he gets it sold, meaning his profit after moving it would be 150 gp. However, if he can give you 100 gp for the dagger, perhaps not an unreasonable deal in many cases, his profit ends up at 200 gp, 50 gp more than the "expected price".
As long as nothing else enters the discussion, that's probably what he would do. If the one selling him the dagger has power or status, he'd be happy to give 150 gp, perhaps even a little more, seeing it as an investment. If the seller is a big burly half-orc, it's probably worth not getting the big profit this time, so as to keep out of trouble.
Thus, when the half-orc comes in, the merchant could try offering his desired price (100 gp), but with an Intimidate check easily be pushed to 150 gp. He will not be particularly surly about this, merely considering it good business practice. If the half-orc wants more than the expected price, however, he will need to make some kind of threat, and the bad consequences will mount up.
It's not about whether it's bullying, it's not about whether it's nice. It's an attempt to provide rules for a common activity, and Intimidate should be a valid skill to take for all characters.
This thread is proving to me that Intimidate should have been removed from the game and rolled in with Diplomacy (just like they did with Perception and Stealth).
Bothering to make a distinction between the two in the game is both stupid and a waste of time.
This thread is proving to me that Intimidate should have been removed from the game and rolled in with Diplomacy (just like they did with Perception and Stealth).
Bothering to make a distinction between the two in the game is both stupid and a waste of time.
Not really. Hide and move silently are related activities, while diplomacy and intimidation are quite different, even if they happen to achieve similar goals.
You sir win this thread. This pretty much sums the counter argument. While Intimidate can be used as a tactic with Diplomacy, it is NOT a substitute for it. You don't use it to gain cooperation, you use it to get someone to do something that they won't do as your enemy.Intimidate is not friendly, and simply put, you are cowing people into 'seeing things your way'.
It is a short term solution wth many negative drawbacks once it has finished, and is not really a reaplcement for Diplomacy.
Diplomacy is the art of making a point without making an enemy.
Intimidate is simply standing over them with a threat, either direct or implied, and getting your own way.
Sociopathy is looking at those two descriptions and not seeing the difference.
Actually, he gets an F for barking up the wrong tree. This was never about Intimidate being a sensible replacement for Diplomacy, it was about Intimidate not failing with a success.
I can't remember anyone in here claiming that Intimidate is just as good as Diplomacy, or that it has no side effects.
And I will keep repeating it until everybody understands it.
|
Do i think the merchant would then call the law; and have the PC arrested (if possible), afterwards. Yes
I don't think that there is any country - except Cheliax, of course - where you can get people arrested for demanding fair treatment.
It must have been said a killion times already in this thread alone that intimidate does not necessarily involve anything illegal.
BAH! You said that just to take a snipe at me, didn't you? And as a *former* Chelaxian citizen, you should know that it is completely untrue!
|
But there are plenty times and places where using intimidate will backfire. Usually, it'll backfire when your opponent is in a position of power over you.
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.
Some merchants are like that. If they have guards at their beck and call, they get a sense of entitlement. But others are not like that at all, and will gladly take a smaller profit margin on one item in order to get rid of an intimidating customer.
I think most merchants would respond in the latter way. But I don't think it's unreasonable for a merchant to respond in the first way, when intimidated. It's not RAW, just the way things work. I know merchants in real life who will call security just because of an intimidating customer. Even if he hasn't done anything!
Not really. Hide and move silently are related activities, while diplomacy and intimidation are quite different, even if they happen to achieve similar goals.
Agree to disagree.
1. This is why you shouldn't really try to barter prices. The game isn't about bartering, it's about adventuring.
2. Just because you rolled a 39 doesn't mean you have to push the intimidation that far, any more than rolling a 39 on a jump check means you have to jump 39 feet... say, if you're jumping over a 10-foot pit to land on a 5-foot walkway at the edge of a cliff.
But there are plenty times and places where using intimidate will backfire. Usually, it'll backfire when your opponent is in a position of power over you.
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.
Some merchants are like that. If they have guards at their beck and call, they get a sense of entitlement. But others are not like that at all, and will gladly take a smaller profit margin on one item in order to get rid of an intimidating customer.
I think most merchants would respond in the latter way. But I don't think it's unreasonable for a merchant to respond in the first way, when intimidated. It's not RAW, just the way things work. I know merchants in real life who will call security just because of an intimidating customer. Even if he hasn't done anything!
Exactly. Some people are just wound up that way.
The 50% sales price is also just a guideline.
There are some blue chip perennial items that merchants will take at that with hardly blinking, generally all the grot adventurers want to buy: handy haversacks, stat boosting items, healing wands, rings of wizardry, general purpose magic weapons, luckstones, etc.
Then there are the white elephants: golem manuals, bane weapons for creatures which are uncommon in the area, efreeti jugs.
A merchant, even if bullied into being "very helpful," will not buy an item that he wouldn't usually buy even in his most helpful mood with a favorite customer.
It should also be remembered that diplomacy isn't a panacea either. The merchant may know that, even if it is authenticated an so on and he utterly believes the tale of the nice bard, an efreeti jug is a horrible accident waiting to happen, and so while it is worth an obscene amount of money and he could make a tidy profit by buying it at 50% off, that's only assuming he can find someone fool enough to buy it and one of his idiotic apprentices doesn't decide to pop it on a dare.
