** spoiler omitted **
I highly doubt that there is ever only one way to solve the problem. Just because the book expects the PCs to behave 1 way doesn't mean they can't try to approach it from annother angle. Making something impossible just because the players are approaching from a different angle than expected is bad GMing. The fact that the player thought he could use intimidate here means that it is not the only skill that can be used.
** spoiler omitted **I highly doubt that there is ever only one way to solve the problem. Just because the book expects the PCs to behave 1 way doesn't mean they can't try to approach it from annother angle. Making something impossible just because the players are approaching from a different angle than expected is bad GMing. The fact that the player thought he could use intimidate here means that it is not the only skill that can be used.
The scenario in question kinda leaves no doubt in my mind that diplomacy was the correct way to go. I agree that generally there is going to more than one way to skin a *insert animal here* the situation in question has a very specific rationale.
Use of Intimidate would have negative consequences quite possibly unknown to the players. Knowing the scenario (I plan to run it soon) it kinda leans towards the PCs being diplomatic and nice rather than intimidating and shouty.All my opinion of course.
** spoiler omitted **I highly doubt that there is ever only one way to solve the problem. Just because the book expects the PCs to behave 1 way doesn't mean they can't try to approach it from annother angle. Making something impossible just because the players are approaching from a different angle than expected is bad GMing. The fact that the player thought he could use intimidate here means that it is not the only skill that can be used.The scenario in question kinda leaves no doubt in my mind that diplomacy was the correct way to go. I agree that generally there is going to more than one way to skin a *insert animal here* the situation in question has a very specific rationale.
Use of Intimidate would have negative consequences quite possibly unknown to the players. Knowing the scenario (I plan to run it soon) it kinda leans towards the PCs being diplomatic and nice rather than intimidating and shouty.
All my opinion of course.
I find PCs rarely do what is best for them or the situation.
I find PCs rarely do what is best for them or the situation.
You gotta love 'em though for it :)
I would have increased the DC as appropriate for what you were trying to do, but I would have let you use Intimidate. There's more than one way to intimidate, after all.
I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat. The DC for intimidate is 10 + HD + Wis, regardless of whether the target is friendly or hostile or paranoid (those modifiers are for Diplomacy, not Intimidate--appropriate Intimidate modifiers are size difference, or possibly, having guards/backup around).
If you are going to jack up the DC why not just tell your players the truth: You don't want them using intimidate in your games.
Diplomacy has its own set of DCs. Intimidate has its DCs. There's no increasing or decreasing to be done, just altogether different DCs for each skill.
|
I can't remember the exact number, but it was most certainly in the low 20s, about 21-24 I think.
She couldn't have been higher than 5th (the inquisitor couldn't pick up her alignment).
The GM later told me that most of the DCs in this 1st-level module (Carrion Crown, no spoilers please) were quite high, around 25 or so.
I really hate it when a module's DCs aren't the same as those in the established core rules--that or my GM like to cover his mistakes by saying "it's the modules fault."
I'm pretty cynical though, so it's probably just me.
Not sure what they really are as written, but if you lived in Ustalav, I would expect it would take a lot to scare you, and some guy flexing his muscles at you wouldn't be one of them :)
That might explain a high DC vs fear or intimidate.
So is trying to use your Intimidate score to roll Diplomacy.I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat.
I never once said that I wanted to make a Diplomacy check OR that I wanted to "get out of the negative consequences inherent to Intimidate."
Those are nothing more than WRONG assumptions on your part. All I did was describe my character's actions.
If the GM felt that, that sounded more like a Diplomacy check, he should have had me make one (he didn't). Different people view things differently. I've done nothing wrong.
You, and those like you, need to get off my back already. Trying to paint someone in a negative light doesn't automatically make your assertions right.
One is helpful to the thread discussion. The other is a direct attack against my character, and is inexcusable.
Not sure what they really are as written, but if you lived in Ustalav, I would expect it would take a lot to scare you, and some guy flexing his muscles at you wouldn't be one of them :)
That might explain a high DC vs fear or intimidate.
That makes a lot of sense, and would be a fine explanation if posed to me by the GM.
