Granted, the guards there are listed as level 3 - and higher, for officer and captain. However, the core rules mention under city adventures that the majority of watchmen are first level warriors.Besides... Even those level 3 warriors aren't exactly a massive danger, so well :D
Hey go tell a cop he's a first level warrior and you don't think he's a danger...
Mr. Fishy wants to watch him tase you. [sing song] DO, that funky dirt dance.[sing song]
Mr. Fishy's guard are as nasty as they need to be. Bigger the city better the guards.
Oh, agreed.
Reasonable things that should happen to people who intimidate merchants include the following:
1. The merchant vents about this problem customer to his friends at the tavern. His fellow merchants listen to this story and possibly add to it if the inquisitor has used similar bad behavior at other shops in town.
Street urchins are then paid to be on the lookout for this "bad customer" and give the shopkeepers advance warning. They do, and the inquisitor finds shopkeepers shutting their doors and turning around their CLOSED signs when he comes down the street.
If he goes to the tavern, assuming the bartender likes the merchant (who as a local is very likely well liked), the inquisitor may be told, "I'm sorry, but we don't serve your kind here" where "your kind" does not mean "half orcs" but those who threaten honest merchants, or even dishonest merchants who presumably have great Bluff and Diplomacy checks and finished of his story of the awful half-orc with "And then he took my pet cat Fluffy and ran her through with his sword!"
2. The merchant tells the city watch to be on the lookout for this "unpleasant customer." The inquisitor now finds himself on the list of "the usual suspects."
3. The merchant goes to the thieves guild, who he has paid protection money to, and tells him about this guy, also mentioning exactly how much cash he should now have on hand, and also providing an exact description of a marked coin that he puts into each sack of gold so that they can be tracked via Locate Object if stolen. Or if anybody wants to steal them....
I'm still stunned that someone can post up that a roll of 39 from a 5th level dude is enough to intimidate a 29th level character as if thats perfectly normal.
Intimidate needs to be opposable.
How did a 5 level character roll a 39. Intimidate +19
+5 ranks,
+3 class,
+2 half orc,
+3 skill focus
+5 str [feat]
+1 cha
Damn he was dedicated to intimidate.
It's a DM call.
Is diplomacy opposable?
Kinda.
As you can see there is a sliding scale which adjusts the difficulty level, and following that, should you be dishonest/shady on your dealings they would be entitled to a Sense Motive check. Diplomacy is only really geared around gently changing their attitude a step or two, as opposed to success guaranteeing compliance - so its not apples with apples.
Diplomacy checks generally are significantly higher in their requirements to achieve a real outcome from someone who wasn't friendly to begin with, and after a few requests you will inevitably fail.
You can request your heart out after making one Intim check.
Imitidated targets are more likely to knife you.
Imitidated targets are more likely to knife you.
But only sometime down the track, when they might not be in a position to :)
Apparently until the magic 1d6x10 mins run out they are your new homeboy :p
Tell that to the goblin you just turned your back on.
Tell that to the goblin you just turned your back on.
The goblin you just turned your back on is still too scared to knife you in the back.
A GM who does otherwise is breaking the rules.
Did you really intimidate him? Or did you fail a sense motive roll? NPCs get skills too.
>Fishy grin<
Did you really intimidate him? Or did you fail a sense motive roll? NPCs get skills too.
>Fishy grin<
Sure NPCs got skills too, but not many have 29 hit dice or 19 hit dice and 30 Widsom, which is essentially what they would need to beat an Intimidate check of 39.
Any GM who gives those kinds of numbers to a mere shop keep, even a shop keep of a magical shop, is just being an ass (why isn't the shop keep saving the world if he's got those kinds of stats?). Rather than talking to the player about his concerns and possibly making a compromise/agreed upon house rule for Intimidate, he instead breaks the rules outright and makes the player's character out to be some kind of fool.
I don't care what style of play you believe in, that's bad GMing in ANY game.
Sure NPCs got skills too, but not many have 29 hit dice or 19 hit dice and 30 Widsom, which is essentially what they would need to beat an Intimidate check of 39.
Or immunity to fear actually
Any GM who gives those kinds of numbers to a mere shop keep, even a shop keep of a magical shop, is just being an ass. (why isn't the shop keep saving the world if he's got those kinds of stats?).
Is that RAW or Opinion?
As for why he's not saving the world two reasons.
One, players get b+*#@y if NPCs save the world.
