Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I'm not quite understanding this. You mean to say that your venture officers are allowing GMs to go against RAW? If so, would I be allowed to drop in some extra NPCs for high-pet parties? That's the "common sense" thing to do, right? You see why this is a bad idea?No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, that if you play "The Blakros Matrimony" and your character is coming naked to the ceremony, the guards will throw you out, even though you bluffed them into believing the bride ordered it that way, because that would be common sense in this situation.
I am not sure this is quite the right way to look at this. There are two ways common sense can play into this. It likely doesn't make a lot of sense to the guard that the bride would order the PC to show up to the wedding naked. So common sense, in this instance, would have a serious effect on the DC of the bluff check. It would not cause an auto-fail though, because if history has taught us anything it is that human beings can be made to believe anything. If the bluff check still succeeded, though, then the guard would indeed believe that the bride had ordered the PC to show up naked. Common sense then needs to be applied to how the guard would behave based on actually believing that was the case. My personal experience when you give a functionary a really important decision to make is that they are going to bump this up the chain of command so that they don't take the fall for it just in case they handled it wrong. So common sense to me here would be that the guard would get his commanding officer involved.
|
@ David Bowles: exactly. If one builds a tiefling (rakshasa blooded) sorcerer (rakshasa bloodline) with beguiling liar alternative racial trait and buys the mask of stoney demeanor, maybe gets skill focus bluff and deceitful and manages to pick up a viper familiar, I will not have him ruin all my NPC interaction with bluff, even though the circumstancial modifier for telling an impossible lie is only -20. I will find ways to preserve the consistency of the game and I will find ways that everyone else at the table is still having fun.
For all I know, the player could simply say: I use bluff to get cross the guard naked. I don't know a good excuse, but my character does, as he has bluff +36 and the guard has a sense motive of only +3. In that case (and if the player doesn't accept loopholes e.g. the guard offers you some clothes before letting you in) I will not let him get through with it.
I don't see how disregarding a character's feats, equipment, traits, etc. preserves consistency and ensure's fun for everyone at the table. It's more like you'd be introducing your table to the Live Action version of this thread.
|
responding like this is what's bothering me.
Player does x to y under normal circumstances = z
X is intimidate to a creature that is a demon, and the answer will always be +7 bonus.
So with this situation it can be objectively viewed. Now let's say you ask, "was the creature affected by the rules saying he was immune, just because I'd like to know" then I'd say yes or no, but in this instance the creature was not, because we're taking about it absolutely succeeding without any other situations.
So, anyone can go, "so the gm will for under the baseline situation, always rule that way. That's not correct."
So again, the stuff you are taking about wasn't relevant for me to add. I gave the necessary information.
Am I saying that the other variables wouldn't matter? Considering that I blatantly repeatedly answered that says that I do consider them relevant when they're applied, but here it doesn't because it diverts things away from what is important.
Please, stop responding to me like I'm some fool, and perhaps apologize.
Rapanuii, first, please chill out.
All that was said is that without the scenario being known, it is entirely possible there was text specific to the encounter that would make an intimidate check impossible. You then responded with "I gave all the info you needed". As we still do not know the name of the scenario, we obviously do not have all the information that others have mentioned.
Additionally if there is such text within the scenario, then it most certainly would be relevant for you to add as it would explain why your intimidate check failed and could have avoided a thread hitting almost 400 posts.
There was no slight made to you, but I have found many of your responses to be either dismissive or a bit rude. However, I am also guessing this is not your primary language based on some grammar and turns of phrase, so it is entirely possible you may not realize this is the kind of tone you are setting in some of your replies.
|
|
Objectively, as you like to say, is your argument working?
In order to allow what you've said happened, as far as the information we have, we would have to allow someone shouting for surrender from the door of a cavern to intimidate the big bad into coming out. That might not be what you're trying to do, but your exact same logic would say that that's allowed.
The argument seems to be whether someone can nerf the raw intimidate or if they have to cancel any table you show up at just to prevent what you insist should work.
