|
Mark, with all respect, Point one wasn't proven. I absolutely agree and have already admitted from the start that demoralize needs visual. I have had no conflict with it. Attitude adjustment however doesn'tneed visual as shown in the skill. The fluff isn't inclusive to the entirety of the skill, plus the word includes is written.
Additionally I think you should be able to intimidate without speaking if they can see you. (Maybe you're in a crowded space and you want to be subtle to get someone to carry out your wishes)
Stare at them I'm a hostile manner, make throat cutting gestures, hold up the deed to their house that you took from them to get their obedience,ect.
At the risk of going off-topic and speaking about home games rather than PFS, personally I'd be happy with "communicate with" rather than speaking, and would happily allow any of the above that were able to convey (IMO as GM) an adequate threat. Of course at that point we're no longer talking RAW, and I'm just distracting the thread from it's real purpose... so... um... I guess I'll shut up now :)
|
Mark, with all respect, Point one wasn't proven. I absolutely agree and have already admitted from the start that demoralize needs visual. I have had no conflict with it. Attitude adjustment however doesn'tneed visual as shown in the skill. The fluff isn't inclusive to the entirety of the skill, plus the word includes is written.
Okay, for the sake of discussion:
If you are attempting to intimidate a target for the adjustment of its attitude, and you are NOT using verbal threats OR a display of prowess, how, then, would you be intimidating them?Your emphasis on "includes" suggests that other things may be used, correct? So, what are those things?
But, let me just add - you are well away from your original post here. At the risk of offending you (and I do not mean to), it seems like you are just seeking to continue to argue, despite, in some cases, being shown the very rule you are asking for or whatnot.
I guess, at this point, I don't anymore understand what your point is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@trollbill - I can see both interpretations. Maybe this is something that should be clarified a bit being as how demoralize has specific language but the basic intimidate check does not. Was that intentional? Was the way intimidate works supposed to be implied in some way? Might be FAQ-worthy.
I base my argument mostly on the language for demoralize as I see it as a lesser version of intimidate to shift attitude.
I would probably allow an intimidate check without verbal or visual cues but at a penalty.
Edit: One or the other obviously, not both. Hehe.
If they can't see you, add a bluff check. If you don't want to be heard a bluff check for innuendo so your intent is understood by the intimidated but missed by others.
Then the only penalty if that your character invested in intimidate and not bluff.
|
|
Franks, sir.
Could you cite where the shaken condition is defined as a fear condition?
Fear
Linky Under fear.Fear
Spells, magic items, and certain monsters can affect characters with fear. In most cases, the character makes a Will saving throw to resist this effect, and a failed roll means that the character is shaken, frightened, or panicked.
Shaken: Characters who are shaken take a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.
Could you cite where the shaken condition is defined as a fear condition?
I worry you are confusing shaken for being a condition under possible results of fear effects.
Look, i know that argument gives you the answer you want, but there's nothing to it.
I worry you are confusing shaken for being a condition under possible results of fear effects.
There is no effect/condition dichotomy. It doesn't exist.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back on page 1 I was asked to to cite unlimited circumstance modifiers were permitted. This merely turned around my request for the +/-2. Not playing the prove a negative game.
This thread has a tone that I have no interest in participating in further and is rapidly on its way to a 1000 post thread merely on the basis of people saying the same thing repeatedly and refusing to acknowledge points. Enjoy.
|
|
Another point of contention.
If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.
This skill includes verbal threats or displays of prowess.
Meaning it only requires one of the conditions to work (but both is lagniappe).
I know it's also quite possible (as I'm sure most developers probably aren't English majors, not that it's required for this) that the language wasn't scrutinized during development. Probably more of a reason to FAQ it.
|
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.
Cornugon Smash requires a successful Power Attack, so again specific trumps general. You can use it in a silenced area, but you have to hit your target first.
|
|
I know this can be a contentious topic.
But realistically if you think you can regularly get a 45 on intimidate, isn't that really the problem?
The game allows for uber concentration in certain areas, but it is not built to handle them and maintain game balance.
Imagine an intimidate base tiefling with the feats and whatnot to stack fear effects from intimidate to create panic with multiple uses of demoralize.
