I think either a bluff check or fortitude save, but I'm not sure.
I'd make it a bluff check, DC possibly related to how much damage one took. Not hard to push through 1hp damage stoically, pretty difficult to push through 100.
Stealth applies most closely to being quiet.
Will could also be applicable to override the body.
Reflex could be used to allow someone to cover their mouth quickly enough.
Heck, Survival might be useful.
Meh. If you're looking for a random chance for a PC (or NPC/monster) to fail, just flip a coin.
best of Will or Fortitude, player's choice
Will save, crying out in pain is a compulsion, so Will vs compulsion.
Pain effects are fort based, and creatures who don't make fort saves are immune to them. If you failed the fort save and wanted to hide it, that would be a bluff check.
Flinching is more complicated. If they're reacting to damage, then same as pain. If they're being faked out, playing chicken, or what have you, then I'd use either an intimidate or feint like effect.
WILL!
Pain effects are fort based
Counterexample: The Inflict Pain spell gives a Will save.
Pain effects are fort basedCounterexample: The Inflict Pain spell gives a Will save.
Counter-counterexample: symbol of pain functions as symbol of death, meaning that a Fort save negates it.
Double-counter-counterexample: pain strike is also a Fort save.
It seems that the inflict pain spell is a Will save because it's an enchantment, where the others are necromancy and evocation. The rules on these things are all over the place.
I thought of a related question: what kind of check would be needed for non-evil people to avoid reacting with horror, sadness etc when seeing something appalling (e.g they are in the Abyss, disguised as demons and see someone getting tortured horribly, obviously reacting with shock would make it obvious they aren't really demons.) I'm thinking a will save or a bluff check, probably with a -4 penalty or the like if the person is good aligned,)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's best to let the players say how they're doing it.
"I will make a Fortitude save to be stoic against the pain."
"I will use Perform: Actor to fool the demon."
"I will cast Hideous Laughter on myself."
Pain effects are fort basedCounterexample: The Inflict Pain spell gives a Will save.
Still, the spell being a pain effect, the spell wouldn't effect creatures who don't make fort saves. There's a couple other effects that work like this, one of which is described as pain based without having the pain spell flag. I suppose it's just inconsistent.
I agree, leaving it up to the player is probably fine. I personally always use bluff to keep it consistent and to let players know how to specialize if they want to appear stoic.
To disguise the pain I usually use a Constitution check to reflect my tolerance to pain and perform acting to simulate that I'm fine in Al aspects.
I thought of a related question: what kind of check would be needed for non-evil people to avoid reacting with horror, sadness etc when seeing something appalling (e.g they are in the Abyss, disguised as demons and see someone getting tortured horribly, obviously reacting with shock would make it obvious they aren't really demons.) I'm thinking a will save or a bluff check, probably with a -4 penalty or the like if the person is good aligned,)
Since this is a mental state will go for a will save and again a performance acting to simulate my indifference to the display
That seems reasonable. Does a penalty for good people seem fair? (good usually implies you care about people, after all.)
That seems reasonable. Does a penalty for good people seem fair? (good usually implies you care about people, after all.)
If is the first time that they experience this kind of situation I say yes they receive the penalty, but if they are experiencing this before hand the penalty it could be reduced to almost 0 or in any case they will receive a bonus based in the experience they have in this theme.
Additional if someone pc play as a spy it's almost to considerate that they must been trained to support this kind of situation
None. Once you have even a single level in a PC class, you have enough experience to no longer flinch/cry out in pain from battle.
Proof: Go to any martial arts trainer, and watch a match between the second lowest level of tier (usually known as a belt) that actually engages in sparring matches.
They will not flinch. They will not cry out in pain. And a 1st level PC class is above that in training, especially the martial ones, as there is no way in hell that that student has enough training to be proficient in all simple and martial weapons, but a 1st level Fighter is. Which means they have actually trained in actual sparring matches, with every f$!$ing last “normal” (read: non-exotic) weapon, to be proficient with them.
Your case is based in martial class and not in general
Not all classes are warmonger, and sometimes some martial class never kill or witness a dead in all his training life.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None. Once you have even a single level in a PC class, you have enough experience to no longer flinch/cry out in pain from battle.
Proof: Go to any martial arts trainer, and watch a match between the second lowest level of tier (usually known as a belt) that actually engages in sparring matches.
