First one on their is to give you information you desire, if they lie it wasn't the information you desired which means it goes directly against the ability.
That doesn't mean they start telling you how they wear womens underwear.
Even Diplomacy has a metric payload of heavy modifiers for getting them to tell secrets, especially dangerous ones.
If giving you information you desire would endanger them then you won't be getting it... thats covered in point TWO.
Point three 'limited assitance' kinda qualifies that they will indeed help you, but it is limited. They aren't going to put their neck on the line.
So your ability just isn't going to guarantee you a reliable answer.
even with modifiers you still have a good chance, you don't need to ask the talk and die questions, why would he think anyone would find out anyway? seems like the DM screwing the player of their skill points rather then a realistic situation. Better then the ring of truth still though because you have no reason to doubt anything they say and it is REALLY easy to tell the whole truth without betraying anything useful.
PC: Who do you work for?
Lacky (under effects of ring of truth): Admiral Smith
PC: Where is he
Lacky: his office on the fourth floor
PC: okay guys lets go (kills lacky takes ring)
They go up only to find out Admiral Smith was just the lackeys immediate superior and has barely higher rank then the lackey. A lot of time used to find out basically nothing. Lets interrogate admiral smith, it will probably go the same way and soon you will have a trail of bodies for anyone to find.
A few intimidate modifiers seem like a lot less trouble
the opponent will do 1 of the 3. Provide you with information you desire. It does not state that the information is the truth. Sense motive may be necessary as well. The opponents 2nd option. Take actions that do not endanger it. IE, give you information you might think is the truth. Or the 3rd which could be more information. I do not see how the world blows up just because intimidate alone does not equal truth serum. A good interrogator is good at both intimidating and discerning truth.
If it isn't the truth how is it in any way the information you desired?
That doesn't mean they start telling you how they wear womens underwear.Even Diplomacy has a metric payload of heavy modifiers for getting them to tell secrets, especially dangerous ones.
If giving you information you desire would endanger them then you won't be getting it... thats covered in point TWO.
Point three 'limited assitance' kinda qualifies that they will indeed help you, but it is limited. They aren't going to put their neck on the line.
So your ability just isn't going to guarantee you a reliable answer.
If you make your intimidate check they you get the information you desire. There is nothing to say there are not modifiers because the minion very afraid of his boss but if you make your check even with those modifiers then you get to have the information the guy has.
the opponent will do 1 of the 3. Provide you with information you desire. It does not state that the information is the truth. Sense motive may be necessary as well. The opponents 2nd option. Take actions that do not endanger it. IE, give you information you might think is the truth. Or the 3rd which could be more information. I do not see how the world blows up just because intimidate alone does not equal truth serum. A good interrogator is good at both intimidating and discerning truth.If it isn't the truth how is it in any way the information you desired?
The intimidated minion would not do 1 of 3 things. It says he does 3 things. All of them. Lieing is an action that would indanger this minion. He can not lie because the skill says he tells you the information you desire and that he will not take any action the will endanger him.
If you make your intimidate check they you get the information you desire.
SO LONG AS giving you the information does NOT endanger them.
Confessing to a crime, or fingering a bad guy is likely to get them injured or killed, so you will NOT be getting that information.
Simple.
They may in fact *lie*.
This is why Sense Motive is a must have for any good interrogator.
No I don't desire "an answer" I desire the correct answer so no loophole there, you have not answered how lying doesn't go directly against the ability. The second thing says they cannot be asked to do anything that endangers them, nothing they tell you endangers them AT ALL, no pain and no death whatsoever, their superiors finding out what they said is dangerous but telling you is in no way dangerous.
No I don't desire "an answer" I desire the correct answer so no loophole there.
And if the ramification of giving that answer endangers them, then you have breached part 2, and they don't have to tell you squat.
their superiors finding out what they said is dangerous but telling you is in no way dangerous.
Exactly, telling you puts them in danger from their superiors... hence telling you puts them directly in danger.
You have kinda just spelled it out yourself :)
The skill doesn't say put them in danger from you, it simply says endanger.
Nope the interogation goes, I intimidate him and ask him for who his true boss is. He gives you the information you want. He says, " my true boss is whoever."
It is the info you seek but the ability no where says it prevents lying. go roll your sense motive. Lying might have a higher chance of keeping him safe as telling you the truth is definitely going to get him killed by his organization. Lying will often be safer for any minion you capture because there is always the chance you do not find out he is lying.
