Or tell them anything I can think of so they go away, truth or not.
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"
Thinking up lies isn't easy for most when under stress, we are interrogating lackeys, not trained agents of evil
|
Thinking up lies isn't easy for most when under stress, we are interrogating lackeys, not trained agents of evilOr tell them anything I can think of so they go away, truth or not.
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"
Which is what Bluff/Sense Motive is for.
Unless you already have them bullied into the palm of you hand. you could just throw -10 on them for their bluff check but I don't know where in intimidate it says they take a penalty.
If it worked the way you suggest then why would you ever intimidate? I could just ask the question without intimidating and keep using sense motive until it worked. You just made the skill useless.
|
|
This is not a binary thing. Each NPC should react as appropriate to his character. One should suck up to the intimidator and spill his guts, one should do the same but tell the tallest tales he can think up, one should bargain for his safety with the knowledge he has, one should tell them he is honorbound not to tell them anything.
This is not a binary thing. Each NPC should react as appropriate to his character. One should suck up to the intimidator and spill his guts, one should do the same but tell the tallest tales he can think up, one should bargain for his safety with the knowledge he has, one should tell them he is honorbound not to tell them anything.
You still haven't made intimidate useful, that is still equivalent to skipping it and just asking questions
This is not a binary thing. Each NPC should react as appropriate to his character. One should suck up to the intimidator and spill his guts, one should do the same but tell the tallest tales he can think up, one should bargain for his safety with the knowledge he has, one should tell them he is honorbound not to tell them anything.
Agreed. Intimidate is just another means to get at information. It might even be truthful and relevant to the story!
Other scenarios:
- Lure the PCs into an ambush
- Go into a fit of insanity
- Shout really loudly for guards
- Frame an innocent or rival party
The foremost thing is to keep in mind that the rules are there to facilitate interpretation of reality. As soon as you think of them as hard mechanics that work in a very specific way, then the game breaks apart in social situations (and other soft encounters).
This is not a binary thing. Each NPC should react as appropriate to his character. One should suck up to the intimidator and spill his guts, one should do the same but tell the tallest tales he can think up, one should bargain for his safety with the knowledge he has, one should tell them he is honorbound not to tell them anything.Agreed. Intimidate is just another means to get at information. It might even be truthful and relevant to the story!
Other scenarios:
- Lure the PCs into an ambush
- Go into a fit of insanity
- Shout really loudly for guards
- Frame an innocent or rival party
The foremost thing is to keep in mind that the rules are there to facilitate interpretation of reality. As soon as you think of them as hard mechanics that work in a very specific way, then the game breaks apart in social situations (and other soft encounters).
That is why we don't use charisma based skills in my group, we use real realism which makes them useless.
For anyone who thinks these skills should have some meaning to them you have to use the mechanical rules given
Not to mention all those scenarios could happen whether you used intimidate or not
You still haven't made intimidate useful, that is still equivalent to skipping it and just asking questionsSo Diplomacy isn't useful either, you might as well skip it and ask questions.
By your ruling yes (you proved yourself wrong), by my ruling it is absolutely useful because it causes an intended effect regardless of person
Edit: your intimidate has no effect they can still do everything they could before you did it
My intimidate rewards you for investing points
|
|
Edit: your intimidate has no effect they can still do everything they could before you did it
Yes it does. Intimidating the NPC changes the way he reacts to you. Someone who was putting up a tough guy front breaks down from the threats and spills it. Someone who was sympathetic to the intimidator hardens and tries to send them on a goose chase. This is an effect of the Intimidate skill.
Diplomacy and Intimidate are not meant to flip a switch.
Edit: your intimidate has no effect they can still do everything they could before you did itYes it does. Intimidating the NPC changes the way he reacts to you. Someone who was putting up a tough guy front breaks down from the threats and spills it. Someone who was sympathetic to the intimidator hardens and tries to send them on a goose chase. This is an effect of the Intimidate skill.
so intimidate has a random effect dependent on DM? yeah still useless, the DM could have either one act that way with or without intimidate, if a skill is DM dependent you aren't really gaining anything.
So you're saying that according to the rules, successful Diplomacy checks make NPCs your friends every time, and Intimidate checks dictate the targets actions until the intimidate duration ends?
yup until duration ends you just "charmed person" and for one minute of dialogue and a successful check it isn't granting that much.
