I play pathfinder society with some people via irc and we often switch off on gming. I've had some disagreements in the rules with other gms but since I'm the least experienced gm there I thought I'd ask here:
1. Is it true that if you try to use intimidate, bluff, or diplomacy in combat to influence an npc's actions it must take 10 rounds? One of my GMs claims that every attempt to do so must take at least 1 minute, although to me this doesn't seem to make much sense (i.e. doing an intimidate check to say "You're surrounded and outnumbered; give up!" doesn't seem like it would take more than a few seconds) and would depend on the situation. Who's in the right here?
2. When a player successfully uses Command Undead to gain control of enemy undead, does the player position and make the rolls for the undead or does the player only give general directions and the GM is supposed to move and make the actual actions? I'm of the opinion of the former but the other GMs are of the opinion of the latter since the undead are unintelligent. I can't seem to find anything on the actual page that specifies.
Intimidate wrote: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Bluff wrote: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis). Diplomacy wrote: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Unless an NPC's statblock's Tactics section mentions under what situations he or she surrenders (usually it's a hp target), you can expect to have to fight to the death.
Regarding Control Undead, the core rules have no guidelines on who controls creatures like that. Ultimate Campaign has guidelines that say that the GM manages un-intelligent allies (it mentions animal companions but it could apply to mindless undead under the effects of control undead) according to the commands given by the PC. The GM is the arbiter of how the controlled creature moves and how it attacks. He or she should have it act according to the PCs wishes to the best of the creature's abilities. If you tell your zombie friend to attack the man in red, it should saunter over and attack on its next turn but the player cannot micromanage the exact path that it walks, say to avoid a trap or whatever.
Diplomacy has GM dependant statements about how it could take longer, or shorter.
Reasonable examples of longer could include attending an entire dinner or weekend with the person you are trying to influence.
An example of Diplomacy taking less might be some words stating a desire to parley or come to agreement before the fighting gets going. If it can't be used like this, then every encounter must end in bloodshed, which clearly isn't intended.
Wild Empathy is another similar "skil"l with the 1 minute restriction. Rangers and Druids would be nerfed if they couldn't try chatting up a bear in the woods, rather than just slaughtering them.
PRD: Diplomacy wrote: Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Worth pointing this out.
Ok, so am I crazy, or did there USED TO BE a statement on Diplomacy about it taking more or less time?
All I have is the most recent Core Rulebook, and I'm wondering if that got errata'd, or if I'm a nutbag?
Technically no there is nothing in the rules that tells you how many rounds to do anything takes...
The only thing that it states is if you are doing more than like a few words you are using up actions...
The only other thing that affects it is if they are being messed with during the process it could make it impossible to do...
As for Control Undead... Ansel is right the Commands are really basic and they just do as commanded no matter what the details you give they find their own way and do what they do best distract and be fodder.
Oladon wrote: PRD: Diplomacy wrote: Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Luckily Pope Leo I was using a different ruleset.
Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: Ok, so am I crazy, or did there USED TO BE a statement on Diplomacy about it taking more or less time?
All I have is the most recent Core Rulebook, and I'm wondering if that got errata'd, or if I'm a nutbag?
3.5e used to have something called "rushed diplomacy" that was a full-round action with a -10 penalty to the check roll but that was removed in PFRPG.
Ansel Krulwich wrote: Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: Ok, so am I crazy, or did there USED TO BE a statement on Diplomacy about it taking more or less time?
All I have is the most recent Core Rulebook, and I'm wondering if that got errata'd, or if I'm a nutbag?
3.5e used to have something called "rushed diplomacy" that was a full-round action with a -10 penalty to the check roll but that was removed in PFRPG. This is good, as in 3.5 once you got your diplomacy high enough you could effectively shut down any encounter by talking them down.
I see. Well, maybe I'm just still confused because it just doesn't jive with what's going on--remember, I only asked about how long it takes to do these things, not how effective they are. In addition, I have seen scenarios in PFS where enemies specifically have tactics that say "condition must be improved to X in N number of rounds" when N<10. Are these just exceptions to the rules? Oversights?
Also it sucks to hear about the undead thing--I don't have Ultimate Campaign but the other GMs do, so I guess I have no choice. Guess no more providing flank for allies or grabbing enemies to keep them from running.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