Two, who says he isn't. You don't know isn't the same as the DM cheating.
I don't care what style of play you believe in, that's bad GMing in ANY game.
Noted.
Sure NPCs got skills too, but not many have 29 hit dice or 19 hit dice and 30 Widsom, which is essentially what they would need to beat an Intimidate check of 39.Or immunity to fear actually
Though I think it's stupid, immunity to fear does not =/= immunity to intimidate.
Though I think it's stupid, immunity to fear does not =/= immunity to intimidate.
Fear effect, immune to fear=immune to fear effect
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.
Mr. Fishy checked the SRD.
Fear effect, immune to fear=immune to fear effect
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.Mr. Fishy checked the SRD.
I'm not entirely convinced the intimidate is a fear effect to begin with. You may not be afraid of me when I threaten to kill your family if you don't do as I ask, but you may very well do as I ask anyway so that I don't kill your family.
I'm not entirely convinced the intimidate is a fear effect to begin with. You may not be afraid of me when I threaten to kill your family if you don't do as I ask, but you may very well do as I ask anyway so that I don't kill your family.
So is this DM's call/RP or RAW? Mr. Fishy needs knows where you're at only this to response effectively.
The SRD says you use fear, so immune to fear is immune to intimidate. That not a DM fiat or a home rule. That is the Rules as Written.
I'm not entirely convinced the intimidate is a fear effect to begin with. You may not be afraid of me when I threaten to kill your family if you don't do as I ask, but you may very well do as I ask anyway so that I don't kill your family.So is this DM's call/RP or RAW? Mr. Fishy needs knows where you're at only this to response effectively.
The SRD says you use fear, so immune to fear is immune to intimidate. That not a DM fiat or a home rule. That is the Rules as Written.
I was voicing my interpretation of RAW. Feel free to go by your own interpretation. It's become increasingly clear to me as of late that the game designers deliberately designed the game in such a way that multiple interpretations of a given rule can all be perfectly valid.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, it says fear is one of the things you can use.
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you."
That doesn't sound exclusive to me.
Reading this thread makes me want to use a version of Rich's diplomacy variant for intimidate, but that only works for NPC's.
I never try to intimidate the players anyway so I guess that will work for now.
Note:I am aware this is a house rule.
PS:RD brings up a good point with the "or".
|
So really, the answer becomes easier to justify.
A Clear Spindle Ioun stone (4000gp) resonating in a Wayfinder (500gp) provides "Protection from posession and mental control (as protection from evil).
Relevant text from Protection From Evil: "While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. "
If you are arguing that successfully intimidating an opponent means that the opponent must then act friendly to you, then this is the very perfect example of mental control. (Would he normally act that way? Not, not without you trying to control him through intimidation. Therefore Protection from Evil will protect him.)
It would be hard to imagine a purveyor of magical items, stocking vast fortunes worth of items in his shop would not use that very same magical means to protect himself from being robbed or extorted or mind-controlled out of business.
For a mere 4,500gp, the intimidate check of 39 (or 139) fails to force the shopkeeper to act friendly to the intimidator.
(For the sake of argument. If you do not accept that Protection from Evil works as the spell description states that it does, then it would be an equally prudent action for the merchant to pay for a permanent spell or item that prevents intimidate from working within the confines of his shop. If he's able to shell out 7,000gp at a moments notice from whatever adventurer walks into his store, then he would certainly have installed such a security system.)
Also, if I'm not mistaken, it says fear is one of the things you can use.
Where?
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.Influence Attitude
You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you.
If you feel that fear is not used please explain.
Can you elaborate more on what the items were?
Did you follow up the appraise with successful spellcraft rolls to determine exactly what properties the items had?
Like a +1 sword or something. Yes. SC and Detect Magic were used successfully.
Okay, assuming that you determined that you had magical items through Detect Magic and Spellcraft and you successfully determined the properties of the items, the next question is: Did the merchant you took them to also successfully determine the magical properties of the gear?
No idea. I presume so.
You stated that the difference between the offered price, and what you felt would be a fair price was "a few thousand" gold pieces. So let's call this 3,500gp (I think of "a few" as 3-4, so 3.5 is splitting that difference.). This would imply that you were offered 3.5K, wanted 7K, and the items were worth 14K. For a metropolis, the PRD says that there's a 75% chance that you can find some merchant who will have an item that you are looking for worth that cost. But let's assume that you were actually looking to sell a bunch of gear. Call it 7 items. So the average value of each item was really around 2K gold. Question: how many items were you trying to sell, and what was the most expensive item?