The uber Gargantuan Shemhazian demon at the end could have been made to flee in a panic by this tiefling. A CR 16, 17 hit die Demon with a 26 Wisdom would require a DC 39 for this Tiefling.
If the Tiefling succeeds twice or by 5 (I forget how the special ability works for thus) it will panic the subject.
How ludicrous is this possibility?
|
I know this can be a contentious topic.
But realistically if you think you can regularly get a 45 on intimidate, isn't that really the problem?
The game allows for uber concentration in certain areas, but it is not built to handle them and maintain game balance.
Imagine an intimidate base tiefling with the feats and whatnot to stack fear effects from intimidate to create panic with multiple uses of demoralize.
** spoiler omitted **
Realize, demoralize makes a creature shaken. It doesn't switch to frightened if you get over 5 on the check, it just makes the shaken effect last longer.
Another point of contention.
If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.
This skill includes verbal threats or displays of prowess.Meaning it only requires one of the conditions to work (but both is lagniappe).
I know it's also quite possible (as I'm sure most developers probably aren't English majors, not that it's required for this) that the language wasn't scrutinized during development. Probably more of a reason to FAQ it.
Hmmm.
I would be happier with a "such as" in there, but I read that as
"includes" (followed by a list of possible options) and not "requires" (followed by a list of specific requirements)
|
|
Realize, demoralize makes a creature shaken. It doesn't switch to frightened if you get over 5 on the check, it just makes the shaken effect last longer.I know this can be a contentious topic.
But realistically if you think you can regularly get a 45 on intimidate, isn't that really the problem?
The game allows for uber concentration in certain areas, but it is not built to handle them and maintain game balance.
Imagine an intimidate base tiefling with the feats and whatnot to stack fear effects from intimidate to create panic with multiple uses of demoralize.
** spoiler omitted **
There are abilities that allow for turning shaken into frightened. The Thug for instance could do this but would need at least a 59 to do this in the example given.
Bacon's thoughts on things...
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Meaning that it either are involved to work.
This skill requires verbal threats or displays of prowess.
Meaning it only requires both of the conditions to work.
The battle of the english rises...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then we'd know that perhaps the GM just wasn't the best at articulating this or tried to reason it to you, which ill admit I'm sure he tried to get creative considering how you've acted here.
After a certain point, Rapanuii, I doubt you'll ever get the answer you want for Question 1 because any answer a PFS GM gives you, however logical or not, you seem unwillingly to accept because it's not the answer you particularly want. At this point, I think any PFS related issue has been resolved and you're argument would be better served being rehashed in the Rules Forum.
I've already gone over how everything was completely transparent, and there was no issue like you're mentioning, so there is no perhaps about it.
You're sure he tried to get creative considering how I've acted here? You doubt I'll ever get the answer I'm looking for because I'm just unwilling to accept anything unless it caters to my views? Dude, who the hell do you think you are?! Apparently the forums aren't meant for you, because if I justifiably disagree and continue to debate something, that doesn't at all reflect your asinine interpretation. I'm entitled to my position, just like others are to there's. This is just you throwing out insults my way, and if you can't be mature enough to not do that, then please, don't communicate with me, and for the sake of others, don't bother using the boards. You should have self control to not behave this way.
Bacon's thoughts on things...
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.Meaning that it either are involved to work.
This skill requires verbal threats or displays of prowess.Meaning it only requires both of the conditions to work.
The battle of the english rises...
Welcome to why I try to avoid games played RAW :)
|
|
Another point of contention.
If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.
This skill includes verbal threats or displays of prowess.Meaning it only requires one of the conditions to work (but both is lagniappe).
I know it's also quite possible (as I'm sure most developers probably aren't English majors, not that it's required for this) that the language wasn't scrutinized during development. Probably more of a reason to FAQ it.
Song & Dance Entertainment includes both Song and Dance in it, by definition. But that does not mean I have to Hear and See it to be entertained (though it helps). I only have to Hear or See it to be entertained. In much the same way, while performing an Intimidate check requires me to use both verbal threats and displays of prowess, it does not mean the guy I am using it on must Hear and See me to be intimidated (though, again it likely helps). It only means he has to Hear or See me.
