So our party just approached a fort that we had heard was in some trouble. Once we got within firing range of the fort, however, the occupants open fired at us with their crossbows.
They didn't appear to have any real ability to hurt us (protection from arrows and other precast buffs saw to that), so we calmly continued our approach hoping that our brazen fearlessness might cow the shooters. We also yelled things like "How dare you assault the leaders of your peaceful neighbor, Caerulus!? We have come to treat with Maegar Varn of the Varnling Host, not to make war upon Varnhold!"
I made an Intimidate check to get them to stop firing at us and to open up a dialogue, getting a whopping 34.
The GM informed me that getting them to stop firing at us with Intimidate would take an entire minute, a minute in which they would continue attacking us. Additionally, it would only work against ONE crossbowman.
I know the rule, but I'm left to wonder how this makes any sense at all. Seems like with such a rule you would never get to change anyone's behavior with intimidate unless they were already your prisoner ripe and ready for interrogation.
I made an Intimidate check to get them to stop firing at us and to open up a dialogue, getting a whopping 34.
The GM informed me that getting them to stop firing at us with Intimidate would take an entire minute, a minute in which they would continue attacking us. Additionally, it would only work against ONE crossbowman.
Hahahahahaha...hahahahaha!
Oh well the GM is technically correct, but this is why I treat social interactions as something that's more vague and open to interpretation as opposed to a series of dice rolls and numbers.
Personally, I certainly would have had the crossbowmen stop at least long enough to question you, partly because if they're shooting a peaceful neighbor they're in the wrong (not sure how truthful that bit was, maybe a bluff check?) but also because you guys just ignored a volley of bolts (which would make it seem like you're out of their league).
But yeah, as far as a very strict reading of RAW there is technically nothing the GM did wrong. The social skills can be a mess if the person in charge of them is a rules lawyer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the broken social rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really asking if the GM was in the wrong (we all know he technically isn't). More like asking if the rule itself is wrong. It just doesn't make much sense as written.
It shouldn't take a bank robber with an AK and an obvious mean streak a mile wide a full minute to get everyone in the bank to lay down on the floor and the guard to give up his pea shooter.
Not really asking if the GM was in the wrong (we all know he technically isn't). More like asking if the rule itself is wrong. It just doesn't make much sense as written.
It shouldn't take a bank robber with an AK and an obvious mean streak a mile wide a full minute to get everyone in the bank to lay down on the floor and the guard to give up his pea shooter.
The rules have always been that broken. That is why every group I have ever gamed with ignores them in favor of free form. I think it is more a case where no one ever really complained because everyone just knew they were broken and house ruled away, so they have never been fixed in the editions.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really asking if the GM was in the wrong (we all know he technically isn't). More like asking if the rule itself is wrong. It just doesn't make much sense as written.
I think you mean "bad", not "wrong". There is not some self-existent game out there that the rulebook is capable of failing to accurately describe, like poets attempting to convey the infinite mysteries of love through the poor mortal thing called "language". No, the rules are the definition, and are therefore literally incapable of being "wrong", because there's no more-objective standard against which to compare them.
What they can be is "bad" (or more helpfully, any number of far more specific things, like "over-codified", "inflexible", and so forth).
With that in mind, this thread should not be in the Rules Questions forum, since you clearly know exactly how the rules work and don't have any questions on that point. Either you're asking for suggestions on how to do it differently for more fun (in which case this should be in Suggestions/Houserules/Homebrew), or you just needed to vent about the silliness (in which case Pathfinder RPG General Discussion is the place to be), or maybe you'd even like ideas on how to convince your GM to be less of a stickler on this point (Advice is your forum for that).
So the important question is, what do you actually want out of this thread?
Sounds like you essentially wanted to pull a Lord Humungus on them. Since you can't just show up and physically intimidate them while they are safe up on the castle walls, you need to explain why they should be intimidated, and that takes more then just 6 seconds. There is also the fact that the peon manning the wall is not in the position to call a cease fire. Until a commanding officer gives the order, he does what he is required to do.
It sounds like you were going for a diplomacy or bluff anyway, as your statement didn't end with, "or I'm goingf@@~enkillyou!"
It shouldn't take a bank robber with an AK and an obvious mean streak a mile wide a full minute to get everyone in the bank to lay down on the floor and the guard to give up his pea shooter.
