|
The problem is the intimidate DC's. they're ridiculously low.
I agree that the standard Intimidate DC's in the Players seem quite easy to achieve. But as I have said before, I am not concerned if the DC's were higher. I am OK with failing a roll or DC's being high enough to be difficult to impossible to make.
My Monk/Pathfinder Delver has a rather optimized Disable Device and has still come up against the Disable Device DC's that are next to impossible to make. But I have never seen a trap that has boxed text stating that it immune to disable device. His Stealth skill is rather impressive as well, yet I have never seen an NPC with boxed text stating that they always spot everything.
And it seems to me the problem wasn’t that the module “gave skill immunity” but rather the unfortunate situation in which your GM did not have any time to prep the scenario.
And how would this have changed anything? The module still contained the immunity. So your answer is that if the GM had more time to prepare he could have figured out a way around the problem? How is that better than the problem never being written into the module at all?
It is irrelevant how I found out. How does the method of discovery create any challenge to my opinion that it does not need to be there?
|
And it seems to me the problem wasn’t that the module “gave skill immunity” but rather the unfortunate situation in which your GM did not have any time to prep the scenario.
And how would this have changed anything? The module still contained the immunity. So your answer is that if the GM had more time to prepare he could have figured out a way around the problem? How is that better than the problem never being written into the module at all?
It is irrelevant how I found out. How does the method of discovery create any challenge to my opinion that it does not need to be there?
You've got to be arguing now just to argue.
The scenario did not have a skill immunity written into it. The guy was not immune to Intimidate. Merely, it incorporated information into the scenario on how to use intimidate based on the RAW in the PFRPG Core Rule Book. The skill itself, and I don't need to quote it again, as its been quoted umpteen times already in this thread, supports this as written.
If the GM had more time to prepare the module, he could have been fully prepared to accommodate player actions that would have potentially circumvented certain things in the scenario, without damaging the integrity of the scenario. If you aren't familiar with the scenario, that is a very, very hard thing to do impromptu.
|
|
My Monk/Pathfinder Delver has a rather optimized Disable Device and has still come up against the Disable Device DC's that are next to impossible to make. But I have never seen a trap that has boxed text stating that it immune to disable device. His Stealth skill is rather impressive as well, yet I have never seen an NPC with boxed text stating that they always spot everything.
I have, and for good reason.
Also, unfortunately, having skills at levels/combinations that break a scenario, especially if the GM had to run it cold, is not going to really help anyone's fun.
I have seen PCs whose abilities/builds/combos can be amusing in small quantities, but can really ruin the fun for everyone at the table in large doses. I even have at least one of those PCFs in my stable. :( Breaking a scenario can be fun, once in a while, but breaking every scenario just makes the GM's job harder, while decreasing his fun, and making it more difficult for everyone at the table to have fun.
|
|
My Monk/Pathfinder Delver has a rather optimized Disable Device and has still come up against the Disable Device DC's that are next to impossible to make. But I have never seen a trap that has boxed text stating that it immune to disable device. His Stealth skill is rather impressive as well, yet I have never seen an NPC with boxed text stating that they always spot everything.I have, and for good reason.[\quote]
Please provide an example as I have found none.
Also, unfortunately, having skills at levels/combinations that break a scenario, especially if the GM had to run it cold, is not going to really help anyone's fun.I have seen PCs whose abilities/builds/combos can be amusing in small quantities, but can really ruin the fun for everyone at the table in large doses. I even have at least one of those PCFs in my stable. :( Breaking a scenario can be fun, once in a while, but breaking every scenario just makes the GM's job harder, while decreasing his fun, and making it more difficult for everyone at the table to have fun.
I agree, but again this was not the case in the scenario. As I have pointed out before my character in question did not have a "broken" or optimized skill. If a "middle of the road" skill level breaks the game then that is another problem entirely.
|
|
You've got to be arguing now just to argue.
