|
Gilaris, i didn't ask anything differently, and what you wrote is completely incorrect. You tally up the dc as normal, then beat it, and any other way is wrong. The only thing situational would be initial attitudes, but that's almost entirely irrelevant.
Sounds weird to say, but people are racist. Just because you feel a gnome couldn't pull it off, doesn't mean that's true, but rather you're being closed minded and seem to lack imagination.
I was talking last night about this unfair madness in relation to other things. So what if there is a huge creature and I'm human. I invested in the trip cmb, and I am under enlarge person. I score over 20 to their cmd, and it's okay to say "this guy comes from the rough part of town, so he has +60" and nothing to reflect that, or "he is this creature, and you're this creature, so he doesn't care". Well, by score beating him by the rules says I tripped him, so why are you doing this?
This is an rpg, and if you thought that a gnome or a halfling or a fairy couldn't intimidate a creature, well you're in for a treat when the player beats the odds and does it. Today is the day a Dragon is watching his words very costly to a Dragon, because this gnome has got the goods to do it.
|
|
AS a PFS Judge let me offer my perspective...
I often get players who expect social skills to just work automatically. They'll roll dice for diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate after making absolutely NO effort to justify that roll. And some of them will throw an apoleptic fit when I point out... "You didn't speak up, or participate in the conversation so you don't get to roll."
Intimidate is like that. If it's established that you pose absolutely no threat to your target, I don't care what your bonus is, it's not going to happen.
I assure you, I am one of the most vocal if not the most vocal and active role player. My roll is asked if they prefer a summary or if they want me to go a full minute of rping. Running the game this way makes me not want to rp, and just roll and that hurts my experience A LOT! Auto fail or additional +9 because I'm human and it's whatever isn't cool.
Edit: you're doing it wrong. The roll determines what your character does in game to make the creature be intimidated. If a player can't rp it, then a roll with a summary works. Worst case I'll let you hear me scream for a full minute while flexing. If the roll is high enough, then you're dealing with a very intimidating guy.
Talking to my venture captain might result in this guy from being upset with me. I really want a friendship with this dude, but this is hurting my personal PFS experience as well. Like, I want to use my character in these particular sessions, and for me to travel out and play, and have to choose something else just stinks. I rather not have to resort to switching characters, but maybe I'll have to.
Like I said, this dude has a high title, and I'm unfamiliar with his title, exactly. How does the ranking system work even?
To be honest, if he is really such a great guy, then why is he being such a stubborn goober about some situations? Throwing on absurd, houserule-like penalties to your Intimidate is hardly something I'd tolerate at a game; it's like being racist, except towards Skills. "Oh, you're intimidating [random creature]? Well, it's Cthulhu's little puppy, and what do you know? You're just a stupid human. So it won't work." That's some bull@*#&.
The whole "alluring the Paladin" ordeal seems like a complete joke; who the heck tries to seduce a Paladin? I'd incur mad penalties to that check, especially considering you're essentially trying to make the Paladin fall, something which I am certain any sane Paladin wouldn't do, so your GM was right in that manner.
As for the Drake thing, that seems out of line. I'm not entirely convinced you can't intimidate it just because of what it is. It also doesn't have to just deal with making him scared of you (especially in the case of changing attitudes); it's demoralize, not scare the pants off of them. Demoralizing the enemy deals with lowering their morale (hence the terminology). A number of things can do it, though self-esteem is the most common subject matter in the case of the skill. And it's simple to do; take a look at most women who go bulimic: They do it just because people say they look big or fat. All it took was a little nudge, and bam, they go to starving themselves to please some jerkoff(s) who may (not) be right.
The same concept here. You're saying the Drake fights like a little kitty; you call yourself a Drake? I call you Mittens.
|
|
Player "disable device" rolls dice
Gm "hold on" hands you tools and a lock. "You can't just simply roll the dice. Depending on your role play success I'll add bonus' or penalties"
Player two "while he does that I jump over the lava pit with acrobatics."
Gm "I brought full plate armor, and we have a lava pit behind the venue. You do have all the items your character has too so w can have full realism right, or if not, I'll have to give you more of a penalty."
Player 2 "I can't do that. I'm clearly a paraplegic."
Gm "nonsense, are you suggesting I just let you roll? I'll help you to the lava pit. How much was the distance? 15ft? I hope you had a running start"
You say you have a lot of fun playing with this guy. Leave it at that.