About 10-15 items ranging in price. I did the math and the difference in price for the total was a little over 3,000gp.
So you walk into a shop. Question: did you do any research in town as to what shops would be able to buy your gear, and which could offer the best prices, or did you walk into a random shop? Once in the shop, did you do any appraise/Detect Magic/Spellcraft checks to determine whether the gear you were selling was in the price range that the shop sells? And if you did, was the value of gear that you were trying to sell a significant fraction of the store's total inventory value? (Were you bringing a Rolls Royce to a Bob's Discount Auto?)
There was nothing to indicate that he didn't have the funds necessary. I could be wrong tho.
So then I was wondering: Question: Prior to taking your gear into the shop, did you do any work to try to make it more "merchandisable?" Did you clean it up? Did your wizard use prestidigitation to clean it? Did someone use mending to remove the sword, axe, and bite marks from it?
Hell no. I've never even heard of such a practice. That's what i assume the 1/2 price is all about.
So, you are in a metropolitan city. New guys in town. PRD says: "Different cities have different laws about such issues as carrying weapons in public and restricting spellcasters." Did you peace bond your weapons with the local guard? Or were you still armed to the teeth? Was this in compliance with the city's laws? When you entered the shop, did you check your weapons at the door, or did your Half-Orc still have all of his weapons on him? Since it was a metropolitan city, and not some border outpost somewhere, most "decent folk" probably don't walk around armed to the teeth. Perhaps walking into what had to be an "upscale" establishment (after all, you were trying to sell 14K worth of items there. According to a past (I think Dragon) article, one GP is worth approximately 625 of todays dollars. That would mean you were trying to sell 8.5 million dollars worth of stuff. You don't sell that at the pawn shop on the wrong side of the tracks. You're talking going to Harrods. Or someplace even more uptown.
All valid consequences. I wanted to explore that. oh well.
Cheers for the thoughtful post, but i've discussed this with the DM and it basically all boils down to a perception that you cannot Intimidate without the threat of physical violence.
This i fundementally disagree with. The discussion's been valuable tho.
I'm pretty sure that Intimidate is a fear effect also - barring possible interpretation of the word 'or' in the context RD discussed.
|
|
Can you elaborate more on what the items were?
Did you follow up the appraise with successful spellcraft rolls to determine exactly what properties the items had?
Like a +1 sword or something. Yes. SC and Detect Magic were used successfully.
Okay, assuming that you determined that you had magical items through Detect Magic and Spellcraft and you successfully determined the properties of the items, the next question is: Did the merchant you took them to also successfully determine the magical properties of the gear?No idea. I presume so.
You stated that the difference between the offered price, and what you felt would be a fair price was "a few thousand" gold pieces. So let's call this 3,500gp (I think of "a few" as 3-4, so 3.5 is splitting that difference.). This would imply that you were offered 3.5K, wanted 7K, and the items were worth 14K. For a metropolis, the PRD says that there's a 75% chance that you can find some merchant who will have an item that you are looking for worth that cost. But let's assume that you were actually looking to sell a bunch of gear. Call it 7 items. So the average value of each item was really around 2K gold. Question: how many items were you trying to sell, and what was the most expensive item?About 10-15 items ranging in price. I did the math and the difference in price for the total was a little over 3,000gp.
So you walk into a shop. Question: did you do any research in town as to what shops would be able to buy your gear, and which could offer the best prices, or did you walk into a random shop? Once in the shop, did you do any appraise/Detect Magic/Spellcraft checks to determine whether the gear you were selling was in the price range that the shop sells? And if you did, was the value of gear that you were trying to sell a significant fraction of the store's total inventory value? (Were you bringing a Rolls Royce to a Bob's Discount...
Thank you for the thoughtful answers.
Given that we both agree that intimidate is a fear effect, it would seem logical that a prudent merchant would have some sort of "protection from ..." (evil/good/law/chaos, depending on his own alignment) spell or item to prevent being strong-armed (or intimidated) into making poor decisions.
I know this is completely different than what your DM described to you as happening. And what happened in your game was a difference in interpretation of the rule for intimidate. It is good that you discussed it with your DM. I'm simply suggesting that regardless of your and his view of intimidate, you could simply retcon the encounter to the merchant having had an anti-mind-control (Protection from evil works quite nicely) effect up, in which case the result of your die roll would have been completely irrelevant.
