I've not really posted her looking for answers as I've usually found them, but here I'm totally lost.
The set up is the bard has used antagonise to lure a boss towards him, however he doesn't realise the creature doesn't speak or understand common and he spoke in common.
The feat and skill intimidate do not mention that it has to be language based, however diplomacy it states is so I'm curious on the ruling you guys would go with and the reasoning behind it.
You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.
Emphasis mine.
You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.Emphasis mine.
Thanks, I only saw that on the skill diplomacy. Sorry for wasting your time with what is now seen as a really stupid question.
Don't be. I was about to give the wrong answer until I double checked. As I have a character with the feat this was good for me to learn.
Depends on how well you can finger gesture or throw little stones, stick out your tongue, and sway your but at the creature ;) Or you could say nasty things in french with a condescending tone and sneer on your face...
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Thanks, I only saw that on the skill diplomacy. Sorry for wasting your time with what is now seen as a really stupid question.You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.Emphasis mine.
Actually, your question hasn't even been answered, so you can't really call it stupid. :)
Jackalope was wise to point out that Antagonize (as well as Diplomacy in general) requires you to be understood by an intelligent target.
However, it does not say that it is a language-dependent effect; such effects identify themselves as such explicitly. Antagonize (and Diplomacy) does not make any such statement, as is therefore not language-dependent.
You can use Diplomacy/Antagonize with a target who doesn't understand your language; in fact, Diplomacy even states: "This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem." So depending on the situation, words might not even need to be used.
That being said, however, don't be surprised if your GM applies a circumstance modifier to a Diplomacy/Antagonize DC due to a language barrier.
That line is a waste of space, if that is how you interperet it, then; if any creature with an Int score of above 3 can understand you. It is poor game design to leave a passage intentionally vague. Leaving something that important (the entire function of a feat) up to GM discretion will cause many arguments.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That line is a waste of space, if that is how you interperet it then; if any creature with an Int score of above 3 can understand you. It is poor game design to leave a passage intentionally vague.
...Are you thinking I was interpreting it to mean that words are never needed or that an intelligent creature can always understand you? Because that's not what I'm meaning at all.
What I meant was that, since it's not a language-dependent effect, speaking the same language is not a univeral requirement for Diplo/Antagonize. It needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
For instance, if you're trying to gather information or persuade someone to agree with your arguments (the first two uses of Diplomacy that are listed), you're going to need language. If you're in a situation that requires language, then not sharing a language is going to cause you to fail the "must understand you" clause and be unable to make the check.
What I meant was that, since it's not a language-dependent effect, speaking the same language is not a univeral requirement for Diplo/Antagonize. It needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Which, if that is the intent (which I don't feel that it is) it is poor game design.
I work at a hotel where I don't share a language with a good quarter of our guests. There is a big gulf between "understanding" them, and getting a basic idea of what they want. These are usually intelligent people from not entirely alien backgrounds, not entirely different species.
"The target must be able to understand you..." The only time I can see that line working for something other than language is with telepathy perhaps, since many instances of telepathy state that you can communicate as though you share a common language.
FAQ it with me?
This isn't the first time Antagonize has led to disagreements on adjucation on these boards, and I'm sure it won't be the last?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
FAQ it with me?
This isn't the first time Antagonize has led to disagreements on adjucation on these boards, and I'm sure it won't be the last?
I currently don't feel that it needs the FAQ treatment (though I could be persuaded otherwise with further discussion).
As to Diplomacy and non-lingual "understanding", consider the following:
The Diplomacy skill is not for general social interaction, or business transactions, etc. There are four things you can use a Diplomacy check to do:
1) Improve someone's attitude toward you,
2) Make a request of someone who's at least indifferent toward you,
3) Gather information, or
4) Fluster someone via Antagonize.
For #1, language may or may not be required. Smiling a lot, looking innocent, acting amiable and humble, etc can all go a long way toward getting a suspicious stranger to relax around you a bit. Vets do this with animals all the time, there are plenty of situations where a stranger can't communicate directly with the locals but manages to inspire good feelings anyway, and so forth.
For #2, it's very likely that you'll need language. However, some straightforward requests will need only gestures (think of a mute beggar holding out his bowl toward people while looking expectantly at them).