Often extreme (and often inappropriate) uses of diplomacy and intimidate can be detrimental to a game. Usually it is pretty clear when a social skill is appropriate, and pretty clear when using a super high social skill, which are easy to achieve in Pathfinder and the DCs as designed don't scale well with them, is just breaking an encounter, showboating and generally ruining everyone fun. So don't do that.
Having social skills and using them at an appropriate time, is an important part of the game, but pay attention and use some social skills of your own not to try and break encounters.
I expect if you do that, you will have more fun and find you aren't working against the gm.
|
Player "disable device" rolls dice
Gm "hold on" hands you tools and a lock. "You can't just simply roll the dice. Depending on your role play success I'll add bonus' or penalties"
Player two "while he does that I jump over the lava pit with acrobatics."
Gm "I brought full plate armor, and we have a lava pit behind the venue. You do have all the items your character has too so w can have full realism right, or if not, I'll have to give you more of a penalty."
Player 2 "I can't do that. I'm clearly a paraplegic."
Gm "nonsense, are you suggesting I just let you roll? I'll help you to the lava pit. How much was the distance? 15ft? I hope you had a running start"
At this point, Rapanuii, I am not sure whats left to be discussed. You perceived you were slighted in some manner, in instances like this its customary to either bring it up with the GM in question or the officer above. If that's not an option then simply letting it go and moving on is also another legitimate option.
I've been following this thread since the beginning and I'm just not sure what it is you're looking for at this point.
|
|
How do I use shattered defenses with my courgoun (sp?) Yo demoralize and gain the benefits when the creature gets +60 just because? How do I as a player figure out what's reasonable for what to expect with the mechanic? Is this mechanic useless and no one should ever use it? Am I allowed to cheat in pfs and reroll my character entirely?
Can I gm pfs and just change things as I will? Tpk every table, just because a human can't hurt a Dragon at my table? -50 to attack roll even though ac is correct? I feel the acc should be higher so plus 30.
Either talk it through with him/the venture captain or put up with it.
Those are your choices.
Arbitrary rule changes to nerf a particular PC build is not right no matter what. As a player I expect the core rules to be applied correctly without caveats.
|
|
Player "disable device" rolls dice
Gm "hold on" hands you tools and a lock. "You can't just simply roll the dice. Depending on your role play success I'll add bonus' or penalties"
Player two "while he does that I jump over the lava pit with acrobatics."
Gm "I brought full plate armor, and we have a lava pit behind the venue. You do have all the items your character has too so w can have full realism right, or if not, I'll have to give you more of a penalty."
Player 2 "I can't do that. I'm clearly a paraplegic."
Gm "nonsense, are you suggesting I just let you roll? I'll help you to the lava pit. How much was the distance? 15ft? I hope you had a running start"
At this point, Rapanuii, I am not sure whats left to be discussed. You perceived you were slighted in some manner, in instances like this its customary to either bring it up with the GM in question or the officer above. If that's not an option then simply letting it go and moving on is also another legitimate option.
I've been following this thread since the beginning and I'm just not sure what it is you're looking for at this point.
clearly you haven't been following entirely, because I've started that this isn't my perception on ignorant assumption, but transparently talking to the gm about the issue. I know what happened, and again, I talked to the gm.
Again, I've previously stated that I'm looking for alternative solutions, but you along with others incorrectly disagree with the matter and things get side tracked. Perhaps enlightening me about pfs rules and actual game rules could help me persuade this guy without shaming him possibly and hurting our just starting friendship.
So please... advice me
... what should I do? I want to avoid talking to someone above him, because wouldn't you be upset if you felt like you got "tattled" on? It's not the end of the world if I go to a PFS event, and he plays by house rules, but it certainly hurts my experience to a good degree for me to come on here and ask for help. Maybe convincing information, or something? ...
Unfortunately, I don't see any real other options. You said you talked to him and were either ignored or he got upset. So I don't see that more information is going to effect his ruling in any way. At that point you options really are to go over his head or accept it.
If you go over his head, you can try to make it as non confrontational as possible.
"I understand that the GM has to make rulings when things are ambiguous. Also PFS is rules as written if they are not ambiguous. I don't understand how the rules as written are being applied here. I tried to talk to X about it, but I still don't understand. Can you help me understand how the rules are being applied in this situation."