But there are plenty times and places where using intimidate will backfire. Usually, it'll backfire when your opponent is in a position of power over you.
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.
Some merchants are like that. If they have guards at their beck and call, they get a sense of entitlement. But others are not like that at all, and will gladly take a smaller profit margin on one item in order to get rid of an intimidating customer.
I think most merchants would respond in the latter way. But I don't think it's unreasonable for a merchant to respond in the first way, when intimidated. It's not RAW, just the way things work. I know merchants in real life who will call security just because of an intimidating customer. Even if he hasn't done anything!
And the whole point of having a high intimidate skill is knowing exactly which buttons to push to get someone to do what you want. You don't threaten the king with physical violence, unless you honestly think you and he think you could possibly perform such violence. "Your guards are 30 ft away. Do you think I strike before they can get to me?" If there is doubt, suddenly that king will be very afraid and intimidated. Or how about "I am a hero of the people and served you faithfully. If you strike me, what message will that say to those who follow you?" Finally, look at Dune for intimidation against a king, "I have control over the resources of this nation and can chose to destroy them if I see fit. If I am harmed, my followers have standing orders."
The point of intimidation is to make your opponent feel insecure. Now, afterwards the king may send soldiers to kill you and he will hate you for making him look weak and powerless, but he will treat you with caution while you are in his presence, which is exactly what the skill says it should do. Success on the skill check means your character thought of something that is important enough to cause this person to pause and rethink how he should treat you. It is perfectly reasonable to add circumstance modifiers to certain situations, like the King, but it is by no means impossible to intimidate in them. The point of a successful check is that you found what pushes their buttons. One intimidation technique does not work against everyone, but with a +25 to the roll the character not only knows this, but knows how to determine it better than almost anyone else in the world. And part of that minute long check is determining which method to use to get this particular person to behave the way you want them to.
|
Give me a better price or I beat the crap out of you, you bastard.
Illegal and violent, yesGive me a better price or you'll find tomorrow that someone stole all your stuff. Non-violent, but still illegal. Stop trying to rip me off or I'll make sure everybody knows just how big a scumbag you are. Non-violent, and legal. You're about to commit a serious offence, citizen. Refrain from this activity or it will have serious legal consequences. Non-violent and not only legal, but "official".
1) Agreed
2) Using financial harm is STILL harm. It is a form of violence. Yeah it doesn't leave a bruise, but the merchant does get hurt if the threat is actually carried out. Things that cause harm is violence. That's why there are laws againt verbal and mental abuse.
3) It can be illegal IF there are libal laws in place. And once again, financial harm is harm. Things that cause harm is violence.
4) Illegal and once again cause harm UNLESS the character is actually an agent of the law and the merchant is actually breaking a law.
But there are plenty times and places where using intimidate will backfire. Usually, it'll backfire when your opponent is in a position of power over you.
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.
Some merchants are like that. If they have guards at their beck and call, they get a sense of entitlement. But others are not like that at all, and will gladly take a smaller profit margin on one item in order to get rid of an intimidating customer.
I think most merchants would respond in the latter way. But I don't think it's unreasonable for a merchant to respond in the first way, when intimidated. It's not RAW, just the way things work. I know merchants in real life who will call security just because of an intimidating customer. Even if he hasn't done anything!
I Agree with you on this.
But there are plenty times and places where using intimidate will backfire. Usually, it'll backfire when your opponent is in a position of power over you.
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.
Some merchants are like that. If they have guards at their beck and call, they get a sense of entitlement. But others are not like that at all, and will gladly take a smaller profit margin on one item in order to get rid of an intimidating customer.
I think most merchants would respond in the latter way. But I don't think it's unreasonable for a merchant to respond in the first way, when intimidated. It's not RAW, just the way things work. I know merchants in real life who will call security just because of an intimidating customer. Even if he hasn't done anything!
And the whole point of having a high intimidate skill is knowing exactly which buttons to push to get someone to do what you want. You don't threaten the king with physical violence, unless you honestly think you and he think you could possibly perform such violence. "Your guards are 30 ft away. Do you think I strike before they can get to me?" If there is doubt, suddenly that king will be very afraid and intimidated. Or how about "I am a hero of the people and served you faithfully. If you strike me, what message will that say to those who follow you?" Finally, look at Dune for intimidation against a king, "I have control over the resources of this nation and can chose to destroy them if I see fit. If I am harmed, my followers have standing orders."
The point of intimidation is to make your opponent feel insecure. Now, afterwards the king may send soldiers to kill you and he will hate you for making him look weak and powerless, but he will treat you with caution while you are in his presence, which is exactly what the skill says it should do. Success on the...
I agree with you on this.
............................................
Intimidate people should work in the short term.
Once you leave, there reaction become unfriendly (as listed in Phb).
............................................
If you want to Intimidate a Merchant with body guards, or a King with body guards. I would say that first, you would have to successfully, Intimidate the bodyguards. Otherwise, those guards are going to step in and prevent you from intimidating anyone they are protecting. After all, that is why people hire body guards in the first place.
But there are plenty times and places where using intimidate will backfire. Usually, it'll backfire when your opponent is in a position of power over you.