NEITHER is a very good result for you.
|
I don't see how disregarding a character's feats, equipment, traits, etc. preserves consistency and ensure's fun for everyone at the table. It's more like you'd be introducing your table to the Live Action version of this thread.@ David Bowles: exactly. If one builds a tiefling (rakshasa blooded) sorcerer (rakshasa bloodline) with beguiling liar alternative racial trait and buys the mask of stoney demeanor, maybe gets skill focus bluff and deceitful and manages to pick up a viper familiar, I will not have him ruin all my NPC interaction with bluff, even though the circumstancial modifier for telling an impossible lie is only -20. I will find ways to preserve the consistency of the game and I will find ways that everyone else at the table is still having fun.
For all I know, the player could simply say: I use bluff to get cross the guard naked. I don't know a good excuse, but my character does, as he has bluff +36 and the guard has a sense motive of only +3. In that case (and if the player doesn't accept loopholes e.g. the guard offers you some clothes before letting you in) I will not let him get through with it.
This is not disregarding the skill. This is as case of bluff not being adequate, just as diplomacy is often non-functional when the author says "these guys auto fight you to the death". The guard believes the PC, but is likely bound by other rules of the court to not allow naked people in the ball. This is grossly different than arbitrarily negating entire builds.
Objectively, as you like to say, is your argument working?
In order to allow what you've said happened, as far as the information we have, we would have to allow someone shouting for surrender from the door of a cavern to intimidate the big bad into coming out. That might not be what you're trying to do, but your exact same logic would say that that's allowed.
The argument seems to be whether someone can nerf the raw intimidate or if they have to cancel any table you show up at just to prevent what you insist should work.
NEITHER is a very good result for you.
Being "friendly" is not surrendering. I know that would not voluntarily let a friend of mine attack me with a sword, take my stuff, or put me in handcuffs. Those things are beyond what someone acting "friendly" will do.
|
|
It's not like this happens often. But by RAW, the guards believes. And I have talked to one player with such kind of build before. I am perfectly fine with him bluffing, as long as it's within boundaries that don't ruin the whole scene for everyone else. And if he's being creative and not being a jerk, that actually adds a lot of fun to the scene.Actually Bluff contains the following line which leaves an awful lot of room for GM adjudications:
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
Well, alrighty then.
|
|
This is not disregarding the skill. This is as case of bluff not being adequate, just as diplomacy is often non-functional when the author says "these guys auto fight you to the death". The guard believes the PC, but is likely bound by other rules of the court to not allow naked people in the ball. This is grossly different than arbitrarily negating entire builds.I don't see how disregarding a character's feats, equipment, traits, etc. preserves consistency and ensure's fun for everyone at the table. It's more like you'd be introducing your table to the Live Action version of this thread.@ David Bowles: exactly. If one builds a tiefling (rakshasa blooded) sorcerer (rakshasa bloodline) with beguiling liar alternative racial trait and buys the mask of stoney demeanor, maybe gets skill focus bluff and deceitful and manages to pick up a viper familiar, I will not have him ruin all my NPC interaction with bluff, even though the circumstancial modifier for telling an impossible lie is only -20. I will find ways to preserve the consistency of the game and I will find ways that everyone else at the table is still having fun.
For all I know, the player could simply say: I use bluff to get cross the guard naked. I don't know a good excuse, but my character does, as he has bluff +36 and the guard has a sense motive of only +3. In that case (and if the player doesn't accept loopholes e.g. the guard offers you some clothes before letting you in) I will not let him get through with it.
By this argument then, you would have no issue with an intimidate check to make the target act friendly to the PC auto fail if the tactics block reads "these guys auto fight you to the death", correct?
This would be another reason to know the scenario the OP was running in.
|
|
@Conman: So, I have 4 players who want to play a marriage. And I have one player that wants to be a jerk because his selection of feats, traits and equipment allows him to do so by RAW. Your solution would be to let him and let him ruin the experience for everyone. My solution would be not to let him, so that 5 out of 6 people have a good time.
Being a jerk isn't limited to any particular feat tree or skill selection.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Both point of views can be justified using the campaign guideline.