Otherwise, make a new character that doesn't use intimidate.
|
|
I can't just reroll my pfs character because that's breaking the rules. I'll have to pregen to play at scheduled upcoming events too.
I'm looking for a well articulated argument via email to persuade, but I need help. I've asked questions and want addressed that I feel can be helpful, such as what creatures can't be effected by either and or of the two uses?
Edit: dude is great, and this is just a character flaw
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You keep trying to compare roleplaying skills (diplomacy and intimidate) to skills/abilities that are strictly mechanical (disable divice and trip). The two can't be compared for the argument you are trying to convey (which I don't really know what it is anymore).
It is very possible that Diplomacy and/or Intimidate doesn't work on certain creatures or NPCs no matter how good you roll. Just because you beat the DC doesn't mean that you can shift their attitude or cause them to fear you (intimidate). It is also very situational.
I would also like to point out that the intimidate skill says "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." This, to me, means they have to see you for it to even work.
I agree that the GMs reason for it not working was wrong and very poorly stated.
Aside from the rules-specificity of this thread, as pointed out already, if you have a problem with this GM you should bring it up to your VC or to Mike Brock if the GM happens to be your VC.
|
|
You keep trying to compare roleplaying skills (diplomacy and intimidate) to skills/abilities that are strictly mechanical (disable divice and trip). The two can't be compared for the argument you are trying to convey (which I don't really know what it is anymore).
It is very possible that Diplomacy and/or Intimidate doesn't work on certain creatures or NPCs no matter how good you roll. Just because you beat the DC doesn't mean that you can shift their attitude or cause them to fear you (intimidate). It is also very situational.
I would also like to point out that the intimidate skill says "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." This, to me, means they have to see you for it to even work.
I agree that the GMs reason for it not working was wrong and very poorly stated.
Aside from the rules-specificity of this thread, as pointed out already, if you have a problem with this GM you should bring it up to your VC or to Mike Brock if the GM happens to be your VC.
disable device was for people saying a roll can't just be accepted with just a summary of what you do and your character just does it. They're wrong.
Cmb is to show the bias that someone can just arbitrarily disagree and add a bonus by discriminating and not following the rules. This is in comparison to intimidate in that aspect.
The flavor text is just that, and wording says "includes" which is covering what to expect in the rules. You have two versions, and demoralize needs sight.display of prowess isn't necessarily by definition sight based too.
The dc is set to disallow these mechanics From working when they shouldn't. Beat dc, and you do it.
|
Immune to either effect:
Paladins
Creatures immune to mind affecting (plants, oozes, undead, constructs, vermin), and the occasional angel.
Anyone that's taken a hit off of a Faerie dragon bong
Immune to attitude shifts
All of the above
People the scenario says won't be shifted.
If you're bound, gagged, and at arrow point of an entire army, you probably can't intimidate someone into changing their attitude against you.
|
This is definitely looking like a GM that is altering some of the game's core mechanics to what he "believes" they should be. However, this is not permissible while DMing Pathfinder Society games. While there will be table variation, that table variation is not supposed to be of clearly defined mechanics with very obvious ramifications. If in the instances involving these creatures the OP's character exceeded the set DC, both should've succumbed to the intimidation skill; no question about it.
To be clear, I don't plan to present some silly situation like hot dogs or holding an egg on a bus, but showing a point. I don't understand why you just go "He is a Demon, and you're a human. It's not going to happen!"
Where in the rules does it say that you just give a bonus for that? I won't really have an issue most of the time for some exceptions on the bonus' for certain things, but just taking no consideration for my character, and saying your NPC just gets a bonus for no reason other than your subjective views on how that NPC feels about the opposing race in regards to yours is unfair. Gnomes=Not intimidating, but then a gnome heavily invests and is like, "I'll show you!" and then the GM is like, "You beat the DC by 60, but like I said, you're a Gnome, and no one is scared of gnomes. FAILED!"
Now you are asking a different question here.
Is a GM entitled to add extra bonuses/penalties based on the particular situation? Hell yes!
Should they do so in the way you are claiming? No. But!Consider this situation: Smaug vs Bilbo in the Hobbit. Smaug is a dragon, old, arrogant and complacent. Bilbo is low level and lacks any credible threat, in the dragon's opinion.
How big a penalty is fair to apply?
The built-in bonuses/penalties based on size/will/etc apply all the time, regardless of who is doing the intimidating.Eg suppose Elessar, King of Gondor and Arnor attempts the same thing against a dragon of equal power to Smaug. Should he get the same total modifiers?