For #3, I actually can't think of an example where you don't need the language.
Finally, #4 is the easiest. Scowling, rude gestures, etc are pretty universally understood to be insulting. Besides, if someone came up and started yelling at me in Russian, I wouldn't understand a word of it but would be very well able to understand them.
So no, I currently don't think this needs FAQ treatment.
Okay, let's look at your Diplomacy example since it uses the exact same wording as Antagonize.
1. Vets doing such things with animals would fall under Handle Animal, a skill to influence less intelligent creatures that don't understand a language. You don't Handle Animal intelligent beings. Looking at what improving an attitude actually does. Friendly creatures will do things for you. Looking innocent and acting humble is hardly going to allow you to make friends quickly and make requests of a creature. At best you are looking at a Charisma check to improve the attitude of someone who doesn't understand you.
2. It is very likely (and pretty much required) that you share a language. With the example of a beggar the argument is predicated on your target coming from a common cultural background and recognizing what is expected. If a beggar held a bowl toward a grey render, an intellect devourer, or an ettin, would it know what he wanted? Even a mute beggar would have a language listed. A language it could hear, write, phantomime, etc. (S)he can still have 1 minute of continuous interaction that is language dependent.
Besides, is that beggar threatening me if I don't pay him? Does he want money? Food? Liquor?
3 I agree with. There is no viable example of what can be done without language.
4 I disagree fully. Scowling, yelling, and rude gestures are the domain of Intimidate, which does not include in its description that your target must be able to understand you. And you would know they likely aren't fond of you at that moment, but you don't UNDERSTAND them. You don't know what they are saying, and possibly don't know why. You know they are upset, and potentially the action that caused the flare. Flustering someone with Diplomacy via Antagonize will more than likely involve confusing them with wordplay and double meanings.
Basically my point boils down to Antagonize saying that your target must understand you, and that requires a shared language. While you may get basic desires and reactions, you aren't fully understanding someone who is rattling on in a different language that you don't know, especially if they are from a vastly different culture where gestures and actions may hold vastly different meanings. I can think of some examples from literature, but they hardly pertain to a rules discussion. Saying that the creature understanding is up to GMs discretion rather than having a simple rule based on language opens the door for disagreements and problems. It is poorly designed if that is the intent.
EDIT: To expand- understanding means knowing definitions of actions and words. You can infer meanings without said definitions, but that is inferring another's implications, not understanding them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There's a guy who rides my bus sometimes who is mute and also doesn't seem to know sign language. He communicates with basic gestures, and is able to thereby make requests (like "may I sit here?" and "please pull the Stop Cord") without any use of language whatsoever.
In game terms, he's making Diplomacy checks to make requests of indifferent NPCs.
I don't think it's unreasonable (or "poor design") to write Diplomacy rules in such a way as to account for those types of situations.
EDIT: Also this:
With the example of a beggar the argument is predicated on your target coming from a common cultural background and recognizing what is expected.
And therefore the beggar could make a check if the target was of a similar culture, and could not if the difference was too great. Your responses still sound like you think I'm saying you never need a shared language, or only just rarely. That's not my position - I think some cases will need it, and some will not.
I believe that stating Diplomacy never requires a shared language is as silly as stating that it always does.
There's a guy who rides my bus sometimes who is mute and also doesn't seem to know sign language. He communicates with basic gestures, and is able to thereby make requests (like "may I sit here?" and "please pull the Stop Cord") without any use of language whatsoever.
In game terms, he's making Diplomacy checks to make requests of indifferent NPCs.
I don't think it's unreasonable (or "poor design") to write Diplomacy rules in such a way as to account for those types of situations.
But again, you share a common language/culture. You infer what his gesture's mean because you've come to understand what those gestures mean, whether by seeing them often enough or because they are common enough gestures. When you are talking about the vastly different species that D&D and by extension PF can portray, those same gestures may be meaningless, especially to creatures with different amounts/types of limbs. They might be confusing or offensive. Aside from that, not every request needs a Diplomacy check; do you need a Diplomacy check to get a shopkeeper to sell to you? No. Do you need a Diplomacy check to get an employee to do their job? No.
Can the mute man who rides the same bus as you goad a strange monster into attacking him over another equally tantalizing target?