If you can refute my argument or come up with a counter argument then do so. So far you have done neither.
The scenario did not have a skill immunity written into it. The guy was not immune to Intimidate.
Granted Immunity is my word, and maybe partial immunity would be more appropriate, but "he refuses to talk under any conditions" is rather limiting.
Merely, it incorporated information into the scenario on how to use intimidate based on the RAW in the PFRPG Core Rule Book. The skill itself, and I don't need to quote it again, as its been quoted umpteen times already in this thread, supports this as written.[\quote]Once again your RAW argument is invalid as I have never stated RAW was violated. An encounter can be RAW and still be poorly designed. Which is what I am saying. The skill exclusion in question is poorly designed and unnecessary. That has always been my point. Are you arguing that an encounter that does not violate RAW must be well designed?
If the GM had more time to prepare the module, he could have been fully prepared to accommodate player actions that would have potentially circumvented certain things in the scenario, without damaging the integrity of the scenario. If you aren't familiar with the scenario, that is a very, very hard thing to do impromptu.So you are confirming that your answer is: If the GM had been more prepared he could have made up for the scenarios shortcomings? Because you statement sure looks like it.
|
|
You've got to be arguing now just to argue.
If you can refute my argument or come up with a counter argument then do so. So far you have done neither.
The scenario did not have a skill immunity written into it. The guy was not immune to Intimidate.
Granted Immunity is my word, and maybe partial immunity would be more appropriate, but "he refuses to talk under any conditions" is rather limiting.
Merely, it incorporated information into the scenario on how to use intimidate based on the RAW in the PFRPG Core Rule Book. The skill itself, and I don't need to quote it again, as its been quoted umpteen times already in this thread, supports this as written.[\quote]Once again your RAW argument is invalid as I have never stated RAW was violated. An encounter can be RAW and still be poorly designed. Which is what I am saying. The skill exclusion in question is poorly designed and unnecessary. That has always been my point. Are you arguing that an encounter that does not violate RAW must be well designed?
So you are confirming that your answer is: If the GM had been more prepared he could have made up for the scenarios shortcomings? Because you statement sure looks like it.
If the GM had more time to prepare the module, he could have been fully prepared to accommodate player actions that would have potentially circumvented certain things in the scenario, without damaging the integrity of the scenario. If you aren't familiar with the scenario, that is a very, very hard thing to do impromptu.We are just going round and round here.
I accept that you don’t have to buy into my argument. But just because you don’t like my response doesn’t make it an invalid response.
What you aren’t understanding with what I’m saying is essentially this:
“It is not immunity if it doesn’t say they are immune.” And it doesn’t say that. RAW in the PFRPG Core Rule book gives the GM the leeway to have intimidate not work in certain situations. In the case of organized play, those situations have to be clarified in the scenario text. It was in this case.
Now to your second point, let me caveat by saying all scenarios are going to have failings. Authors and editors are human, and so every scenario is going to have something that is unclear, contradictory, et. al. That is a major reason it is important for a GM to prep a scenario, so that they can try to overcome these types of shortcomings.
You feel using the RAW for intimidate is a shortcoming. I don’t. So saying your GM prepping the module could have accommodated that particular situation, in my mind, does not mean he could have overcome that particular shortcoming. Because I don’t feel it was a shortcoming.
What it would have allowed him to do is accommodate your creativity in a more appropriate way.
|
|
We are just going round and round here.
I accept that you don’t have to buy into my argument. But just because you don’t like my response doesn’t make it an invalid response.
It has nothing to do with whether or not I buy your statement. In fact I agreed with your statement. No was has violated RAW. your argument is invalid because it does not refute my claim. Your argument addresses something else entirely.
What you aren’t understanding with what I’m saying is essentially this:
“It is not immunity if it doesn’t say they are immune.” And it doesn’t say that. RAW in the PFRPG Core Rule book gives the GM the leeway to have intimidate not work in certain situations. In the case of organized play, those situations have to be clarified in the scenario text. It was in this case.
