Hey all, long long time gamer, fairly recent messageboard lurker.
First, just wanted to offer a corny 'thanks' to all who post both their questions and responses. It's been great looking at gaming concerns from others' perspectives and getting interesting insight from those who favour roleplay, combat, or a combo of both.
So, here is/are my questions to consider: Since the monster stat blocks (including NPC's) often include skills like bluffing and intimidate, how can you or how do you, incorporate them into the your game without controlling a players PC? I see how intimidate can demoralize your opponent (giving the shaken condition) -but is this limited to just one PC being targeted by the creature's attack? I can see this if it's an ogre trying to intimidate a PC, but what about a dragon roaring a threat at the group? I'm thinking RAW says only one target but RAI may suggest otherwise.
Now I'm also wondering about bluffing/lying to a PC/PC's. For example, picture an orc, evil noble, werewolf ... dropping their weapon to 'surrender'. Their intent is to live to fight another day. Players metagaming know it, GM knows it - but the PC's don't necessarily of course. Here comes the true roleplaying. Can the combatant, bluff his way out of it? ("I totally promise I'll be good from now on"). How would you handle it? 'cuz you know some players are going to yell 'I kill him' no matter what. lol PC's can (and likely will) do a sense motive, of course. But let's say they all fail and are 'bluffed'. A player controls his PC. If somebody wants to rip the guy up, hard to redirect that sword, arrow, disintegrate spell without 'controlling' the PC (eg. "No, you failed your sense motive so you believe the drow is going to lead a peaceful life now;)" ). Heck, what might happen if some of the party are bluffed and some aren't in the situation?
Anyway, something to consider. Any ideas, comments, feedback is cool.
|
So, here is/are my questions to consider: Since the monster stat blocks (including NPC's) often include skills like bluffing and intimidate, how can you or how do you, incorporate them into the your game without controlling a players PC?
Sometimes PCs are controlled by baddies (e.g. spells). I don't see that as a big thing.
I see how intimidate can demoralize your opponent (giving the shaken condition) -but is this limited to just one PC being targeted by the creature's attack? I can see this if it's an ogre trying to intimidate a PC, but what about a dragon roaring a threat at the group? I'm thinking RAW says only one target but RAI may suggest otherwise.
Iron Heroes (a 3.5 supplement) lets you do a Mass Intimidation, where you can Intimidate multiple people, each person beyond the first being at a +2 DC.
Now I'm also wondering about bluffing/lying to a PC/PC's. For example, picture an orc, evil noble, werewolf ... dropping their weapon to 'surrender'. Their intent is to live to fight another day. Players metagaming know it, GM knows it - but the PC's don't necessarily of course. Here comes the true roleplaying. Can the combatant, bluff his way out of it? ("I totally promise I'll be good from now on"). How would you handle it? 'cuz you know some players are going to yell 'I kill him' no matter what. lol PC's can (and likely will) do a sense motive, of course. But let's say they all fail and are 'bluffed'. A player controls his PC. If somebody wants to rip the guy up, hard to redirect that sword, arrow, disintegrate spell without 'controlling' the PC (eg. "No, you failed your sense motive so you believe the drow is going to lead a peaceful life now;)" ). Heck, what might happen if some of the party are bluffed and some aren't in the situation?
Even if the PCs fail their Sense Motive, they could still decide to kill the baddie. Believing something to be true does not dictate action.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of intimidate, so I'll leave me responce to just bluffing PCs.
When I GM and an NPC tells the party something the PCs have a couple choices. They can go with their own instinct/gut/whatever, and decide if they believe it or not. Or they can declare a sense motive check. If the PC succeeds and the NPC was lying, I explain that the PC doesn't quite believe what the NPC is saying, and try to give them a reason why (very situational, so hard to explain in text). If the PC fails and the NPC was lying, I tell them in a way that doesn't make it sound like THE PC BELIEVES THE NPC. I'll say things like "the NPC seems genuine in his claims of surrender" or "you're pretty sure the NPC believes a one armed man did infact kill his wife". After that, the player is free to act as s/he wants.
In the case you gave, where an orc throws his weapons down in surender...I'm not sure things would work this way in one of my games (perhaps you just pulled orc out of thin air, so I'll answer this and then anser again assuming a human villian).
I play in Golarion, so orcs are the crazy kill you/rape you/eat you, flip a coin to find out what order we do it in, bad guys that you can see in Firefly as Reavers. I won't say an orc would never ever surrender, though I think the situation would be excedingly rare. An unusually intelligent orc could throw his weapon down if he were fighting a paladin (or other obviously VERY law abiding type) in order to survive the encounter and have the prospect of excaping and going back to raping and pillaging another day...though I wouldn't even attempt a bluff check...it would just be the orc dropping his weapon, and asking the paladin if he was in the habbit of slaying a foe asking for quarter.
Now, on the other hand...say it's a human bad guy throwing down his sword, claiming an end to their dastardly ways, yadda yadda...If the party asked for a sense motive check, and didn't beat his bluff check, I would consider it a neutral/evil boarder line act to slay him anyways. Depending on past crimes the party knows about, or past dealings they've had with said NPC, it might be construed as neutral (though not very lawful) to go ahead and shank him on his knees. If the best justification they have however is keeping a prisoner is a lot of work, and he might get loose...then in my campaign they've commited an evil act (not world shattering, though too many and alignments do shift). Also, in either case, killing a weaponless man on his knees is a crime in most civilized areas...
|
I’ve been looking at Intimidate lately myself. After some research, I’ve come to the conclusion that unless there are some feat/ability shenanigans, the demoralizing ability of Intimidate can only be used against one person at a time.
For instance, take a look at the feat Dazzling Display. The sole purpose of this feat is to allow you to use your normal Intimidate skill roll against multiple foes within 30 feet because you are so awesome with your weapon. If you could normally Intimidate multiple foes, this feat would be utterly and completely useless.