And in that case the effect of my "intimidate" would have made him realize I was indeed about leave and gossip about his dealership, but that my knowledge of blue book prices or math in general was too low to realize I wasn't being cheated.
Right, so you made an 'Appraisal' roll, coupled with a Sense motive check and determined that not only was the price very likely too low, but also that he was activley trying to rip you off.
After making a Diplomacy check and asking him whether his prices were accidentally off the mark (which you may not have rolled high enough for) you simply used Intimidate to cut to the chase and call him out on the bad behaviour.
Awesome.
But the Half Orc WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back did none of the above.
The player simply decides he doesn't like the price (not REALLY knowing if it was valid or not), and Lug The Half Orc goes to Angry mode.
Thats a big difference between the tales.
|
It would seem there are huge glaring holes in the way some of you think about social interactions.
I ask the following of anyone who agrees the OPs DM made the right call by having the merchant panic, kick him out, and threaten to call the guards:
First question: In what situation should a successful use of Intimidate, or any skill, result in the exact same outcome as a failure according to the rules? We're not talking about a extreme situation here.
Second question: Do you think Intimidate should ever be a useful skill other than to question someone tied up and for Demoralize? If so, please give an example that fits your paradigm.
Third question: Do you consider the statement, "If you don't give me a fair price I'm going to call the Better Business Bureau on you," intimidating to a shop keep who is trying to cheat someone? If not, explain how you consider it to be diplomacy, bluff, or other.
Fourth question: Do you consider the statement in the previous question to be threatening violence? If so, what physical violence do you think is implied in the statement...be clear.
Fifth question: Why do some of you add the negative effects of an Intimidate check during the minute of conversation without adding the actual effects of an Intimidate check? Saying that during the minute of conversation they would become agitated or call the guards right then
Sixth question: Why are some of you attempting to tell him how to play his character instead of staying on topic? Saying things like "Diplomacy is better," and, "If you put points only in Intimidate and not also in sense motive, diplomacy, or bluff I would punish you," and, "Intimidate has negatives (no really? I ), you should not use it for things like this." Role play is role play.
Seventh question: Do you find the shop keep's actions to be acting "friendly" and if so how would you expect the shop keep to act if he was acting "unfriendly?"
Last, I have a question for just Brother Elias:
I think it a bit odd that...
Wow, lots of questions. It might be nice if you posted your own answers to your own questions so that we can see where exactly you draw your lines.
But I'll take a stab.
First Question (When should the result of a successful intimidate be the same as a failed intimidate.) - Not really the correct question for the situation, but... When the situation in which you are using intimidate is inappropriate, then you should not be rewarded as though it were. Really, a failed check would probably have resulted in the shopkeeper laughing in your face for trying to, and failing to intimidate him. "You give fair price or me smash you!!!" "hehe. Nice try sonny. Tell it to someone who cares. Now, are you going to take my offer, or not?"
Second Question: "Second question: Do you think Intimidate should ever be a useful skill other than to question someone tied up and for Demoralize? If so, please give an example that fits your paradigm."
Sure. "Hey, look at those ruffians coming at us down the street." "How much money you got, esse??" "Yeah, If you were half as smart as you are ugly, you'd just keep walking down the street." (Intimidate as you approach on the street). "Ruffians keep walking." (And yes, I've had this happen in real life, since we're sharing stories. Substitute ruffians for punks in Southwest Detroit at 1:30am.)
Third question: "Do you consider the statement, "If you don't give me a fair price I'm going to call the Better Business Bureau on you," intimidating to a shop keep who is trying to cheat someone? If not, explain how you consider it to be diplomacy, bluff, or other."
Considering how pro-business most BBB's are known to be, this might be an example of the failed intimidate check, where the shopkeeper laughs in your face. Or it could be a bluff without any teeth. In any case, any shopkeeper is free to offer any price they want. Threatening to report them to some agency for not offering a higher price for used goods, I'd probably just label as weak.
Fourth question: Do you consider the statement in the previous question to be threatening violence? If so, what physical violence do you think is implied in the statement...be clear.
Nope. No threat of violence there. Which would go with it being a failed intimidate. You made threats, which had no teeth, and you got laughed at. Though it could be classed as threatening slander, which would only earn you the ire of a merchant.