It doesn't. Not everything in the game requires a roll of the dice, nor should a roll of the dice create a bizarre situation.
If you know the rule, then you are in the wrong forum. It isn't a rules question.
That said, I don't disagree with the rule with some provisos. If you want you social skills to work more or less like mind control (making someone friendly for a while) then yes, it taking a minute is perfectly reasonable.
That isn't all that social skills can do, it is just all that is codified. There are lots of ways to be scary, and lots of things that people will do in response to being scared that aren't nearly as comprehensive or powerful as acting as a friend for a while. Their aren't hard numbers for them, but a reasonable GM should make reasonable calls based upon what is being asked, the situation, and yes, the skill of the person doing the asking.
In your bank robber example, the robber isn't making those people act like allies for a while by waving a gun at them. He is simply giving the a choice and presenting some obvious effects to their choices. And for the most part, he isn't really using an intimidate skill. Even someone who isn't terribly scary is worth obeying when they have a gun pointed at you.
Intimidate to change an attitude really has nothing to do with direct threats of violence, it is being so scary that even when you leave the room, even when they are totally safe, they will still do what you asked (up until the duration of course).
I agree. This situation doesn't immediately call for a skill check. You can just say what you want to say and either they'll stop trying to kill you or they won't.
That is exactly what social skill checks are for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. This situation doesn't immediately call for a skill check. You can just say what you want to say and either they'll stop trying to kill you or they won't.That is exactly what social skill checks are for.
No it isn't. Social skills are used to get people to behave in ways they normally wouldn't.
They aren't (or at least the roll vs DC parts aren't) for dealing with people in ways that they normally would. You don't need diplomacy to convince a shopkeeper to sell you an apple, you don't need intimidate for him to give you change and you don't need bluff to convince him that your absolutely genuine money has value.
It shouldn't take a bank robber with an AK and an obvious mean streak a mile wide a full minute to get everyone in the bank to lay down on the floor and the guard to give up his pea shooter.
More precisely it takes one full minute per person to persuade each customer in the bank in turn to lie down. Assuming he succeeds on his check.
If the bank is crowded, the effect might start wearing off on the first batch of people before he's finished.
Intimidate may not be the skill you want to use on a group of people pointing weapons at you.
I applaud the DM's use of rules lawyering to get the realistic result of picking the absolute wrong social skill.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I agree. This situation doesn't immediately call for a skill check. You can just say what you want to say and either they'll stop trying to kill you or they won't.That is exactly what social skill checks are for.No it isn't. Social skills are used to get people to behave in ways they normally wouldn't.
They aren't (or at least the roll vs DC parts aren't) for dealing with people in ways that they normally would. You don't need diplomacy to convince a shopkeeper to sell you an apple, you don't need intimidate for him to give you change and you don't need bluff to convince him that your absolutely genuine money has value.
I share your design aesthetic on that point, but unfortunately, Pathfinder does not.
Do you realize that the Diplomacy rules literally go so far as to codify asking people for directions? I kid you not, the first entry in the table listing modifiers to the "Request" DC is for asking directions. When you look it up and do the math, asking some random indifferent stranger how to get to City Hall actually requires a Diplomacy check at a DC of 10 plus the stranger's CHA modifier. It's not until they have an attitude of "Helpful" (the "best" attitude) that you reach the point where "the creature gives in to most requests without a check". An indifferent, or even friendly dude on the street? Sorry, Pathfinder says you actually need to use Diplomacy's "request" function to get him to tell you how to get to Sesame Street. Oh, and since the DC includes their CHAmod, make sure you don't ask a hottie for directions, since they're more likely to inexplicably snub you.
That is (in Pathfinder) how the social skills work. Maybe not quite as extreme as your shopkeeper example, but closer than I think you realize (and certainly closer than I prefer).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy: if you try asking for directions in new york city the pathfinder rules are overly easy if anything :)
Honestly, I'm glad it works that way. One of the few defences against a mundane diplomancer is that you can hit him with pointy things until he stops talking. If you could force anyone to stop being hostile with a single round Intimidate or Diplomacy check, that'd be even more unstoppable.
But Intimidate is still useful to change the attitude of anyone who's not already fighting you or willing to start at the drop of a hat. It's perfectly good out of combat.