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.
Some merchants are like that. If they have guards at their beck and call, they get a sense of entitlement. But others are not like that at all, and will gladly take a smaller profit margin on one item in order to get rid of an intimidating customer.
I think most merchants would respond in the latter way. But I don't think it's unreasonable for a merchant to respond in the first way, when intimidated. It's not RAW, just the way things work. I know merchants in real life who will call security just because of an intimidating customer. Even if he hasn't done anything!
And the whole point of having a high intimidate skill is knowing exactly which buttons to push to get someone to do what you want. You don't threaten the king with physical violence, unless you honestly think you and he think you could possibly perform such violence. "Your guards are 30 ft away. Do you think I strike before they can get to me?" If there is doubt, suddenly that king will be very afraid and intimidated. Or how about "I am a hero of the people and served you faithfully. If you strike me, what message will that say to those who follow you?" Finally, look at Dune for intimidation against a king, "I have control over the resources of this nation and can chose to destroy them if I see fit. If I am harmed, my followers have standing orders."
The point of intimidation is to make your opponent feel insecure. Now, afterwards the king may send soldiers to kill you and he will hate you for making him look weak and powerless, but he will treat you with caution while you are in his presence, which is exactly what the skill says it should do. Success on the...
Which begs the question of why anyone would hire a royal torturer when a twinked-out 1st level half-orc inquisitor will do the job so much more effectively?
There has to be a point where the button-pressing fails.
It should also be pointed out that Intimidate and Diplomacy should not be made to double for Sense Motive. The merchant may have set percentage he won't go below or above, and even godly Intimidate and Diplomacy checks shouldn't be able to divine that. Oh, they may get him to say some number, but that doesn't mean that he'll be telling the truth. Some people lie out of force of habit, and merchants especially may have a rehearsed shpiel they'll go to by default.
I would suggest--if you want to have some haggling variability--looking at the old 3.5 feat which was called "Mercantile Background." It's not OGL, but it provides an indicator of what "wholesale" prices are if you look at the following: When you sell weapons, magic items, or other adventuring goods, you get 75% of the list price instead of 50%. Once per month, you can buy any single item at 75% of the offered price.
Basically, what this means is that 75% of book prices is wholesale, 100% is retail, and 50% is what merchants will offer to buy stuff from people off the street, assuming that they're in a buying mood.
I'd say that all the haggling rolls can't adjust the price beyond the 75% wholesale price either way, unless you're doing Intimidate as banditry and you frighten the shopkeeper so much he lets you walk off with the cash register.
Taking the Mercantile Background feat lets you skip the haggling altogether. Your Diplomacy, Intimidation, Sense Motive and Profession Merchant skills may all suck, but you can just flash your Merchants Association membership card in the form of knowing all the secret signs and passwords which you can't fake, especially the bit of being related to most of the prosperous merchants, and you get the 75% price no trouble.
Intimidate is a perfect weapon to use in negotiations and business transactions as long as you know exactly what you are getting into (retaliation from the authorities for your standover tactics) and know that using the tactic only works for the short term (and must be attempted again if a new situation against the same individual arises). And people are right when they talk about the situation influencing the uses of Intimidate. Sometimes, the results of a dice roll are irrelevant in certain situations (as KAM pointed out).
A lot of the posts on this topic are about the uses of Intimidate and what constitutes an intimidating action. Let me just say that threats can take many forms (physical, fiscal, emotional, mental and social). Of course, a half-orc using the Intimidating Prowess feat is probably threatening physical violence, since his physical strength is a key factor contributing to his check.
I just want to add that intimidate is a great skill.
As long as your the biggest, most powerful, or person in control. It is a great skill, for getting people to do what you want, when you want, were you want. After all a king with intimidate skill is a force to be wreaked with.
Also, as long as your own the move, it is a great skill for short turn reaction. As your not there when the things go sour.
But
Intimidation skill once used leave the target "Unfriendly". Even if they were neutral before meeting you, after intimidation they are now unfriendly.
In the long run this can cause problem for the user of intimidate.
The king & guards might get there way when present, but behind their backs the people will be helping the rebels. Even is this is just by not helping the guards catch the rebels.
The PC on the move would also be fine, until their past caught up with them.
I just want to add that intimidate is a great skill, but it just come with future risk is all, and great possibles for role-play.
Which begs the question of why anyone would hire a royal torturer when a twinked-out 1st level half-orc inquisitor will do the job so much more effectively?
So you find a parallel between torture and Intimidate. Great. AFAIK, there is no game mechanics for Torture, but if there were to be one, I don´t see why it wouldn´t be an Intimidate roll (i.e. Professional Torturers would have high Intimidate modifiers, and use gear that gave situation bonsues). So what exactly is the problem with a PC investing in a skill which makes them a good candidate for a certain profession? I don´t get it. They might just be recuited by the Royal Torturers... Or the Mafia. Or anybody else who might find Intimidate useful. So what?
It should also be pointed out that Intimidate and Diplomacy should not be made to double for Sense Motive. The merchant may have set percentage he won't go below or above, and even godly Intimidate and Diplomacy checks shouldn't be able to divine that.
NOBODY IS SUGGESTING ANYTHING LIKE THIS BUT YOU.