Fifth question: Why do some of you add the negative effects of an Intimidate check during the minute of conversation without adding the actual effects of an Intimidate check? Saying that during the minute of conversation they would become agitated or call the guards right then
The rule says that an intimidate check takes one minute of conversation. It would be my assumption that this minute is speant making the threats and physical displays. Perhaps you feel otherwise. There is nothing in the rules, or in any part of common sense that declares that the opponent (and that is the word used under the rule) must stand around and do nothing while you conduct your intimidation tactic. If it helps you to visualize it better, think of a spell which takes a minute to cast. Nothing says that the target of the spell can't spend that time either disrupting the spell, leaving the area, putting up protective wards, or otherwise countering your effort.
Sixth question: Why are some of you attempting to tell him how to play his character instead of staying on topic? Saying things like "Diplomacy is better," and, "If you put points only in Intimidate and not also in sense motive, diplomacy, or bluff I would punish you," and, "Intimidate has negatives (no really? I ), you should not use it for things like this." Role play is role play.
I don't care how he plays his character. If you want to use intimidate as a hammer, and every situation you come across is the nail, fine. Be happy. Obviously his DM did not think that this was situationally appropriate, and had his NPCs react in what he felt was a reasonable manner. Nobody is saying the player should be punished. But if you put ranks in Intimidate, and do not put them into other social skills, it seems obvious that you are more likely to try to use Intimidate in situations that are not appropriate for the use of the skill. And the fact that the OP was trying to say that he should have gotten what he wanted based on a die roll rather than the role play, seems to indicate to me that the OP might have been thinking "Roll play is role play."
Seventh question: Do you find the shop keep's actions to be acting "friendly" and if so how would you expect the shop keep to act if he was acting "unfriendly?"
Act friendly: "Take it easy buddy. We're all friends here." [while pressing silent alarm.]
Act unfriendly: "Beat it punk. I don't need your crappy merchandise."
Key word (and it is actually used in the rule - "ACT" Note that Diplomacy actually changes the attitude of the person, whereas Intimidate gets the opponent to act in a certain way.
And your question directly at me. No, I wasn't talking about this situation when I said that if you start as hostile and move to unfriendly. I was pointing out an oddity in the rules that might occur, and saying that the rule might be better worded to take into account that specific case.
Typically, I think if party goes into a shop to buy, they'll be met by a merchant with a friendly attitude. If they go in to sell, then they might be met with anything ranging from unfriendly ("Great, more crap."), to indifferent ("meh, we'll see what they've got") to friendly ("Hey, my stock is low, let's see what kind of deal we can make."). I've actually seen people walk into pawn shops and try the intimidate route when they were offered almost nothing for something they thought had value. Their intimidate checks are misplaced as all of the pawn shop clerks have sidearms and successfully intimidating them will generally end up with a gun to the face, and police on the way.
|
|
When the situation in which you are using intimidate is inappropriate, then you should not be rewarded as though it were. Really, a failed check would probably have resulted in the shopkeeper laughing in your face for trying to, and failing to intimidate him. "You give fair price or me smash you!!!" "hehe. Nice try sonny. Tell it to someone who cares. Now, are you going to take my offer, or not?"So you think no one has ever intimidated a shop keep into giving them a better price since intimidate is an inappropriate skill to use in that situation?
Also, you really think the shop keep will continue to barter with someone who tried and failed to intimidate him, but if they succeed he will kick them out and call the gaurds? I ask again, is it impossible to intimidate shop keeps into giving a better price lol?
Sure. "Hey, look at those ruffians coming at us down the street." "How much money you got, esse??" "Yeah, If you were half as smart as you are ugly, you'd just keep walking down the street." (Intimidate as you approach on the street).I said answer with something that fits your paradigm. In this instance your first sentence would have been about 10 seconds in. They would have known you were trying to intimidate them and stabbed you or knocked you out to take your money according to your interpretation of Intimidate.
Considering how pro-business most BBB's are known to be, this might be an example of the failed intimidate check, where the shopkeeper laughs in your face. Or it could be a bluff without any teeth. In any case, any shopkeeper is free to offer any price they want. Threatening to report them to some agency for not offering a higher price for used goods, I'd probably just label as weak.I specifically said the statement was made to a shop keep who was indeed trying to cheat you. And no, the BBB is not a joke to dishonest business owners and any who do not take that statement serious if they truly are cheating...