Okay, I see where you're coming from, and why you don't use the skills. I'm familiar with the term Diplomancer.
It really is no worse then a wizard casting charm person, except it doesn't take 10 rounds for the spell to work.
It is harder to abuse then you might think, one minute of conversation is taxing for the player and the NPC could always be interrupted ruining it.
Not quite. My intimidate forces an enemy to treat you as a dangerous threat that needs to be appeased in some way. You want information. He wants you to be satisfied so that you don't hurt him. Yet if giving you the truth exposes him to danger, he will take the option of lying to you if he thinks he can pull it off. He will take the path that leads to safety first. If that path fails and and he understands that he is unable to pull if off, you will still get your info.
You people are still doing it wrong.
Crazy guy with axe = immediate threat, not some OTHER guy who threatened you with an axe earlier.
Ah, this whole debate reminds me why it was controversial when 3E introduced mechanics to govern social interactions that used to be purely determined by roleplay/GM discretion. As soon as a hard and fast mechanic (or a mechanic that is seen as hard and fast by RAW fanatics) is introduced, the rules lawyering begins.
That's why I don't see the social skills as hard and fast mechanics, but rather as guidelines for the GM to use to help the GM determine success or failure in social situations. The GM is the one who runs all NPCs and thus is the final arbiter of what they can and will tell anybody, after taking into consideration a wide variety of factors, including but not limited to the results of the appropriate Intimidate/Diplomacy/Bluff/Sense Motive checks. The GM is the one who determines how much the NPC knows, how loyal to and/or scared of the BBEG he is, and how scared of/impressed by the PCs he is based on their reputation or lack thereof.
You still haven't made intimidate useful, that is still equivalent to skipping it and just asking questionsSo Diplomacy isn't useful either, you might as well skip it and ask questions.By your ruling yes (you proved yourself wrong), by my ruling it is absolutely useful because it causes an intended effect regardless of person
Edit: your intimidate has no effect they can still do everything they could before you did it
My intimidate rewards you for investing points
Not quite. My intimidate forces an enemy to treat you as a dangerous threat that needs to be appeased in some way. You want information. He wants you to be satisfied so that you don't hurt him. Yet if giving you the truth exposes him to danger, he will take the option of lying to you if he thinks he can pull it off. He will take the path that leads to safety first. If that path fails and and he understands that he is unable to pull if off, you will still get your info.
Your intimidate removes the need for sense motive. I prefer my intimidate.
I am not saying spells aren't often stronger than skills. I believe a ton of people always say they are in fact.
But charm person cost a relatively small resource( small downside), has a low save(another downside), has a similar downside of making people dislike and only works on people. So it is another option, but I wouldn't say it makes intimidate useless.
Sense motive is for someone you think is lying or may be dangerous, people you intimidate are people you know are dangerous and probably lie so you don't bother letting them.
I use sense motive anytime I am around a shady character I don't know the intentions of or if his information is accurate. Not everything people tell you needs to be forced out, those are the things I sense motive for. If I am forcing it out of someone it isn't necessary
|
|
I use sense motive anytime I am around a shady character I don't know the intentions of or if his information is accurate. Not everything people tell you needs to be forced out, those are the things I sense motive for. If I am forcing it out of someone it isn't necessary
If you're forcing it out of someone you NEED to use sense motive to make sure you don't need to intimidate them more to get them to stop lying to you.
Granted, this is more often the case of someone beating your Intimidate roll and Bluffing to make you think you succeeded, but the point still stands.
I use sense motive anytime I am around a shady character I don't know the intentions of or if his information is accurate. Not everything people tell you needs to be forced out, those are the things I sense motive for. If I am forcing it out of someone it isn't necessaryIf you're forcing it out of someone you NEED to use sense motive to make sure you don't need to intimidate them more to get them to stop lying to you.
Granted, this is more often the case of someone beating your Intimidate roll and Bluffing to make you think you succeeded, but the point still stands.
Yeah I do suggest using sense motive anyway in case intimidate fails but it doesn't make sense to have to do it if you succeed. Where is the mechanical benefit if you do it that way?
How do you know if you succeeded if you don't sense motive?
I am not arguing that, you should use sense motive to check if it was successful
I removed a post.
I removed a post.