Song & Dance Entertainment includes both Song and Dance in it, by definition. But that does not mean I have to Hear and See it to be entertained (though it helps). I only have to Hear or See it to be entertained. In much the same way, while performing an Intimidate check requires me to use both verbal threats and displays of prowess, it does not mean the guy I am using it on must Hear and See me to be intimidated (though, again it likely helps). It only means he has to Hear or See me.Another point of contention.
If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.
This skill includes verbal threats or displays of prowess.Meaning it only requires one of the conditions to work (but both is lagniappe).
I know it's also quite possible (as I'm sure most developers probably aren't English majors, not that it's required for this) that the language wasn't scrutinized during development. Probably more of a reason to FAQ it.
Similarly, my computer toolkit includes screwdrivers, wire strippers, diagonal cutters, needle-nose pliers, tweezers, and a steel rule. I don't think I've run into a situation yet that required me to use them all :) (My unfortunate restriction to the standard number of human manipulative appendages is another limiting factor, I'm sad to say.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mark, to also not offend you, and not to be offensive by also stating this, but that is NOT what I suggested at all. I want to point out that you've misread things clearly and I will try and point them out. I'm glad it "seems" that way, and you don't just say that it definitely is, unlike other people. I hope to clear this up.
Demoralize strictly says it's sight based, and as I stated before that I've never had an issue about this. You might want to see my post where I point out the fluff of escape artist, and you can see plenty of other examples with skills, where they all in their fluff have their multiple instances of what you'll see within the specifics of the actual rules. I don't need to be bound AND grappled to make an escape artist check. Forego the fluff, and read the rules.
So, you posted this yourself, and here is the action.
"Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent's attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action."
I've pointed this out before. Within the rules Demoralize clearly stipulates what is needed, and we have exactly what kind of action is needed for the attitude adjustment. You need the 1 minute of conversation.
@BNW, I got things cleared up personally when I looked up the shaken condition where it specifically states fear, so I am satisfied. Thank you for your efforts especially on finding me that link.
As far as game mechanics, you can't expect someone to role play their dudes, then penalize them accordingly. You can't take someone with severe social disorders then tell him that his character with 24 Charisma, and crazy Diplomacy score is a mirror to himself. You can't argue a dice roll for a skill isn't a mechanic that works by rolling the dice either, or else you will have to jump that lava pit in real life with your full plate mail and without your running start, because I don't care if your acrobatics is great, you need to ROLE PLAY! Get it?
Again, you roll the dice, and the dude preforms the magic. You want to disable device, so you say, "I use disable device on that trap, using this item to assist me", and the GM says, "Alright, do it" and then the dice is rolled. Just the same as you specify who you're going to intimidate, and a summary of how you'll go about doing it. Time to roll the die, and you'll have to compete with that DC to succeed.
|
|
I want to point out for the last time about my GM. The guy is pretty awesome, and I do have tons of fun at his games. However, this is an issue that exists, and it doesn't define him as a person. Most people get passionate about rule debates and defending their personal opinions on matters, and sadly he is someone that gets affected by such things, but I completely understand.
I am trying to seek out a way to fix this issue without involving other people like a VC, because a VC is only human too, and could possibly also be subjective about the rules and such, and not objective. Also, I don't want this person to lose face if I can help it, which might seem foolish to some given the circumstances, but I'm trying to mitigate it as best I can.
The best method I have going for me is to have things as best understood as possible, so I am not just giving subjective positions, but rather an actual understanding of how things work. Obviously, a lot of people are subject to misconceptions with mechanics of the game and especially with how this specific skill works, and that further proves why this is reasonable for my GM to fall into this as well. The dude isn't a bad GM, but in fact really awesome and creative. Ultimately if I don't get a better suggestion, and what I am going to attempt to do doesn't work, then I will have the obvious options at hand. I love PF, and PFS as well, and everyone makes their effort to travel and spend their time at the game, and not only me. I just want to be able to have fun along with everyone else with the character I've been pumped to play for so long. Being told "no", for incorrect reasons against the expectations that everyone is entitled to have about the game is not a good feeling, and it lessens my spirit to play the game.
|
|
Another point of contention.
If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.
First, the text you cite doesn't say that "This skill requires..." (I know at least one other has made that point, but it is worth repeating, I think.) It merely tells the types of things the skill can or does include. The only explicit requirement to see or to hear is in the specific use of demoralize.