The RAW does not say that at all, where is your bases? fake information is not the information you want by any interpretation. telling the truth does nothing to endanger him directly either so it still passes that clause. Restating that it does doesn't make it true.
Fake info is not desired info so goes against the ability, and saying anything doesn't endanger anyone until someone finds out.
telling the truth does nothing to endanger him directly either so it still passes that clause. Restating that it does doesn't make it true.
telling the 'truth' could possibly (depending in what it was) get him in VERY REAL danger - including killed.
telling the truth does nothing to endanger him directly either so it still passes that clause. Restating that it does doesn't make it true.telling the 'truth' could possibly (depending in what it was) get him in VERY REAL danger - including killed.
No someone finding out could get him killed telling you something has no effect by itself. it takes a whole separate course of actions for that to be dangerous.
@thepuregamer: how is lying in any way not contradicting getting desired information? (no, false information is in no way desired)
No someone finding out could get him killed telling you something has no effect by itself. it takes a whole separate course of actions for that to be dangerous.
No chance.
He has NO way of guaranteeing that the information wont be leaked, and in fact (given your methods) has every reason to believe you would compromise him completely.
By even telling you in teh best possible conditions there is a 'danger' teh information might leak, ensuring an unwanted outcome.
So he can only give you information that will not endanger him. By giving you information he is being 'endangered'.
No someone finding out could get him killed telling you something has no effect by itself. it takes a whole separate course of actions for that to be dangerous.No chance.
He has NO way of guaranteeing that the information wont be leaked, and in fact (given your methods) has every reason to believe you would compromise him completely.
By even telling you in teh best possible conditions there is a 'danger' teh information might leak, ensuring an unwanted outcome.
So he can only give you information that will not endanger him. By giving you information he is being 'endangered'.
By that logic not giving me information is even more likely to endanger him (given my methods) so he must choose the less likely to be dangerous path, which is telling me what I want.
what is more dangerous? a guy with a sword to your throat that has proven he will kill you (successful intimidate) or the guy you can't see at the moment that may or may not find out?
Are you guys seriously rules-lawyering an NPC reacting to intimidation?
Kinda have to, they are rules lawyering an item claimed to be waaaay superior. So unless both things are read per the rules it is unfair. Been in a "edilons are overpowered" thread lately? If you don't follow a few rules yeah they totally are broken.
So thanks for your odd contribution
what is more dangerous? a guy with a sword to your throat that has proven he will kill you (successful intimidate) or the guy you can't see at the moment that may or may not find out?
He's only proven he will kill you when he actually does.
If you start carving them up with a knife to get your information, thats actually not the Intimidate skill.
You CANNOT BY RAW Intimidate the person into giving information that can endanger them.
Its there in black and white.
Simple cause and effect:
{intmidate roll} 'Did you kill the girl?'
'Yes'
/confessee gets hung in nearby tree.
{intmidate roll} 'Do Lord Humperdink pay you to dispose of the body?'
'Yes'
/confessee gets hung in nearby tree.
{intmidate roll} 'Did you steal the handkerchief'
'Yes'
/confessee gets put in nearby prison.
what is more dangerous? a guy with a sword to your throat that has proven he will kill you (successful intimidate) or the guy you can't see at the moment that may or may not find out?
He's only proven he will kill you when he actually does.
If you start carving them up with a knife to get your information, thats actually not the Intimidate skill.
You CANNOT BY RAW Intimidate the person into giving information that can endanger them.
Its there in black and white.
Simple cause and effect:
{intmidate roll} 'Did you kill the girl?'
'Yes'
/confessee gets hung in nearby tree.{intmidate roll} 'Do Lord Humperdink pay you to dispose of the body?'
'Yes'
/confessee gets hung in nearby tree.{intmidate roll} 'Did you steal the handkerchief'
'Yes'
/confessee gets put in nearby prison.
Okay give me one example of something you can glean with intimidate
Heaps.
The test is whether it endangers the person or not.
If they won't be endangered by divulging the answer then everything is fine. The GM needs to consider the cause and effect, and what the confesee believes will happen.
Simply put, given you have already shown no regard for them their safety of their welfare, why would they think for an instant you wouldn't given them away as the source of harmful information?
Even the Police give criminals access to a witness protection program. You are simply shaking some guy down on the street for info. That act alone could get him dead.
