Intimidate sounds like the best skill ever.
Pass the check? Target lies to you.
Fail the check? Target lies to you.
AWESOME!
No, your solution is not supported by the rules. By the rules, active deception is only the result of significantly failing the intimidation check.No, you guys added "only" into it. Like you added immediate. Like you pretend that the "or" in the list means something other than the target being able to respond to the successful intimidation in one or more of the 3 options on the list. The response is based on the situation. Seriously, you keep adding in stuff to the rules.
Intimidate sounds like the best skill ever.
Pass the check? Target lies to you.
Fail the check? Target lies to you.AWESOME!
No one wants to take ranks in intimidate in your game, puregamer.
Not sure if it's been mentioned but the Artifact, Deck of Many Things gets my vote.
I, decades ago, rewrote it so the gifts and curses were much tamer and couldn't kill your game -- while still being crazy fun.
Any chance of you posting that?
No, your solution is not supported by the rules. By the rules, active deception is only the result of significantly failing the intimidation check.No, you guys added "only" into it. Like you added immediate. Like you pretend that the "or" in the list means something other than the target being able to respond to the successful intimidation in one or more of the 3 options on the list. The response is based on the situation. Seriously, you keep adding in stuff to the rules.
Name one thing the person could do that absolutely could not cause them harm at the time or in the future
|
Name one thing the person could do that absolutely could not cause them harm at the time or in the futureNo, your solution is not supported by the rules. By the rules, active deception is only the result of significantly failing the intimidation check.No, you guys added "only" into it. Like you added immediate. Like you pretend that the "or" in the list means something other than the target being able to respond to the successful intimidation in one or more of the 3 options on the list. The response is based on the situation. Seriously, you keep adding in stuff to the rules.
Blink.
Thats not an action, not even a free one, nice try
You didn't say an action, you said name one thing. And isn't everything your character does an action?
The subject we are talking about says actions so read through before ya post ;)
And no, if everything was an action then when you have a condition that prevents you from taking actions your brain would shut down and your heart would stop. Some things are Non-action which means they happen automatically
If he is intentionally just blinking a lot then that's rude and could anger someone, and that is dangerous, so he cant do it
I thought things that did that allowed free actions?
I think paralysis does that and doesn't let you talk, which is a free action, so no not really
But does it say 'no free actions' or 'target cannot speak'? That would make a difference.
It says no physical actions, Which a heartbeat would fall under
your intimidate is as effective as me just asking questions, he lies I sense motive, I find out he lied I punch him in the face (intimidate or not he won't like it), repeat
If you want people played sooo realistically the guy would be a robot to think he should just keep lying.
Your intimidate causes the person to act at DM discretion every other action in the game is also subject to DM discretion so what is intimidate for?
don't repeat yourself, I asked what it was for not what does it do. Currently you have it just waiting for the DM to decide it worked, which by your rules he never has to do.
I am certain now that you just don't read(because of bolded portion). I think intimidate is for the same thing you do. I have shown that it can be used to obtain information or help. You are just cranky that sense motive is a necessary skill for a person using intimidate( as it is a necessary skill for bluff and diplomacy users). I don't see the big deal but it is clearly a problem for you. Oh no, I will need 2 skills to be an effective interrogator. That must mean that one cannot even use the skill anymore.
uhh no, sense motive says he lies, then he lies again, he has no reason to think you know he lied, still safest to lie.
Social interactions are one part of the game that requires heavy use of DM discretion. Want to use bluff? your circumstantial penalties are going to be based off of a DMs opinion of how unbelievable your lie is and other circumstances. OK you succeeded on your bluff check. All you know for certain is the target believes you. How he reacts to your lie is more DM discretion. What do you expect from a social skill?