Second,the conjunction "or" wouldn't (to me) make sense here, because it means that it includes "this" OR "that" when what the text is suggesting is that BOTH are examples, or on the list of what is included. By reading it as you do, a character who is mute or otherwise unable to make any sort of verbal sound would be unable to use this skill (and I'm pretty sure that Mike Myers from the Halloween movies and Jason from the Friday the 13th series were plenty intimidating without ever uttering a peep :-) ).
I didn't initially agree with this skill needing a FAQ entry, but now I am not so sure.
|
|
Another point of contention.
If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.
This skill includes verbal threats or displays of prowess.Meaning it only requires one of the conditions to work (but both is lagniappe).
I know it's also quite possible (as I'm sure most developers probably aren't English majors, not that it's required for this) that the language wasn't scrutinized during development. Probably more of a reason to FAQ it.
INCLUDES
Also, see my example with escape artist.
Also, let's understand fluff does not equal rules. It's fluff. Move onto the rules.
|
|
Another point of contention.
If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.
First, the text you cite doesn't say that "This skill requires..." (I know at least one other has made that point, but it is worth repeating, I think.) It merely tells the types of things the skill can or does include. The only explicit requirement to see or to hear is in the specific use of demoralize.
Second,the conjunction "or" wouldn't (to me) make sense here, because it means that it includes "this" OR "that" when what the text is suggesting is that BOTH are examples, or on the list of what is included. By reading it as you do, a character who is mute or otherwise unable to make any sort of verbal sound would be unable to use this skill (and I'm pretty sure that Mike Myers from the Halloween movies and Jason from the Friday the 13th series were plenty intimidating without ever uttering a peep :-) ).
I didn't initially agree with this skill needing a FAQ entry, but now I am not so sure.
Yeah, after I posted I realized that was a bad interpretation. However I still stand by the fact that demoralize has the specific wording it does (as a lesser version of the check to shift attitude). But, I digress.
|
|
I disagree with a bluff check, and if they can't see you, then they can't see you. Remove the size bonus and size penalty, unless they already are aware who you are of course then visual circumstances matter.
So, you want to use bluff? Then bluff that you're a size category bigger than the creature, and perhaps maybe, you get that +4 bonus on your intimidate?
This seems logical, right? Is it in the rules? Nope. But does it seem like it would be creative enough to work in a PFS game? Yes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another point of contention.
If the two conditions in the basic description of intimidate were exclusive of one another then wouldn't it say "or" instead of "and"?
This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.Meaning that it requires both conditions to work.
This skill includes verbal threats or displays of prowess.Meaning it only requires one of the conditions to work (but both is lagniappe).
I know it's also quite possible (as I'm sure most developers probably aren't English majors, not that it's required for this) that the language wasn't scrutinized during development. Probably more of a reason to FAQ it.
INCLUDES
Also, see my example with escape artist.
Also, let's understand fluff does not equal rules. It's fluff. Move onto the rules.
The fluff is part of the rules. It is a basic description or a TL;DR if you will. It's not going to say something that isn't true as it pertains to how something works so you can't just ignore it. Usually I find that the fluff is stated in a more vague way while it is clarified further upon reading the full description.
|
|
Back on page 1 I was asked to to cite unlimited circumstance modifiers were permitted. This merely turned around my request for the +/-2. Not playing the prove a negative game.
This thread has a tone that I have no interest in participating in further and is rapidly on its way to a 1000 post thread merely on the basis of people saying the same thing repeatedly and refusing to acknowledge points. Enjoy.
Again, I never asserted as fact, and I was asking if you could cite this rule you were referencing, because it would be enlightening to have the rule, and stop me from being a skeptic. So far no one has cited the rule you mentioned I believe.
So please, don't take it as disrespectful that I asked for it. I'm sorry you feel like a certain tone is happening, and I personally don't like how some people have been behaving here either. You could very well be directing all of what you wrote on me, and if that's so, then I suppose you're going to take things how you're going to take things.
Again, I hope you understand what I was asking from you in the correct context, and I certainly don't want you to feel offended like I was challenging you like a jerk.
|
|
The fluff allows people to take into account science and super dictionary insanity to words that make everything complicated and unnecessary. You get your basic little description of what's up, then you get to actually read what's up.