Like I mean, forget the skill, just go straight in with a meat cleaver and your waterboard. CE all the way.
Heaps.
The test is whether it endangers the person or not.
If they won't be endangered by divulging the answer then everything is fine. The GM needs to consider the cause and effect, and what the confesee believes will happen.
Simply put, given you have already shown no regard for them their safety of their welfare, why would they think for an instant you wouldn't given them away as the source of harmful information?
Even the Police give criminals access to a witness protection program. You are simply shaking some guy down on the street for info. That act alone could get him dead.
Like I mean, forget the skill, just go straight in with a meat cleaver and your waterboard. CE all the way.
I asked for one example, I am still waiting
As a BBEG I tell all my underlings that telling enemies anything is punishable by death. My underlings can no longer be intimidated into spilling anything. I am a genius. 8)
If your BBEG is Jimmy Hoffa then that might indeed work :)
Mafiosa, Bikers Code of Silence?
Notoriously difficult to break - they know what happens if they rat.
Hence they need to be pressured and broken down, and offered protection from what is coming to them.
As a BBEG I tell all my underlings that telling enemies anything is punishable by death. My underlings can no longer be intimidated into spilling anything. I am a genius. 8)If your BBEG is Jimmy Hoffa then that might indeed work :)
Mafiosa, Bikers Code of Silence?
Notoriously difficult to break - they know what happens if they rat.
Hence they need to be pressured and broken down, and offered protection from what is coming to them.
difficult to break for cops, known to spill quickly when confronted by more dangerous organizations. It is always about the immediate threat, cops dont provide any
I asked for one example, I am still waiting
Maybe you failed your Intimidate check? :p
On a serious note though, it could be as simple as 'Did you see the Duke that night', Did you see Mr Hoffa with a bag of cement? Did you see Mr Hoffa having a conversation with the barman. Those might be fine. If the person has no reason to believe answering will get him in trouble.
Did you go with Hatchet Harry and dispose of his victim? - quite another.
Intimidate is a skill, not a supernatural feat.
If people can hang out in Gitmo without rolling on their allies, then you are suggesting that even the worlds most sophisticated interrogation centre cant manage a simple Intimidate check.
difficult to break for cops, known to spill quickly when confronted by more dangerous organizations. It is always about the immediate threat, cops dont provide any
Well dangerous organisations don't imply a threat (as per intimidation) they just get out the cleaver and get to work. Thats not the skill Intimidate. The cops CAN AND DO Intimidate... think about it... they also deliver on horrible outcomes when needed.
I asked for one example, I am still waitingMaybe you failed your Intimidate check? :p
On a serious note though, it could be as simple as 'Did you see the Duke that night', Did you see Mr Hoffa with a bag of cement? Did you see Mr Hoffa having a conversation with the barman. Those might be fine. If the person has no reason to believe answering will get him in trouble.
Did you go with Hatchet Harry and dispose of his victim? - quite another.
Intimidate is a skill, not a supernatural feat.
If people can hang out in Gitmo without rolling on their allies, then you are suggesting that even the worlds most sophisticated interrogation centre cant manage a simple Intimidate check.
no if the lackey answered any of those he puts his life in danger, he will either be killed now that your are done with him or if you let him live he will inevitable be ordered to fight you now that you can find his boss.
Still waiting for an example that passes your parameters of having no chance of danger.
Still waiting for an example that passes your parameters of having no chance of danger.
So then what you are saying is, answering any of those things could put him in danger? Excellent!
We are finally agreed!
This is a long way from 'nothing they tell you endangers them AT ALL'.
So therefore we have to accept that the Intimidate skill does not always result in the answer we 'want' #1, as it could invoke #2.
Therefore Intimidate acts just like I said it does.
Still waiting for an example that passes your parameters of having no chance of danger.
So then what you are saying is, answering any of those things could put him in danger? Excellent!
We are finally agreed!
This is a long way from 'nothing they tell you endangers them AT ALL'.
So therefore we have to accept that the Intimidate skill does not always result in the answer we 'want' #1, as it could invoke #2.
Therefore Intimidate acts just like I said it does.
I am saying it doesn't pass your parameters, of course nothing passes how you think it works so you must be saying the skill is useless right?
With my reading you can get a lot from this skill, with yours no one would or could ever use it
So are you then suggesting that none of those things endanger the person telling you?
None of them.
In any way.
?
Really?
I think we are pretty much done here; the RAW is clear.