However, it makes just as much sense to argue that Ustalovians, being a paranoid lot, would be MORE fearful and are therefor MORE prone to intimidate.
So is trying to use your Intimidate score to roll Diplomacy.I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat.
How is he trying to use Intimidate to roll Diplomacy? I see him trying to make a non-violent intimidate, which is perfectly reasonable. See my previous post for an example.
I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat. The DC for intimidate is 10 + HD + Wis, regardless of whether the target is friendly or hostile or paranoid (those modifiers are for Diplomacy, not Intimidate--appropriate Intimidate modifiers are size difference, or possibly, having guards/backup around).
If you are going to jack up the DC why not just tell your players the truth: You don't want them using intimidate in your games.
Diplomacy has its own set of DCs. Intimidate has its DCs. There's no increasing or decreasing to be done, just altogether different DCs for each skill.
Personally, I throw out all of the default DCs for social skills and make them opposed sense motive checks. This also helps when using them against players.
From a players standpoint, diplomacy would have almost no chance of success. Assuming the lady is unfriendly, since your an outsider and all, the check would be like 35+. Good luck with that. Intimidate was the right call, with a diplomacy check on the back side to calm her down. Don't listen to all the "should have used diplomacy" people, you had no chance of success based on the rules of the game. So unless you just bribed the heck out of her, you did what was most reasonable for success.
I agree on the skill check thing being different than it should be as an annoyance. It is really no different than a long sword doing 3d6 damage, and the reason being that you don't know what is really going on behind the scenes.
It's a good thing you didn't attack her, she is obviously a high level druid with a 20 wisdom.
In case you were not following along he is trying to use intimidate to do what diplomacy does.
You make nice with diplomacy.You take what you want, and leave them upset about it with intimidate.
He was trying to be nice.--->diplomacy
I can understand how you came to the arrival of wanting to use intimidate to obtain the information. Though I think the expectation that intimidate would not be intimidating is perhaps a little naive.
The skill is clear in stating that you are using methods of intimidation to gain to the targets cooperation. I would expect that the character would be using intimidating body language to express the severity of the situation and as a way cow the NPC into cooperating.
Diplomacy, perhaps perform: Oratory or even a bluff check could have been used.
The DM could have at least told you the intimidate check wouldn't give you the results you were hoping for, instead of allowing it to simply make the situation worse.
I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat. The DC for intimidate is 10 + HD + Wis, regardless of whether the target is friendly or hostile or paranoid (those modifiers are for Diplomacy, not Intimidate--appropriate Intimidate modifiers are size difference, or possibly, having guards/backup around).
If you are going to jack up the DC why not just tell your players the truth: You don't want them using intimidate in your games.
Diplomacy has its own set of DCs. Intimidate has its DCs. There's no increasing or decreasing to be done, just altogether different DCs for each skill.
There are things called circumstance modifiers. They can generally apply to anything. I am assuming your outsider status is what is causing the issue in the AP.
If it just like some NPC's can't be talked down in game if they are fanatically loyal to the bad guy, basically meaning they have a diplomacy DC of infinite.
How is he trying to use Intimidate to roll Diplomacy? I see him trying to make a non-violent intimidate, which is perfectly reasonable. See my previous post for an example.So is trying to use your Intimidate score to roll Diplomacy.I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat.
The game does not allow for a nice intimidate by the rules, and RD being a by the book guy would not stand for that.
If the GM felt that, that sounded more like a Diplomacy check, he should have had me make one (he didn't).
True.
Not sure what they really are as written, but if you lived in Ustalav, I would expect it would take a lot to scare you, and some guy flexing his muscles at you wouldn't be one of them :)
That might explain a high DC vs fear or intimidate.
That makes a lot of sense, and would be a fine explanation if posed to me by the GM.
However, it makes just as much sense to argue that Ustalovians, being a paranoid lot, would be MORE fearful and are therefor MORE prone to intimidate.
Paranoid might just mean not trusting. It does not equate to being easy to push around.
edit:changed "equal" to "equate"
One of the other players commented that what I wanted was Diplomacy, not Intimidate, and that I was trying to "get my cake and eat it too."