Follow the rules, and read the fluff as you will. Otherwise we are talking about a lot of silly things by how you are interpreting things, like having to be bound while being grappled to even have the ability to use escape artist.
|
|
The fluff allows people to take into account science and super dictionary insanity to words that make everything complicated and unnecessary. You get your basic little description of what's up, then you get to actually read what's up.
Follow the rules, and read the fluff as you will. Otherwise we are talking about a lot of silly things by how you are interpreting things, like having to be bound while being grappled to even have the ability to use escape artist.
I made no comment as to your escape artist example so please don't put words in my mouth. You are the one who said those things and noone commented on it.
|
|
Intimidate:This skill includes both verbal threats and displays of prowess
Canidae: this family includes both foxes and wolves.
Does something have to be a wolfox to be a canidae ?
Yeah, I conceded to that point already.
Edit: Although everyone has been throwing around examples to only the one interpretation. What about the other?
This recipe includes salt and pepper.
It would have to have both or it would be a different recipe, right?
I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point. Hehe.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I conceded to that point already.Intimidate:This skill includes both verbal threats and displays of prowess
Canidae: this family includes both foxes and wolves.
Does something have to be a wolfox to be a canidae ?
Sorry, lost track. everyone was grammar fighting. Accusations fast as lightning. Frankly it was a little bit frighting.
|
|
I made no comment as to your escape artist example so please don't put words in my mouth. You are the one who said those things and noone commented on it.The fluff allows people to take into account science and super dictionary insanity to words that make everything complicated and unnecessary. You get your basic little description of what's up, then you get to actually read what's up.
Follow the rules, and read the fluff as you will. Otherwise we are talking about a lot of silly things by how you are interpreting things, like having to be bound while being grappled to even have the ability to use escape artist.
Don't put words in my mouth and say that I put words in your mouth. Clearly read what I wrote, and you'll see that I'm equating your interpretations that you've expressed on here to how one could interpret escape artist.
Your attitude on here as I pointed out is very aggravating, and I would very much like it if you stopped behaving like you are or at least clear up why I'm getting this from you. You've knee jerk reacted while selectively reading things I've written, while asserting that I'm wrong.
If you interpret the fluff in intimidate to be necessary to every usage of the skill, then by that logic, you'd interpret escape artist that way too. I can appreciate how you can stray away from your position by other people pointing out similar things that I have, but it should have sufficed when I did it.
Pointing out no one responded to what I wrote means what exactly? That you insulting me, or you admitting that you willingly ignored what I wrote, which I can assume you did the same to my other posts?
Quit the attitude, and just discuss things please. I am not on here to be a jerk or offend people, but if I need to be defensive to blatant disrespect, then I will.
|
|
I beg your pardon but it seems like you are the one with the apparent "attitude". I have displayed no ill will up until now and you seem to be flying off the handle at other people besides me.
I am bowing out of this thread as it seems it's going nowhere and has now turned into flaming.
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this about me, and I admit people are flaming, but I don't understand why you'd imply that from me.
As BNW has pointed out, people have turned this into a ballroom blitz, and I rather have a civil discussion, instead of people being disrespectful to one another.
EDIT: It's too bad you couldn't just address things that I wrote to you properly, and admitted to your faults. If I have faults you feel should be addressed then by all means use the private message feature or point them on here, but do it respectfully. You told me I was putting words into your mouth when as I just explained and pointed out that I did no such thing at all. I don't enjoy being called out like that when it's not true.
|
|
Rapanuii: if I recall correctly, you initiated a thread called "My GM is a madman" before. I guess this was a different one. If you are consistently having problems with GMs, you might consider, that you are the constant factor in the equation and question your behavior. You seem like a Min Maxer and some GMs don't like that. Furthermore you don't seem to take it well when people criticize you. You should be more concerned about these facts than about "winning" in this game.
Why do you feel it fair to label me a min/maxer? I can appreciate that you would consider the fact that I might be overlooking myself in these situations, but I clearly wrote exactly what the problem is with this situation, and the problem isn't with me. Why do you feel this has any sort of bearing for you to relate this to my older thread, and especially come to your conclusion?
Maybe you're the one choosing to look at things the way you want to look at them. The way you write your "critique" isn't very respectful, or at least very thoughtout and fair. I agree things can be misinterpreted online, but it's a common occurrence where the boards are casually abusive.