And this is my issue. The guide says you have the right to adjudicate the rules for the sake of fun but it also expressly says that you are not allowed to change them. Changing the rules and adjudicating them are not the same thing.
HOWEVER, based on andreww's quote above, this particular instance is a case of adjudication and not a case of changing the rules as I had originally believed it was.
I do, however, still contend that PFS GMs do not actually have the right to change the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not disregarding the skill. This is as case of bluff not being adequate, just as diplomacy is often non-functional when the author says "these guys auto fight you to the death". The guard believes the PC, but is likely bound by other rules of the court to not allow naked people in the ball. This is grossly different than arbitrarily negating entire builds.I don't see how disregarding a character's feats, equipment, traits, etc. preserves consistency and ensure's fun for everyone at the table. It's more like you'd be introducing your table to the Live Action version of this thread.@ David Bowles: exactly. If one builds a tiefling (rakshasa blooded) sorcerer (rakshasa bloodline) with beguiling liar alternative racial trait and buys the mask of stoney demeanor, maybe gets skill focus bluff and deceitful and manages to pick up a viper familiar, I will not have him ruin all my NPC interaction with bluff, even though the circumstancial modifier for telling an impossible lie is only -20. I will find ways to preserve the consistency of the game and I will find ways that everyone else at the table is still having fun.
For all I know, the player could simply say: I use bluff to get cross the guard naked. I don't know a good excuse, but my character does, as he has bluff +36 and the guard has a sense motive of only +3. In that case (and if the player doesn't accept loopholes e.g. the guard offers you some clothes before letting you in) I will not let him get through with it.
By this argument then, you would have no issue with an intimidate check to make the target act friendly to the PC auto fail if the tactics block reads "these guys auto fight you to the death", correct?
This would be another reason to know the scenario the OP was running in.
The word of the author is the real word of the GM in PFS. This is what many GMs forget.
So yeah, if the *author* states that there is no negotiation, you can't use intimidate to get out of the fight. You can, however, still shake them with intimidate for the -2 to hit. Unwillingness to negotiate does not equate to fear immunity.
|
|
I am just getting more and more annoyed.
I'm going to try really hard here, so please, also put forth equal effort.
Originally I was showing how the gm would unconditionally show bias in regards to applying house rules to discriminating races with this skill and other situations. I explained that we personally talked about a specific instance that was also general in application. He would rule just because a demon was a demon that it gets a bonus to their dc against a human using intimidate. This would always happen anytime that this was preformed. If the demon was in outer space, or it was xmas, this bonus would be applied, because it's a demon.
Moving on. It was discussed with complete transparency exactly what the gm did with the demon in the scenario. I told this as well, and I explained what was considered. Regardless if the published rules said that other factors applied, the gm said he didn't use them if it was he chose not to, or they don't exist, or he overlooked them, I don't know that. So, we again make up a hypothetical where we take the game and do different things, and he tells me what happens. Always gets the bonus, and I'm unable to threaten unless I literally put a knife to the monsters throat, or otherwise I couldn't even get the check. There is a little bit of stuff I left out because I didn't want to go into that.
So, people for some reason think I initially was on the matter with the exact published game and his ruling at the time. It matters that he did it didn't do things wrong in that situation, but I'm focused on his decision making as a whole. I provided all the necessary information that was needed to accomplish this, and other things that were mentioned so far that I didn't give notice of being a factor or not don't matter.
People dismissing me with "I don't know what else to say", and telling me that I have my mind made up and won't ever change it does not make me feel very good, and I don't understand where someone thinks that's reasonably a respectful way to communicate.
I wrote Mark personally on somethings, and he did not respond, so those are unresolved matters. I hope this finally gives clarity to everyone, and for this issue to stop!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
People dismissing me with "I don't know what else to say", and telling me that I have my mind made up and won't ever change it...
I have tried, as best I can, to explain to you (as have others) that there my be other factors. You insist that there aren't, but we posed questions to which you haven't responded - you just tell us that it isn't important. Well, that information is important to some of us, because we think that there may be something relavent in there.