Nope, Elessar gets his own, personal bonuses due to his status. So does Bilbo.
Bilbo (or the gnome, in your example) could easily be assigned a -20 (or more, or less) penalty compared with Elessar in the same situation, just because of how the dragon regards the two characters.
Now consider your man with an egg on the bus: vs normal civilians, he could be quite intimidating. But would he be seen the same way by a Federal Marshal assigned to keep the peace on a bus after several people have...
Bilbo vs Smaug I see no reason to impose a penalty when it comes to an actual intimidate roll. Smaug would already have his HD and size added to the dc to beat to represent the fact that he's a big old mean dragon. Elessar wouldn't get any bonuses when it comes to a straight intimidate check. The fact that he has an army and resources and whatever should be handled independently. A dragon or whatever would be like, "you have these... maybe I shouldn't mess with you..." No roll needed in that situation.
But in a straight intimidate to demoralize check against Smaug, the only difference should be +4 to the dc against Bilbo because he is smaller than Elessar.
|
|
Intimidate isn't a mind altering effect, but is changes the attitude or gives the shaken CONDITION based on your usage of the skill.
I asked with no crazy circumstances that I do pull off 1 minute of conversation with a creature then what? I was told that regardless, the creature gets his special bonus because I'm a human, and he is from hell. Regardless from him looking more closely at that specific creature, but rather any creature he feels doesn't care just gets this. Balor would just get a +100 just because.
Can anyone help me by raw reflect what will and will not work? No common language? So if I'm deaf, then I'm immune? Where is that in the rules? If I'm blind I'm immune for those saying words don't work? Like across the board you're saying one of the blind if deaf make you immune and not just one?
Educate me please!
Gilaris, i didn't ask anything differently, and what you wrote is completely incorrect. You tally up the dc as normal, then beat it, and any other way is wrong. The only thing situational would be initial attitudes, but that's almost entirely irrelevant.
You asked 3 specific questions in your first post; I answered them, agreeing with you on 2 of them. Am I then completely incorrect? If so, then so are you because I agreed with you.
You then asked a new question, about GM applied modifiers, and I gave you my opinion. Blowing me off with 'you're completely incorrect' does not make me want to assist you. Disagreeing with me is a totally different thing to dismissing what I and some others are saying.
Sounds weird to say, but people are racist. Just because you feel a gnome couldn't pull it off, doesn't mean that's true, but rather you're being closed minded and seem to lack imagination.
I was talking last night about this unfair madness in relation to other things. So what if there is a huge creature and I'm human. I invested in the trip cmb, and I am under enlarge person. I score over 20 to their cmd, and it's okay to say "this guy comes from the rough part of town, so he has +60" and nothing to reflect that, or "he is this creature, and you're this creature, so he doesn't care". Well, by score beating him by the rules says I tripped him, so why are you doing this?
This is an rpg, and if you thought that a gnome or a halfling or a fairy couldn't intimidate a creature, well you're in for a treat when the player beats the odds and does it. Today is the day a Dragon is watching his words very costly to a Dragon, because this gnome has got the goods to do it.
At the moment, you are the one who keeps bringing up different situations and then trying to equate different game mechanics. Kindly address the arguments/suggestions that people are raising in response to your own suggestions rather than ignoring the responses that we are giving you.
It is very hard for a person's tone to come across well on the internet, I know I have offended some people by accident, but ignoring and dismissing their responses makes it very hard to bother trying to answer the points that you raise.
|
|
The situation of having an army is reflected in initial attitude I'd say, and not caring about intimidate. You intimidate a creature, and they've succumbed. If a dude is going for one minute giving you the business, the stop them before they get there because he is sounding very intimidating every second it seems.
Demoralize is a standard action. Boom, you're getting the business and now you roll how long you got shaken by it.
|
|
Intimidate isn't a mind altering effect, but is changes the attitude or gives the shaken CONDITION based on your usage of the skill.
You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
If you are immune to fear you can't be frightened into action.
The shaken condition is a fear effect (spelled out above) Fear effects are mind affecting effects. Therefore the shaken condition is a mind affecting fear effect. Being immune to fear or mind affecting makes you immune to both.
I am aware that you can't re-roll a non-first level character in PFS. If you don't want to play this character anymore, your only choice is to make a new first level one and work him up again.