My madmad GM is indeed a madman. all the players including myself just couldn't take it anymore, and the GM said, "if you don't like it, then just quit". We felt obligated to play regardless that very day even though being destroyed with all the issues we were having, but when he said that, we took it as an invitation. We decided "today we finally try out pathfinder society" and that's when I met a lot of awesome people.
I don't think anyone in PFS has ever complained about me, and infact I've been told many times how I'm more than welcomed to play with others, and how people talk positively about me to others quite often. I'm sorry your perception of me is negative, I know I'm biased to myself, but I put in A LOT of effort to make sure the game is fun for everyone, and try my absolute hardest to intercept misunderstandings and people having a bad time to rectify it and turn it into a positive. The complaint against me that I'm fully aware of is that I'm overly considerate, and need to relax with worrying about if I am indeed offending anyone.
So please, let me know where you got the impression that I'm a min/maxer, because I find it pretty far fetched that anyone would get that impression, on the boards, or in play. Discussing RAW, and how game mechanics should always work doesn't reflect this at all, and in this instance, I have a character designed all around intimidate, which shouldn't be confused for a character expecting to just ruin the game with intimidating everyone and everything in the game, just because it is personally fun for me. I can't see it to be selfish to want to demoralize a creature in combat, and being disapointed that the answer is I failed "just because", and I feel most others would feel the same.
|
|
Rapanuii, a simple question: if you like playing PFS at this GM's table, why are you building characters that completely defeat the purpose of PFS by taking advantage of rules which break when people use them unrealistically? I am not meaning to be offensive or flippant, but you don't seem to get the idea that your character concept breaks the game, for everyone at the table but you. Same as a storm druid who casts obscuring mist every combat, blinding everyone but them. It ruins the game.
If I were the GM I wouldn't tell you your character's skills don't work, though. Instead, I would explain the situation and ask you to play other characters. Essentially, you have found a way to destroy scenarios for every other person at the table, and I would be surprised if the other players enjoy it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I really like this dude, and I have a lot of fun of this guys tables. I want to leave things anonymous, so he doesn't feel disrespected, or gets anything negative from this thread, so I'm strictly going to leave it that way.
This person isn't a normal GM, but someone with a higher ranking I guess. I'm not sure how it works, but given this fact, I have higher expectations for how things would have been handled in this situation. Ultimately, I was told that in his game the mechanics of the game don't work like they should normally. I told him that people expect the rules to be followed within PFS, and he told me that different judges will rule things however they like at their table. I'm all for having liberties, and calling things to move on with the game, but basic mechanics should work correctly in the game in the way they were meant to work.
Pretty much this issue is my character using intimidate, and it was specifically on a target that couldn't see me. This wasn't a matter of demoralizing, but rather to take the full minimum 1 minute to convey to the creature that I'm someone they should adjust their attitude with. I was told it automatically doesn't work because the creature cannot see me, and that it wouldn't feel threatened by me anyways because he is a demon, and I'm just a human that isn't even at least holding a knife to it's throat. I am further told that I can only use intimidate if I can make the creature feel like I will kill it, which I tried to explain that isn't necessarily true at all, but was told I was wrong. I tried to after the game, and outside of the game to discuss the matter, and was told that I absolutely need line of sight, due to the skill specifically saying so. I tried to point out that it only applies to demoralize, and the first application of intimidate to change attitudes specifically says that 1 minute of conversation, and was told I wasn't reading correctly.
A situation came up again the next game, where I tried to demoralize a summoned drake in...
To directly address your complaints.
1) Yes, I agree, players should expect that the game is played similarly across the boards. There are a certain subset of rules that are ambiguous to some degree or other, and as such, you will likely experience some version of table variance at those moments. I do not think that the Intimidate rules are one such sub-set of ambiguous rules. They seem pretty clear to me.
2) Take a look at how you are creating your characters. Please do not think I'm ascribing a type to you or passing any sort of judgment. I am not. But if you are creating a character that is so concentrated and specialized in one thing, that you essentially nerf entire encounters and don't allow the other players and/or GM's to actually engage in those encounters, then the story can tend to get lost.
This is a contentious subject, and likely someone will come in and flame me for this point of view. Some people enjoy playing the game to avoid all semblance of story, except the story of their character roflstomping everything. So be it. This isn't a post about that particular topic.