If anybody mentioned ´knowing what buttons to push´ that is just kind of inextricable from how all the social skills are set up in D&D, that if one is good at Intimidating or Diplomacy one must be able read personality traits well enough to be successful at those endeavors, while not necessarily being ´generally´ good at Sense Motive outside those areas.Nobody wants Intimidate to Sense Motive/divine the Merchant´s bargaining points, they want it to do what it says and force him to act ´friendly´ for the duration.
A merchant, even if bullied into being "very helpful," will not buy an item that he wouldn't usually buy even in his most helpful mood with a favorite customer.
Perhaps he might not buy an item at the standard price if he wouldn´t do so with other people he´s normally prone to act helpfully towards, BUT HE WOULD STILL DO WHAT HE COULD TO BE HELPFUL however he could. Mentioning another merchant who CAN afford to buy the item, offering to sell something at a discount, explaining why all the merchants in the area are terrorized and provide a helpful clue to the PCs as to how they could help... All are other ways to be helpful.
The GM in this case did not have the merchant do anything of the sort, but responded in a way that is indistinguishable from a FAILED roll. THAT is the issue, not that he didn´t do exactly what the PC wanted, but that his response didn´t remotely seem like a successful check where the target acts ´helpful´.
...I find the desire to bar Intimidate RAW function very bizarre.
Even in games where Intimidate is allowed to function properly I rarely take Intimidate because of it´s negative repurcussions, only for RP purposes for characters who I expect to routinely provoke negative repurcussions. Certainly, it´s not a good replacement for Diplomacy when dealing with people like shopkeepers, because it doesn´t do anything better than Diplomacy (which can make a neutral target ´friendly´ with a high check, i.e. 1 category above ´helpful´), while Intimidate has potentially huge side-effects later. It´s only ADVANTAGES are when dealing with already hostile targets, like captured enemies or the like... Which isn´t the subject at hand.
If GMs don´t like players bartering down prices of goods... Well, that´s not a problem with Intimidate, because Diplomacy can and will do it better, and the guidelines of ´helpful´ and ´friendly´ mean that MOST vendors would PROBABLY give a better price in most cases. Ultimately, worrying about Bartering to place restrictions on skills themselves, or bartering in general is silly. If the PCs are exceeding wealth by level and the GM would rather not adjust NPCs for a wealth-heavy party, he can send NPC theives against the PCs, he can draw the PCs into scenarios where they squander their wealth, he can put less than usual wealth in future NPCs to balance it out, etc.
|
|
Which begs the question of why anyone would hire a royal torturer when a twinked-out 1st level half-orc inquisitor will do the job so much more effectively?
I'm pretty sure we're going around in circles by this point and I've seen that argument made and answered. Regardless, the king very likely might, other things being equal, hire a half-orc inquisitor as a torturer.
BAH! You said that just to take a snipe at me, didn't you? And as a *former* Chelaxian citizen, you should know that it is completely untrue!
Do i think the merchant would then call the law; and have the PC arrested (if possible), afterwards. Yes
I don't think that there is any country - except Cheliax, of course - where you can get people arrested for demanding fair treatment.
It must have been said a killion times already in this thread alone that intimidate does not necessarily involve anything illegal.
There's a law against it being true, right?
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.
Wrong
3) It can be illegal IF there are libal laws in place. And once again, financial harm is harm. Things that cause harm is violence.
It's not libel if it's true.
4) Illegal and once again cause harm UNLESS the character is actually an agent of the law and the merchant is actually breaking a law.
I'm talking about a watchman, I'm not talking about a merchant. Not necessarily.
This is the example where intimidation can be legal and even have the force of law behind it.
|
|
Wrong
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.
You would never even get to make the check. An intimidate check requires a full minute.
"Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action."
You will get about 6 seconds into threatening and making physical displays of prowess before the king's guards step in and take you down. And then you will spend quite a bit of time enjoying the king's hospitality in a dark, wet place.
The same with a merchant. You think that a merchant can't Sense Motive? It's probably a primary skill for a merchant, knowing how much a customer will pay, how little he needs to pay for used gear. Knowing exactly how much is: "All the market will bear".
You pile your loot on his counter. He makes you a low-ball offer.
You respond by accusing him of cheating you, and how you won't stand for it, and then begin to make threats and physical displays meant to intimidate him. Do you honestly believe that the merchant is going to stand there and let you threaten him in any way, shape for form for a full minute? Again, 6 seconds in (end of 1 round), he's going to say "Get the hell out of my shop."
When you continue your rant, he's going to walk to his door, open it and shout for either the town guard, or a neighboring merchant to help. You are now about 12, maybe 18 seconds (end of round 3) into your intimidate check. Do you follow him outside to continue intimidating him, or do you stand where you are in the shop? If you aren't where he is, then you aren't even making the attempt. If you follow him outside, then when the guards or neighbors look over, they are going to see a stranger they don't know making threats against a merchant that they do know. Maybe one of the spotters for the local thieves guild sees what's happening, and runs for the muscle that the merchant pays protection money for.
Now your maybe 30 (end of round 5) seconds into your check, and a crowd is starting to watch you. Hmm, witnesses. And look, the guard is looking towards the merchant is calling them. And the butcher next door has heard the ruckus and has stepped out of his shop, cleaver in hand, because this is a peaceful market and he doesn't want any ruffians making trouble. And the merchant is still calling for the guard to help.