You can't handwave away part two.
So are you then suggesting that none of those things endanger the person telling you?
None of them.
In any way.
?
Really?
I think we are pretty much done here; the RAW is clear.
You can't handwave away part two.
I think none of them directly harm anyone at all
You think every question can harm someone
Which one makes an actually usable game mechanic?
Ignoring the side discussion on intimidate, it seems to me that over-relying on a Ring of Truth to solve a mystery would be very dangerous. Yes, it's a potent kind of magic. But other people in the world have access to magic as well, not just the party.
Say the party catches some low level conspirator in the act, then slaps the ring on him in order to try and find out what's going on. He isn't allowed to lie, sure, but that doesn't mean that his view of the truth is correct. When the party asks who hired him he is forced to admit that it was the duke. What he doesn't realise however is that he was actually hired by the court wizard, using magic to pose as the duke.
There are all sorts of other options and in a world with magic you can bet that the evil head of the conspiracy is using some tricks to not only hide his identity, but also to actively shift suspicion onto others. The Ring of Truth does nothing to tell the party which people actually know the truth and which people are telling the false truth they've been fed. The ring, used sensibly and at a key moment, might potentially help the investigation. But it might also lead the party up the wrong path and sidetrack their investigation.
Ultimately the party is still going to need to investigate every lead in the same way they would without the Ring of Truth. Otherwise they're running a huge risk of being completely manipulated by the real mastermind.
+1 side topic aside I agree
How exactly do you get the Duke or whoever to wear the ring anyway? Ok for some mook you can just grab him and shove it on him but a sensible GM would rule that he only knows enough to keep the plot moving along.
However, you can't slap a ring on the strawman duke for instance. You could present it to him as a gift but, given that he is evil he's probably paranoid, he'll get a bodyguard to try it first.
As for paladins deliberately giving someone a cursed magic item to find out where the treasure is.... Actually let's just leave that can of worms where it is.
Again this is a magic item that players can not create. Much like undead, this requires a DM to step in to prevent the item misuse.
Chessy way
1) Curse items, have Charges. Once the charges run out, it become a non-magic item,
Perfered way
1) Curse items, make to want to use them. Will save, if you fail, you use the item. A Remove curse, lets you remove the item, and give you a chance to get ride of it. If you keep it, your just asking to be cursed again at some future date, that is up to the DM.
With this level of.. capability, I don't imagine detective campaigns under you would last very long anyway.
Nope, the duke is not. There is no such thing as eliminating all ties to someone you recruit. Who is your boss is hardly the only question to ask. And any and every question can be asked. 2 or 3 go layers of separation is not the same as being completely unconnected.
"Where's the Joker?!?!"
"What's a joker?""Who's your boss?"
"How should I know? I got a note under my door with a bag of gold attached."
And that's assuming he didn't just use his layers of separation to hire the local thieve's/assassin's/rogue's guild and use THEIR layers of separation as an additional buffer.
How/ when they were hired.
"Some guy in a hood and a mask gave me alot of money"
-"What was his name?""I didn't ask - he had a lot of money."
-"What did he look like?"
"Like a guy in a hood and a mask."
Professionals don't ask too many questions. Stupid lackeys don't think to ask too many questions.
How they were referred to their new boss or contacted.
"My immediate handler [equally irrelevant peon] tells me what my job is."
"I was instructed by [equally unimportant peon] to expect jobs by looking for special instructions every Sunday in the paper written using a special code."Only DM fiat is gonna keep your duke completely unconnected to minions you hire.
If the Duke (and by Duke, I mean DM), sucks.
The more elaborate and high level magical methods a hidden villain uses to conceal his connection to the crimes he commits the more he puts himself on a short list of people with access to these resources.
Who needs high magic? The most mundane methodology is immensely simple in achieving requires results.
I tell my minister to have so and so killed. My minister relays this information to the spy chief. My spy chief has some spy in mundane disguise approach some places a note on a "Help wanted" board containing information encoded in such a way that it will be understood by a local assassin's guild that checks "Help wanted" boards for this information. Assassin's guild handler assigns assassin to job. Payment is made at location and time also identified in previous note after notification of death by random spy to assassin guild handler.
This is not exactly rocket science.
what is more dangerous? a guy with a sword to your throat that has proven he will kill you (successful intimidate) or the guy you can't see at the moment that may or may not find out?
He's only proven he will kill you when he actually does.