I admitted that "Immunity" is my wording and used for melodramatic effect. So pick another word, restricted, reduced, or anything else you like. If your point is that I did not choose the best word to describe my position, then let's pick a better one and move on.
Now to your second point, let me caveat by saying all scenarios are going to have failings. Authors and editors are human, and so every scenario is going to have something that is unclear, contradictory, et. al. That is a major reason it is important for a GM to prep a scenario, so that they can try to overcome these types of shortcomings.
You feel using the RAW for intimidate is a shortcoming. I don’t. So saying your GM prepping the module could have accommodated that particular situation, in my mind, does not mean he could have overcome that particular shortcoming. Because I don’t feel it was a shortcoming.
What it would have allowed him to do is accommodate your creativity in a more appropriate way.
I agree that all modules will have shortcomings or at least not be able to please all gaming styles. As I have said before this is not a huge issue in my mind, just a minor annoyance.
As for the issue of how the GM handled it: I have no doubt that things would have been smoother had he more time to prep. But that was a result of the circumstance and not the GM. (Not that things were not smooth, all had fun)
So if your argument/opinion is, "You do not consider it a problem or enough of a problem to be worthy of mention" Then I accept that as a valid argument/opinion and wonder why you were making all your other arguments that had nothing to do with the topic.
As I mentioned before RAW has never been the concern. Another poster put it this way, (paraphrasing) "I just find this to be a trope used a little too often".
|
|
So if your argument/opinion is, "You do not consider it a problem or enough of a problem to be worthy of mention" Then I accept that as a valid argument/opinion and wonder why you were making all your other arguments that had nothing to do with the topic.
Huh? That statement made no sense.
My argument was totally about this "immunity" you talked about. I haven't strayed off topic.
I don't care what word you use. It is still acceptable to use the RAW to allow for an NPC to resist giving certain information when Intimidated.
I honestly don't get why you find this even so much as a "trope".
It is what it is, and what it is is not a problem.
You completely try to make out my argument as invalid simply because you disagree with it.
I say we just agree to disagree on this matter.
|
|
Please provide an example as I have found none.My Monk/Pathfinder Delver has a rather optimized Disable Device and has still come up against the Disable Device DC's that are next to impossible to make. But I have never seen a trap that has boxed text stating that it immune to disable device. His Stealth skill is rather impressive as well, yet I have never seen an NPC with boxed text stating that they always spot everything.I have, and for good reason.
Then you haven't looked hard enough.
You appear to be dissatisfied that some modules include provisions allowed by RAW, and that the module writers/editors don't provide sufficient justification for their statements.
There are a few potential reasons for this:
1) Insufficient space to include it in the scenario.
2) Belief that the reasons should be obvious to anyone who has fully read and prepared the scenario.
3) Setting any DC for something that won't work, given the circumstances, would be misleading, and, during the heat of the module, potentially confusing to the GM.
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
Guys! Do we really disagree here? Let's review the points people have brought up:
Scenario authors and developers really should avoid writing situations that automatically disallow various skills or abilities.
Once in a while, this can't be helped, but the scenario should generally provide a credible reason why a skill won't work ("Due to the Abyssal banefleas infesting their pelts, the rabid wolverines are in constant agony. Non-magical efforts will not calm them.")
Unusual optimized characters can "break" even robust plotlines.
"My bard attempts rapid Diplomacy: I got a 42. Does THAT calm the gang leader down?"
Ideally, GMs should know the scenario well enough to improvise needed changes instead of automatically declaring that skills or unusual tactics don't work.
On the other hand, we've all times when someone wanted us to run a scenario without adequate preparation.
Things don't always work the way the player would prefer.
