Misuse of intimidate against NPCs


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I'm going to have to agree with the majority here.

If you're trying to convince an NPC that inaction on their part will have terrible consequences to the town, that's Diplomacy.

If you're trying to suggest to an NPC that inaction on their part will have terrible consequences to the town _because of something that you or your allies will be doing_, that's Intimidation.

I'll also echo a few statements made by others here. There are specific factors for this adventure path, but you should also remember that with the new settlement stat blocks from the GMG, the Law modifier does apply to certain Diplomacy and Intimidate checks.

A player does not always have access to all the mechanical information that the GM does, and in general, I feel they should accept the ruling during gameplay. From your description, it sounds like you do keep disagreements like this with your GM friendly, and prevent it from interrupting the flow of the game, which is to your credit.

That said, if you do constantly bother your GM with rules calls, asking to know what factors were involved, etc. even outside of game (or post frequently on the boards about these problems), it can be frustrating to the GM. I've been both the player and the GM in that situation, so I would not be surprised if annoyance developed on the part of the GM.

I can understand your irritation with the Paladin's player if they are simply declaring their skill roll, rather than roleplaying it out. It might feel like you've put the effort into the social situation, but they've reaped the benefit (though in the end, that means the party has as well).

The only thing I can suggest in that case is to encourage your fellow player to roleplay things out. If they had stepped in and tried to smooth things over with the old woman verbally in character, and then declared their roll, that would probably have felt a lot more natural for all involved.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

"After the intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities."
If i misunderstood something i misunderstood something... but this is kind of a random thing to strawman.

I see, you seem correct. He did lament that she treated him negatively after failing when it should do that only whewn succeeding.

So you are correct (no strawmanning), but the skill shows that he should not have been treatd badly unless it succeeded by the rules.

Scarab Sages

Krensky wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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.

Well, I suppose you could have threatened to blackmail her which would fall under the skill, but from what you said, you were threatening that violence would occur.

Since RD is not playing in a PFS game when this happened, it doesn't really matter too much whether we believe there is non-violent intimidation or not, more whether his GM allows him to use his intimidate skill in the manner he was intending. It appeared to me like RD thought he could reasonably use intimidate to instill fear of something other than himself in clerk, vs using intimidate to instill fear of RD's character. Since this alternate use of intimidate is not specifically spelled out directly in the rules, we can only extrapolate that diplomacy would be a better solution, but in the end it all boils down to whether or not his GM thinks there is more than one way to use intimidate.

RD, I suggest you explore this difference with your GM, so you know flat out whether you can expect to use your intimdate skill this way in future encounters.

Since you did ask for opinions-

If I were GMing, I would likely not allow you to use it this way, as it is still an attempt to persuade (diplomacy), rather than coerce(intimidate). Say the threat to the town were werewolves. If you were to imply that you would make sure she knew exactly how bad the threat was by making sure she was one of the first to be targeted by them, that would be a use of intimidate via threat from another source, which still results in a hostile response from the target. Alternatively if you were to suggest there was evidence that she herself or her office was being targeted by the threat, then a Bluff check might be more appropriate.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
But he was arguing it is possible to intimidate in the way he phrased it.

Not even "in the way I phrased it" so much as intimidating without violence (or even the threat of it). Note that this does not exclude threatening in some other (non-violent) manner.

wraithstrike wrote:

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.

Never once said I was being "nice," quite the contrary. What I wanted, was not to come off as violent.

Revan wrote:
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...

lol. Never noticed that before. Thanks!

redcelt32 wrote:
Since RD is not playing in a PFS game when this happened, it doesn't really matter too much whether we believe there is non-violent intimidation or not, more whether his GM allows him to use his intimidate skill in the manner he was intending.

I've never played in a PFS game, and likely wouldn't if I had a choice (so restrictive!).

redcelt32 wrote:
It appeared to me like RD thought he could reasonably use intimidate to instill fear of something other than himself in clerk, vs using intimidate to instill fear of RD's character.

That's a pretty good way to put it, yes.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Intimidate: to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats (Webster on line)

I believe there aren't non threatening form of intimidation.
You can be cold and menacing, professional or whatever you want, but intimidation mean that you are shoving that you can harm the subject of it.

If you do it another way you can't use the skill intimidate.

You tried to use a specific tool because you are better at it, but your tool mandate how you use it.