If you start carving them up with a knife to get your information, thats actually not the Intimidate skill.
You CANNOT BY RAW Intimidate the person into giving information that can endanger them.
That is not what it says.
Actually, this has not been what I was implying. Shadow just refuses to see that I am not saying that intimidate doesn't work. But just that intimidate by itself does not guarantee a truthful answer.
The scenario I have been painting. As it is an example. Is this. You have captured a minion of supposed background secret villain who a) attacked you, b) attacked someone else, c) you caught committing x heinous crime.
It is now interrogation time. You scare the hell out of him using intimidate and he definitely wants to appease you(successful roll).
Now it is time to determine his least dangerous course of action.
a) tell you the exact truth. Leads to his eventual and possibly horrible death by evil employer.
b) he tells you nothing. Leads to his sooner and still painful death by you.
c) he lies to you by giving you information that sounds plausible. Leaves him a chance to live if you do not realize he is lying. You will have to confirm his info and you may not be able to hold onto him that long. Here is his chance to live.C is his chance to live. Which is the option he would take as it is the least dangerous.
But the scenario does not end here stupid. Intimidate is not a useless skill. But it is not a stand alone skill as conversations are also moderated by bluff and sense motive.
So he chooses c and you make your sense motive and know his information is either completely or partially false.
You beat him up some and re-intimidate him showing him the direct consequences of lying thus removing that option. He is not a good enough of a liar to escape harm that way. Now you will most likely be getting your answer.
Intimidate still works. I was just saying you expect 1 roll and 1 skill to give you everything?
Stealth classes still need ranks in perception to find their target? you gonna call hax? Or perception + disable device to find and remove traps? bluff and disguise will also be pretty necessary to navigate any situation where you are impersonating someone. What is so surprising about the above scenario?
You can't ignore rules just to be right, on a successful roll the target has to give you desired information this action causes no harm to the person (although later actions might but that is irrelevant) so it follows number two.
Your example ignores the first rule completely and assumes everything is immediately dangerous to the person. Ignoring rules and stretching other ones isn't a good argument.
Intimidate does not allow someone to take the least dangerous course of action, it allows them to ignore immediately dangerous actions. It is right in the RAW, and no where does it say they always take the least dangerous course of action
By RAW intimidate's "does not take actions that endanger it" refers to actually taking actions. Yes breathing and talking are technically actions, but they do not constitute actions for the purposes of the effect description:
- They tell you things as if you are on good terms with them
- They do some things for you, as if you are on good terms with them - provided it does not endanger them (jumping into the volcano: no; give a discount on the sword you wish to buy: yes)
- They offer limited assistance - meaning they might initiate/offer something to make us happy (a money pincher might offer us some money if he thinks that will help us/him)
By RAW intimidate's "does not take actions that endanger it" refers to actually taking actions. Yes breathing and talking are technically actions, but they do not constitute actions for the purposes of the effect description:
- They tell you things as if you are on good terms with them
- They do some things for you, as if you are on good terms with them - provided it does not endanger them (jumping into the volcano: no; give a discount on the sword you wish to buy: yes)
- They offer limited assistance - meaning they might initiate/offer something to make us happy (a money pincher might offer us some money if he thinks that will help us/him)
I was going to bring that up but I just knew he would scream "BUT THATS STILL A FREE ACTION!!!"
But thanks for throwing it in here anyway :)
They tell you things as if you are on good terms with themDo you always tell your friends the truth?
Well yeah, don't you?
Now how about those people who you're pretending are your friends until you can get away from their pointy objects?Well yeah, don't you?They tell you things as if you are on good terms with themDo you always tell your friends the truth?
I find it works better to actually befriend them, but maybe that's just me.
Although for most the stressful situation is enough to stop worrying about outside consequences. It is more "tell them the truth so they go away"
They tell you things as if you are on good terms with themDo you always tell your friends the truth?
Of course not. Didn't say they would either. But from a point of suspended disbelief the characters pretend that we are friendly towards each other. Not best of friends mind you. Just friendly.
They tell you things as if you are on good terms with themDo you always tell your friends the truth?Of course not. Didn't say they would either. But from a point of suspended disbelief the characters pretend that we are friendly towards each other. Not best of friends mind you. Just friendly.
You have been lying to me all these years!!!!????? hehe jk I don't even know you.
Still by following the game mechanic they don't really care if someone would lie to a friend, that isn't how it says it will go.