Unfortunately, your GM is correct, however I believe this is a case where the rules are overburdened with too much detail for their own good. Intimidating someone should not automatically imply directly threatening them. In fact, I agree with you so much that in my games, the Diplomacy skill includes Intimidate and there is no proper Intimidate skill. They are two sides of the same coin.
The RAW stumbles on itself. It says "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." It does NOT say the skill is limited ONLY to threats and displays of prowess, and it specifically states you do not have to frighten them. Then it clumbsily goes on to say the nonsense about becoming unfriendly and reporting authorities, which simply doesn't jive with the definition of the skill.
Consider an example: Gandalf getting Bilbo to leave the ring for Frodo. That is an Intimidate check, no question. Display of prowess. Get Bilbo to act in a beneficial way. Bilbo was scared. No real persuasion going on, just Gandalf flexing his wizard muscles. Yet, no negative consequences after. Gandalf, apparently, gets to have his cake and eat it too.
In short, RD, RAW does not support you, but common sense absolutely does. This is a sad example of when creative thinking is thwarted by overbearing RAW.
Paranoid might just mean not trusting. It does not equal to being easy to push around.Not sure what they really are as written, but if you lived in Ustalav, I would expect it would take a lot to scare you, and some guy flexing his muscles at you wouldn't be one of them :)
That might explain a high DC vs fear or intimidate.
That makes a lot of sense, and would be a fine explanation if posed to me by the GM.
However, it makes just as much sense to argue that Ustalovians, being a paranoid lot, would be MORE fearful and are therefor MORE prone to intimidate.
True that.
As a player or as a GM I would probably accept arguments from either side. Though once I made a ruling, I would stick to it for consistency's sake.
It sounds like the AP wanted it to be hard to get things from the townsfolk as part of the ambience or plot of the module. There was probably a huge circumstance modifier against the PCs here, though I'm sure there was some explanation and it wasn't just arbitrary. With no information other than the module name, I would guess that the modifier came from one or both of the following sources:
1) an extremely negative Society score for the settlement (see GMG)
2) Psychic fallout from whatever the titular haunting is, like maybe they're influenced by the spirit to be more agitated and paranoid than even usual (which could be either intentional or unintentional on the spirit's part)
RD, having played through a whole AP with an excellent GM and having GMed over half of another, I'd recommend trusting your GM when it comes to APs. The APs are pretty much the best I've ever seen when it comes to modules on the market, and this is probably covered by something only the GM knows, but sometimes they will introduce things that don't make any sense.
For instance, I'm playing in Kingmaker, and, without spoilering Kingmaker--there's a point early in the AP where you just created the kingdom and it assumes that you will spend a year building your kingdom without going to check on some pretty disturbing things that are within 10-30 miles of one of the two most likely sites that you built your capital (I imagine it also assumes that somehow this will not prove to be hazardous for the health of your subjects).
For another example, again vague to avoid spoilers, in Council of Thieves there's a point where you kind of forget that a certain magical protection could be removed by a scroll of Disjunction or else it would make more sense to skip one of the volumes (possibly the best of the 6) and just buy said scroll.
Now for our group, the GM handled this by making modifications to the AP that helped tremendously. Not every GM can do that, and some prefer to play entirely by the book, so I'd recommend cutting yours some slack. Paizo is just generally so awesome with their products that it's hard to do so, but I would recommend that there is something weird like this as you continue in the AP and you start getting paranoid (as you mentioned you sometimes do earlier in the thread), change your first guess to be "Maybe the module has something a bit funky in it but my GM is playing everything aboveboard" rather than "Maybe my GM screwed it up".
|
|
It is sort of difficult if you don't have a decent RP exchange to know which direction to go with using social skills. I think it helps if the GM cues their players if someone has a low or high resistance to intimidate or diplomacy.
High resistance to intimidate - Gladys the DMV lady in Reaper TV series (seen it all, heard it all, doesn't really care if you don't like her or want to kill her)
High resistance to diplomacy - clear about who they are and what they stand for, rather rigid in their ways, or very devoted to a cause (which actually could be low resistance depending on your argument
low resistance to intimidate - craven, simpering, nervous, edgy.
low resistance to diplomacy - mercurial, toady, goes whichever way the wind blows, etc.