This is exactly how we handle with my DM, except we dont bother to roll the check, regardless of check the person responds to what you actually said. (it is virtually equivalent to having +20 to your check and having a -35 DC penalties for the bard and -20 to the check but +40 DC mod for the barbarian mentioned below)
Personally I don't like this method at all because the Bard with 30 charisma and happens to be a bad roleplayer gets punished for it. While I play a barbarian with 5 charisma and can talk my way out of multiple homicides.
But does it say 'no free actions' or 'target cannot speak'? That would make a difference.It says no physical actions, Which a heartbeat would fall underignore him triomega, it is all a ton of crap anyway. All the things that matter for intimidate are actions. Speaking, Running away, Lying, etc. Breathing, heartbeats, and paralysis are irrelevant to this. Also, there isn't much for him to read through.
** spoiler omitted **
Done. It does not say physical actions. It just says actions. There is an "or", so the target does one of the three things listed. Sometimes his response fits multiple categories. dudes above are busy adding words in that aren't there. The target can do 1 of the three. Simple. He doesn't always always take actions that do not endanger him. For example, if the target thinks that there are no actions that keep him safe. then that avenue of responses to intimidation does not exist and the target will instead tell you what you want to know or help you in some limited way. If the target thinks he can lie to you without getting found out, though then he has a safe solution to his problem. If he gets caught lying to you and gets thrashed for it. Then he can conclude that he is not good enough at lying to convince you especially since now all future lies he tries to make are either at a -10 or impossible. After that, Lying is not a way to avoid danger then is it.Intimidate works like this:
succeed roll, target will do 1 of 3 things. GM decides which 3 he does based on situational information. GM might decide to have target tell truth from the start. Or he might decide that the target will take an action to keep itself out of danger. Lying comes up. You pass your sense motive. His lie is discovered. Lies are nigh impossible now and your d6x10 minutes...
Let me repeat. NO ONE is going to waste points in ranks in Intimidate in your game. It's just a waste of skill points that could go somewhere far more useful useful. Like to learning Aklo. By the Fighter.
Blink.Name one thing the person could do that absolutely could not cause them harm at the time or in the futureNo, your solution is not supported by the rules. By the rules, active deception is only the result of significantly failing the intimidation check.No, you guys added "only" into it. Like you added immediate. Like you pretend that the "or" in the list means something other than the target being able to respond to the successful intimidation in one or more of the 3 options on the list. The response is based on the situation. Seriously, you keep adding in stuff to the rules.
But the intimidater might think that's one blink for yes and two for no.
Well I know you didn't mean to be that specific, but actually a friend who was in a game I ran this summer, didn't think it was so big a waste.
He must've not known that Intimidate was getting him no more usable information than Profession (Palm Reader) and just simply making everyone hate him.
Unless he was only using it to demoralize in combat.
But then, neither did my ranger think it was a big deal that he should invest points in both stealth and perception in order to be a good scout.
I don't think you understand that the skill Intimidate, as you are interpreting it, will NOT GET YOU ANY RESULTS NO MATTER HOW MANY POINTS YOU PUT IN IT. You are saying targets will lie even if you succeed. Why put points in a skill that nets you the same result for succeeding as for significantly failing?
It's like saying "If you succeed at disabling the crossbow trap on the door, it will probably still shoot you when you try to open the door."
Intimidate might be useful in thepuregamer's games if the only time npcs might tell the truth was if you intimidated them.
"Barkeep - what drinks have you got?"
"None."
"Okay - how about I hit you with this non-existent wine bottle."
"Eeeek", hurriedly pours drinks, "That'll be 4 millioin gold pieces"
etc.
Following this fascinating and amusing discussion of intimidate and other skills for a while I just have a few reactions:
How does someone know they succeeded at an intimidate check? Do you reveal the DC to them? I don't, and it is almost always modified by circumstances. In the example of an interrogation, those modifiers could and should include the interrogator's reputation or lack thereof (not likely to believe the paladin is going to torture him), the potential costs to the prospective fink of ratting out his boss/friends, whether any inducement is being given to squeal, etc. For example, if they guy knows you are just going to kill him anyways, or knows that if he rats out his friends they will kill him and his whole extended family, that DC is going to be pretty darn high.