I sincerely hope that you and he move past this event and that your campaign goes back into a normal mode. I know that I've taken events that happen in campaigns that I play in that I don't like and have let them ruin large parts of campaigns for me. In the end, I generally wish that I had not reacted in the way that I did. And again, I am not saying that you reacted in any bad way at all, I'm just relating my own experiences so that others might learn from my mistakes.
Cheers!
It's all good Elias, more than anything i just like discussing rule interpretations (i've got problems! lol).
Like i said, my DM and i differ in our interpretation, and in his games i won't bother with that.
I just wish i knew before creating my character, i suppose.
Anyway, cheers!
|
|
It's all good Elias, more than anything i just like discussing rule interpretations (i've got problems! lol).
Like i said, my DM and i differ in our interpretation, and in his games i won't bother with that.
I just wish i knew before creating my character, i suppose.
Anyway, cheers!
Given that you and your DM differ on this fairly rules interpretation, and that you've built your character around your interpretation, perhaps your DM would be amenable to you rebuilding feats or skills so that your general theme is mostly intact, but your abilities are better suited to his interpretation of the rules.
If you feel that fear is not used please explain.
Being afraid, period, is not the same as being afraid for one's family, or one's business, etc.
It is perfectly possible to intimidate someone into doing something for you without making them personally afraid (like cause fear would) and despite a possible immunity to fear effects.
I suspect this is why the Paizo game designers removed the "immunity to fear means immunity to intimidate" clause that was in v3.5.
It is perfectly possible to intimidate someone into doing something for you without making them personally afraid (like cause fear would) and despite a possible immunity to fear effects.
How?
If they are intimdated, then by sheer definition they are afraid.
It is perfectly possible to intimidate someone into doing something for you without making them personally afraid (like cause fear would) and despite a possible immunity to fear effects.
How?
If they are intimdated, then by sheer definition they are afraid.
True, but I don't think being afraid for one's family, business, etc. is the same as simply being afraid (such as from the compulsory magical fear effects that many spells bestow).
|
If I'm intimidated, I could be acting friendly simply because I determine it's in my best interest to do so. You put a gun to my head and tell me to do such and such. I do such and such so that hopefully, you don't pull the trigger.
There's a difference between not wanting something to happen and being afraid that something might happen.
If I'm intimidated, I could be acting friendly simply because I determine it's in my best interest to do so. You put a gun to my head and tell me to do such and such. I do such and such so that hopefully, you don't pull the trigger.
There's a difference between not wanting something to happen and being afraid that something might happen.
Yep. And I think that's why the Paizo designers took out the fear aspects of intimidate.
Yeah but 'best interest to do so' implies that if you dont do what you are told, something 'negative' is going to happen; and its not likely to be a simple nuisance of minor inconvenience.
We are talking about a tangible negative outcome.
You might not be 'afraid' directly of the person, but you are 'afraid' of the ramifications - either way this is still 'afraid'.
It's like the joke about the UN,
UN:'Let us in for weapons inspections'
North Korea: pfft 'sif
UN: If you don't let us in, there will be consequences!
NK: O rly?
UN: Yes, we will have a meeting and send you a nasty letter!
NK: LOL
No, I could simply prefer those ramifications don't happen, as recognized by the "or" RD quoted earlier.
You might not be 'afraid' directly of the person, but you are 'afraid' of the ramifications - either way this is still 'afraid'.
"I hope the shop doesn't run out of coke, or I'll have to drink Pepsi"
Hardly Intimidating...
. I can understand why, too - in 3.5, while the paladin 1 may have not been afraid of the great wyrm's 57 intimidate roll and aura of fear, he can easily reason that the dragon can indeed eat the village behind him, and try placating him until he can call in real dragon hunters. Immunity to fear does not stop your ability to reason logically.
Yet the low end Half Orc Inquisitor would have just sent that said same Dragon packing in fear with nothing but a flip of the bird and a hard stare.
Actually, the DC for a great white wyrm would be 10 + 25 (hd) +5 (wis) +12 (size) = 52. And white great wyrms aren't the biggest dragons on the block. If he managed to beat that roll, it probably didn't involve a hard stare, but a very convincing threat against, say, the dragons young.
The modifier for being smaller than your opponent is just -4. so the Great White there would drop to a 44.
As it was I was running with the typical Ancient Red, apologies for not clarifying.
So it isnt a youngling that is succeptible; our friend the Inquis who would basically get one shotted by the Ancient Red in the blink of an eye just cowed it.