I don't think we're getting anywhere. I've given my answers. And asked for yours, which you have not given. Let's just leave it at the fact that we disagree.
My viewpoint is that there are times that intimidate will not get you any outcome that you want, whether or not you succeed. If you substitute the word Linguistics, or Acrobatics, or Stealth. Making a "massive" roll in any of these would still fail to gain you a higher price for your goods. As they are also inappropriate skills for the situation.
Enjoy your game. I'll enjoy mine. Cheers!
|
I think it is very possible to intimidate a shop keeper into something. To think of a modern day example:
If you brought a damaged item back to a shop for a refund when the damage was clearly the customers fault, normally the shop keeper will say that it is the customers responsibility. However, if you start kicking up a fuss and talk of complaints and letters to newspapers there is a good chance they would concede and give you refund just to get rid of you and shut you up. You would get what you want but after you left the shop keeper would form a negative opinion of you (become unfriendly). You have done nothing illegal and it is unlikely you would get away with the same thing in the same shop at a later date, but you have succeeded in intimidating the shop keeper.
Obviously this example is different to the one in the OP, but does show that you can intimidate shop keepers into changing their minds.
|
Someone tried to intimidate me once when I was a merchant. It didn't go well for them.He failed his roll then.
No, some people just don't take well to the attempt in general. In my case, dude could have rolled a natural 20 and had 20 ranks and I still would have blown him off. I know you don't know me, but let it be sufficient to say my old business was one where easily intimidated people didn't last. Much like any kind of mercantile vocation in a quasi-medieval setting.
This probably goes in the "what I dislike about PF/3x" category, but I hate dice telling me how a social interaction is supposed to go down, even in the face of common sense. And the whole concept of intimidate making someone "friendly" is a farce. It makes them intimidated (if the check succeeds), and if they have any kind of power, it makes them resentful and dangerous.
|
|
No, some people just don't take well to the attempt in general. In my case, dude could have rolled a natural 20 and had 20 ranks and I still would have blown him off.Someone tried to intimidate me once when I was a merchant. It didn't go well for them.He failed his roll then.No, it means he failed the roll in the Pathfinder universe. You're saying if he walked in with dynamite strapped to his chest, a detonator in his hand, and a very very crazy look in his eye and said, "Give me that snicker's bar for 25 cents or I won't wait to kill myself till after I leave your shop!!!" you would shrug, remain unaffected, and what...blow the guy off?
We're not talking about real life, we're talking about Pathfinder rules. Regardless, there is a point at which you would be intimidated or you're not human.
I guess I'm not human. I've had a gun held to my head in Mexico and thought it was kind of funny. I thought it was a poor way to try and get me to change suppliers, actually.
|
|
I guess I'm not human. I've had a gun held to my head in Mexico and thought it was kind of funny. I thought it was a poor way to try and get me to change suppliers, actually.You obviously didn't believe he was going to pull the trigger, and you were obviously correct. That's a failed "intimidate check" my friend. That means your wisdom was high enough to tell his threats weren't serious.
Unless you're seriously suggesting you were willing to die rather than change suppliers...what on earth else are you willing to die for? Candy bars? That crosses the line between brave and stupid, no offense.
Considering the business I was in, caving in would have been far more dangerous. And when Snickers bars go for $20k a kilo, I might die for one...
And, believe it or not, there are quite a few people who don't intimidate easily. Feel fear? Sure. Cave because of it? Nope. Daniel Pearl proves this. Dude was scared, but he didn't cave in, knowing full well they were going to kill him. Didn't give them the satisfaction.
Some people have balls, some people go through life getting rolled because they were born without them. It happens.
|
|
Considering the business I was in, caving in would have been far more dangerous. And when Snickers bars go for $20k a kilo, I might die for one...Ooookay houstonderek, I'm sorry man but a Pathfinder Intimidation thread is not the place to bring up your drug pedaling criminal background as evidence for alteration of a skill and the reasoning behind your beef with it.
If you're being honest, I'd point out that you were in fact intimidated by the outcome of giving in to his request, at least it sounds that way. As I said, people in that rough of a situation know who not to cross and who's "intimidate checks" to not blow off.
I'd also ask you how many kids you think OD'd on your product, how many lives were ruined, and how you feel about that. I'd point out, if I believed you, that dying for 20k is pathetic. I can understand why you would laugh at a gun pointed at you when you're willing to die for $20k. I'd also question how you survived in such an industry when your life was so meaningless to you.