As for my, "I don't know what else to say" comment: I made that comment because, no matter what anyone has said to you, no matter how diplomatic and impersonal people have tried to (and by impersonal, I mean focusing on the issue and not you), nothing in your positions or postings seems to acknowledge even reasonable things they have been asking or whatever. So, telling you "I don't know what else to say" is my way of saving, "I've tried everything I can and it doesn't seem to make a bit of difference, so I don't know what else to say." It wasn't meant as an insult, and shouldn't be taken as one - this conversation has gotten me to the point where I have just given up trying to explain my position to you.
And I don't know what questions you asked me that I haven't answered, or what unresolved matters remain, but I assure you there isn't anything personal or whatever - but it's clear, at least to me, that *I* cannot continue this discussion with you because, for whatever reasons there are, neither you nor I are going to understand one another and, for the good of everyone else here, we should just move on.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
" He would rule just because a demon was a demon that it gets a bonus to their dc against a human using intimidate."
If there is no RAW mechanic to allow this, this is illegal in PFS. The GM may not arbitrarily adjust DCs by fiat.
I have to disagree with this. To do so I will site another Charisma- based skill, Handle Animal. Specifically the following quote:
Special: You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do.
Here we have a case of the rules specifically stating that a particular Charisma-based skill has a higher DC for no other reason than the creature the skill is being used on is different from those it is typically use on. So there is a precedent in the rules. To me this means it is perfectly reasonable to give a penalty to Charisma-based skill checks for dealing with creatures whose culture is substantially different from your own (like a demon). It might also be reasonable to allow a Knowledge (planes) check to reduce this penalty.
|
|
...but the decision had absolutely no bearing in regard to any other factor. How is this unclear? How else do I express this to be understood? If I buy a hit dog at the store, it doesn't matter how many gorillas have been throw out of an airplane in Africa into a giant hoolahoop. You have all information needed, which was the issue that was argued against me saying I did not.
Why is this happening?!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
" He would rule just because a demon was a demon that it gets a bonus to their dc against a human using intimidate."
If there is no RAW mechanic to allow this, this is illegal in PFS. The GM may not arbitrarily adjust DCs by fiat.
Other than, perhaps, the GM's friend (the +2/-2 bonus/penalty) due to circumstances or the situation or whatever (though, technically, that's an adjustment to the die roll, not the DC.) But, as a player, I would at least ask for the reason for the adjustment, as opposed to just being told there is an adjusment.
|
|
I would just like to point out that this is pretty terrible railroading adventure writing which, especially at high tiers, fails utterly to take into account the abilities which PC's actually bring to the table.The word of the author is the real word of the GM in PFS. This is what many GMs forget.
So yeah, if the *author* states that there is no negotiation, you can't use intimidate to get out of the fight. You can, however, still shake them with intimidate for the -2 to hit. Unwillingness to negotiate does not equate to fear immunity.
Then maybe they should leave out the "auto-fight" clause of the encounters at that tier. All the author has to put in is "use GM discretion at this juncture". But for PFS, that needs to be there or it is run-as-written.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, but if you come to a guard who has been told by his demon master, "don't let anyone in!" then it is completely appropriate that they will fight you, no matter how you sweet-talk them or what you roll. Here's why:
The Diplomacy skill rules-as-written do not factor in LOYALTY or FREE WILL.
The rules basically assume that an individual is nothing more than a reactive idiot, willing to change his mind at the drop of a hat based on whoever is talking to them at that moment. This is a simplified way of modelling a complicated social interaction, and frankly it is that way because there is usually more fighting than talking in adventures. The system works fine unless you take it to the extreme - then you get silly results like panicking balors with one roll. Same with the high-AC monkey, or the magic missile mage, or any one of a dozen other builds that, while legal, and not appropriate for PFS.
By RAW, and extrapolating the way the OP is, I should be able to use the Diplomacy (or Intimidate) rules to convince a paladin to foresake his oaths just by talking to him for a minute. In fact, I should be able to cause alignment changes at will. I should be able to scare someone into breaking their oaths to their king, country, god or employer and have them defect en masse to my side.