Average resistances are usually neutral.
In our games, at a minimum, I make my players start the argument or angle they are taking before being allowed to make the roll. Yes their character might be smarter and be able to come up with a better argument than the player, but this is the creative part of the game, so I make them work a little :)
In this case, an old lady clerk in Ustalav with a high resistance to Intimidate, I would probably portray her as someone who could be won over by chocolate or baked goods (ie-she is eating sweets when the PCs arrive to ask her for information), but not by someone pushing their weight around(grumpy and annoyed at being disturbed during "dessert").
Maybe RD and his GM are used to their own group cues, but this sort of thing helps the players understand which tactics might work best, rather than just saying "Okay, the clerk is an old lady."
I do agree that it sounds like diplomacy was called for rather than intimidate. A kind GM could also have cued RD during the attempt by saying that as soon as he starts his argument, she appears defensive and bristly. This might cue another player with diplomacy to jump in and change tactics on the fly.
One of the other players commented that what I wanted was Diplomacy, not Intimidate, and that I was trying to "get my cake and eat it too."Unfortunately, your GM is correct, however I believe this is a case where the rules are overburdened with too much detail for their own good. Intimidating someone should not automatically imply directly threatening them. In fact, I agree with you so much that in my games, the Diplomacy skill includes Intimidate and there is no proper Intimidate skill. They are two sides of the same coin.
The RAW stumbles on itself. It says "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." It does NOT say the skill is limited ONLY to threats and displays of prowess, and it specifically states you do not have to frighten them. Then it clumbsily goes on to say the nonsense about becoming unfriendly and reporting authorities, which simply doesn't jive with the definition of the skill.
Consider an example: Gandalf getting Bilbo to leave the ring for Frodo. That is an Intimidate check, no question. Display of prowess. Get Bilbo to act in a beneficial way. Bilbo was scared. No real persuasion going on, just Gandalf flexing his wizard muscles. Yet, no negative consequences after. Gandalf, apparently, gets to have his cake and eat it too.
In short, RD, RAW does not support you, but common sense absolutely does. This is a sad example of when creative thinking is thwarted by overbearing RAW.
I think RD was trying to make an "appeal to emotion", which is still a diplomacy check.
PC:If you don't help me bad things will happen, and all these people may die, and it will be YOUR fault. <--That is a scary thought, but it is still you trying to persuade someone to see things your way.
I could also see using some kind of Perform: Oratory, or something if you didn't want to use diplomacy.
Intimidate is pretty clearly about using the direct threat of violence in order to get the person to do what they want - essentially against their will.
I had a player use intimate in several situations where it really wasn't appropriate. When he used it to try to get information from a friendly NPC who had been dominated, I almost switched his alignment to evil.
I don't take it personally the way PCs treat NPCs, but going around strong-arming the townsfolk makes your character an A-hole, and perhaps even an evil a-hole.
The game does not allow for a nice intimidate by the rules, and RD being a by the book guy would not stand for that.How is he trying to use Intimidate to roll Diplomacy? I see him trying to make a non-violent intimidate, which is perfectly reasonable. See my previous post for an example.So is trying to use your Intimidate score to roll Diplomacy.I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat.
When did I say "nice". I said non-violent. That is very different than nice. See my previous example, where I am trying to persuade by shouting, slaming things, and being loud. That is intimidation. It doesn't have to threaten the person dirrectly at all.
I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat. The DC for intimidate is 10 + HD + Wis, regardless of whether the target is friendly or hostile or paranoid (those modifiers are for Diplomacy, not Intimidate--appropriate Intimidate modifiers are size difference, or possibly, having guards/backup around).
If you are going to jack up the DC why not just tell your players the truth: You don't want them using intimidate in your games.
Diplomacy has its own set of DCs. Intimidate has its DCs. There's no increasing or decreasing to be done, just altogether different DCs for each skill.
I have no problem with people using intimidate in my games, but when they're using it in such a strange fashion, it's going to be a bit harder to get the result you want. I'd bump up the DC by about 5 or so just for the funky circumstances. I do believe those fall under the DMs purview.