That said, I'd also be happy to handwave situations like this. I just don't want hard rules saying "I rolled a 47. The BBEG is now non-hostile and stops killing Bob."
That isnt going to happen anyway. The BBEG is not going to stop killing you because your charming when you are clearly trying to kill him.
Do you realize that the Diplomacy rules literally go so far as to codify asking people for directions? I kid you not, the first entry in the table listing modifiers to the "Request" DC is for asking directions. When you look it up and do the math, asking some random indifferent stranger how to get to City Hall actually requires a Diplomacy check at a DC of 10 plus the stranger's CHA modifier.
In many major cities, getting someone to stop long enough to listen to your question is probably a 50/50 proposition. Usually it isn't hard to find someone who is willing to help, but if you just ask a random person walking down the street, they are literally just as likely to ignore you completely as give you the time of day.
But really, the rules are there to help you tell a story. If the rules don't work for a given situation (sneaking up behind someone for example) then you modify or dispense with them completely. Based on everything I have read in the rule books, on the message boards, APs, etc., that is the way the game was intended to be played!
The GM informed me that getting them to stop firing at us with Intimidate would take an entire minute, a minute in which they would continue attacking us. Additionally, it would only work against ONE crossbowman.
Wow I didn't realize it would only work on ONE crossbow man. Thanks for mentioning it!
I've always assumed it takes 1 minute to resolve not 1 minute to activate. Also don't they have to stop shooting to hear what you have to say?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you mean "bad", not "wrong". There is not some self-existent game out there that the rulebook is capable of failing to accurately describe, like poets attempting to convey the infinite mysteries of love through the poor mortal thing called "language". No, the rules are the definition, and are therefore literally incapable of being "wrong", because there's no more-objective standard against which to compare them.
What they can be is "bad" (or more helpfully, any number of far more specific things, like "over-codified", "inflexible", and so forth).
With that in mind, this thread should not be in the Rules Questions forum, since you clearly know exactly how the rules work and don't have any questions on that point.
...
So the important question is, what do you actually want out of this thread?
I believe that this is a rules question, and the real question is, "It is possible to Intimidate a hostile subject in a way that is neither changing an attitude or demoralizing?"
If my character wants to swing from the chandelier, that is an Acrobatics check, right? But the Acrobatics description does not mention swinging.
If my character wants tie up a captured person, that is a Survival check, right, since Pathfinder dropped the D&D Use Rope skill? But the Survival description does not mention rope.
If my character wants to disguise a stolen wand as an umbrella, that is a Disguise check, right? But the Disguise description does not mention disguising objects.
But really, the rules are there to help you tell a story. If the rules don't work for a given situation (sneaking up behind someone for example) then you modify or dispense with them completely. Based on everything I have read in the rule books, on the message boards, APs, etc., that is the way the game was intended to be played!
As a GM, if a player tells me that his character wants to do something that might fail, and that something is neither an attack or a combat maneuver, then I tell him which skill check to roll. It is no fun to say, no, Pathfinder does not have any rules for sledding, so even though you found a toboggan and the hill is covered with snow, you can't use the toboggan.
Ravingdork's character wanted to intimidate the archers so that they would stop shooting out of fear. That is more a demoralization rather than an attitude change, because they would still be hostile if he succeeded. But it is not even a demoralization, because he did not want them shaken. He wanted them to reconsider a tactic that both parties would come to regret. Changing a tactic is not the same as changing an attitude. A wizard could have stopped them from shooting via a Wall of Force without changing their attitude.
Pathfinder has no rule for getting this effect from intimidation (small i intimidation, but it almost certainly would involve an intimidation check) just like it has no rule for swinging on a chandelier. The GM could have said, sorry, but I don't see a rule that allows that and I don't want to improvise such a rule. That would be within the rules to do so. Or the GM could have said that mass intimidation requires the Dazzling Display feat. Or the GM could have improvised a rule; for example, each archer makes an opposed Sense Motive roll, and would stop shooting for one round, plus one additional round for every five they failed by.