Sense Motive is very useful, but it is not an automatic lie detector. I think of someone who has ranks in it as being like a skilled poker player who has spent time studying people for "tells" which can indicate when someone is bluffing or not. It gives them an idea that someone might be nervous or uptight or so forth, which may, but are not always consistent with someone lying. Sometimes, the tells can be misleading and sometimes they are misinterpreted. It is far from an exact science. For example, one classic tell that beginning poker players frequently make is assuming that when they see their opponent's hand shaking as he reaches for chips that he is bluffing. Actually, the handshaking is probably a symptom of adrenalin coursing through his system, which frequently happens when the opponent has a very good hand. Poker aside, the Sense Motive DC should also be both modified appropriately by the DM and unknown to the players, so they don't know for sure if they read the mark correctly.
Frankly, even Zone of Truth and similar skills aren't an auto-win in gathering information. Any NPC with significant intelligence can figure out ways to avoid revealing information without directly lying. I did this last night in our campaign for a suspected cult member under interrogation in a Zone of Truth. Eventually, they got so frustrated that they offered her a deal, essentially giving her immunity for testifying against the cult leaders. They knew she was being evasive, of course, but couldn't prove it, and being mainly lawful and/or good, couldn't/wouldn't just beat it out of her or kill her.
I have not removed any posts, but the tone of this thread is getting rather heated an confrontational. It would be best if people take a deep breath and re-read their posts before hitting the "Submit" button.
Now I want to make a con-man with a ton of Profession (Palm Reader) and Sense Motive and just go around conning people into telling me everything.
Who needs Intimidate? "I'm seeing a dark stranger, with hair, his name starts with a J... M...H" "Harold, you must mean Harold!" "Yes, exactly."
|
It's also great for interrogating prisoners about where the treasure chamber is. Pretty ideal for Paladins, to be sure.
If you're worried about Paladins misusing the item, just state that once the function of the item has been revealed to a Paladin, it thereafter detects as evil. Now he won't touch the thing, and maybe he'll even throw it in Mount Doom...
|
|
Most people would rather live in a kingdom where the local duke secretly worships demons and sacrifices the occasional virgin on weekends than live in one where you can be magically compelled to confess every single crime, sin, or social awkwardness.
Local Villagers With Torches and Pitchforks: "Hey! There's that damn Paladin with the Ring of Truth! Get him! String him up!"
That would be priceless...
thepuregamer is, of course, free to run the game in any way he/she chooses, even if I do find that way... amusing.
Apologies if any of my posts have caused offence.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Blink.Name one thing the person could do that absolutely could not cause them harm at the time or in the futureNo, your solution is not supported by the rules. By the rules, active deception is only the result of significantly failing the intimidation check.No, you guys added "only" into it. Like you added immediate. Like you pretend that the "or" in the list means something other than the target being able to respond to the successful intimidation in one or more of the 3 options on the list. The response is based on the situation. Seriously, you keep adding in stuff to the rules.
re: Ring of Truth
The meanest/most amusing thing to do with a Ring of Truth would be to also get hold of a Ring of Truthlessness (from the BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia era) which forces the wearer to always lie. Get your victim to wear both rings and then everybody very quickly asks them lots of question until their brain melts.
re: Ring of Truth
The meanest/most amusing thing to do with a Ring of Truth would be to also get hold of a Ring of Truthlessness (from the BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia era) which forces the wearer to always lie. Get your victim to wear both rings and then everybody very quickly asks them lots of question until their brain melts.
I think they would be forced to tell half truths xD
I think that would cause the same thing as throwing a bag of holding into a portable hole.
I don't think you understand that the skill Intimidate, as you are interpreting it, will NOT GET YOU ANY RESULTS NO MATTER HOW MANY POINTS YOU PUT IN IT. You are saying targets will lie even if you succeed. Why put points in a skill that nets you the same result for succeeding as for significantly failing?