A kind GM could also have cued RD during the attempt by saying that as soon as he starts his argument, she appears defensive and bristly. This might cue another player with diplomacy to jump in and change tactics on the fly.
Though I'm not entirely sure on the matter, I think this is what happened. While I was talking to the GM about it, the paladin player suddenly declared he rolled a nat. 20 on his diplomacy check.
That caught the GM's attention and he kind of "glossed over" the whole thing and simply said something to the effect of "well, the paladin gets the info."
One one hand, I don't like that as I was actually making an attempt at roleplaying (describing my actions and what not) and the player who didn't make any effort at enhancing the scene at all simply rolls a 20 and suddenly gets all the attention. On the other hand, I think it kept us in good standing in regards to our "town likeability score."
In any case, I let it slide as I wanted the game to move on rather than get "stuck in the scene."
I think RD was trying to make an "appeal to emotion", which is still a diplomacy check.
PC:If you don't help me bad things will happen, and all these people may die, and it will be YOUR fault. <--That is a scary thought, but it is still you trying to persuade someone to see things your way.
I think this is where our views differ. How is scaring someone not using intimidate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat. The DC for intimidate is 10 + HD + Wis, regardless of whether the target is friendly or hostile or paranoid (those modifiers are for Diplomacy, not Intimidate--appropriate Intimidate modifiers are size difference, or possibly, having guards/backup around).
If you are going to jack up the DC why not just tell your players the truth: You don't want them using intimidate in your games.
Diplomacy has its own set of DCs. Intimidate has its DCs. There's no increasing or decreasing to be done, just altogether different DCs for each skill.
Situational modifiers are part of the rules. It is indeed GM discretion (I hate the term fiat) and damn well should be. That is the main advantage to playing a tabletop RPG rather than a computer-run MMORPG. A GM is capable of making decisions on the fly and deciding on the difficulty of tasks that fall outside the norm. Long live GM discretion! Without it, the game just doesn't work, and never has, throughout all the editions.
Consider an example: Gandalf getting Bilbo to leave the ring for Frodo. That is an Intimidate check, no question. Display of prowess. Get Bilbo to act in a beneficial way. Bilbo was scared. No real persuasion going on, just Gandalf flexing his wizard muscles. Yet, no negative consequences after. Gandalf, apparently, gets to have his cake and eat it too.
I would disagree, from that point on Gandalf can no longer be seen as just a firework making busybody. He provokes real fear which changes the hobbit's perception of him permenantly: no longer a friend, but someone to be wary of.
And Tolkien wasn't even using Pathfinder rules.
A note about the DC of the check in this case:
The DC listed in the module at 25 is for a knowledge check.
I believe the DM in this case made the call to keep the same DC for other checks to get the same information. I think this is a very reasonable call to make on the fly.
I suppose technically the DC for Intimidate or Diplomacy should have been as normal and as described in the core book and then the NPC would have made an appropriate Knowledge check modified by the appropriate modifiers (her resources removing the normal restriction of DC 10 knowledge only, but if she didn't have ranks she would not get a bonus +2 or +4 to do the research). All this assumes that the location would even have the information (in this case it would be reasonable to say that it does not).
All that would need to be tempered by the fact that as DM you WANT, really WANT, background info about the game to get out there. It makes the story more interesting. You want the PCs to work for info but if they are making a reasonable attempt then you want to give it to them.
Anyway... I believe that is the source of the DC 25 that is being given. It isn't really inordinately high for lvl 1 as the adventure also provides multiple ways to get +2 or +4 on the checks (meaning a person with a +2 and a class skill in that Knowledge would easily have a +10 on the check... and the checks can be made at multiple locations and rerolled each day... very easy to make a 15+ on d20 in those situations).
Sean
|
I think this is where our views differ. How is scaring someone not using intimidate?
You were trying to get her scared "along with you", not "by you".
I.e., you were trying to "share" your fear for the well being of the city, not to make her afraid of you.
Even if you shout and use the J;J; Jameson approach to diplomacy, it is still diplomacy, not intimidation.
A kind GM could also have cued RD during the attempt by saying that as soon as he starts his argument, she appears defensive and bristly. This might cue another player with diplomacy to jump in and change tactics on the fly.