What it is, is about why you might be getting some friction.
So lets use an example:
An adult red dragon is CR14, 17 Hit Dice, and Wisdom 17. The DC to demoralize an adult red dragon with a medium-sized human is 34 (10+Hit Dice+3 Wis Mod+4 Size difference).
I know of a Tiefling in my area that has a +30 to Intimidate at level 7 or 8. And they have a special Tiefling ability/feat that if they beat the demoralize DC by 10, they get to frighten the creature.
So he would need a 44, or a 14 or better, to make the Huge Red Dragon (an iconic creature that is supposed to induce fear, not become afraid) flee in terror from him. That's a 35% chance or better, that the dragon runs from him, instead of him running from the dragon.
Doesn't this seem a bit ludicrous to you?
And then if the dragon does flee in terror, the rest of the party doesn't get to actually have the joy of fighting and potentially defeating a fricken Huge Red Dragon!
Just because the rules allow you to do something, doesn't mean that the game is built to be balanced around you doing so. And as such, doesn't mean you should do it.
So, what you are saying is, because you've built your character by the book, and the rules say something, and you use that ability, and your ability doesn't just end the encounter, but essentially removes the coolness of the encounter, the threat of the encounter, whatever, that the GM should just:
"Ok, the Huge Red Dragon runs away. Scenario is now over. Here's your chronicle sheets. Hope you guys had fun."
In PFS, technically that's how it should go.
But why would you put your GM and the other players in the position that your uber-focused skill makes it a fair certainty that they won't get to experience the story?
I'm sure others will jump in here and shout about this Save or Suck spell or some ability or pouncing kitties or sniper zen archers or gunslingers or small cavaliers or what have you.
But all those other options let you defeat the Huge Red Dragon and get its treasure.
Scaring it away basically means no treasure, no defeat. Just an epic story for your character only.
Rapanuii: if I recall correctly, you initiated a thread called "My GM is a madman" before. I guess this was a different one. If you are consistently having problems with GMs, you might consider, that you are the constant factor in the equation and question your behavior. You seem like a Min Maxer and some GMs don't like that. Furthermore you don't seem to take it well when people criticize you. You should be more concerned about these facts than about "winning" in this game.
Isn't Rapanuii the guy that always plays fighters? It's hard to accuse someone of being a min/maxer that only plays fighters. Particularly one who uses his scant few skill points on a social skill.
...To be clear, I really like this dude, and I have a lot of fun of this guys tables. I want to leave things anonymous, so he doesn't feel disrespected, or gets anything negative from this thread, so I'm strictly going to leave it that way.
This person isn't a normal GM, but someone with a higher ranking I guess. I'm not sure how it works, but given this fact, I have higher expectations for how things would have been handled in this situation. Ultimately, I was told that in his game the mechanics of the game don't work like they should normally. I told him that people expect the rules to be followed within PFS, and he told me that different judges will rule things however they like at their table. I'm all for having liberties, and calling things to move on with the game, but basic mechanics should work correctly in the game in the way they were meant to work.
Pretty much this issue is my character using intimidate, and it was specifically on a target that couldn't see me. This wasn't a matter of demoralizing, but rather to take the full minimum 1 minute to convey to the creature that I'm someone they should adjust their attitude with. I was told it automatically doesn't work because the creature cannot see me, and that it wouldn't feel threatened by me anyways because he is a demon, and I'm just a human that isn't even at least holding a knife to it's throat. I am further told that I can only use intimidate if I can make the creature feel like I will kill it, which I tried to explain that isn't necessarily true at all, but was told I was wrong. I tried to after the game, and outside of the game to discuss the matter, and was told that I absolutely need line of sight, due to the skill specifically saying so. I tried to point out that it only applies to demoralize, and the first application of intimidate to change attitudes specifically says that 1 minute of conversation, and was told I wasn't reading correctly.
A situation came up again the next game, where I tried to demoralize
He isn't doing that though. He isn't trying to scare off the BBEG and keep everyone at the table from having glory and treasure. He is trying to use the intimidate skill to impose the shaken condition. He is debuffing. Does that -2 on rolls against the party really ruin all the fun for everyone at the table? Does that diminish the challenge so greatly that the DM might as well just hand over he chronicle sheet and tell everyone to piss off?