No, that is just not true. I have already responded to that same idea in many previous posts. Try reading them.
Side note, I do not know the text for a ring of truthlessness but if you have both on. Wouldn't you just be unable to speak. can't say a lie and can't say the truth seems like it removes all speaking options.
Okay to be fair your intimidate will get results if your DM feels like being nice
No, that is just not true. I have already responded to that same idea in many previous posts. Try reading them.
I don't think you understand that the skill Intimidate, as you are interpreting it, will NOT GET YOU ANY RESULTS NO MATTER HOW MANY POINTS YOU PUT IN IT. You are saying targets will lie even if you succeed. Why put points in a skill that nets you the same result for succeeding as for significantly failing?
Your interpretation of Intimidate leads to success getting the same results as abject failure. I am standing firm on the statement that that is the same thing as "not getting any results regardless of how many ranks you have in it."
Even if the person can't possibly succeed at bluff doesn't mean they can't lie, instead of thinking "they know I am lying I better tell the truth" they are more likely to think "How could they know I am lying? where is there proof? it must not matter what I say they are going to beat me to death anyway"
So yeah successful intimidate/sense motive in your campaign is still useless
So yeah, a DM moderates large portions of social skills. If you dislike that so much, rewrite the rules for yourselves
Your interpretation of how Intimidate works is in explicit disagreement with the rules.
Yeah even if you can't convince a person with your bluff in most situations you can always continue trying. But lying is only possible for a intimidated target if it is a way to avoid danger. A target that is unable to sucessfully lie is unable to use a lie to avoid danger. Meaning it is not an option for them.
It is not about, how do they know I am lying or about proof. It is about, can I make them believe my lies. If they can't, lying is not an option for a target being intimidated. Targets being intimidated sucessfully have 3 options under which they can respond to things. They can cooperate fully, offer assistance, or avoid danger. If they have no way to avoid danger, then they are forced into the other 2 options.
So I can intimidate, ask a question, wait for him to say something, punch him and if he doesn't say something different I know he was telling the truth because if it was a lie then it didn't keep him out of danger so he has to stop lying, if he wasn't lying then he doesn't have anything left to do.
baseless/unproven statement.
Your interpretation of how Intimidate works is in explicit disagreement with the rules.
I have pointed it out in every single one of the past several posts I have made. Unless you plan to start arguing lying is not active deception.
|
Your interpretation of how Intimidate works is in explicit disagreement with the rules.
baseless/unproven statement.
Intimidate
(Cha)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.
Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. 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 fail by more than 5, they will try to lie to you. By stating that, they infer that if you succeed, or fail by 4 or less, that they will not try to lie to you. They may not help (you fail by 4 or less), but they will not attempt to flat out deceive you. If you have NPC's telling lies when a player succeeds at an intimidate check, then you are playing with a house rule and not RAW. This is okay for your game, as long as you realize that this is a house rule, and don't expect everyone else to use it.
Actually, a successful sense motive will tell you whether he is lying to you or not. You will actually know as if you had a discern lies or some other similar ability that helps break through lies. You win your sense motive against his bluff and you know its a lie. If he isn't lying then all you need to make is the dc of a hunch(dc 20) to know its trustworthy information. If you don't break a bluff check though, your character believes he got good information, so re-asking again would likely be a case of meta-gaming. So the situation of player A successfully intimidates a mook, gets lied to, fails his sense motive check, says he thinks its a lie(a bluff check amusingly enough) anyway and asks again shouldn't happen unless your playing a character who just plans to kill the target anyway and is looking to commence torturing the target anyway. In which case the target might realize that anyway and then he is in a pretty sad situation. He is gonna die. Poor sucker.
I don't need to bluff or use sense motive. The way you use intimidate my character knows that the other person wont lie twice if the first lie got him hurt (don't make me quote it you said it earlier) so by asking it twice with a punch in between it is my character confirming information.