Though I'm not entirely sure on the matter, I think this is what happened. While I was talking to the GM about it, the paladin player suddenly declared he rolled a nat. 20 on his diplomacy check.
That caught the GM's attention and he kind of "glossed over" the whole thing and simply said something to the effect of "well, the paladin gets the info."
One one hand, I don't like that as I was actually making an attempt at roleplaying (describing my actions and what not) and the player who didn't make any effort at enhancing the scene at all simply rolls a 20 and suddenly gets all the attention. On the other hand, I think it kept us in good standing in regards to our "town likeability score."
In any case, I let it slide as I wanted the game to move on rather than get "stuck in the scene."
I think this is where our views differ. How is scaring someone not using intimidate?I think RD was trying to make an "appeal to emotion", which is still a diplomacy check.
PC:If you don't help me bad things will happen, and all these people may die, and it will be YOUR fault. <--That is a scary thought, but it is still you trying to persuade someone to see things your way.
I never said they were afraid. I said the thought was scary. As an example it is a scary thought if it is my fault that X happens, and you may say if I do ____ I have nothing to worry about. If I agree with you that your idea is less risky I have not been intimidated. I have only been convinced that your idea is better than my idea. That is what appeals to logic and emotion do.
|
|
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "Please may I see *insert document here*....have a cake" (diplomacy)
I walk into a government building and say to the lady on reception "let me see *insert document here* or the town is in deep s*** lady!" (intimidate)
Which one looks most appropriate and likely to work?
Add to this that gathering the information is also a diplomacy check
Very minor
He is going on the assumption she knows the answer to what he is asking.
|
|
How is he trying to use Intimidate to roll Diplomacy? I see him trying to make a non-violent intimidate, which is perfectly reasonable. See my previous post for an example.So is trying to use your Intimidate score to roll Diplomacy.I don't get those who keep saying they would increase the DC.
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat.
What he is actually trying to do is gather information, or persuade someone to assist him.
But since his diplomacy isn't as good, he ran up to a clerk and threatened her. He wanted to threaten her "nicely" which is the same as stabbing someone "politely"
In this scenario it is very, very clear for the DM what is going on, what the clerk will and won't (or better can and can't) do given the circumstances that the player isn't privy to.
The NPC's attitude toward you changing doesn't impact realities of circumstances and situations. As I said, his DM was being kind if that was all that came out of that interaction.
What he is actually trying to do is gather information, or persuade someone to assist him.
But since his diplomacy isn't as good, he ran up to a clerk and threatened her. He wanted to threaten her "nicely" which is the same as stabbing someone "politely"
In this scenario it is very, very clear for the DM what is going on, what the clerk will and won't (or better can and can't) do given the circumstances that the player isn't privy to.
The NPC's attitude toward you changing doesn't impact realities of circumstances and situations. As I said, his DM was being kind if that was all that came out of that interaction.
I take it that you don't believe there is no such thing as a non-violent intimidate then? That all intimidate checks devolve into "do as I say or I will eat your face"?
I can buy that Diplomacy might better fit what I described (though that wasn't what I was going for--I was going for the non-violent intimidate), but I refuse to believe that intimidate is as limited as many of you seem to indicate.
There are many different ways to intimidate people, and not all of them need include violence.
|
|
I take it that you don't believe there is no such thing as a non-violent intimidate then? That all intimidate checks devolve into "do as I say or I will eat your face"?
I can buy that Diplomacy might better fit what I described (though that wasn't what I was going for--I was going for the non-violent intimidate), but I refuse to believe that intimidate is as limited as many of you seem to indicate.
There are many different ways to intimidate people, and not all of them need include violence.
Two points.
1. I've read/run the game you are playing and your DM followed the logical consequences of your actions, generously in your favor.
2. You said you told her that the town would be in danger if she didn't help you. The only way that is intimidate is if you were threatening her.
Regardless, you seem to have a trust issue with your DM, who seems to be acting completely reasonably.
There are many different ways to intimidate people, and not all of them need include violence.They all include the implicit or explicit threat of violence by the intimidator or others acting on his behalf. So no, there is no such thing as a non-violent intimidate.