An impressive Intimidate, Diplomacy, or other skill check doesn't mean that an NPC automatically spills his guts, but it should produce some effect. ("The War Hounder gang member falls on his knees, begging you not to hurt him. He says that he doesn't know how to find the man you're looking for. Something horrible is going to happen in the city and the gang leaders are holed up somewhere new, outside Absalom's walls.")
|
There's some truth to that, considering how many different ways there are to boost the Intimidate skill and how many feats and class features there are in PFRPG that run off of Intimidate. But that doesn't mean that a GM should just make up new Intimidate rules whenever he likes, IMO.
It doesn't even NEED a boost. You can hit a decent DC based off of the d20.
The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier.
A level 5 rogue with no wisdom bonus can be intimidated with a lucky 15 by someone with NO ranks and NO cha bonus.
A level 10 character with no wisdom bonus has a dc 20 to intimidate.
A first level character with one rank and a mere 12 charisma can intimidate him on a 15.
With a level 10 character vs a level 10 character they're pretty helpless. 10 ranks + 3 trained +1 cha and you need to roll a mere 6 to win.
So the problem isn't even the Diplomancer, ANYONE can get info through intimidate.
For scenarios: Have mooks.
Assume your mooks will break under torture and DO NOT tell your mooks anything they don't need to know.
That way the intimidate works but they don't learn that the combination to the safe is 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Could you provide the relevant text from the Scenario? (in spoiler tags) I do not own that series, but would be interested to see how the writers framed the situation you describe.
You appear to be dissatisfied that some modules include provisions allowed by RAW,
Holy Cannoli people Enough with the RAW. I never said anything was against RAW. Leave it alone. It has nothing to do with the argument. There are a million ways to make a crappy encounter that does not violate RAW. Disagree with my argument against the practice (of disallowing skill checks) if you want, but the idea that anything must be good encounter design just because it is RAW is ridiculous.
and that the module writers/editors don't provide sufficient justification for their statements.There are a few potential reasons for this:
1) Insufficient space to include it in the scenario.
2) Belief that the reasons should be obvious to anyone who has fully read and prepared the scenario.
3) Setting any DC for something that won't work, given the circumstances, would be misleading, and, during the heat of the module, potentially confusing to the GM.
1. If it necessary to include it, then it is necessary to explain it.
2. Of course it made sense to them, they wrote it. But that does not always make it obvious to thousands of other people.3. Giving a DC for something that does not work is worse than no DC and would be a horrible practice.
|
|
You appear to be dissatisfied that some modules include provisions allowed by RAW,
Holy Cannoli people Enough with the RAW. I never said anything was against RAW. Leave it alone. It has nothing to do with the argument. There are a million ways to make a crappy encounter that does not violate RAW. Disagree with my argument against the practice (of disallowing skill checks) if you want, but the idea that anything must be good encounter design just because it is RAW is ridiculous.
Two things:
1) The game was designed to work a certain way. Part of the way the game was designed to work, was that Intimidate will not work in certain situations, largely as determined by the GM. This is probably why intimidate DC's are as low as they are in comparison to Diplomacy. Because Intimidate is not a static skill, in that just because you make the DC, does not mean you will get everything you want out of it.
The scenarios typically use the RAW (with a few exceptions that include new mechanics, which tends to be discouraged by Paizo, for good reason) as the baseline. So any argument that says your opinion is flawed because RAW supports what you are arguing against, is actually a very valid and germane point.
Should perhaps there be more explanation as to why an NPC who is intimidated would not reveal x, y or z? Sure. And it can be done efficiently and not overly impact word count. Although a well-prepared GM who has decent comprehensive reading comprehension can easily deduce why, in my opinion. If it is not clear within the context of the module, then it definitely should be explained, or removed.
2) Yes, anything can be written poorly using the RAW. But just because you don't like one of the RAW, does not mean that using that RAW creates a poor encounter.
In the circumstances of the scenarios where I've seen Intimidate restricted, it made perfect sense to me within the context of the scenario. So it was actually an appropriate use of the RAW.
|
|
Could you provide the relevant text from the Scenario? (in spoiler tags) I do not own that series, but would be interested to see how the writers framed the situation you describe.