I don't think so at all. It sounds like the GM in question is opposed to using a social skill to gain a mechanical advantage. Well, too bad, that's how the skill works. Let the player play his character.
|
|
Rapanuii, a simple question: if you like playing PFS at this GM's table, why are you building characters that completely defeat the purpose of PFS by taking advantage of rules which break when people use them unrealistically? I am not meaning to be offensive or flippant, but you don't seem to get the idea that your character concept breaks the game, for everyone at the table but you. Same as a storm druid who casts obscuring mist every combat, blinding everyone but them. It ruins the game.
If I were the GM I wouldn't tell you your character's skills don't work, though. Instead, I would explain the situation and ask you to play other characters. Essentially, you have found a way to destroy scenarios for every other person at the table, and I would be surprised if the other players enjoy it.
How is my character breaking the game? Are you even at all aware of my characters specific stats and stuff? I want to attempt to intimidate a creature and I rolled a 23 all together. Where is the issue? I demoralized a creature and got a total of 20 from a great d20 roll. Where am I ruining the game? I don't understand!
Where are people getting these impressions? Are people not reading the thread? I am in no way causing anyone to have a bad time at this table by doing something irresponsible, and I would never make such a character that would do so. I respect all the players, and my GM, so what was written by me that gave any other impression to indicate otherwise?
Having an expectation to beat a DC of a mechanic in the game sounds EXTREMELY reasonable. Why are these mechanics in the game, and intimidate an option if you aren't supposed to ever use them? I try one time to change an attitude, and now I'm the worst person ever!? Did you miss the part where I didn't use it on some final boss or something, and was trying to talk to some dude that was just chilling being a jerk? Seriously, all I wanted to do in the game was talk to this npc about STUFF. He said that he knew STUFF, but he wouldn't tell us. Sounds to me like it's time to use the social mechanic rather than an option to just fight to the death for no reason and still not get the information. Shouldn't I be rewarded for thinking of a creature solution to continue the game, rather than for no reason attacking a demon that is not posing a threat upon us?
It seems apparent to me people are influenced to see something that isn't there about me, and that's really upsetting.
|
|
Andrew, my character isn't built to be a power house skill focus distrusting thing though. He is like level 5 with a +14 to intimidate. Is that bad? I'm taking feats to allow me to go up the skill tree for Shattered Defenses, and possibly Deadly stroke. I just want to have the possibility to demoralize a creature in combat so I can have the benefits. I wouldn't mind using dazzling display and having it work too. I don't plan to abuse what I have and be a jerk in any way shape or forum. I will fight the cool BBEG because my character in the situation would most likely do it. I do have the option to attempt intimidate if I feel like in role playing with my character he would do, and I am indeed entitled not to metagame that aspect. I do take other peoples fun into consideration.
I still don't know where people are getting this idea that I want to just steam roll the game with abusing this mechanic. I need to demoralize to be able to use my character, and if I invested with my petty skill points i get into intimidate, then why can't I get a shot to have it work out?
He was trying to change the attitude of a demon with intimidation. And people are making comparisons to illustrate a point. Just because a character works mechanically by "RAW", doesn't mean it is a fun or good thing to do. And if a character destroys an adventure because "it is the build", I am going to stop that at my tables.
He was using a skill check to impose a debuff condition. That's how the game works. Get off your righteous high horse.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How the heck is he "destroying the game"?
His character is focused to do, a number of things quite well.
So, even when others would be unable, his character can.
He is playing one of the heroes, remember?
If another small PC were built around doing damage, with daggers, really well, would that be bad?
If the DM decided "that little toothpick would never pierce this Dragon's hide" and decided the dagger focused PC did no damage, because "it makes sense", would that be fair?
A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.
Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.
What the heck?
How the heck is he "destroying the game"?
His character is focused to do, a number of things quite well.
So, even when others would be unable, his character can.
He is playing one of the heroes, remember?
If another small PC were built around doing damage, with daggers, really well, would that be bad?
If the DM decided "that little toothpick would never pierce this Dragon's hide" and decided the dagger focused PC did no damage, because "it makes sense", would that be fair?A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.
Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.
What the heck?
If it isn't magic it must suck as an option. ... or something ...