Then we disagree.
Take a look at this scene from The West Wing.
The crux of the matter: did Bartlett just use Diplomacy or Intimidate to persuade his daughter to accept an increase in her security detail?
Ravingdork says it was Intimidate, because it was persuasion based on scaring the ever living crap out of her, by stressing potential negative consequences.
Others say it was Diplomacy because Bartlett did not directly threaten her, nor imply that he would punish or do violence to her.
I tend to agree with Ravingdork. That's not to say using Intimidate in this way will entirely avoid negative social repercussions, of course. Might not be of the 'Guards, arrest this hooligan' type, but it might, as noted elsewhere in the thread be of the 'How dare he say such things to me? I'll let all my friends and business acquaintances know what a horrid person he is' type.
If you're not making a threat you're not using intimidate. If you don't want the downsides of intimidate, get diplomacy. The threat could be loss of a job, a withdrawal of protection, or outright violence, but its still a threat.
|
|
Take a look at this scene from The West Wing.
The crux of the matter: did Bartlett just use Diplomacy or Intimidate to persuade his daughter to accept an increase in her security detail?
Ravingdork says it was Intimidate, because it was persuasion based on scaring the ever living crap out of her, by stressing potential negative consequences.
Others say it was Diplomacy because Bartlett did not directly threaten her, nor imply that he would punish or do violence to her.
I tend to agree with Ravingdork. That's not to say using Intimidate in this way will entirely avoid negative social repercussions, of course. Might not be of the 'Guards, arrest this hooligan' type, but it might, as noted elsewhere in the thread be of the 'How dare he say such things to me? I'll let all my friends and business acquaintances know what a horrid person he is' type.
If "After the intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities." than it is intimidate.
Since that didn't occur...
She agreed, and treated him as unfriendly in the same breath--hence her uneasy tone, and his quick apology. She didn't report him to the authorities because A)while he had intimidated her, he had done nothing legally actionable, and B)being the President, Bartlett is the authorities.
So tell me, in your strict RAW interpretation, is the King, the ultimate authority in the land, and therefore beyond report, capable of using Intimidate on one of his subjects? If so, does that person attempt to report the King...to the King? Or to the guards who he knows work for the king?
And does that mean that everyone who ever takes part in a plot because they were bullied into it rush to tell the cops about it no later than an hour after they start?
Less flippantly: there are two clauses to your definition there. The first one, I readily accept. The second, if taken as an absolute, seems to me to have quite nonsensical results.
If you're not making a threat you're not using intimidate. If you don't want the downsides of intimidate, get diplomacy. The threat could be loss of a job, a withdrawal of protection, or outright violence, but its still a threat.
No one in this thread every claimed they didn't expect downsides after the intimidate (except you, strawmanning for some reason?).
But he was arguing it is possible to intimidate in the way he phrased it.
|
This was a really interesting read.
Ravingdork - I would have run it this way as a DM. Diplomacy to first convince her that you could be trusted enough so she would accept you telling her the town was in peril.
After she's convinced, you could then try your non physical intimidate to get the information. The crux of your argument seems to be that she should be scared the world is going to end if she doesn't help you. She's not going to be scared if she doesn't believe a word you say, no matter how frightening the thought might be. (It's like running up to a stranger and saying the world is going to end if you don't give me all your money now! The world ending is scary, but only if you believe it is about to happen).
Alternatively, you could just try to overtly threaten her life and scare her that way to get the info without bothering to convince her of your honesty first. That's how intimidate works as a skill on its own in general.
Additionally, when you read through these modules, there are times when NPC's can just never be intimidated, or bluffed or diplomacied etc. There are exceptions to the rules all the time, and it all comes down to how the scenario is set up and run.
As an example, not related to any module - Imagine you had to try and convince a young noble to provide you some advantage in a situation. This guy is only a level 1 noble so the DC should be quite easy. However, he's a guy who was born to rule, been raised thinking the unwashed masses are beneath him and has a house full of really competent guardsman. He's not going to be intimidated by you no matter what you try. Intimidation, no matter how high you roll, is going to fail in this case.