Instead, the GM decided that an intimidation by displaying prowess to discourage tactics is the same as an intimidation by verbal threats to change attitude. He changed the goal of the skill check to a more difficult goal than Ravingdork's character had attempted. Imagine if Ravingdork had played along with his GM's idea and said, okay, the archer I intimidate is that guy giving orders. I display my prowess and my steely resolve for a minute until that commander is friendly. I ask him to come down, open the gate, and talk to me face-to-face. But since Ravingdork had wanted a more modest result, he did not take full advantage of the result given to him.
Perhaps one day this GM will decided that trying to swing from a chandelier across the room is the same as trying to jump across the room without the chandelier, and Ravingdork will protest, "But swinging from the chandelier is a classic stunt! My character does not want to simply jump."
EDIT: Oops, I was wrong about a Survival check to tie a prisoner. The Escape Artist skill says that the difficulty to escape a rope is a fixed number, CMB + 20.
Wow I didn't realize it would only work on ONE crossbow man. Thanks for mentioning it!
The GM informed me that getting them to stop firing at us with Intimidate would take an entire minute, a minute in which they would continue attacking us. Additionally, it would only work against ONE crossbowman.
I hope you're reading the rest of the thread, Game Master. It would appear the rules are broken as written.
I thought there was a -20 Dip check to do just this.
As has been said earlier
"One of the few defences against a mundane diplomancer is that you can hit him with pointy things until he stops talking."
If I am not allowed that then what challenge can I possibly provide? The rules as you say are broken, but you are not shy about using them how can I do otherwise, but return the favor?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my character wants tie up a captured person, that is a Survival check, right, since Pathfinder dropped the D&D Use Rope skill? But the Survival description does not mention rope.
...
*Ashamed sigh*
No, it's...it's not. It's actually...well, it's your grapple check.
Yes, I know.
Yes. I know.
Yes, that does mean rogues have no idea how knots work. Yes, it does mean that a hill giant is a better Boy Scout than an actual ranger. Yes. We're very sorry.
Like I said, it was a pretty stringent adherence to the rules as written.
Both my GMs are pretty committed to it, sadly. I've made two attempts in PbPs at preempting a combat. Each time: "Sorry, they aren't going to wait." And these weren't "I won initiative, Diplomacy check!" situations. These were clear, "These guys are planning to attack us, let's make them not want to before combat starts"
I've always assumed it takes 1 minute to resolve not 1 minute to activate. Also don't they have to stop shooting to hear what you have to say?Maybe, but they don't have to stop shooting if they don't want to listen.
And regardless of whether it's 1 minute to activate or to resolve, they're still hostile and thus still can be attacking until it resolves.
I think the way I would rule it would be first to evaluate whether the attempt is an auto fail or not.
If an auto fail then the archers keep firing. Otherwise hostilities cease to allow for the one minute of conversation necessary to make the intimidate check. Then depending on the die roll the intimidate check either works or it doesn't. An intimidate check when already in combat should have a substantial circumstance penalty. A diplomacy check makes more sense as others have already stated. As far as intimidating a group, I am fine with the PCs intimidating the leader and then the leader dictating terms. Separate checks for every combatant seems silly.
I do think diplomacy , bluff and intimidate are all necessary skills , with that said , usually i see them house ruled , not played by RAW.
The DCs , how they work... it is all much more situational and the GM sometimes favors the players , sometimes he doesnt , to me this is a far better system but it mostly depends on the GM and player having a good agreement of to use the skills.
I think the way I would rule it would be first to evaluate whether the attempt is an auto fail or not.
Unfortunately unlike bluff. Intimidate does not have nice lines like "Some checks always fail". And I really hate house-ruling against the players.
Also Ravingdork's character has the feats Orator and Skill Focus (linguistics) along with raiment of command means that it will pass all reasonable (or even fairly unreasonable) social checks on a one (31). Therefore all social check come down to a binary solution set. If a check alone is enough he passes. If it is not he does not. All checks are ether auto succeed or auto failure.
I suppose that I could argue that raiment of command does not apply to Linguistics checks, but that seems mean-spirited.
To your point I would make auto fail rare and only for good reason.
To your point I would make auto fail rare and only for good reason.
Yes and so I take advantage of the fact that it take a minute - a whole 10 rounds - to turn someones mind inside out. I have never done an auto-fail.
I am not sure I understand your meaning.