I'd ask as well if you were NOT intimidated by the consequences of stealing $20k or more of product? I'm sure you DIDN'T do that out of good old honest loyalty right? lol...
Suffice to say, I think you should cut the crap. I'm pretty good at smelling BS and...*joker points a finger at the TV*
Well, I'd guess your sense motive is pretty low then.
Another part of my life experience: people who are easily intimidated have a lot of fun in prison. Much better to get your ass kicked a couple times and prove your willing to fight than cave in like a punk.
And I wasn't being robbed when I was in Mexico, I was being threatened if I didn't go and work for them.
And, really, I'm sorry if you think I'm pulling a Jared here.
Furthermore, I didn't "ruin" anyone's lives any more than Hostess or McDonalds ruined yours.
I know you don't know me, but let it be sufficient to say my old business was one where easily intimidated people didn't last. Much like any kind of mercantile vocation in a quasi-medieval setting.
I too have a slightly shady past so I get what you are saying.
Now, trying to intimidate me in my vocation is likely to get you shot... oh wait.. maybe thats not so different :p
|
|
I know you don't know me, but let it be sufficient to say my old business was one where easily intimidated people didn't last. Much like any kind of mercantile vocation in a quasi-medieval setting.I suspect we may have been involved in similar vocations in the past.
Now, trying to intimidate me is likely to get you shot... oh wait.. maybe thats not so different :p
My beef with Intimidate as written is that, because of the way the system is set up, you'd have to have a Merchant leveled out to 15th level (expert, I'd guess) with at least an 18 Wisdom to have any chance of not being intimidated by some jackass 8th level half orc character who's player thinks being a douche is the best way to get what he wants.
I just hate that dice rolls replace common sense in any game based on 3x.
Now, trying to intimidate me is likely to get you shot... oh wait.. maybe thats not so different :pWonderful, two guys willing to kill someone because they said "Hey you cheat, give me a fair price or I want to speak to your corporate office."
If you think anyone is going to take you serious here...
No because now I wear the uniform of my country, and being intimidated in a conflict zone and 'becoming helpful' to an armed aggressor would have some pretty dire consequences... dont you think?
I think the part you are missing is that Intimidate is really NOT about 'I want 10cents off a Snickers or I'll write a bad blog about you', thats trivialising the skill beyond belief.
So no, I wouldn't be giving them 'Limited Assistance'.
|
|
Another part of my life experience: people who are easily intimidated have a lot of fun in prison. Much better to get your ass kicked a couple times and prove your willing to fight than cave in like a punk.A successful Intimidate check does not mean your opponent caves in.
Furthermore, I didn't "ruin" anyone's lives any more than Hostess or McDonalds ruined yours.Fascinating. Are you now implying I'm fat? Have you brought out the big 'ad hominem' guns?
For real man. That's great. You pedaled drugs. You laugh at people pointing guns at you. Et cetera...
Well, considering personal responsibility isn't in your lexicon apparently (and I'll give you a hint: the "drug pusher" stereotype is largely fictional propaganda, drugs sell themselves, no pushing required), I just assume you exercise little in your personal habits.
Mr. Fishy calls it trolling.
|
|
Well, considering personal responsibility isn't in your lexicon apparently (and I'll give you a hint: the "drug pusher" stereotype is largely fictional propaganda, drugs sell themselves, no pushing required)]Who says I don't think people are fully responsible for their own actions. I find it comical you think someone who sells a substance riddled with theft, rape, and murder completely irresponsible for any of that though...
I just assume you exercise little in your personal habits.I know, it's called ad hominem. Attack the debater rather than the debate.
There is no debate. Intimidation requires a tangible threat. There was no tangible threat in the OPs statement, just general whining about not getting his price for using the wrong skill for the job.
Again, Intimidate requires a threat, whether veiled or up front, of serious negative consequences. The OP offered no tangible threat. Just some whining.
And, sorry, there shouldn't exist in the game a mechanic that rewards piss poor roleplay. Period. Which is the only thing the OP gives an example of.
Hey Mr. Fishy is on your side that guy total started it.
Yes...it can be. That's the entire point. You're sticking to "Intimidate can only mean threats of physical violence"? Several different examples have been given to prove that is completely untrue.