As a last point, you mention that the Paladin got a "natural 20" so the information was automatically awarded to him. I am assuming that this was a house rule, since a natural 20 only ever means automatic success when determining if an attack hits in combat. There is no such thing as a auto success roll for skills or saves.
|
|
She agreed, and treated him as unfriendly in the same breath--hence her uneasy tone, and his quick apology. She didn't report him to the authorities because A)while he had intimidated her, he had done nothing legally actionable, and B)being the President, Bartlett is the authorities.
So tell me, in your strict RAW interpretation, is the King, the ultimate authority in the land, and therefore beyond report, capable of using Intimidate on one of his subjects? If so, does that person attempt to report the King...to the King? Or to the guards who he knows work for the king?
And does that mean that everyone who ever takes part in a plot because they were bullied into it rush to tell the cops about it no later than an hour after they start?
Less flippantly: there are two clauses to your definition there. The first one, I readily accept. The second, if taken as an absolute, seems to me to have quite nonsensical results.
The King uses diplomacy to explain that following the king is in the peasants best interests, the peasant likes the King.
The King uses intimidation, the peasant resents the King.
Skills should not be interchangeable.
Then we disagree.There are many different ways to intimidate people, and not all of them need include violence.They all include the implicit or explicit threat of violence by the intimidator or others acting on his behalf. So no, there is no such thing as a non-violent intimidate.
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.
You are definitely not being nice, and the target knows it or they would not treat you as unfriendly and/or report you to the authorities.
The intent is clear. I don't know if you are arguing different from how you play or if this is a real issue, but the mechanics make things very clear about the intent of the skill.
No one in this thread every claimed they didn't expect downsides after the intimidate (except you, strawmanning for some reason?).
Really?
Despite my high check, the GM informed me that not only did I not get the info, ------>but that her attitude worsened for being intimidated<------- This bothered me immensely as I didn't say or do anything to provoke her. I was warning her of the logical outcome if we didn't succeed in our quest because of her info-blocking us.
Attitude worsening after the intimidate is the downside. He was bothered by this. So yes, he didn't expect the downside. I agree that the high check SHOULD have worked.
he also gave the same impression to other people
_____
After the intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities."
If you want to use diplomacy, use diplomacy. This is exactly the kind of skill shoehorn attempts I was talking about in the Charisma thread.
______
If i misunderstood something i misunderstood something... but this is kind of a random thing to strawman.
My take:
Which skill you use is a matter of preference, and if you make the check she must give you the information. If the information is especially sensitive, i.e. not telling random strangers that walk in that just makes it higher DC.
Now obviously if you take the Intimidate route she will call the guards the second you are out the door, whether or not you succeed on the check.
She might do this if you use Diplomacy too, or Bluff i.e. right after you leave she might realize 'oh crap I wasn't supposed to tell anybody about that'...
Anywhoo... basically it comes down to whether or not you made the DC, which is a matter of trust of the DM.
I don't think it was the wrong choice of skill, as some people are saying,as it is a legitimate choice for what you were trying to do (find out information from someone) it just has a different feel and different consequences.
Any use of the Intimidate skill should be expected to produce enimty in the long run, whether or not you succeed.
No one in this thread every claimed they didn't expect downsides after the intimidate (except you, strawmanning for some reason?).
Really?
Despite my high check, the GM informed me that not only did I not get the info, ------>but that her attitude worsened for being intimidated<------- This bothered me immensely as I didn't say or do anything to provoke her. I was warning her of the logical outcome if we didn't succeed in our quest because of her info-blocking us.
Attitude worsening after the intimidate is the downside. He was bothered by this. So yes, he didn't expect the downside. I agree that the high check SHOULD have worked.
he also gave the same impression to other people
_____
After the intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities."If you want to use diplomacy, use diplomacy. This is exactly the kind of skill shoehorn attempts I was talking about in the Charisma thread.
______If i misunderstood something i misunderstood something... but this is kind of a random thing to strawman.
Well...technically the Intimidate skill only says the target's attitude worsens to unfriendly if the check succeeds. Not an interpretation I would ever use, but, knowing Ravingdork's reputation...