I wonder if sometime you and Liz could post a ranked list of the number of posts that individual posters have had removed for incivility or other violations? Kind of like the NHL publishes statistics on penalty minutes. :P
Then maybe you could have a vote among readers to give an award like the Lady Bing Trophy to the poster seen as most sportsmanlike. :P
Note for those who are not hockey fans: In the uber-macho world of the NHL, the Lady Bing trophy is seen as a backhanded compliment at best, and those who win it have sometimes been mocked as gutless types unwilling to fight to protect their teammates. Not that the same logic would apply here, but I can see some people being perversely proud of having been censored repeatedly.
I think that'd backfire quickly.
Back on topic a little...
I don't think this cursed ring of truth is really 'overpowered'. I only lament that a supposedly cursed object can be used like such a boon. Eh, I guess I'm just in the camp that believes curses should be a bad thing for those who carry them... not just who happens to be equipping it. Anyway, I think the just presents new opportunities for storytelling. I think it's all in the attitude. I don't approach it as a flaw of the game, just a problem that a creative DM can use to his advantage.
Even if I accidentally put one in my game I'd like to use the situation as a chance to flex storytelling muscles. BBEG finds out about meddling adventurers and the threat they pose? BBEG sends minions and monsters to steal or destroy the ring which involves the players in yet another wacky adventure. Sounds like a plan to me!
Because I can't think of a single story that involves the heroes obtaining a ring that threatens the power of the villain to where if said villain finds out he would use every element at his disposal to stop them.
Stating that a Ring of Truth is the most OPed cursed item is simply ridiculous and I can not belive that a discussion about that went on for 180+ posts.
If you are fond of murder myteries there are about 100 spells that can ruin your day and if it runs badly Intimidate and/or Diplomacy and/or sense Motive can so too.
The point of removing posts is to quiet down discord, not add more fuel to the fire.I removed a post.I wonder if sometime you and Liz could post a ranked list of the number of posts that individual posters have had removed for incivility or other violations? Kind of like the NHL publishes statistics on penalty minutes. :P
Then maybe you could have a vote among readers to give an award like the Lady Bing Trophy to the poster seen as most sportsmanlike. :P
Note for those who are not hockey fans: In the uber-macho world of the NHL, the Lady Bing trophy is seen as a backhanded compliment at best, and those who win it have sometimes been mocked as gutless types unwilling to fight to protect their teammates. Not that the same logic would apply here, but I can see some people being perversely proud of having been censored repeatedly.
Which is why I was joking. Note the little icons at the end of my statements?
Half-seriously, however, such a list, posted somewhere, might give people a good idea who it is not worth engaging in discussion with.
** spoiler omitted **
This is just a final addendum to any other intimidate stuff I have said. This is the exact text from the skill. There are 2 things worth noting.
1. The intimidated target does not do all 3. There is an "or" before the third item in the list meaning that the intimidated target does at least one of the 3. They don't all happen all the time. Sometimes a successful intimidate gets you info, sometimes the enemy takes actions that do not endanger it, and sometimes he offers you help. Not all 3 every time. Which the target picks is situational.
You are ignoring the term "otherwise." The last bit is NOT a third option, it is a definition of how intimidate works. Effectively, the entire skill could therefore be written "If successful, the target offers limited assistance"
2. The intimidated target will try to take actions that do not endanger it. The danger is not specified as immediate danger.
Not specifically no, but that is how every other thing in the game like that works. "Things that do not endanger it" is always used to mean something like "you cannot make the target slit it's own throat/walk into a pit/dive to the bottom of the ocean."
A boss that will kill them for acts of betrayal is definitely a form of danger.
A far less significant danger than the adventurer in front of them that will also kill them within the next two minutes for not giving them information, and possibly FOR giving them information.
re: Intimidate
I think people are arguing about whether or not the intimidated would lie.
The rules say: "If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.", which means if you do make the check he won't lie. Of course, you still need Sense Motive as you don't know if you succeeded...
My opinion about Intimidate or Diplomacy (or Truthy rings or whatever) is that if the NPC is key to the plot (and not just some random shopkeeper or something) then the GM has to give the players enough information to move onto the next part of the plot otherwise everybody may as well go home. A successful diplomacy or intimidate roll should therefore give them a useful clue about the next part e.g. the duke has hired a troll guard or he really likes cheese, whereas a fail by 5 roll might send them into an ambush or have the npc trying to persuade the players they need to buy unnecessary troll-killing acid (from the shop that just happens to be run by his brother).