No I have said all along that it can be through threat of violence or a whole wide range of other motivators, however what I have maintained is that they are able to be described as coercing someone to do something they are not otherwise willing to do because you have given them the threat of an unplesant consequence should they not do what you want.
That can be a range of 'unpleasant consequences' however the 'coersion' part is universal to all of them.
Diplomacy skill is similarly not a universal 'can I kiss your behind so hard you think I'm a top guy and give me the keys to the kingdom', it might also be pointing out a superior position you hold and the logical reasoning to come to a peaceful negotiated settlement.
'Hey I appreciate that you are trying to stake claim to this patch of ground, but that being said I have a battalion sitting over that hill who are soon to be ordered to walk over here, and I'd like to try and come to terms that avoid bloodshed and that we can both live with'
I know you don't know me, but let it be sufficient to say my old business was one where easily intimidated people didn't last. Much like any kind of mercantile vocation in a quasi-medieval setting.I suspect we may have been involved in similar vocations in the past.
Now, trying to intimidate me is likely to get you shot... oh wait.. maybe thats not so different :p
My beef with Intimidate as written is that, because of the way the system is set up, you'd have to have a Merchant leveled out to 15th level (expert, I'd guess) with at least an 18 Wisdom to have any chance of not being intimidated by some jackass 8th level half orc character who's player thinks being a douche is the best way to get what he wants.
I just hate that dice rolls replace common sense in any game based on 3x.
It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by the players. Within the broad parameters given in the [rulebooks], you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing [the game] as it was meant to be.
-E Gary Gygax, DMG Afterword (1979)
|
|
I know you don't know me, but let it be sufficient to say my old business was one where easily intimidated people didn't last. Much like any kind of mercantile vocation in a quasi-medieval setting.I suspect we may have been involved in similar vocations in the past.
Now, trying to intimidate me is likely to get you shot... oh wait.. maybe thats not so different :p
My beef with Intimidate as written is that, because of the way the system is set up, you'd have to have a Merchant leveled out to 15th level (expert, I'd guess) with at least an 18 Wisdom to have any chance of not being intimidated by some jackass 8th level half orc character who's player thinks being a douche is the best way to get what he wants.
I just hate that dice rolls replace common sense in any game based on 3x.
It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by the players. Within the broad parameters given in the [rulebooks], you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing [the game] as it was meant to be.
-E Gary Gygax, DMG Afterword (1979)
E.G.G. didn't have to deal with 3x/Pf RAW crap either ;)
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.
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.
Indeed. That was supposed to be "violence OR retaliation" in my original post.
What I was getting at is that Intimidate always involves making someone afraid to disappoint you. There is always a threat of some kind (which is what I was disputing in Caineach's post), though it is not always of physical violence, nor is it always directly stated.
But again, we're not talking about you, an armed and trained military personnel. We're talking about a shop keep and a guy claiming he laughs at guns put in his face, in fact blows them off.
Which brings us to another odd issue, between a soldier and a shopkeeper, the skill doesn't discriminate. It works equally well on both targets with no modifiers - simply requiring the same DC.
Ok, can we get back on track please (if there's anything further to add). Houstonderek, are you genuinely gonna try and persuade me that you can't Intimidate with just a look? If so, then i call BS, and am letting you know i don't appreciate you trolling Huma, who made several valid points that you haven't responded to.
If you seriously disagree, then explain precisely what you think, and why. If you can't do that, then don't bother. But don't attack people. That's not welcome.
wrote:
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.
1. Yes, but don't AP's take into account the fact that PC's have a certain amount of wealth? If I need to barter to get that amount, isn't that necessary?
2. Are you saying that the higher the roll, the more subtle the intimidation?
|
|
Ok, can we get back on track please (if there's anything further to add). Houstonderek, are you genuinely gonna try and persuade me that you can't Intimidate with just a look? If so, then i call BS, and am letting you know i don't appreciate you trolling Huma, who made several valid points that you haven't responded to.
If you seriously disagree, then explain precisely what, and why. If you can't do that, then don't bother. But don't attack people. That's not welcome.
Have you ever sold used goods? It's a buyer's market, not a seller's market. The merchant isn't "cheating" anyone, he made an offer. If the offer wasn't what the player wanted, he could have negotiated. He chose to be "intimidating". The merchant more likely than not would have laughed in his face. If the guy has enough money to buy used magic, he probably has been in the game long enough to see every amateur attempt to get him to come off his price.