I told ya', i'm that scary. lol ;D
I told ya', i'm that scary. lol ;D
Pfft they needed you in LoTR, could have saved them a lot of hassle by telling Sauron to simply push off :p
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
According RAW, it was wrong, and only explainable by house rules or simple DM fiat.
I'm far more concerned about people trying to obscenely limit an already very limited skill, however, without any grounds in the rules.
I'm only applying my interpretation of RAW, so it comes down to you and I differ on our interpretation of RAW. Nothing more, nothing less.
Threat: an expression of intent to injure or punish another; an indication of imminent danger
I'm still stunned that someone can post up that a roll of 39 from a 5th level dude is enough to intimidate a 29th level character as if thats perfectly normal.
Intimidate needs to be opposable.
I can't agree more. To the point that despite not being RAW I would apply situation bonuses/penalties to most Intimidate circumstances.
I told ya', i'm that scary. lol ;D
So you have a sorta "Easy" button you are carrying around for all manner of situations?
The question is, if the character has done hideous acts of graphic violence, how much of a bonus does he get to his Intimidate check.
Let's say this nebishy looking human wanders into the merchants shop. He's an average human with average charisma, or even poor charisma, and zero ranks in Intimidate and for that matter zero Diplomacy.
He attempts to sell some loot to the merchant. The merchant lowballs him and attempts to play the Diplomacy game. The nebishy guy decides not to play that, because he knows he sucks at it, and he's got enough Sense Motive to know that the merchant is trying to cheat him. So he goes to Intimidate:
NEBISHY GUY: Treat me fair or, um, bad things will happen.
MERCHANT: Bad things? What sort of 'bad things'? Are you trying to threaten me, you silly little man?
NEBISHY GUY: Yeah, I guess so. I was never much good with words. I guess I just have to show you....
The 10th level rogue uses his surprise round action to backstab and disembowel the assistant clerk, decapitate the sleeping shop cat with a coup de grace action, and finally uses some specialized grapple maneuver to stab his dagger through the merchant's hand, sticking it to the countertop so he won't run away.
NEBISHY GUY: Those sorts of 'bad things'....
Now, is the merchant Intimidated? Do I need to roll, or can we just assume that the circumstance bonus from the graphic display of violence and gore has so far exceeded anything the merchant might have that we can just skip to the chase?
Similarly, is it unreasonable to assume that even an unremarkable Expert 3 merchant could place so much faith in the safety and security of his town, the competence of his city watch, the timely and generous protection money he's paid to the local thieves guild and so on that the chance to Intimidate him is astronomic without actual demonstration of a person's willingness to violate the social order?
I should also note that when setting a difficulty for an Intimidate or Diplomacy check, I ask the player specifically what they're doing and what they're saying and set the difficulty from that. There are some lines which are more Intimidating than others, and you can be the scariest half-orc inquisitor in the world and you'd still have to roll obscenely well to succeed with a lame threat.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
your boss tells you "Do as I say or I fire you", thats diplomacy then?
Considering I am an employer and I have employees, Intimidate is never a viable method of keeping them on task. You must use Diplomacy, because if you "Do as I say or I fire you" you would get neither. They would quit.
In response to your post, if you make threats it is Intimidate and if you don't it is Diplomacy. The OP explicitly didn't want to make threats, so he should have made a Diplomacy roll.
I'm far more concerned about people trying to obscenely abuse a correctly very limited skill, however, cheesmonkeying the rules.
Intimidate is a skill used in areas of conflict. It's not really that applicable to behaving as a good citizen or even a decent shopper.
+1000
I couldn't agree more.
The question is, if the character has done hideous acts of graphic violence, how much of a bonus does he get to his Intimidate check.
[snip example]Now, is the merchant Intimidated? Do I need to roll, or can we just assume that the circumstance bonus from the graphic display of violence and gore has so far exceeded anything the merchant might have that we can just skip to the chase?
Me, I'd have the rogue roll. If he fails, then the merchant is reduced to gibbering from shock and/or fear; he's scared, but he's not usefully scared.
In those situations, I try (and sometimes fail, doh) to ask the player both how they're trying to go about it, and what they want to accomplish if they are successful. That helps me decide how difficult it might be, and helps prevent misunderstandings. Similarly, when I play, I will try to explain to the GM what I want to happen. Then everyone knows what "complete success" should look like, and options for "failure" are implied.