They will not flinch. They will not cry out in pain. And a 1st level PC class is above that in training, especially the martial ones, as there is no way in hell that that student has enough training to be proficient in all simple and martial weapons, but a 1st level Fighter is. Which means they have actually trained in actual sparring matches, with every f$!$ing last “normal” (read: non-exotic) weapon, to be proficient with them.
Your case is based in martial class and not in general
Not all classes are warmonger, and sometimes some martial class never kill or witness a dead in all his training life.
The distinction between PC class and NPC class is a large one. The vast, vast majority of people in setting would fall under the latter. A PC class is indicative of someone beyond simply living their lives day to day.
What is the in universe distinction between a Warrior and a Fighter? A Warrior is your average town guard or militia. They will likely never have put their skills to life-threatening practical use with the exception of wartime conscription. A Fighter(Or Barbarian or Ranger etc) is far far beyond that. There's a greater ambition to them to shape the world around them whether conscious or not. This effect is multiplied as they gain in levels as opposed to NPC classes which come nowhere near in power. Your run of the mill minstrel in a bar who flees at the sight of brawl starting isn't a Bard, but an Expert with ranks in Perform.
And with levels, someone cutting you with a dagger is nothing when you have survived being chewed on by a T-Rex using you as a toy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None. Once you have even a single level in a PC class, you have enough experience to no longer flinch/cry out in pain from battle.
Proof: Go to any martial arts trainer, and watch a match between the second lowest level of tier (usually known as a belt) that actually engages in sparring matches.
They will not flinch. They will not cry out in pain. And a 1st level PC class is above that in training, especially the martial ones, as there is no way in hell that that student has enough training to be proficient in all simple and martial weapons, but a 1st level Fighter is. Which means they have actually trained in actual sparring matches, with every f&&%ing last “normal” (read: non-exotic) weapon, to be proficient with them.
Martial artists won’t flinch at a form and intensity of pain that they train with all the time, true, but expose them to a very different, unexpected, or very intense form of pain and they will certainly flinch.
Unless the ability dealing damage to you specifies you make some sort of noise in response to being hit, I'd say there is no check. You just choose not to make a noise.
IMO it would be a will save. A successful fort save means the character powered through whatever it was but it doesn't mean they didn't grunt or curse or flinch in the process. Making noise of some sort in response to pain is an automatic response because it releases endorphins that make it easier to endure the pain. Resisting an automatic response feels like a will save to me.
If the character is already having to make a fort save in response to some pain they are experiencing I think it's reasonable to judge their response based on how well they beat the DC. If they beat it by 5 or more I could see it representing the character shrugging off the pain without even grunting. If they barely made the check, they avoid the effects as normal, but not without expressing discomfort in some way. If the character wishes to act stoic even though they actually failed the save I think this would require a bluff check. This represents the character flinching, grunting, etc. but then doing something overt like sneering or spitting afterwards in an attempt to convince everyone that they didn't see what they actually saw. A successful bluff means that sure the character flinched but they were so confident afterwards that everyone figures they just imagined the character flinching.
If the player wishes to insist that their character never flinches, etc. I would probably let them do it but only by actually raising the DC by 5. If they fail the modified DC they suffer the full effects but still don't show it. Of course this is only if it actually matters. If it's purely roleplay and has no mechanical effect on the situation then there's no reason to apply the penalty.
Martial artists won’t flinch at a form and intensity of pain that they train with all the time, true, but expose them to a very different, unexpected, or very intense form of pain and they will certainly flinch.
I was thinking the same thing. They won't flinch when punched, but I doubt they'd just shrug off getting acid poured in their eyes.
If a Fort save is made then it didn't hurt. If a Will save is made then it hurt but the character has the mental fortitude to avoid making a noise.
To answer the question as posed it has to be a will save. But to answer how I would GM it if a character has potentially hurt themselves and wants to avoid making a noise. I would let the player choose Fort or Will.
None. Once you have even a single level in a PC class, you have enough experience to no longer flinch/cry out in pain from battle.
Proof: Go to any martial arts trainer, and watch a match between the second lowest level of tier (usually known as a belt) that actually engages in sparring matches.