Okay, now we're maybe another 12 seconds (end of round 7) in, and the guard is definitely on it's way, and they see what you are doing, and oh, you're a half-orc? Well, their natural inclination is to look on you as a troublemaker You people all have +2 to intimidate. By your very nature, you appear threatening. So they are drawing their swords as they walk over. But hey, they won't be here for another round or so.
So the end of round 9, the guard is here. Are you going to keep intimidating the merchant, or are you going to start intimidating the guards? While the merchant is still telling you to leave his premises, that your custom is not desired from him, and all his neighbors are muttering "Not from me neither."
So here we are at round 10. Did you accomplish "1 minute of conversation" ? Or are you so busy dealing with the repercussions of beginning to threaten a shop keeper that you don't even get to roll.
Intimidate has a place in the game. Hey, defeat some bad guys. Get them in a nice locked room, and you have all the time in the world to intimidate them. That massive die roll will work wonders. But in a situation where your opponent can respond to your threats and physical displays, you probably won't even get to roll.
Diplomacy actually has the same downside. It also takes a full minute of conversation. This is why it's rarely usable in a combat situation. You simply don't have time to talk to the person before they respond. 3.5 included the ability to make a rushed diplomacy roll by taking a -10 to the check. This reduced the action down to a full round. It's not in Pathfinder. (I'd guess that it's because of the number of "diplomancers" that cheesed diplomacy so much that it unbalanced the game.)
The reason diplomacy is used in negotiations instead of intimidate is that the person you are negotiating with is unlikely to stop you when you are being reasonable and understanding and making them feel comfortable ("You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."), but they are far more likely to interrupt you when you attempt to frighten them ("You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.").
Or, as my grandmother used to say, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."
Some things that jump into my mind while reading this thread:
1. Diplomacy and Intimidate are skills that require heavy DM adjucation and how they work should probably be cleared up before either are used.
2. If it hasn't been previously discussed, going with a gut reaction as a DM that potential abuse needs to be squashed immediately is as bad a player deliberately trying to abuse them. Both actions hinder the communication process that is absolutely critical when these skills come into play.
3. One person's sense of what can be done with Diplomacy is something that someone else feels can be done with a properly targetted and described Intimidate. Same goes if you reverse Diplomacy and Intimidate.
4. The description for Intimidate says it makes the target unfriendly afterward, not hostile. There is no reason to assume that the average merchant in a metropolis is going to call the guards just because the customer threatened to go to a different merchant in town, a very valid and legal threat in a town that size, or that the thieve's guild would automatically assume that such a customer was trying to horn in on the guilds activities. As such, occasional use of the skill on merchants would generally only make the pc find another shop of that kind, usually not an issue. If the player was really being a pain about it, than having the pc develop a general reputation for being difficult or making that particular merchant important to a quest, forcing the pc to either let someone talk or eat crow, should be enough since the problem probably is the player, and not the skill, anyway.
5. To me, the difference between Diplomacy and Intiminidate is effectiveness in the short term/long term. Diplomacy generally works better for long term situations. Intimidate works for short periods, and usually requires the intimidater to "put up or shut up" at some point to be taken seriously, and depending on how the situation develops, such demostrations may be required on a regular basis. If the situation is short term enough though, like an adventurer passing through a metropolis and attempting belligerent haggling with a merchant because thats the only kind of haggling he knows, the negative impact should be minimal unless the DM plans on having that metropolis/merchant play a key role in the campaign. Likewise, in the same example above, Diplomacy might actually be a weaker option since the merchant sees so many wandering adventurers on a regular basis a relationship based on diplomacy might require a significant investment in time or effort to be successful.
I still don't see this. Why do you people absolutely have to make Intimidate useless? You're building very pretty straw men and tearing them down, I'll give you that.
The general argument goes something like this:
Thruk half-orc just entered George the General store shopkeep's store.
"Hey, you want buy big shiny sword?"
"Hmmm, a holy avenger. There are a lot of those around right now, so I'll give you 50 gp for it. Deal?"
(Rolls 39 on Intimidate)
"GIVE MORE MONEY OR THRUK SMASH PUNY SHOPKEEP!!!"
What will George do now?
Obviously, this is not what happens. The above shows an Intimidate check of somewhere around 3. A good check means a) you impress the gravity of the situation on your target, and b) there is very little he can point to as concrete threats in what you said. A very good check can result in the target doing exactly what you want, but can't really say why they did it, and they generally consider they got the better deal (not doing it would have been worse). They still won't like you, though.
Intimidate has limits. It will not force people to do what they absolutely wouldn't do for anyone, but they will treat you as well as they might. Threatening them outright means you have lost an advantage. There is a reason they call it Intimidate and not Threaten. Intimidation can be achieved several ways, with threats of physical force being the least effective. Status, power, wealth, prowess, reputation, contacts, image, all these and more can be used to intimidate someone. Reading your target is a vital part of it, and a good skill means you can smell someone's fear.
It will usually not be interrupted by someone telling you to get out. That is what happens WHEN YOU FAIL. You weren't subtle enough, and they kick you out.