Are you saying that is why you allow ten rounds of combat against the PCs while they try to intimidate? Can the PCs fight back during this time?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also Ravingdork's character has the feats Orator and Skill Focus (linguistics) along with raiment of command means that it will pass all reasonable (or even fairly unreasonable) social checks on a one (31). Therefore all social check come down to a binary solution set. If a check alone is enough he passes. If it is not he does not. All checks are ether auto succeed or auto failure.
Ah, I had misunderstood the situation at the gates of Varnhold. Ravingdork had said that the arrows did not harm them, and "calmly continued our approach hoping that our brazen fearlessness might cow the shooters." Intimidate says it works through verbal threats or displays of prowess. Brazen fearlessness sounded like a display of prowess.
If Ravingdork was using the Orator feat to make an Intimidate check with his Linguistics bonus, then he was persuading the guards verbally, finding the right words to sway them. Therefore, it would take a minute.
I admit that I am reading more into the Intimidate rules than is actually written, but I feel that "verbal threats" take a minute and "display of prowess" takes a standard action.
Unfortunately unlike bluff. Intimidate does not have nice lines like "Some checks always fail". And I really hate house-ruling against the players.
But the Intimidate description does say, "If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance." So those hostile archers at the walls of Varnhold would not let the strangers enter the fort, because they would believe that that action would endanger them. And limited assistance means the GM sets the limit to how much success yields cooperation.
For example, suppose Ravingdork's orator spends a minute intimidating the commander of Varnhold with his linguistic skill.
Commander: Bowmen, cease your volley!
Orator: Now do you believe me?
Commander: You have impressed me that you are a lord that none dare oppose, but what am I to believe?
Orator: That we are friends.
Commander: But if you are friends, then why have you been attacking us for the last three days (substitute whatever reason the people of Varnhold had for extreme hostility to strangers)?
Orator: That wasn't us.
GM: Okay, take another minute for a Diplomacy roll to persuade him that you tell the truth.
Ravingdork: I tell him how we heard of his fort's plight. I roll 39.
Commander: I do believe that you are friends, but I am under strict orders to let only Varnholders enter. Please depart before I am required to loose another volley upon you.
Orator: I wish to speak to him who gave you those orders.
Commander: Maegar Varn rides out on a mission, ... (insert plot hook)
Note that the limited assistance had a plausible justification, that the commander gave the requested information, but he did not open the gates to Ravingdork's party.
That is an interesting question. Does intimidating take up all your actions? I think it should otherwise and fights that last more then 10 rounds are auto-wins for the players. (not that many fights last that long, but still some things like hit and run tactics).
However in this case that RD is talking about they are intimidating a fort from 180 feet away.
That is an interesting question. Does intimidating take up all your actions? I think it should otherwise and fights that last more then 10 rounds are auto-wins for the players. (not that many fights last that long, but still some things like hit and run tactics).
However in this case that RD is talking about they are intimidating a fort from 180 feet away.
The intimidate rules specify one minute of conversation. The way I rule is that conversation happens outside of combat.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Round 1: "Excuse me!" *Duck*
Round 2: "Have you considered—" *Dodge*
Round 3: "—that maybe violence—" *Parry*
Round 4: "—is a futile—" *Swerve*
Round 5: "—endeavor that can only—" *Block*
Round 6: "—end in a tragic cycle—" *Deflect*
Round 7: "—of self-perpetuating hatred—" *Dodge*
"Hurry, men! He's more than halfway through the PC Mind Control Ritual! Gods help us if he completes it!"
Hah, nice one.
Now, this is why my first GM regreted making a dashing engading first encounter. I beat it in one roll cause Kitsune Trickster. And he even told us all he knew about the baddies.
...then everything changed when the unreasonable with Ninjas attacked.
I hope you're reading the rest of the thread, Game Master. It would appear the rules are broken as written.
Wow I didn't realize it would only work on ONE crossbow man. Thanks for mentioning it!
It's less a question of broken or bad and more a question of incomplete. The diplomacy and intimidation skills are written to cover a general type of situation in which there is time to interact. A good GM can adapt based on the situation, using them as a template for how things should occur. Any GM who takes the situation you're describing, requires you to spend a whole minute with the enemy firing at you the whole time just to basically catch his attention and open a parley is probably being a dick and using the rules as cover for his behavior.