It should be clear that this sort of result is not appropriate for an organized play campaign. If it is not clear (and after 400 posts, it seems to be not clear to several people), then we will have to agree to disagree.
Also, I note that PC's don't have to follow the results of an NPC who has a +20 Diplomacy, for example. Why? Because the PC gets to decide for themselves where their loyalties lie.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rapanuii, I think you are wasting time and energy at this point. My suggestion would be to stop spinning wheels here and take your GM out to lunch. Have a friendly conversation using what little you have gleaned here, and politely ask him to reconsider his ruling.
If he does, great, because only he can give you what you are trying to drag out of this community (it is painfully obvious no one here can give you what you are asking for). If he doesn't, elevate it to the VC, or bite the bullet and move on. Those really are your choices, even if you don't like them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Are people just missing the fact that I explicitly and repeatedly stated that we had after the game a fully transparent conversation? What is the issue?
Well, let's boil this down to a very simple question.
Do you think that successfully doing what your character attempted to do would have diminished the fun for everyone else at the table?
|
|
Michael, things were addressed that I indeed did move on like a page or two ago.
TrollBill, absolutely not. As described, the monster was helpless and I could have talked to him for hours and whatever I wanted. I could get in the first attack even. If I attacked the creature, then I would have hurt the game, but then again, you are there to rp, and if you kill demons, then you kill demons.
Anyways, the demon specifically said he knew secrets. That to me is time to figure out a way to extract them, and I chose for the very first time in my life to use this skill. Dm said roll, and when later he admitted I passed by raw, I failed by his +I or more that he added just because.
To answer your question bluntly, no it wouldn't have hurt anything, but rather would have made the table WAAAY better. My results on my roll got people excited, then I'm told I failed. It was a bummer for others as well as me.
This dude isn't trying to cheat or be a jerk, but rather he honestly feels so strongly that he's right to modify things and that he needs to protect this demon. He is telling me in a way to break my character to auto succeed with intimidate and hurt the game for others, or never use this skill. This creates munchkins or makes players leave pfs.
|
Bnw, the specifics of what happened in game don't matter when the gm says under any circumstance that the demon would unconditionally always react the same. You don't need to know about not able to intimidate rule, or the scenario. I provided what is needed for people to understand the situation, and the situation is not limited to the factors you're saying I didn't provide, understand?
Edited
OK - so lets say some people agree the GM violated the rules (others have withheld judgement because information lacking apparently has been defined by you as fluff to the situation and non-fluff by them).
Why are you still pounding this?
Given the GM is violating the rule (I'm not saying I agree, just that given it true look at options) - your options remain the same as they were 250+ posts ago.
1) Report him/her to a higher authority (which you don't want to do; but it is the way you are supposed to do it - possibly nothing will happen about it or possibly the person stops GMing)
2) Continue to play with GM either with the same character or a different one
3) Don't play with the GM.
What the myriad of us say or don't say doesn't matter if he/she knows you have pointed out the rule and he/she doesn't care about it.
If everything about the GM is something you like, I suggest living with it. It is a small part of the social event that this gaming is, and if you have a GM you otherwise like, why kill off the situation for a nit.
|
At this point the general consensus is your questions and your follow up questions have been answered.
However, also at this point, some 300 posts later I am still not sure what you are looking for by continuing this discussion. All that's happening is new people joining this thread repeating what's already been said.
So since I unfortunately feel it necessary to ask you, what is it you are still looking for in this thread? If we can get a single one sentence question it might help new comers understand why this thread has stuck around for so long.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
To answer your question bluntly, no it wouldn't have hurt anything, but rather would have made the table WAAAY better. My results on my roll got people excited, then I'm told I failed. It was a bummer for others as well as me.
This dude isn't trying to cheat or be a jerk, but rather he honestly feels so strongly that he's right to modify things and that he needs to protect this demon. He is telling me in a way to break my character to auto succeed with intimidate and hurt the game for others, or never use this skill. This creates munchkins or makes players leave pfs.
Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that the GM made this ruling for the sake of fun. If that is the case then it seems there is a miscommunication about fun at the table that should be worked out with a good old fashioned sit down with the GM. Just remember that it is everyone's fun we are talking about, not just one player's and not just the GM.
At this point I am in agreement with everyone else that there is nothing more to be gained on this thread. It is time to get offline and deal with the situation in real life.
|
|
Troll Bill, it was already sat down with, and I mailed last night, and in moments I'm seeing him again.
I like a few pages ago wrote how I done with the main focus of the thread, and then I participated in other aspects of the thread.
People aren't reading the entire thread, and when people write misinformed things, then others who don't read just read misinformed things, and it just exponentially gets worse.
Bill I did find you helpful, so thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer your question bluntly, no it wouldn't have hurt anything, but rather would have made the table WAAAY better. My results on my roll got people excited, then I'm told I failed. It was a bummer for others as well as me.
This dude isn't trying to cheat or be a jerk, but rather he honestly feels so strongly that he's right to modify things and that he needs to protect this demon. He is telling me in a way to break my character to auto succeed with intimidate and hurt the game for others, or never use this skill. This creates munchkins or makes players leave pfs.
Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that the GM made this ruling for the sake of fun. If that is the case then it seems there is a miscommunication about fun at the table that should be worked out with a good old fashioned sit down with the GM. Just remember that it is everyone's fun we are talking about, not just one player's and not just the GM.
At this point I am in agreement with everyone else that there is nothing more to be gained on this thread. It is time to get offline and deal with the situation in real life.
The miscommunication is people reading into the OP what isn't there and making straw men arguments about social skills. None of which come close to the question asked by the OP. Now folks, like yourself, have decided that the reactionaries in this thread MUST have had the right of it and are jumping on the band wagon griping at the OP.
The OP has repeatedly addressed this level of gross and willful misreading of his posts and has very politely told those folks he is getting annoyed and to cut it out, several times.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Troll Bill, it was already sat down with, and I mailed last night, and in moments I'm seeing him again.
I like a few pages ago wrote how I done with the main focus of the thread, and then I participated in other aspects of the thread.
People aren't reading the entire thread, and when people write misinformed things, then others who don't read just read misinformed things, and it just exponentially gets worse.
Bill I did find you helpful, so thank you.
SUCCESSFUL DIPLOMACY CHECK!
The miscommunication is people reading into the OP what isn't there and making straw men arguments about social skills. None of which come close to the question asked by the OP. Now folks, like yourself, have decided that the reactionaries in this thread MUST have had the right of it and are jumping on the band wagon griping at the OP.
The OP has repeatedly addressed this level of gross and willful misreading of his posts and has very politely told those folks he is getting annoyed and to cut it out, several times.
FAILED DIPLOMACY CHECK!
|
|
I just need to point something out. I have many times have had people seemingly just ignore what I was saying, not bother to read the entire thread, intentionally been difficult, or selectively reading.
I was quite busy with much today, and I see that someone believes that my position of the skill as a whole is that if I intimidate someone, I can make them go against sacred oaths that they have made. I have absolutely no idea where in the entirety of this thread, nor even outside of it that I have done anything to give off this impression. The skill states pretty much in the skill that you shift their attitude in another direction. If someone thinks that because the initial attitude is friendly on a published game they're GMing that a PC can go and tell him to kill himself, or his entire family because of how friendly they are with the PC, then they clearly have issues. For intimidate the target acts submissive, and does certain reasonable things within the confines of the skills bounds.
I read an explanation for someone to feel justified to say rude and ridiculous things to me. Writing in absolutes that are clearly exaggerated, I'm told that I have been completely unreasonable, and also lacked to give people necessary information. The information that I feel is irrelevant, and have explained why multiple times within this thread was even given at a later time within this thread. If someone just read what I wrote in its entirety, and even another person who gave a specific link to how to obtain all the specifics of all the irrelevant information, then they wouldn't be posting things that make them look like a complete fool.