The skill description clearly states that intimidate gets your opponent "to act in a way that benefit you". Telling you lies does not benefit you.
However, there should be probably a modifier to the DC if they are scared by somebody else.
The skill description clearly states that intimidate gets your opponent "to act in a way that benefit you". Telling you lies does not benefit you.
However, there should be probably a modifier to the DC if they are scared by somebody else.
Well, something is better than nothing. And all you were getting from a failure was lies. Succeeding gets you the truth as well. That is beneficial.
And for a ton of situations where the target of your intimidation doesn't have to lose his life for telling you things, there won't be many reasons for him to lie to you. He will be safest just telling you the truth in that case
Sorry - this reply doesn't make any sense to me at all
It makes sense in reply to a post I don't see.
You don't get lies if you succeed at the check. It gives you the information you want or otherwise tries to help you.
Perhaps if you succeed on your Disable Device role you don't necessarily disable the device either...
You don't get lies if you succeed at the check. It gives you the information you want or otherwise tries to help you.Perhaps you should include the whole skill instead of incorrectly paraphrasing it. Because you left out a part so your conclusion is pretty much unfounded.
Its fine if that is the house rule you want to use. But otherwise you are just pretending that a whole part of the skill doesn't exist. Obviously I am not going to be convinced by that.
You're right. The target doesn't try to lie to you unless you fail the check by 5 or more
If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.
If you don't succeed, you get nothing. If you succeed, you get at least part of what you want.
I have seen NOWHERE in the rules where "actions that endanger [the target]" doesn't mean "actions that can immediately injure it."
You don't get lies if you succeed at the check. It gives you the information you want or otherwise tries to help you.Perhaps you should include the whole skill instead of incorrectly paraphrasing it. Because you left out a part so your conclusion is pretty much unfounded.
Its fine if that is the house rule you want to use. But otherwise you are just pretending that a whole part of the skill doesn't exist. Obviously I am not going to be convinced by that.
What did he leave out? The harm thing? cause answering questions isn't an action. That part is referring to actually asking them to do something, as stated earlier it is to keep you from telling them to jump off a cliff not a caveat so they can lie.
What did he leave out? The harm thing? cause answering questions isn't an action. That part is referring to actually asking them to do something, as stated earlier it is to keep you from telling them to jump off a cliff not a caveat so they can lie.You don't get lies if you succeed at the check. It gives you the information you want or otherwise tries to help you.Perhaps you should include the whole skill instead of incorrectly paraphrasing it. Because you left out a part so your conclusion is pretty much unfounded.
Its fine if that is the house rule you want to use. But otherwise you are just pretending that a whole part of the skill doesn't exist. Obviously I am not going to be convinced by that.
Lol, yes he left out that the target avoids danger. Not a small thing to leave out. and now we are discussing what things are actions. I think you made this as a joke earlier. A free action is an action thing. So speaking is still listed as an action. A free action. Still an action though this was not what I was emphasizing in that sentence.
An intimidated target might take the safest action. If telling you the truth gets him killed and not telling you anything gets him killed, then his only hope for survival is the act of lying. Sure the middle part of the list also means that they won't hop off a cliff for you, but hopping off of cliffs isn't the only kind of danger that cooperating with you poses.
to cardigan guy, the rules do not specify that it is immediate danger which is what they would have to do for you to be right. So it is just danger that is listed. And the target avoids it. He will obviously aim for the least dangerous option. This is both logical and supported by the rules.
By ruling it isn't immediate danger you keep the person from doing anything,
Success: If successful, the opponent will:
* take actions that do not endanger it
every action you could ever conceive has a chance to harm you in later circumstance, and according to your view he can't do the least dangerous action he can't do ANY action deemed dangerous. So by lying he puts himself in danger therefore he can't do it, telling the truth puts him in danger so he cant do it, pleading for his life puts him in danger so he can't do it. Again this is how you read it not how it should work.
The obvious intent is to the "does not harm" clause is for when you actually ask them to do something.
No, your solution is not supported by the rules. By the rules, active deception is only the result of significantly failing the intimidation check.