Finally, torture is not Intimidate. Generally, torturing someone is dealt with through the Heal skill.
Wrong
If you try to intimidate a king when all his guards are around, he's not going to shift to 'friendly'. He'll shift to 'scared of you' which includes asking the royal guards to kindly escort you out.You would never even get to make the check. An intimidate check requires a full minute.
"Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action."
You will get about 6 seconds into threatening and making physical displays of prowess before the king's guards step in and take you down. And then you will spend quite a bit of time enjoying the king's hospitality in a dark, wet place.
The same with a merchant. You think that a merchant can't Sense Motive? It's probably a primary skill for a merchant, knowing how much a customer will pay, how little he needs to pay for used gear. Knowing exactly how much is: "All the market will bear".
You pile your loot on his counter. He makes you a low-ball offer.
You respond by accusing him of cheating you, and how you won't stand for it, and then begin to make threats and physical displays meant to intimidate him. Do you honestly believe that the merchant is going to stand there and let you threaten him in any way, shape for form for a full minute? Again, 6 seconds in (end of 1 round), he's going to say "Get the hell out of my shop."When you continue your rant, he's going to walk to his door, open it and shout for either the town guard, or a neighboring merchant to help. You are now about 12, maybe 18 seconds (end of round 3) into your intimidate check. Do you follow him outside to continue intimidating him, or do you stand where you are in the shop? If you aren't where he is, then you aren't even making the attempt. If you follow him outside, then when the guards or neighbors look over, they are going to see a stranger they don't know making threats against a merchant that they do know. Maybe one of the...
No. Intimidation requires 1 minute of interaction with the person in order to make the check. Not all of this minute needs to be threats. More than half the time could be spent trying to figure the guy out so you know why types of threats to use on him. None of those threats need to be violent.
The first 6 seconds of the check are you walking into the store and talking to him. You introduce yourself and tell him that you have this loot to sell him. The next 6 seconds are him telling you what he will pay. The next 30 seconds are you hagling over the price and you drop hints as to your importance, finished by 6-12 seconds of where you start to mention the bad things that could happen to his reputation if he refuses to do honest buisness with an Inquistor of <insert god here>. How he could gain a reputation as a cheat and they may have to start looking into his finances, or about this nasty rummor going arround how he may be involved in Rovagug worship. You don't even need to go into details here, since what is in his head is probably worse than whatever you will come up with. If he threatens to call the city guards, he can. You have done absolutely nothing illegal, and the best he has "this guy says the church of <insert god here> wont treat me nice because I wont trade with him." The last round is him thinking over your threats, and trying to decide if he should be nice to you and get you out of his store as soon as possible. If your threats were good enough (the check succeeds), then he will treat you as helpful in order to get you out. If the check fails, he likes you less and may start threatening you back.
Your reading of intimidate makes it an absolutely worthless skill, instead of just a sub-average one. There is no reason Intimidate should not have worked in this situation
|
You would never even get to make the check. An intimidate check requires a full minute.
Diplomacy actually has the same downside. It also takes a full minute of conversation.
Never say never.
"FEARSOME REPUTATION [General] (Source: Feats 101)
Word of your deeds travels fast, spreading fear far and wide.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Intimidate 5 ranks, Persuasive
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Intimidate checks and do not suffer intimidation penalties due to your
size. You also perform intimidation checks simply by talking as a standard action, (without making
verbal threats or displays of prowess). You must actively attempt not to intimidate people with whom you wish to communicate."
"Charmed, I’m Sure [General] (Source: Sisters of Rapture)
Your natural poise, grace and charm makes others putty in your hands.
Prerequisites: Cha 19+
Benefit: You may make Diplomacy checks as full-round actions with no penalty.
Normal: Performing Diplomacy checks as full-round actions normally incurs a -10 penalty. Otherwise, they take at least a full minute (10 rounds) to perform."
Plus, if you use this option from Spes Magna Games' Fencing & Firearms:
"Fast Task
You reduce the time needed to complete the check byaccepting a -5 penalty to check or a +5 bonus to the check's DC. If the check is normally a full-round action, it becomes a standard action. An standard action becomes a move action, while a move action becomes a free action. For checks requiring time in rounds, minutes, or longer, reduce the time needed by 25 percent per -5/+5 modifier, to a maximum 75% reduction."
...you can reduce that Initimate check to a move action and the Diplomacy check to a standard action.
You would never even get to make the check. An intimidate check requires a full minute.
"Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action."
You will get about 6 seconds into threatening and making physical displays of prowess before the king's guards step in and take you down. And then you will spend quite a bit of time enjoying the king's hospitality in a dark, wet place.
I see where you get this, but what does the RAW actually say?
It says 1 minute of conversation. Not of threatening or making physical displays.Those are mentioned separately (in the ´fluff descriptor´ section) as ´This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess´. There is nothing linking these EXAMPLES to the 1 minute of conversation.
1 minute of conversation is the pre-req to make an Intimidate check (it seems substantially identical to Diplomacy´s 1 minute of ´continuous interaction´). It does not say that you are continually acting Intimidating over the entire 1 minute, just that you need to have a 1 minute conversation before making the check... I.e. you could be building up and sussing out the target`s fears before actually springing the Intimidate on them. Obviously, alot of the examples of Intimidate people are mentioning here could be expressed in 1 sentence (You want me to take this to your superiors? You know who I am? etc...) which doesn`t take 1 minute to say... If those are accepted as an Intimidation, it`s hard to accept that the entire 1 minute must be continual Intimidation, i.e. continually provoking / socially unacceptable.
Now, what does this mean? As a GM, I would tell players they need to make some effort to RP out their interactions first, not necessarily word for word delivery, but as per normal. That develops the conversation somewhat naturally, and they when it`s judged that about 1 minute of conversation has gone by, they can make an Intimidate check if they`ve said or done anything remotely Intimidating. If they save the best for last, so to speak, I don´t think letting the Merchant ´short circuit´ the Intimidate check (which obviously the OP´s GM failed to do, interrupting the check AFTER it was made) is possible because the 1 minute has already passed and the Intimidator just needs to put the cherry on top, so to speak.
|
|
4. The description for Intimidate says it makes the target unfriendly afterward, not hostile. There is no reason to assume that the average merchant in a metropolis is going to call the guards just because the customer threatened to go to a different merchant in town, a very valid and legal threat in a town that size, or that the thieve's guild would automatically assume that such a customer was trying to horn in on the guilds activities. As such, occasional use of the skill on merchants would generally only make the pc find another shop of that kind, usually not an issue. If the player was really being a pain about it, than having the pc develop a general reputation for being difficult or making that particular merchant important to a quest, forcing the pc to either let someone talk or eat crow, should be enough since the problem probably is the player, and not the skill, anyway.
Part of the problem here might be a lack of definition of Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly and Helpful.
3.5 SRD contained such definitions, but they are unfortunately not in the Pathfinder rules. So, under the assumption that this was simply an oversight, and the definitions didn't change, we get:
Unfriendly - Wishes you ill. The person will "Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult" in order to do so.
The difference between Unfriendly and Hostile is that a Hostile person "Will take risks to hurt you". and will "Attack, interfere, berate, flee"
I think it a bit odd that mechanically, if a person was hostile to you before the encounter where you intimidate them, then afterwards, they are merely unfriendly. It would be a little more believable if the long term repercussion is that their attitude towards you was worsened by one step. Thus an indifferent person would become unfriendly, while an unfriendly person would then be hostile.
I will wholeheartedly agree with you that these skills require heavy DM involvement. Trying to use either as "mind control" of any sort is fraught with problems. It would probably have been wiser for the OP to have done something like this:
Merchant: "I'll offer you 25% of book value."
Player: That seems low to me. I'll do a Sense Motive to determine whether he is simply putting his starting offer out, or if this is his final offer. Rolls moderately well.
DM: You get the feeling that he's putting out a low offer, hoping that you are desperate enough for the cash to take it.
Player: Okay, I'll Sense Motive to try to determine how hard I can push him with intimidate to make him bring up the bid. Rolls moderately well. Other players Aid Another, roleplayed as whispered conversation.
DM: You get the sense that you can push him some by arguing that Abadar would look poorly on him, and how you will spread his name around town as a cheater on prices, but that you ought not to threaten any physical violence while in his store.
Player: Okay, using my sense motive as a guide, I'll then use intimidate to push him. "Sir! I will not abide such cheating ways!. I demand fair treatment or I will tell everyone I meet - PLUS the church of Abadar of your attempt to take advantage of us!" And I will continue to list ways in which I will slur him. Rolls massive intimidate.
DM: Okay, your high intimidate check means that you are more than capable of pushing all of his buttons. As you were hectoring him, you noticed a couple of times that he was starting to actually think that you might do him physical harm, but because you coupled the Intimidate with Sense Motive, you knew when to back off.
Merchant: "Good Adventurers! Perhaps my initial offer was a bit low. I have children to feed, and every coin that I give you is a supper that they might go hungry. But, alas, if your conscience can bear it, I will offer you 50% more than my initial bid for your highly used, battle scarred - is that fresh blood? - items. (bringing the offer up to 37.5% of market price)
Player: Okay, I'm making progress, and he's treating me as friendly, and he upped the offer. I'm going to use diplomacy at this point to see if I can get him to nudge the offer to the standard 50% or even a bit more. I roll pretty good (and my party members all Aid me by talking about how if he offered a fair price, we would end up spending much more than this in his store, and he'd end up making a much larger profit than he would be missing out on by low-balling us.)
DM: Okay, since for the next 10 minutes he's friendly, We'll set the DC as "Complicate Aid", so you need a 10+2(shopkeeper charisma)+5, 17. And you make that DC with a bunch to spare. He looks at you, and with a hint of respect, and a hint of fear, and perhaps a hint of "how can I get even with these guys later", he offers you 55% of market price. You shake on the deal, and then continue shopping for a bit. As you are leaving the store, and the merchant has had a few minutes to calm down, his attitude shifts a bit. He's not yet unfriendly, but you sense this would be the time to conclude your business and go.
|
|
You would never even get to make the check. An intimidate check requires a full minute.
Diplomacy actually has the same downside. It also takes a full minute of conversation.
Never say never.