When I am talking about something that is objective, I am talking about something that is absolutely factual, and when I apply that to let's say the basis of discussing a rule in this game, I am not talking about the subjective elements of it. Weapon focus gives a +1 bonus, and I can objectively say the feat in some way shape or form gives a bonus of +1. It is not impossible to have objective things within this game, which I don't see why anyone would really think otherwise.
My GM blantly told me he does not care about the rules in general, or in PFS. The table is his, and he will do whatever he wants at his table. However, as mentioned he is willing to have the mediated talk, and it's not 100% on how he will deal with it, but I believe I am to expect demoralize to work, which is great because the build I have been going on relies on it being a thing.
Throughout this thread I've lost respect for some, and I've gained respect for some others. I will take this also as a learning experience on how to deal with others on the boards, and try and be more tolerant with those who are the reason everyone I know (but like 2 people) refuses to post on these boards. Someone doesn't decide to read things properly, and they post something that makes no sense, or unfair, then the next person who only wants to read the last 2 posts on the thread just assumes everything written is true and continues the madness and rudeness.
I'd love to debate and discuss specific matters on the skill and such, but this to me doesn't seem like the appropriate place to do so for obvious reasons.
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the OP has stated that he has worked out his issue with the GM in question, I believe this thread should be locked as there is nothing more to be gained by further posts.
On another note, I am saddened that this issue has caused a member of our community to become hesitant about coming here in the future for advice or other questions. Unless I am wrong, each of us who plays PFS is not only a part of their local communities but they are also a part of the global PFS community here in these forums. I know that now and in the future, I will read an entire thread before I post any response to insure I have all the facts (yes, I read this entire thread before posting this response). It is my hope that, as stated below the response box, we can keep these boards fun and friendly moving forward.
Thank you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Left-field question for the OP:
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
He said we could talk with another person to mediate in the future, and demoralize will not be subjected now to these things. I'm pretty satisfied.
I hate to prolong this thread, and I am glad you and your GM have worked this out, but in your orginal post you stated:
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.
Your initial post at the very beginning of this thread was not about the demoralize option, but rather about the ability of the skill to alter, adjust, or influence the attitude of the target. But now, towards the end of the thread, you posting above suggests that you are happy with the outcome because the demoralizng option won't be subjected to the incorrect ruling he made that the table.
I now cannot tell which of the portions of Intimidate were at issue, because for all of the thread, I was pretty clear it was the influence atttiude option, but your later post makes it seem like it was about the demoralize option, and I am just trying to understand which one it was.
|
|
Mark, I made multiple examples of things that happened in my original post, one of which was about the demoralize option. That instance specifically wasn't about the option, and was specific to the attitude. I had already explained that the gm transparently explained after the game that his decision making wasn't affected by anything else beyond what we discussed. I specifically asked about things like "cannot be intimidated" and he said nothing else influenced his decision, and he ruled it that way because of his subjective view on the game.
So, he was applying his subjective views to EVERYTHING in relation to intimidate and increasing the dc.
Can't you see why I am so frustrated with you and others? I have directly explained to you these things, and you still write that I didn't do things absolute, when I indeed did. Why should the boards be this way? Moderate people who can't responsibly use the boards maybe and you won't have emotional cry babies like me perhaps?
Edit
Not to be an insult to the moderators
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
I'm not sure why you refer to absolutes.
I was asking about what, to me, seemed like two different points - that the discussion. Started out as one thing, but then is resolved as somethjng else.
And for the record, I didn't call you a cry baby, nor did I suggest that you not post here, not did I say anything about you personally, beyond that you had made up your mind and that it *seemed* that you just wanted to argue. You even thanked me for saying it seemed that way, not that it was that way.
I did acknowledge that I had conflated your original post with something you didn't say.
I don't know where you've gotten the other stuff,so no, I don't understand why you are frustrated or whatever with me.
I have TRIED to understand your point, and that's why I asked I'm my latest post about the differences.
You've gotten a favorable outcome from your GM. This thread just ought to be closed and, frankly, I probably shouldn't have even asked.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |