|
I'm not sure where I ever gave the impression (indeed I think I was very specific in giving opposite examples) where I'd just shut players down.
in response to a successful check. There's rarely reason to just shut down a players attempt to interact.
The boss so scary guard or lieutenant won't give up info seemed like a shut down to me. I agree with Bill's point that while a DC increase would be reasonable, the idea that a Pathfinder specialized in intimidate could not scare them more seems a bit silly to me.
Also while I agree fearing ultra powerful BBEG's is a bit silly, the Thug archetype does exist.
This is the problem though. GM's don't feel like they have the authority to "deal with" builds that invalidate entire scenarios let alone encounters. Many feel they have to let players do that because they have a legal build.
A good GM, though, will look to how to limit intimidate based on the story and such, without completely invalidating the character.
But the animal that is organized play, and the way that many players approach it, GM's just don't feel comfortable with making those sorts of calls. So it gets written into the scenario so GM's have an official tool to work with.
But really, its all in the presentation of it. Don't ever tell a player (unless they are just beating a dead horse) that it won't work cause the scenario says so. Make it seem like they are doing something, even if it isn't exactly what they want it to be doing.
To the first point, for the most part you do have to let the players play their legal build. Your point implies otherwise.
You should only limit it the slightest degrees you can, it's not your job to babysit or police the PCs, you're making a story together, your job is to keep that story cohesive. And it is a better alternative to have it written in I think.
Agreed.
Just because you say it, and try to be intimidating with it, doesn't mean that the guy is going to believe your story. If he doesn't believe you, it is likely not going to be intimidating.
We can play the oneupmanship game all day. The bottom line is, no matter what your skill is, it does not mean you get to just intimidate anyone you want with impunity just because you have a high score. Game mechanics-wise, this is unrealistic (I'm using the realism button, because you are trying to use it to explain why highly skilled intimidators should just get to do it no matter what,) because Skill DCs don't often scale appropriately with the CR of a challenge. So the static Intimidate DCs allow for intimidating highly inured badguys the same as you would a level 1 commoner.
I don't think a player should need to bluff that their intimidate is going to work, intimidate makes them believe your words because of the intent behind them, although it obviously won't make them believe everything. But regardless of whether or not they fully believe him they fear the threat behind the words.
You also don't get to say their skill doesn't work. You pretty much do get to intimidate anyone with impunity, the rules say so. Their reactions may be vastly different from person to person but you definitely get to do it.
I was going to make this longer but ran out of time, but these are a few ways I disagreed with your points
|
|
The rules don't say so. They actually say the opposite. Read up thread a bit so I don't have to repeat it for the fourth or fifth time.
I'll assume you're referring to
Additionally, Intimidate says that the creature will not endanger themselves and will provide only limited help.
This does not prevent you from intimidating someone. It spells out that it's not mind control. You seem to be contradicting yourself in thread, I've read the whole thing, some of it twice, and it times you seem to agree that you have to give the players something for applying their skill properly, and at other turns you say the guy just won't give them anything and he'd rather die. It's nonsensical to me.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
If all that is being complained about is that people are written to not give any info from being intimidated then I'm not having an issue with this. My understanding was that they were straight up immune to being intimidated (meaning being combat intimidated immune), not that they just gave no info once they were intimidated (means they can still be shaken).I am not aware of any scenario that gives an enemy blanket immunity to in combat intimidate without it being linked to a class ability, racial feature, template or other stat block element.
Certainly I would take the OP's claim of some text about an NPCs position to mean that they were immune to being shaken or worse in combat by use of the skill.
I haven't seen this either. My original complaint had nothing to do with combat intimidate immunity. It was specifically referencing issues where an author decided, for whatever reason, that Intimidate should automatically fail to get the PCs what they want from this one NPC. Almost always, including the example I cited, the PCs can (and are expected to) get what they want using some other social skill. So for those saying it's okay for story reasons, that is a bit of a cop out. It's not like the PCs can't get the info. It's just that the author decided they can't get it with this one social skill. So using Intimidate would not change the story in any major way. It's almost like the author is saying, "I don't like players who use Intimidate to get info instead of Diplomacy or Bluff, so I am going to remove it as an option." Plus 30 Diplomacy? Sure. Plus 30 Bluff? Sure. Plus 30 Intimidate? Nope.
|
I haven't seen this either. My original complaint had nothing to do with combat intimidate immunity. It was specifically referencing issues where an author decided, for whatever reason, that Intimidate should automatically fail to get the PCs what they want from this one NPC. Almost always, including the example I cited, the PCs can (and are expected to) get what they want using some other social skill. So for those saying it's okay for story reasons, that is a bit of a cop out. It's not like the PCs can't get the info. It's just that the author decided they can't get it with this one social skill. So using Intimidate would not change the story in any major way. It's almost like the author is saying, "I don't like players who use Intimidate to get info instead of Diplomacy or Bluff, so I am going to remove it as an option." Plus 30 Diplomacy? Sure. Plus 30 Bluff? Sure. Plus 30 Intimidate? Nope.If all that is being complained about is that people are written to not give any info from being intimidated then I'm not having an issue with this. My understanding was that they were straight up immune to being intimidated (meaning being combat intimidated immune), not that they just gave no info once they were intimidated (means they can still be shaken).I am not aware of any scenario that gives an enemy blanket immunity to in combat intimidate without it being linked to a class ability, racial feature, template or other stat block element.
Certainly I would take the OP's claim of some text about an NPCs position to mean that they were immune to being shaken or worse in combat by use of the skill.
I've stated it many, many times already. But if you are complaining specifically about the example given above for 9-04, then I have to completely disagree.
There is a great story reason built into the character as to why they aren't scared of the PCs. And that's ok.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can actually believe that creatures can use Intimidate without being "scary bad creatures" themselves.
12 year old girl: "Hi! I think I'm lost - do you think you can take a few minutes to help me find my Aunt Abrigail? She's likely to be waiting for me right now..."
Minor Cheliax Government Flunky who is very busy: "So kid, let me see if I understand this correctly. You want me to stop what I'm doing and interrupt my day in order to help you find your way thru the palace? It's not like I have... wait, what did you say your aunts name was? or rather, what's your Aunt's FAMILY name?:
12 year old girl: "Thrune." (Big-Wide-Eyed-"little girl"-Smile)
Yeah - that is going to be one Intimidated Flunky...
Heck, I could believe that creatures can use Intimidate without even noticing that they are using it...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't seen this either. My original complaint had nothing to do with combat intimidate immunity. It was specifically referencing issues where an author decided, for whatever reason, that Intimidate should automatically fail to get the PCs what they want from this one NPC. Almost always, including the example I cited, the PCs can (and are expected to) get what they want using some other social skill. So for those saying it's okay for story reasons, that is a bit of a cop out. It's not like the PCs can't get the info. It's just that the author decided they can't get it with this one social skill. So using Intimidate would not change the story in any major way. It's almost like the author is saying, "I don't like players who use Intimidate to get info instead of Diplomacy or Bluff, so I am going to remove it as an option." Plus 30 Diplomacy? Sure. Plus 30 Bluff? Sure. Plus 30 Intimidate? Nope.If all that is being complained about is that people are written to not give any info from being intimidated then I'm not having an issue with this. My understanding was that they were straight up immune to being intimidated (meaning being combat intimidated immune), not that they just gave no info once they were intimidated (means they can still be shaken).I am not aware of any scenario that gives an enemy blanket immunity to in combat intimidate without it being linked to a class ability, racial feature, template or other stat block element.
Certainly I would take the OP's claim of some text about an NPCs position to mean that they were immune to being shaken or worse in combat by use of the skill.
Well then please don't say creatures are immune to intimidate. These guys AREN'T immune to intimidate, just that they one give up 1 piece of info when intimidated. They'll tell you plenty of other stuff when you intimidate them, just not that.
My issue was you said IMMUNE and people commented that they agree since it makes no sense the bad guy to run away in fear aka combat intimidation (and the thug archetype). Thus I thought the issue WAS IMMUNITY that was being granted via story.
If it's just that these are things they don't say when intimidated (which still means everything else they will say)* then that's completely fine and what writers should be doing.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I've stated it many, many times already. But if you are complaining specifically about the example given above for 9-04, then I have to completely disagree.There is a great story reason built into the character as to why they aren't scared of the PCs. And that's ok.
It's a great story reason to justify someone being resistant to Intimidate. It is a bad story reason to justify someone being immune.
|
|
It's a great story reason to justify someone being resistant to Intimidate. It is a bad story reason to justify someone being immune.
I've stated it many, many times already. But if you are complaining specifically about the example given above for 9-04, then I have to completely disagree.There is a great story reason built into the character as to why they aren't scared of the PCs. And that's ok.
They aren't immune. There's just something they won't tell them, even on threat of torture or death.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Because our views on this are really diametrically opposed it seems.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a great story reason to justify someone being resistant to Intimidate. It is a bad story reason to justify someone being immune.
I've stated it many, many times already. But if you are complaining specifically about the example given above for 9-04, then I have to completely disagree.There is a great story reason built into the character as to why they aren't scared of the PCs. And that's ok.
You can still intimidate them and have them show you the best places in their village, tell you their favorite color or a secret. They just won't tell you a specific thing via intimidate. HARDLY anywhere near immune to social intimidation.
|
You can still intimidate them and have them show you the best places in their village, tell you their favorite color or a secret. They just won't tell you a specific thing via intimidate. HARDLY anywhere near immune to social intimidation.
Is "They won't tell you what you want to know, they'll tell you all sorts of irrelevant stuff" really different from "they won't tell you anything" in any practical sense? The PCs are looking for information, by GM fiat and ignoring the rules the bad guys refuse to give it.
|
|
You can still intimidate them and have them show you the best places in their village, tell you their favorite color or a secret. They just won't tell you a specific thing via intimidate. HARDLY anywhere near immune to social intimidation.Is "They won't tell you what you want to know, they'll tell you all sorts of irrelevant stuff" really different from "they won't tell you anything" in any practical sense? The PCs are looking for information, by GM fiat and ignoring the rules the bad guys refuse to give it.
It's not their fault if the one thing they won't share via intimidate is the only thing you care about.
Like maybe they'd be able to share some sort of tip or secret on how to influence their people thus giving a bonus or lowering the DC of the required skill checks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can still intimidate them and have them show you the best places in their village, tell you their favorite color or a secret. They just won't tell you a specific thing via intimidate. HARDLY anywhere near immune to social intimidation.Is "They won't tell you what you want to know, they'll tell you all sorts of irrelevant stuff" really different from "they won't tell you anything" in any practical sense? The PCs are looking for information, by GM fiat and ignoring the rules the bad guys refuse to give it.
Except it isn't ignoring the rules.
|
|
Except it isn't ignoring the rules.
Of course it is.
From the PRD:
"You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire"
Now, if you're saying you don't like those rules, that they're too powerful, that they're unrealistic, that there should be significant bonuses or penalties, etc then I largely agree with you.
But those ARE the rules. An intimidate check forces the opponent to give you the information you desire. It is right there in the rules.
|
|
Which brings us to one of the problems with using Intimidate as a social tool in PFS: the GM rarely has the resources (in terms of encounter blocks) or the permission to deploy an appropriate response to PCs threatening the hell out of the locals. Yes, it would be better to include that kind of contingency response in scenarios, but it's not necessarily a good use of page count and developer time. Failing that, it makes sense, I think, to simply declare, as appropriate, that a straightforward use of Intimidate will not achieve the party's objective in particular cases.
That's a good point, and one that can be better handled in the Guide than in any individual scenario. A simple paragraph in the Guide giving GMs the resources needed to deal with PCs who disrupt the in-game social order. Probably the easiest way would be to list a couple of appropriate statblocks from the GMG or NPC Codex for appropriate CR town guards, militia wizards, etc. These NPCs can arrest or otherwise limit the interactions of PCs who behave in ways that would logically get the party arrested/kicked out of town/whatever.
You could even skip the statblocks and just have the Guide state that disruptive PCs are confronted by a group of town officials with appropriate numbers and skills to take the disruptive PCs into custody. No need for a combat encounter or die rolls. Assume <X+1> NPCs, where <X> is the maximum number of NPCs the PCs can handle.
|
|
He'll give you the information... UNLESS... Doing so would endanger it.
Unless he also believes that the PCs will kill him if he doesn't.
PCs : Tell us this information and we'll let you go. At least you then have a chance to live. Roll successful intimidate check. Lets assume they are NOT bluffing OR they also roll a successful bluff check.
So, no endangering there from the NPCs point of view. His only chance to live is to talk and the rules say that he must.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except it isn't ignoring the rules.
Of course it is.
From the PRD:
"You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire"
Now, if you're saying you don't like those rules, that they're too powerful, that they're unrealistic, that there should be significant bonuses or penalties, etc then I largely agree with you.
But those ARE the rules. An intimidate check forces the opponent to give you the information you desire. It is right there in the rules.
I think you're distorting the context here. Intimidate forces the opponent to act Friendly for a while. As a consequence he'll do some things that Friendly people would do for you. Then there's a couple of examples of what Friendly behavior might entail. But he's just "Friendly" - not Helpful. And not even genuinely. He wouldn't do things he wouldn't do for someone he's genuinely Friendly towards.
Not all "information you desire" is equal. Directions to the bus station or even insider stock tips is not the same as launch codes.
Going by a super-literal reading of that one lone sentence without the context of the preceding paragraph is absurd. "I'm not going to intimidate a random passerby and get him to tell me the adventure plot. Because the rules say that he'll give me the information I desire."
|
|
I think you're distorting the context here. Intimidate forces the opponent to act Friendly for a while. As a consequence he'll do some things that Friendly people would do for you. Then there's a couple of examples of what Friendly behavior might entail. But he's just "Friendly" - not Helpful. And not even genuinely. He wouldn't do things he wouldn't do for someone he's genuinely Friendly towards.Not all "information you desire" is equal. Directions to the bus station or even insider stock tips is not the same as launch codes.
Going by a super-literal reading of that one lone sentence without the context of the preceding paragraph is absurd. "I'm not going to intimidate a random passerby and get him to tell me the adventure plot. Because the rules say that he'll give me the information I desire."
There are a lot of people arguing here so I'm going to restate my position.
1) The rules for intimidate really are about as clear as they're ever going to get (I'm one of the people who think that RAW is literally impossible).
2) They are BAD rules. They have huge flaws.
3) And therefore Paizo often ignores these bad rules.
Almost all the arguments I'm seeing are of the form
"Well, of course no reasonable GM is going to do that". I TOTALLY agree with that. But it is NOT what the rules say.
I really am NOT distorting the context. He is NOT just friendly (as defined in diplomacy). The rules give one clear example of what he does that is above and beyond what friendly (as defined by diplomacy) says.
It is NOT a hyper literal reading of
"You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities."
to say that a character will give you the information you desire. Its right there.
You can't interpret "the information you desire" as "the information that the GM wants to give you". You shouldn't, at least.
Given that we're talking PFS not following the rules, I'm going to use the same example used up thread
9-10. Signs in Senghor. The bad guy
"If they do [question her], Shinri provides little insight into her activities. She believes that she will be reincarnated into a higher being upon death, so no threat is enough to persuade her to speak.
You cannot invoke the "do not endanger it" clause since that is NOT the reason she isn't answering. The text explicitly says that intimidate to get information will not work "because". She explicitly has immunity by GM fiat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot invoke the "do not endanger it" clause since that is NOT the reason she isn't answering. The text explicitly says that intimidate to get information will not work "because". She explicitly has immunity by GM fiat.
That's still within the rules of the game itself.
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
The game itself is designed to be modified as desired to meet the requirements of whatever is necessary.
It isn't about changing rules because rules are bad (sure, you can assume that because you think the rules are bad), but rather, this makes sense to the story, so we are going to make sure it gets put into the game because we understand it is a deviation from the rules of Intimidate.
The game is literally designed to be modified as necessary to meet the individual needs of adventures, campaigns, GMs and groups.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I have to admit that I'm much happier with an author modifying the rules for a particular scenario than I am adventuring at a table alongside a character that can (and does) trivialise encounters to the extent that everybody else at the table is just along for the ride.
As pointed out above, the rules explicitly allow the GM to make those kind of changes. While, in the case of PFS, that isn't the table GM, the organized play folks at Paizo do get to make those decisions. And as the scenario has been approved for play in PFS it seems reasonable to assume that any scenario-specific modifications to the rules also have an implicit seal of approval.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Also, it is okay for intimidate to get hosed a bit in the social department, because it has TONS of special combat potential and is used in builds to get everything from extra damage to free attacks (hurtful and cornugan anyone?) So a little social depowering is fine.
My beef, i.e. pet peeve rant, has always been against what I consider the illogic of the issue. It goes against my understanding of human nature. It is not logically possible to me that a mundane human (without magical or supernatural assistance) could be even selectively capable of never breaking when being intimidated regardless of circumstances and skill of the intimidator. There is always a chance. Possibly very minute, possibly effectively impossible, but a chance never-the-less.
Thus, authors who make mundane NPCs immune to giving up info to Intimidate (even if it is just one specific piece of info) for mundane reasons, breaks my sense of verisimilitude.
So arguments like:
1) It's okay to ignore the illogic of it for story reasons
2) It's okay to ignore the illogic of it for mechanical balance reasons
3) It's okay to ignore the illogic of it because PCs overuse/abuse it
4) It's okay to ignore the illogic of it because it's only for this one thing
are irrelevant to my rant as none of them do anything to actually diminish the illogic of it.
Of course, as a reminder, this is just a pet peeve rant of mine. I am not asking for authors' heads on a platter because this one little thing just happens to annoy me. Nor do I expect anyone else to be as annoyed as I am about it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestion:
How about creating a simple standardized non-combat NPC stat block for social encounters with NPCs. It would have only 3 scores, which would be DCs for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate and would look something like this (D20/B25/I30). These scores would represent the DCs necessary to successfully interact with the NPC in order to gain the particular assistance the NPC is expected to provide. Since GMs are allowed to modify Skill DCs based on circumstances, these scores do not need to match the base DCs the rules put forth (but could). They also would not represent using these skills on this NPC for purposes other than obtaining the aid/information the players are expected to get from the NPC. Thus they can be used to represent only how difficult getting that piece of info/aid is and not all interactions with the NPC in general.
|
|
Suggestion:
How about creating a simple standardized non-combat NPC stat block for social encounters with NPCs. It would have only 3 scores, which would be DCs for Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate and would look something like this (D20/B25/I30). These scores would represent the DCs necessary to successfully interact with the NPC in order to gain the particular assistance the NPC is expected to provide. Since GMs are allowed to modify Skill DCs based on circumstances, these scores do not need to match the base DCs the rules put forth (but could). They also would not represent using these skills on this NPC for purposes other than obtaining the aid/information the players are expected to get from the NPC. Thus they can be used to represent only how difficult getting that piece of info/aid is and not all interactions with the NPC in general.
I have always thought this would be a good idea for a stat block. Stat blocks should always have the pertinent information for a GM so they don't have to do math at the table (or during prep). Power Attack should also list the -# to hit/+# to damage so I don't have to count out their BAB anymore.
Having these, though, would not mean I no longer feel authors putting in certain specific information about what any social skill could or could not do is ok.