Personally, I think the character probably looked more like a petulant child than a threat. And in any civilized city, the most probable outcome of a character tying to browbeat an experienced merchant would be a trip to the stockades or the city jail. Not a better price.
I know, I know, players should always be rewarded for using a hammer to blow glass, I'm used to the attitude of quite a few players I've seen.
Oh, and as far as insulting your boy. Don't care. I used a real life example, he chose to call me a liar.
I know I'd never play with him. I don't like whiners.
Ok, can we get back on track please (if there's anything further to add). Houstonderek, are you genuinely gonna try and persuade me that you can't Intimidate with just a look? If so, then i call BS, and am letting you know i don't appreciate you trolling Huma, who made several valid points that you haven't responded to.
If you seriously disagree, then explain precisely what, and why. If you can't do that, then don't bother. But don't attack people. That's not welcome.
Umm. Huma started the personal attacks, also "calling BS" is confrontional.
HD stepped out so Mr. Fishy assumes he trolling with his mind powers?
As to the intimidating look yes you can intimidate some one with a look if they think you would kill them. [Ask Mr. Fishy's Guppies]
But a shop keeper that deals in adventuring gear and the like is not got to be in business long if you can shake him down. So you intimidate him he calls in his guards [guards that's a bonus], he now out numbers you [bonus], you aren't the first person to try this[bonus]. You may be successful but people don't like to be bullied.
So this merchant has a set up to prevent shake down artist and thieves. It's called security. That merchant could have been a retired adventurer and came over that counter after you.
Mr. Fishy would not advise trying that in Crazy Achmed Weapon Emporium.
Ok, can we get back on track please (if there's anything further to add). Houstonderek, are you genuinely gonna try and persuade me that you can't Intimidate with just a look? If so, then i call BS, and am letting you know i don't appreciate you trolling Huma, who made several valid points that you haven't responded to.
If you seriously disagree, then explain precisely what, and why. If you can't do that, then don't bother. But don't attack people. That's not welcome.
Have you ever sold used goods? It's a buyer's market, not a seller's market. The merchant isn't "cheating" anyone, he made an offer. If the offer wasn't what the player wanted, he could have negotiated. He chose to be "intimidating". The merchant more likely than not would have laughed in his face. If the guy has enough money to buy used magic, he probably has been in the game long enough to see every amateur attempt to get him to come off his price.
Personally, I think the character probably looked more like a petulant child than a threat. And in any civilized city, the most probable outcome of a character tying to browbeat an experienced merchant would be a trip to the stockades or the city jail. Not a better price.
I know, I know, players should always be rewarded for using a hammer to blow glass, I'm used to the attitude of quite a few players I've seen.
Oh, and as far as insulting your boy. Don't care. I used a real life example, he chose to call me a liar.
I know I'd never play with him. I don't like whiners.
*sigh* Yes, i've sold used goods. In game terms (which is what this whole discussion is about) how do you define haggling? Diplomacy? Or don't you agree that social skills should be used? If so, what is the purpose of them (besides interrogation, lying, and Demoralise)?
Please reference the rules in response.
Oh, and don't try your condescending crap with me.
"calling BS" is confrontional.
Fair enough. I apologise.
HD stepped out so Mr. Fishy assumes he trolling with his mind powers?
No. With posts on this thread.
As to the intimidating look yes you can intimidate some one with a look if they think you would kill them. [Ask Mr. Fishy's Guppies]
But a shop keeper that deals in adventuring gear and the like is not got to be in business long if you can shake him down. So you intimidate him he calls in his guards [guards that's a bonus], he now out numbers you [bonus], you aren't the first person to try this[bonus]. You may be successful but people don't like to be bullied.So this merchant has a set up to prevent shake down artist and thieves. It's called security. That merchant could have been a retired adventurer and came over that counter after you.
Mr. Fishy would not advise trying that in Crazy Achmed Weapon Emporium.
I rolled a 39. That should nearly intimidate a 25th lvl character with 20 Wis.
Is that not enough to overcome all these circumstance modifiers?
As to the intimidating look yes you can intimidate some one with a look if they think you would kill them. [Ask Mr. Fishy's Guppies]
But a shop keeper that deals in adventuring gear and the like is not got to be in business long if you can shake him down. So you intimidate him he calls in his guards [guards that's a bonus], he now out numbers you [bonus], you aren't the first person to try this[bonus]. You may be successful but people don't like to be bullied.