You can use a hammer to remove a screw from the wall, but you don't unscrew it, you use the claw of the hammer to forcibly pry it out of the wall.
And the result is a big hole in the plaster.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Intimidate: to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats (Webster on line)

I believe there aren'tnon threatening form of intimidation.
You can be cold and menacing, professional or whatever you want, but intimidation mean that you are shoving that you can harm the subject of it.

If you do it another way you can't use the skill intimidate.

You tried to use a specific tool because you are better at it, but your tool mandate how you use it.

You can use a hammer to remove a screw from the wall, but you don't unscrew it, you use the claw of the hammer to forcibly pry it out of the wall.
And the result is a big hole in the plaster.

Wasn't going for non-threatening, was going for non-violent.

My boss "threatening" to fire me can be quite intimidating, but has nothing to do with violence.

Why do people insist on turning my words around?


Either:

You can use the intimidate skill to scare people by pointing out that the ravening hoards of whatever are coming AND suffer the penalty. It seems to me like this would work. I mean, if you sound big and threatening people tend to not pay attention to your actual words and just get scared into agreeing with you.

or

You can't use the intimidate skill at all.

Its a package deal. Uncoupling the benefit from the penalty through role playing turns Intimidate into diplomacy


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Either:

You can use the intimidate skill to scare people by pointing out that the ravening hoards of whatever are coming AND suffer the penalty. It seems to me like this would work. I mean, if you sound big and threatening people tend to not pay attention to your actual words and just get scared into agreeing with you.

or

You can't use the intimidate skill at all.

Its a package deal. Uncoupling the benefit from the penalty through role playing turns Intimidate into diplomacy

The first is fine with me.

*bangs head in frustration* Really should have worded the OP better...


Ravingdork wrote:

Wasn't going for non-threatening, was going for non-violent.

My boss "threatening" to fire me can be quite intimidating, but has nothing to do with violence.

Why do people insist on turning my words around?

Right, but that's still a direct threat from your boss. It isn't implying that outside forces are going to negatively impact you. It is implying that he will negatively impact you, and you're probably going to be pretty resentful of him when he leaves the room.

Again, your initial description didn't suggest that your PC was implying that he, or the party would be responsible for the doom befalling the town if she didn't help.

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

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.

Intimidate: to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats (Webster on line)

I believe there aren'tnon threatening form of intimidation.
You can be cold and menacing, professional or whatever you want, but intimidation mean that you are shoving that you can harm the subject of it.

If you do it another way you can't use the skill intimidate.

You tried to use a specific tool because you are better at it, but your tool mandate how you use it.

You can use a hammer to remove a screw from the wall, but you don't unscrew it, you use the claw of the hammer to forcibly pry it out of the wall.
And the result is a big hole in the plaster.

Wasn't going for non-threatening, was going for non-violent.

My boss "threatening" to fire me can be quite intimidating, but has nothing to do with violence.

Why do people insist on turning my words around?

Why you turn other people word around and and then claim they are doing that?

Can you find the word violence in my post?
"Harm" don't necessary mean physical harm. Your boss threatening to fire you is threatening you with a serious har (being jobless is no small matter),but he is not threatening you to any physical harm.

The situation is very clear even if you are wilfully blind to it:

a) If you used intimidate you were threatening against the clerk;

b) if you were trying to convene to her the menace against the town you had to use diplomacy to get her to see things your way.

You tried to game the situation to use your better skill and lost.

Your problem is that you have stated the equivalent of:
"I will unscrew this screw with this hammer." and then are surprised that the result is not the same as using a screwdriver.


Why is this thread still going on, people?

Numerous people answered the question, and a clear majority agreed. Who thinks they're accomplishing anything by arguing with the person who enjoys arguing for arguments' sake?

No one has to accept advice ... but when it's freely asked for, it's usually polite for the person asking for it to take it. If they show they have no intention of doing so, it's time for everyone to move on. If they do take it, then the thread has completed its necessary lifespan.

Either way ... isn't this over?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dumb Paladin wrote:


Why is this thread still going on, people?

Numerous people answered the question, and a clear majority agreed. Who thinks they're accomplishing anything by arguing with the person who enjoys arguing for arguments' sake?

No one has to accept advice ... but when it's freely asked for, it's usually polite for the person asking for it to take it. If they show they have no intention of doing so, it's time for everyone to move on. If they do take it, then the thread has completed its necessary lifespan.

It's just RD being RD.