EDIT: Sense Motive should always be in the stat block as well, even if they have no ranks in it. I shouldn't have to look at their Wisdom score and extrapolate the modifier.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I would appreciate having that data in the stat block, I also understand why they do not do it. Much as with Starfinders weapon ranges and the like, it is one more possible error to cross reference. Better to have the correct number listed in the rules rather than have erroneous numbers listed in the stat block, since you can reference the official rules that have more eyes on them.
Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities.
Okay, I'll take the literal quote without context or common sense.
You, random peasant. INTIMIDATE. Now tell me where Aroden went. The rules say you'll give me the information I desire.
|
|
I’m not certain, but I think Harry was meaning to point out the “or” in that sentence, since that’s what he bolded. Meaning you might get the information you ask for, or they might only offer limited assistance. They could do any of the three things. They aren’t guaranteed to do all of the three things. So you might succeed, but they still won’t tell you where the boss’s hideout is, because they know they’re dead if they do. Instead, they might point you in a different, but still potentially helpful, direction.
It is not logically possible to me that a mundane human (without magical or supernatural assistance) could be even selectively capable of never breaking when being intimidated regardless of circumstances and skill of the intimidator. There is always a chance. Possibly very minute, possibly effectively impossible, but a chance never-the-less.
If a scenario said, "Intimidating this guard is DC 40 skill check; a lower check fails because that is still less intimidating to him than his boss," would that be OK?
And if so, is there an upper limit on the DC that would be acceptable?
If you can diplomacy the mook into telling you where the boss is, you can intimidate him.
There is no pain of death present if he would tell you with diplomacy. Intimidate should work then. Maybe the dc is high for some arbitrary reason but blanket immunity is just immersion breaking and just not fun.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
It is not logically possible to me that a mundane human (without magical or supernatural assistance) could be even selectively capable of never breaking when being intimidated regardless of circumstances and skill of the intimidator. There is always a chance. Possibly very minute, possibly effectively impossible, but a chance never-the-less.If a scenario said, "Intimidating this guard is DC 40 skill check; a lower check fails because that is still less intimidating to him than his boss," would that be OK?
And if so, is there an upper limit on the DC that would be acceptable?
That would absolutely be acceptable. My issue has always been with the impossibility of Intimidating someone. Not the improbability.
If you can diplomacy the mook into telling you where the boss is, you can intimidate him.
There is no pain of death present if he would tell you with diplomacy. Intimidate should work then. Maybe the dc is high for some arbitrary reason but blanket immunity is just immersion breaking and just not fun.
Maybe the mook has a form of brain damage that causes him to have no sense of self-preservation. This might not even be a rare condition, judging by traditional mook combat tactics.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Information you desire', huh?
P: "Tell me your boss' secret plan!"
Mook: "Get rich or die trying?"
P: "That's not what I meant. What's he planning right now??"
Mook: "I think they mentioned something about hitting the can? That was about twenty minutes ago, though."
P: "Still not what I meant. What's the reason you're here?"
Mook: "I get paid well enough?"
...I could easily see this interplay working out in an interaction after a successful Intimidate.
It's not that the Mook isn't trying to provide information, they're providing the *best* information they have available.
Based on how some folks in the thread are pushing, Intimidate=Detect Plot.
Nope.
That's not how this works.
That's not how any of this works.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, just reading through this conversation intimidated me.
Let’s face it. There are always going to be character statblocks that have tactics or abilities that we don’t like. My least favorite morale condition in a statblock is “fights to the death” because sometimes it just doesn’t make sense. However, I do like that scenario authors provide a variety of NPCs for us to interact with. Tactics that work with one, won’t necessarily work with another.
It’s these monkey wrenches that up the challenge, force us players to try a new strategy, and diversify the tools in our RP tool box. Who wants everything to always play exactly the same way?
Hmm
It's not that the Mook isn't trying to provide information, they're providing the *best* information they have available.
This is fine, but that would say, "this mook has no useful information," not, "this mook cannot be intimidated but will tell you everything if you make a DC 15 Diplomacy check" (or whatever it is these scenarios are being accused of).