"FEARSOME REPUTATION [General] (Source: Feats 101)
Word of your deeds travels fast, spreading fear far and wide.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, Intimidate 5 ranks, Persuasive
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus to Intimidate checks and do not suffer intimidation penalties due to your
size. You also perform intimidation checks simply by talking as a standard action, (without making
verbal threats or displays of prowess). You must actively attempt not to intimidate people with whom you wish to communicate.""Charmed, I’m Sure [General] (Source: Sisters of Rapture)
Your natural poise, grace and charm makes others putty in your hands.
Prerequisites: Cha 19+
Benefit: You may make Diplomacy checks as full-round actions with no penalty.
Normal: Performing Diplomacy checks as full-round actions normally incurs a -10 penalty. Otherwise, they take at least a full minute (10 rounds) to perform."Plus, if you use this option from Spes Magna Games' Fencing & Firearms:
"Fast Task
You reduce the time needed to complete the check byaccepting a -5 penalty to check or a +5 bonus to the check's DC. If the check is normally a full-round action, it becomes a standard action. An standard action becomes a move action, while a move action becomes a free action. For checks requiring time in rounds, minutes, or longer, reduce the time needed by 25 percent per -5/+5 modifier, to a maximum 75% reduction."...you can reduce that Initimate check to a move action and the Diplomacy check to a standard action.
Of course none of these are actually core rules, or even published by Paizo.
At that point, we're talking house rules, as the DM is introducing non-core/non-paizo material as modifiers to the actual rules.
@Brother Elias, I disagree with your suggested (semi required) usage of Sense Motive, especially as it seemed some of the design intent of PRPG was to remove situations which called for multiple skill checks, in favor of single skill checks. If somebody is skilled at Intimidate, they shoudn`t need to make Sense Motive checks in order to do so successfully, any more than one needs Sense Motive checks to make Diplomacy checks successfully. Sense Motive can give you specific information which may be specifically useful (´you feel they are not telling all they know about the church of the flame´, but you don`t need specific info to make an Intimidate check per RAW, you`re just trying to affect their attitude category. I fell that if GMs want to give special situational modifiers for using especially pertinent info possibly gained via Sense Motive (or penalties if you happen to say something especially inopportune) that`s reasonable, but something very different than what you`re suggesting.
If there`s some background situation, like the Merchant isn`t buying anything at all period and just wants to liquidate his merchandise because of threatening events in the town, that might be a piece of information that Sense Motive could suss out, but Sense Motive shouldn`t be necessary to Intimidate (or Diplomatize) a target into acting ´helpful´.
I do generally approve of your final ´scene´, where the PCs use Diplomacy to negotiate an even better deal from the now ´friendly´ Shopkeeper. Intimidate makes the target act ´helpful´ but doesn`t force any specific action (although basic requests become automatic). Special requests must still be made via Diplomacy at the appropriate DC for a ´helpful´ target (one can imagine Intimidating a target to assist/guide the party, but need to continue to make Diplomacy checks along the way in order to act MOST helpful/useful... Failure of which doesn`t mean they turn on you, just that they dally or make excuses, etc.)
My only complaint would be that ´friendly´ is how the shopkeeper would act to at least casual friends and acquantainces if not the closest friends and family... And that I would assume he would just directly offer such friends the going rate of 50%, because that rate still makes some profit. But that gets into the definition of the attitude categories, which as you point out isn´t even in PRPG anymore, and in any case was never detailed to such an extent.
Likewise, arguments about obscure gear fetching lower prices (although reasonable) falls outside of this, and should be something that PCs would already be aware of because it would be generally the case (which wasn`t mentioned here). (And to the opposite side, if obscure gear fetches lower prices, `standard adventuring gear` should routinely get BETTER prices, i.e. ABOVE 50% would be ´the going rate´ most people expect, since it`s `easily salable´.)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Is Intimidate appropriate for this type of thing?
This is an "Ask you DM" question.
If I'm DM and it's a home game, I'd hit the panic button and if guards arrive you might go to jail. Think of it this way "I'll slit your throat if you don't give me what ***I*** think this is worth!!!!!" kind of threatening. I, being an intimidating orc, could think a blanket is worth 10000 gp, which the fair price is 5000 gp.
In a PFS Game, I'd just tell them to do a Diplomacy instead.
I think those saying that the full minute's time isn't ALL threats are correct. Otherwise, intimidate IS completely useless. Even a prisoner tied and bound could spit in your face to interrupt you within one minute. Therefore, that must not be the correct interpretation (as the game designers are relatively sensible and don't endeavor to put useless things in the game).
Huma whilst that is a great story and rather commendable, the main problem in it (where it may relate to Intimidate) is that the guy was indeed trying to rip you off.
The thing that we are saying is the problem with Intimidate is that it is a skill that can also be used where people are NOT ripping you off in order to manipluate or cooerce them to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do, via a threat of a repercussion they will find unpleasant.
In your case the guy realised he'd been caught with his pants down, and that if he did/said much about you then the tale of what HE was doing would also be exposed. This is not the same as a legit person running a legit business where you come along and give them the 'or else' ultimatum.
The difference isn't subtle.
Intimidate is a great skill that is handy for a multitude of situations, possibly even as an AID to Diplomacy, but for people to claim it shouldn't have a marked consequence is stretching it a bit far.
It isn't just being imposing, it is actively squeezing someone.