Ravingdork wrote:

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 situational modifiers which the GM can, and should, apply to any checks. If the GM decides that one particular NPC is immune to your threats, or particularly hard, that does not mean they don't want to use intimidate in their games, just that it will not work THIS time. This also does not mean that the NPC does not realise they were being threatened (even if in a NON eat your face way) and resent it.

Rule 0 should always be used for the benefit of the game, it is a GMs duty.

The GM clearly worked within the RAW and RAI, and may not even have increased situational modifiers beyond usual scope (i.e may not have had to invoke rule 0). Intimidate creates bad feeling, diplomacy does not. You chose intimidate rather than attempt diplomacy in full knowledge of this. Do you not think that to continue this thread behond this point (it's been pretty thorough) is kinda insulting to the guy/gal running your game?


The PRD states for intimidate:

Quote:
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.

Boldened for emphasis.

By RAW there is no such thing as a "nice" intimidate. Intimidate is the use of a threat to get your way. How do you threaten someone in a nice way?
"Please, don't make me hurt you."??
However nicely the "request" for information has been spoken (and I know enough threatening people who'd scare you senseless without raising their voice one bit) it still involves a threat, namely the danger the city was in.
The rules further state:

Quote:
You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. [...] If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers [u]limited[/u] assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities.

The use of force (either verbal or physical) is implied here. Tomake the opponent act (as if) friendly.

The opponent helps you because there are consequences should he not cooperate, that he is made aware of by the check.

That is the major difference I think between Intimidate and Diplomacy. The latter uses reasoning, the former uses force.

Liberty's Edge

Do not invest in Intimidate unless you are going for one of the weird Shaken Enemies builds or get some other mechanical benefit from it.

Diplomacy has far more benefits should you succeed and far less drawbacks should you fail.

PCs' concepts, stories and backgrounds be damned, this is the way the rules work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think either side is wrong in this case. Rather, the GM made the call. We don't know all the details behind the screen on this one, so it's silly to keep arguing like this.

If the GM had made the opposite call, it would still be right. Not because the GM is somehow infallible, but because it is the GM's job to make calls. We abide by even the bad calls because it shows respect for the work they do.

Lately, I've been feeling like we need something akin to "sportsmanship" in this hobby to cover things like this. "Gamesmanship" maybe.

The Exchange

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat.
So is trying to use your Intimidate score to roll Diplomacy.

Not if you have a fearsome demeanor. KQ


snobi wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
That's against the rules and is blatant GM fiat.
So is trying to use your Intimidate score to roll Diplomacy.

Not if you have a fearsome demeanor. KQ

That is a 3rd party feat, and therefore no more official than anything I can make up at my house.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


I made it absolutely clear to the GM that this wasn't a "give me what I want or I'm going to hurt you" type of standard intimidate,

Since you're such a champion of RAW, RD you should have no problems in accepting that that's the only form of Intimidate the base rule set supports.

For what you wanted to do, the only skill that's supported is Diplomacy.


LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


I made it absolutely clear to the GM that this wasn't a "give me what I want or I'm going to hurt you" type of standard intimidate,

Since you're such a champion of RAW, RD you should have no problems in accepting that that's the only form of Intimidate the base rule set supports.

For what you wanted to do, the only skill that's supported is Diplomacy.

No, its not.


wraithstrike wrote:


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 am sure your feelings about RD color your responses, but what does that have to do with my post? I was following along just fine, my post was in response to many of the "behind the scenes" comments. A player has no clue what is written in the AP, so can't say I should use diplomacy because the AP says so. As a player and a DM, my comment concerned how he could have approached this.

Do you disagree with what I suggested? I understand to some the Internets are a great place to troll and snipe at people while not offering any sort of constructive or useful advice, but sometimes people offer suggestions. That was what I did.

Internet boards are a group discussion on a topic, but that topic can change a little. So to clarify for you, the original post was to some, him trying to use a skill improperly. MY post was more aimed towards those who were commenting on why his intimidate failed, and the problem with AP's not following the standard rules of the game.


Ravingdork wrote:
ciretose wrote:

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.

Turning your question around: do you believe that all violence is physical violence? If so, then I assume you discard the legally accepted concepts of verbal and emotional abuse. You don't have to lay a finger on someone to hurt them.

Back to the core of your issue. You chose to use a certain tool to resolve a situation. It was not the best tool. Your GM could have told you flat out that Intimidate would not work in the way you wanted and insisted on a Diplomacy check. Instead, he allowed you to try it (which I think is the correct call, he shouldn't be telling you how to run your character), and then set the DC, which you apparently failed to meet, all of which falls within his prerogatives. I probably would have done something similar, although I might have hinted to you subtly that Diplomacy would be a better choice.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Lately, I've been feeling like we need something akin to "sportsmanship" in this hobby to cover things like this. "Gamesmanship" maybe.