You said:
He won't play by the rules as written.
He got angry when you tried to talk to him.
You are unwilling to go over his head.
Your character is unplayable with his rulings.
Based on what you said, I see no chance for an email argument (no matter how well articulated) to do anything except possibly make him angry.
The only thing left is a new character.
Edit: If you have the Ultimate Campaign book and sufficient prestige points you could rebuild enough to remove the dependence on intimidate from the build. Then you would still have the same level of character.
|
I am aware that you can't re-roll a non-first level character in PFS. If you don't want to play this character anymore, your only choice is to make a new first level one and work him up again.
You said:
He won't play by the rules as written.
He got angry when you tried to talk to him.
You are unwilling to go over his head.
Your character is unplayable with his rulings.Based on what you said, I see no chance for an email argument (no matter how well articulated) to do anything except possibly make him angry.
This.
At this point, it seems like your options are one of the following:
A: Bring it up to your VC, that you don't want to do.
B: Start a new character that doesn't use Intimidate
C: Don't play in games with this GM.
Arguing what is or isn't RAW on the forums isn't going to resolve your problem. You either need to address with the VC it and risk offending the GM, or avoid the problem by re-rolling or not playing with that GM.
|
|
I would defer to 3.5 SRD... "A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures"
Stuff like this is why I don't run society games. Too many kids running around with mechanically overpowered builds that pout when their gimmicky one-shot characters don't auto-win. All my hate, etc.
thank you for this insight, and even though it's 3.5 I think it's reasonable to be immune to fear with this if the gm rules it, because that's not game breaking and unfair necessarily, but if someone wants to argue that, they can go ahead and have a right to do so.
Anyways, I'm not looking to break the game, hurt others experience. I just want this mechanic to work properly, and I'll use it responsibly. I'm not making a negative channel cleric and just killing the field every encounter.
snip
Now you are asking a different question here.Is a GM entitled to add extra bonuses/penalties based on the particular situation? Hell yes!
Should they do so in the way you are claiming? No. But!Consider this situation: Smaug vs Bilbo in the Hobbit. Smaug is a dragon, old, arrogant and complacent. Bilbo is low level and lacks any credible threat, in the dragon's opinion.
How big a penalty is fair to apply?
The built-in bonuses/penalties based on size/will/etc apply all the time, regardless of who is doing the intimidating.Eg suppose Elessar, King of Gondor and Arnor attempts the same thing against a dragon of equal power to Smaug. Should he get the same total modifiers?
Nope, Elessar gets his own, personal bonuses due to his status. So does Bilbo.
Bilbo (or the gnome, in your example) could easily be assigned a -20 (or more, or less) penalty compared with Elessar in the same situation, just because of how the dragon regards the two characters.
Bilbo vs Smaug I see no reason to impose a penalty when it comes to an actual intimidate roll. Smaug would already have his HD and size added to the dc to beat to represent the fact that he's a big old mean dragon. Elessar wouldn't get any bonuses when it comes to a straight intimidate check. The fact that he has an army and resources and whatever should be handled independently. A dragon or whatever would be like, "you have these... maybe I shouldn't mess with you..." No roll needed in that situation.
But in a straight intimidate to demoralize check against Smaug, the only difference should be +4 to the dc against Bilbo because he is smaller than Elessar.
This is where different playing styles apply; you would handle the army etc independently; in the example above, I was thinking more about his reputation. The dragon will have heard of him, will know that he is a 'bad-ass' and is much more likely to avoid messing with him than with an unknown hobbit.
It is possible to have a total unknown character have exactly the same (or higher) intimidate total as a very famous, well-known and well-feared character. Eg a novice bard, high charisma, sufficient skill points, etc vs a medium-level fighter who has spent his one skill point per level mostly on perception.
But if that fighter had a feasome reputation, shouldn't he get a bonus that a novice bard wouldn't get? (or the bard get a penalty? Either way it is applying modifiers to the same effect)
|
|
Talk to your venture Captain.
The rules in PFS are static for a reason, he can add the +/-2 if he feels appropriate but that's about it. It's not just your fun that might be being drained but others too, how many other players have had intimidate or diplomacy fail repeatedly at his tables because he feels the check should be harder or is misunderstanding how it works but not wanted to 'cause a fuss' and speak up, do everyone a favour and talk to the Venture Captain so it gets amicably sorted out.
|
|
disable device was for people saying a roll can't just be accepted with just a summary of what you do and your character just does it. They're wrong.