** spoiler omitted **
And, no, I am not willing to quote that much text. Mainly because I am at work, and don't have a copy of the scenario on my work PC.
In short: the PCs are tasked with finding certain items in containers. There are several containers, of different types. One of the containers is purely an illusion, so it cannot be unlocked. If ti don't exist, it is immune to Disable Device.
The problem is in the creation of one Diplomacy skill, that is expected to work in all situations, regardless of context.It also leads to the opposite problem; the adventure writers set the DCs to challenge the optimised Diplomancer, meaning no-one else need bother to try, which is equally boring.
One way I've thought of, to both break the no-brainer skill use, and to involve the other PCs, is to do away with the Diplomacy skill altogether. Make 'Diplomacy' a special use of another skill, in the same way that 'Tumbling' is a specific use of Acrobatics.
And make the various bonuses context-specific.People react better when dealing with someone who 'speaks their language', knows the jargon, can give them meaningful compliments, and talk shop.
The mounted warrior should be able to leverage his ranks in Ride, to impress the horse trainers, traders and stablehands.
The rogue with Profession (sailor) should be able to work the waterfront.
The priest should be able to prove his credentials via Knowledge (religion) to impress the local clergy, or recall a verse of holy text that relates so well to the party's situation, they consider they are destined to help.Let's stop the spamming of one skill, and open it up to all the players; it's more fun to keep everyone engaged, rather than taking a smoke break, and it encourages the PCs to split up to work their own people.
I like this idea. It seems more natural.
|
|
So any argument that says your opinion is flawed because RAW supports what you are arguing against, is actually a very valid and germane point.
You are absolutely wrong. The RAW does not support what I am arguing against. The RAW does not say that GM's must disallow skills. It just says they can. The RAW does not outline when it should be used beyond GM discretion. So my opinion that it is being used too much has nothing to do if it is allowed.
It would be no different then if I said a GM used skeletons as monsters too much. RAW allows it, but it gets old fast.
|
|
So any argument that says your opinion is flawed because RAW supports what you are arguing against, is actually a very valid and germane point.
You are absolutely wrong. The RAW does not support what I am arguing against. The RAW does not say that GM's must disallow skills. It just says they can. The RAW does not outline when it should be used beyond GM discretion. So my opinion that it is being used too much has nothing to do if it is allowed.
It would be no different then if I said a GM used skeletons as monsters too much. RAW allows it, but it gets old fast.
You've come up with 2 examples.
Of the 50 to 70 modules written, I doubt that it is used too much.
And because this is OP, the "table" GM's are not really the GM of this campaign. Michael Brock and Mark Moreland are. So if a developer puts a limitation on a skill, with support from the RAW, in a scenario, then the GM is basically using their discretion as the RAW support.
It is germane to the point.
I get that you don't like it. Deal with it.
|
So any argument that says your opinion is flawed because RAW supports what you are arguing against, is actually a very valid and germane point.
You are absolutely wrong. The RAW does not support what I am arguing against. The RAW does not say that GM's must disallow skills. It just says they can. The RAW does not outline when it should be used beyond GM discretion. So my opinion that it is being used too much has nothing to do if it is allowed.
It would be no different then if I said a GM used skeletons as monsters too much. RAW allows it, but it gets old fast.
You've come up with 2 examples.
Of the 50 to 70 modules written, I doubt that it is used too much.
And because this is OP, the "table" GM's are not really the GM of this campaign. Michael Brock and Mark Moreland are. So if a developer puts a limitation on a skill, with support from the RAW, in a scenario, then the GM is basically using their discretion as the RAW support.
It is germane to the point.
I get that you don't like it. Deal with it.
+1
The writer including that line in the mod is him saying "Hey guys! This is one of those exception times the Core Book mentions!"