Unfortunate choice of word, given the negative connotations of "gamesmanship" in negotations and so forth, but I heartily agree with your sentiment.

RPGs have an implied social contract between the players and the GM. The GM agrees to do his best to create and run a great adventure/campaign, and to make rulings that are fair and consistent. The players agree to play their characters to the best of their abilities, and to accept the GM's rulings. While that doesn't mean you can't occasionally discuss a controversial ruling with the GM (although there are better and worse ways of doing it, I prefer after the game over a beer), in the end it is his call. If you don't trust him t make those decisions, for whatever reason, your game will inevitably fail.

Just curious, RD. Does your GM ever read these boards or know when his judgment is being publicly (if anonymously) questioned? I would probably get kind of touchy about my players doing the same. Perhaps he/she is more zenlike than I am, though.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:

Since you're such a champion of RAW, RD you should have no problems in accepting that that's the only form of Intimidate the base rule set supports.

For what you wanted to do, the only skill that's supported is Diplomacy.

I was reminded by fellow posters that one cannot get around the negative ramifications of intimidate while using intimidate. They are correct. I DO believe in that. The way it was described in the OP, it should have been Diplomacy. I should have worded it better though, as that was not what I wanted.

Do I believe that every social use of intimidate comes with the threat of implied violence? No. Absolutely not. I DID want to intimidate her, to threaten her, but to do so without violence (implied or otherwise).

Brian Bachman wrote:
Turning your question around: do you believe that all violence is physical violence? If so, then I assume you discard the legally accepted concepts of verbal and emotional abuse. You don't have to lay a finger on someone to hurt them.

I believe "physical harm" is part of the very definition of violence, so do I believe all violence is physical violence? Absolutely.

Abuse =/= Violence. Therefore, I do not have to discard the legally accepted concepts of verbal and emotional abuse. It IS most certainly harmful, but it is not violent.


Ravingdork wrote:

I believe "physical harm" is part of the very definition of violence, so do I believe all violence is physical violence? Absolutely.

Abuse =/= Violence. Therefore, I do not have to discard the legally accepted concepts of verbal and emotional abuse. It IS most certainly harmful, but it is not violent.

Kudos for logical consistency, at the very least. However, as a point of accuracy, since you say physical harm is a part of the very definition of violence, I offer the following from Webster's. Your definition only encompasses the first (and most common) meaning of violence, so is only partially correct. Physical harm is indeed a part of the definition, but is not the entirety of it.

Definition of VIOLENCE
1a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
3a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
4: undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)


Dumb Paladin wrote:


Why is this thread still going on, people?

We're still arguing because, imo, the intimidate rules are not great.

1) Nowhere does it say that intimidation requires you to threaten anyone. It says the skill includes threats, but nowhere does it say it is limited to threats.

2) It says the skill is used to frighten someone OR get them to do what you want (by some means that is not described in the rules).

3) Nowhere does it say you even have to speak to perform this skill. What you have to actually do is not defined. Some guidelines are presented, but they are not the length and breadth of the skill. You can intimidate someone by raising your eyebrow. Or do you think the Rock is a master Diplomat?


Hudax wrote:


We're still arguing because, imo, the intimidate rules are not great.

1) Nowhere does it say that intimidation requires you to threaten anyone. It says the skill includes threats, but nowhere does it say it is limited to threats.

2) It says the skill is used to frighten someone OR get them to do what you want (by some means that is not described in the rules).

3) Nowhere does it say you even have to speak to perform this skill. What you have to actually do is not defined. Some guidelines are presented, but they are not the length and breadth of the skill. You can intimidate someone by raising your eyebrow. Or do you think the Rock is a master Diplomat?

I think the rules assume a certain knowledge of human behaviour, and the English language, but if it helps a quick "google" brings you to...

"Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm. It's not necessary to prove that the behavior was so violent as to cause terror or that the victim was actually frightened."-Wikipedia

If you ask to make an intimidate roll you are attempting to intimidate.

It doesn't matter how you attempt to do the above, eye brows included, it is anti-social and can be effective (whether The Rock is an excellent proponent of the art would take a different thread).

1 to 50 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Misuse of intimidate against NPCs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.