They were referencing diplomacy/intimidate (the basis of your argument), not disable device. And if you were trying to use it as an example it was a poor choice because one is purely mechanical and one is not.
Cmb is to show the bias that someone can just arbitrarily disagree and add a bonus by discriminating and not following the rules. This is in comparison to intimidate in that aspect.
I don't understand where you are going with this. Intimidate doesn't use CMB and CMB is a physical attribute in nature.
Also, this game is chock full of discrimination. Dwarves hate giants, giants hate dwarves, some races hate elves, etc.
The flavor text is just that, and wording says "includes" which is covering what to expect in the rules. You have two versions, and demoralize needs sight.display of prowess isn't necessarily by definition sight based too.
The dc is set to disallow these mechanics From working when they shouldn't. Beat dc, and you do it.
The flavor text is a general description of how the skill works. Sure it says "includes" but it also says "and", not "or". Display, by its very definition, is most certainly sight-based.
DCs are there as a base, especially when dealing with roleplaying skills such as diplomacy and intimidate, and can most certainly be subject to circumstantial modifiers based on the situation.
I'd also like to point out that sometimes it states very explicitly in PFS scenarios that creatures cannot be diplomacized whatsoever. There is also a "tactics" block that explains how they act before combat and during combat and also their morale. A lot of the times the morale says "fights to the death". In my games, if it says that, there is no way you are giong to "talk sense" into it because it is obviously very determined to kill whatever it is fighting no matter what.
I would defer to 3.5 SRD... "A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures"
Stuff like this is why I don't run society games. Too many kids running around with mechanically overpowered builds that pout when their gimmicky one-shot characters don't auto-win. All my hate, etc.
Me too. As someone else called it "Player Fiat System".
If someone in one of my games wanted to intimidate a demon, I might look at the rules and say "Yep, I don't see anything in the rules that says you CAN'T, except...how do you intimidate an immortal creature of innate evil...?"
And the idea that someone (the GM) can apply common roleplaying sense to a situation completely putting-off their "build" irritates certain personality types to the core. Some guys just can't get past the idea that "If I've followed the rules then no one can tell me 'no'."
|
I would also like to point out that the intimidate skill says "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." This, to me, means they have to see you for it to even work.
So a raging barbarian with Intimidating Prowess and Dazzling Display cannot intimidate anyone if the spell Silence has been cast upon him?
|
|
Intimidate isn't a mind altering effect, but is changes the attitude or gives the shaken CONDITION based on your usage of the skill.You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
If you are immune to fear you can't be frightened into action.
The shaken condition is a fear effect (spelled out above) Fear effects are mind affecting effects. Therefore the shaken condition is a mind affecting fear effect. Being immune to fear or mind affecting makes you immune to both.
your best bud bbt has a really well articulated thread about this specific issue on condition vs effect. If I wasn't on my phone I'd search and link it. Perhaps if you could try and look it up and give me your thoughts after reading it, then I will be less skeptical with your interpretation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone in one of my games wanted to intimidate a demon, I might look at the rules and say "Yep, I don't see anything in the rules that says you CAN'T, except...how do you intimidate an immortal creature of innate evil...?"
You use your imagination.
"Listen very carefully to me demon, I have bound, defeated and annihilated the essences of more of your kind than I can remember. Unless you step aside I will beat you and I will bind your soul to my command. Then, over the next decades, day by day, week by week I will consume your life until there is nothing left of you, until your previously immortal essence is gone, not the slightest part of you will remain, you will cease to exist, a potential existence of forever stolen from you because of this one, foolish choice. So I tell you again. Step. Aside."
/roll intimidate or whatever.
|
|
So a raging barbarian with Intimidating Prowess and Dazzling Display cannot intimidate anyone if the spell Silence has been cast upon him?
I would also like to point out that the intimidate skill says "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." This, to me, means they have to see you for it to even work.
This seems to be a clear case of specific trumps general. The dazzling display feat cleary says "..you can perform a bewildering show of prowess..." which means it seems to be based on sight alone and not verbal cues. I would let it work in a silenced area.
|
|
I am aware that you can't re-roll a non-first level character in PFS. If you don't want to play this character anymore, your only choice is to make a new first level one and work him up again.
You said:
He won't play by the rules as written.
He got angry when you tried to talk to him.