It is poor design to be vague. Plain and simple.
They could have simply added a statement (1 sentence) on how Diplomacy works with different languages, whether it is a penalty or a seperate Cha check. Instead they said that "your target must be able to understand you" when they have elsewhere stating something very similar: "This ability is language dependent."
EDIT: Also this:
With the example of a beggar the argument is predicated on your target coming from a common cultural background and recognizing what is expected.And therefore the beggar could make a check if the target was of a similar culture, and could not if the difference was too great. Your responses still sound like you think I'm saying you never need a shared language, or only just rarely. That's not my position - I think some cases will need it, and some will not.
I believe that stating Diplomacy never requires a shared language is as silly as stating that it always does.
I'm not trying to imply that you are saying that language is never required, apologies if it is coming off that way; I just respectfully disagree. My position is that:
"The target must be able to understand you..." = You must share a language. And that not all requests and interactions are predicated on a social skill check.
Definitions are important in fully understanding someone. And definitions rely on language.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But again, you share a common language/culture.
Wait... Are you equating language and culture? Because I wasn't. (That might explain our apparent miscommunication.) When I've been saying "language", I've only been meaning verbal/written communication methods. Basically, if there are no actual words, then it's not "language".
So when someone with an aisle seat pokes the shoulder of someone with a window seat and then smiles and points at the Stop Cord, I'm calling that "understanding" (via shared cultural context), but not "language".
When people come running at me, scream at me in another language, and wave pointy things in my direction; and then I show my palms, drop quietly to my knees, put a worried expression on my face, and otherwise show submission; I'm communicating via some universal expressions, but I'm not using "language".
I believe Pathfinder defines "language" the same way, which allows for non-lingual communication/understanding if there's enough context available.
Would you agree with that?
Not exactly equating language and culture, but somewhere close to the mark; more like defining language as not 100% auditory/oral. Deaf/mute characters still have language. Be it literary (written), visual (lip-reading), or social (common gestures with a defined meaning). I would say that you share a language with the mute man who rides the same bus as you. You come from a common culture where gestures are understood. I don't know if he is deaf as well, but since you haven't said otherwise I'm going to at least assume the he reads and writes, probably the same language as you since he lives in the same area. Deaf/mute oracles, for example, still have language and therefore can still communicate non-verbally.
But not all gestures in our world are universal, and in a fantasy world where there are species that can co-habitate who have vastly different physiologies and societies than, say, humans, gestures that we may take to be "understood" in similar cultures with different languages (perhaps gestures with similar definitions, much like how some words of different languages are interjected into english speech) may not be so universal.
I would agree that language is far more than verbal communication, which is the basis of my side of the disagreement. But from interacting with people from different backgrounds on an everyday basis I've learned that many basic gestures and tones are easily misunderstood when interacting with someone from a different society or someone who doesn't share a language. The idea that someone maybe gain some basic "understanding" of another without a common language to bind them should be the exception, to my thinking, rather than the rule.
If nothing else, this has been a decent enough debate to give me something to think about.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's starting to sound like you and I would allow/disallow the use of Diplomacy in similar sets of situations; we're just calling them different things.
As for gestures meaning different things in different cultures, you're right that things can get pretty FUBAR'd. But still, some things are more universal than others.
I can't think of any culture where, when confronted with angry guards, it would be a worse diplomatic choice to lower yourself in submission (go slowly to your knees, show that you're unarmed, no sudden movements, etc) than to shout and move quickly and whatnot.
It's starting to sound like you and I would allow/disallow the use of Diplomacy in similar sets of situations; we're just calling them different things.
Probably. For this discussion I was mostly focused on what the rules say and how to most accurately interpret the phrase in questions ("The target must be able to understand you..."); though I'd probably run it more leniently if a player attempted to use either Antagonize or Diplomacy with a target they do not speak the language of. I'm just holding out hope that in the 6th printing of the CRB there will be more clarifications and standardized wording of abilities. One of the reasons I avoid organized play is because of vague wording on core rules- it is sloppy, lazy, and can (but certainly not always) lead to arguments and disatisfaction.
EDIT: Oh, and because I haven't said so yet: Congratulations on RPG Superstar!