But Mr Fishy, surely ye have abandoned all reason!?
The guards dont add a bonus under RAW; the only modifier is size related!
A million people could have tried, alas the RAW allows no respite from the multitude of attempts!
He can be standing there with King Kong and Godzilla 'got his back', and obtain no morale benefit...
The RAW, you cannot break the sacred RAW!
Oh Mr Fishy, how do you drive your DM FIAT with no hands!?
Expect to now be hounded by players who tell you that 'you give GM's a bad name' when you have dared applied logic in defiance of the Holy RAW's.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/intimidate.html#intimidate
|
|
Ok, can we get back on track please (if there's anything further to add). Houstonderek, are you genuinely gonna try and persuade me that you can't Intimidate with just a look? If so, then i call BS, and am letting you know i don't appreciate you trolling Huma, who made several valid points that you haven't responded to.
If you seriously disagree, then explain precisely what, and why. If you can't do that, then don't bother. But don't attack people. That's not welcome.
Have you ever sold used goods? It's a buyer's market, not a seller's market. The merchant isn't "cheating" anyone, he made an offer. If the offer wasn't what the player wanted, he could have negotiated. He chose to be "intimidating". The merchant more likely than not would have laughed in his face. If the guy has enough money to buy used magic, he probably has been in the game long enough to see every amateur attempt to get him to come off his price.
Personally, I think the character probably looked more like a petulant child than a threat. And in any civilized city, the most probable outcome of a character tying to browbeat an experienced merchant would be a trip to the stockades or the city jail. Not a better price.
I know, I know, players should always be rewarded for using a hammer to blow glass, I'm used to the attitude of quite a few players I've seen.
Oh, and as far as insulting your boy. Don't care. I used a real life example, he chose to call me a liar.
I know I'd never play with him. I don't like whiners.
*sigh* Yes, i've sold used goods. In game terms (which is what this whole discussion is about) how do you define haggling? Diplomacy? Or don't you agree that social skills should be used? If so, what is the purpose of them (besides interrogation, lying, and Demoralise)?
Please reference the rules in response.
Oh, and don't try your condescending crap with me.
Diplomacy would be the appropriate skill for haggling. I have yet to meet anyone who runs a profitable business who takes crap from people trying to peddle used goods. If intimidate were an effective haggling tool, everyone would be brow beating merchants.
Again, the problem is with the dynamic of the level system, which is endemic of a lot of the problems with 3x/Pf. Skills replace common sense. Levels matter in places they shouldn't (like using Intimidate on non-adventurers - like I said earlier, the merchant would have to be a 15th level expert with a hefty wisdom to even stay in business in "half orcs can do whatever they want and get away with it" land).
And, seriously, your roll would intimidate a 20th level character? that alone tells me the dynamic is bogus and should seriously be revisited. No 20th level npc with actual character class levels should be intimidated by someone they could probably squash like an ant because some die says so. That would require the mother of all bluff checks, imo.
I rolled a 39. That should nearly intimidate a 25th lvl character with 20 Wis.
Is that not enough to overcome all these circumstance modifiers?
But considering that is a possible outcome from around a 5th level character, don't you find that it would be strange that he could push around a level 25 with 20 wis?
But considering that is a possible outcome from around a 5th level character, don't you find that it would be strange that he could push around a level 25 with 20 wis?
I rolled a 39. That should nearly intimidate a 25th lvl character with 20 Wis.
Is that not enough to overcome all these circumstance modifiers?
Surely the lvl 25 character can't see a big sign with the name in grey (indicating he wouldn't get any xp), and possibly level, above the lvl 5 character's head?
:)
@Houstonderek: Yeah, i agree. Diplomacy is an appropriate skill for haggling. My contention is that Intimidate should function *as* Diplomacy, but with negative consequences - cuz no-one likes to be pushed around.
This is why Intimidate isn't an effective haggling tool (or as effective as Diplomacy in any case). The reason i did it was purely rping reasons. This is the first major human settlement i've been to, and am used to orcs haggling.
The point is, i was successful, yet failed at the same time.
@Shifty: Sure, but i'm really scary.
RAW by itself is limited. It all comes down to interpretation. That's why i'm making sure i interpreted it correctly.