You are unwilling to go over his head.
Your character is unplayable with his rulings.Based on what you said, I see no chance for an email argument (no matter how well articulated) to do anything except possibly make him angry.
This.
At this point, it seems like your options are one of the following:
A: Bring it up to your VC, that you don't want to do.
B: Start a new character that doesn't use Intimidate
C: Don't play in games with this GM.Arguing what is or isn't RAW on the forums isn't going to resolve your problem. You either need to address with the VC it and risk offending the GM, or avoid the problem by re-rolling or not playing with that GM.
people saying I can't do things that I can results in an argument in regards to raw, especially when they incorrectly interpret raw. Also, my character is stuck in an ongoing game in pfs, so I can't just reroll my guy mid stream, or else that would be illegal from the rules of pfs.
My goal is to become educated so I don't end up going to a vc, and looking like a huge jerk. Who knows if the vc feels the same? Anyways, having a persuasive side I feel is a great option for another attempt with this gm, and I welcome by using the advice forum to get such advice to solve my issue this way.
|
|
This seems to be a clear case of specific trumps general. The dazzling display feat cleary says "..you can perform a bewildering show of prowess..." which means it seems to be based on sight alone and not verbal cues. I would let it work in a silenced area.So a raging barbarian with Intimidating Prowess and Dazzling Display cannot intimidate anyone if the spell Silence has been cast upon him?
I would also like to point out that the intimidate skill says "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." This, to me, means they have to see you for it to even work.
What about a Raging Barbarian with Intimidating Prowess, Power attack, and Cornugon Smash in a silenced area?
|
|
So, is this Intimidate discussion about the "1 minute to change an attitude" or the "demoralize as a standard action"?
Because if it's about the former, why would a hostile creature "wait a minute" to have his attitude changed? As in, "let's roll initiative..."
perfectly acceptable. Across the board dc adjustments to that check or to demoralize in combat is not okay. I just want to use the skill that is important to my build, and have a game that all other mechanics will have s fair shake, because this is pfs, and not a home game.
|
|
What about a Raging Barbarian with Intimidating Prowess, Power attack, and Cornugon Smash in a silenced area?This seems to be a clear case of specific trumps general. The dazzling display feat cleary says "..you can perform a bewildering show of prowess..." which means it seems to be based on sight alone and not verbal cues. I would let it work in a silenced area.So a raging barbarian with Intimidating Prowess and Dazzling Display cannot intimidate anyone if the spell Silence has been cast upon him?
I would also like to point out that the intimidate skill says "This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess." This, to me, means they have to see you for it to even work.
I don't have access to see the exact wording for Cornugon Smash so I can't say how I'd rule it. Either way, what does any of this have to do with the OPs original post anyway?
|
|
It seems as though your primary concern isn't so much the actual rules of all of this as it is the way that the GM said/handled it. If the GM would have said "it doesn't seem to work" instead would we be having this discussion?
nope, and honestly you're really starting to aggravate me. You confuse fluff, and don't consider the definition of your words to argue fluff in your justifications. You are telling me a social skill isn't mechanical, when it is... why am I doing a diceto preform this? I am pointing out how COMPLETELY ABSURD it is to not say it's a mechanic with disable device. I slam a lock and your lock pick, and you have 6 seconds to unlock it. Good luck! Someone that in person is unable to role play this skill, you just laugh in their face and say they fall? I have 2 skill points to spend, and if I in person don't reflect the insane score my in game character has, then you'll penalize me or auto fail? My summary of what my character will do with that time doesn't work even if it's nut interrupted?
The racism is in the game, and the bonus or penalty is there. You don't get to bypass the rules!
Cmb argument makes perfect sense. You can't see that a gnome can bull rush the orc? Looks like he did it! It's completely relevant to comparison with the intimidate, but you can be reasonable about that? The point is, if this is okay to do, then my not modifying cmb, cmd, ac, saves, immunities etc?
Do you enjoy playing in his games?
Have you had any other problems with this GM?
Is this the only time you have not liked a ruling he has given?
If the answer to all of the above is yes, then I can't see the problem. Just move on forget about it and give the GM another chance. You didn't agree with a ruling and that happens from time to time. GM's are juggling a lot of things all at once and sometimes they make mistakes or handle situations in a not ideal way.
If your happy in these games just keep playing them. I find it hard to believe he has nerfed your build entirely.