They will not flinch. They will not cry out in pain. And a 1st level PC class is above that in training, especially the martial ones, as there is no way in hell that that student has enough training to be proficient in all simple and martial weapons, but a 1st level Fighter is. Which means they have actually trained in actual sparring matches, with every f$!$ing last “normal” (read: non-exotic) weapon, to be proficient with them.
Your case is based in martial class and not in general
Not all classes are warmonger, and sometimes some martial class never kill or witness a dead in all his training life.The distinction between PC class and NPC class is a large one. The vast, vast majority of people in setting would fall under the latter. A PC class is indicative of someone beyond simply living their lives day to day.
What is the in universe distinction between a Warrior and a Fighter? A Warrior is your average town guard or militia. They will likely never have put their skills to life-threatening practical use with the exception of wartime conscription. A Fighter(Or Barbarian or Ranger etc) is far far beyond that. There's a greater ambition to them to shape the world around them whether conscious or not. This effect is multiplied as they gain in levels as opposed to NPC classes which come nowhere near in power. Your run of the mill minstrel in a bar who flees at the sight of brawl starting isn't a Bard, but an Expert with ranks in Perform.
And with levels, someone cutting you with a dagger is nothing when you have survived being chewed on by a T-Rex using you as a toy.
Still thinking in martial class, what about caster class are they trained to resist pain ?
Still thinking in martial class, what...
Back in 3rd with the Concentration skill I might have said that were trained, but in Pathfinder where their concentration is tied to their connection to magical development, being tied to their level and primary casting stat, I’d imagine it was more of a matter of the natural ability to channel magic. That’s assuming you were citing their ability to complete a spell through the pain of getting struck as a caster being potentially trained to resist pain.
I think I'd go with a Fortitude or Will save, whichever would be more favorable to the character.
Still thinking in martial class, what about caster class are they trained to resist pain?
It's hard to say. Are they a frail elderly wizard? An ancient druid of terrifying power? A cleric of Zon-Kuthon?
However, it is generally true that Pathfinder PCs above level 5 are legendary heroes, capable of things beyond that would be impossible for you and me. Fallen thirty feet onto pointy rocks? I'd be lucky if I ever walked again. A level 5 Wizard will be back on his feet in seconds.
In general there is a distinction between normal emotions (which are pure role-playing, and up to the players) and supernatural emotions. For example, if I saw a twenty foot high giant spider attacking my friends, I might be too terrified to move. But that's no problem for a PC. Even if the spider is spraying acid into her eyes, she will calmly decide what needs to be done.
On the other hand, evil Dragons have supernatural terror on their side, an aura of fear. A PC has to make a Will save to be able to approach it.
So it might be worth asking whether the party is facing supernatural-grade horrors, or regular unpleasantness.
(On the other hand, in most cases one can tell when someone is taking damage. If you had to pretend to be immune to fire when actually it's burning your flesh off, that's going to require some pretty good acting.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this question is the symptom of a larger issue with a lot of ttprg's.
Instead of saying "I roll Bluff!", players should be saying "I try to hide my pain so they don't think I'm weak."
You declare your intention and your approach. The GM decides what you roll, or if you roll at all.
Players staring down at their character sheets and trying to apply their Biggest Numbers to as many situations as possible detracts from the narrative and limits critical thinking.
Bluff, Intimidate, Perform, Stealth, Fortitude (with Endurance), Will (with bonused to compulsions or fear). They could all work, depending on what the player's declared intent and approach are.
We need to break our players free of linear, video game-y logic and show them the true potential of ttrpg's; tell me what you want to do. Anything at all. Stop looking at that list of skills. What do you want to do, out of any of the infinite actions anyone can take at any time? The world is your oyster.
Instead of saying "I roll Bluff!", players should be saying "I try to hide my pain so they don't think I'm weak."
You declare your intention and your approach. The GM decides what you roll, or if you roll at all.
That's great, as long as you have a really good GM. If my Fighter has +17 Fortitude, +7 Will, and -2 Bluff skill, then I have no idea if I have a good chance of success when I "try to hide my pain". It could be easy or impossible, depending on the GM's whim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's great, as long as you have a really good GM. If my Fighter has +17 Fortitude, +7 Will, and -2 Bluff skill, then I have no idea if I have a good chance of success when I "try to hide my pain". It could be easy or impossible, depending on the GM's whim.
That's where your approach comes in. Are you trying to hide your pain by carefully controlling your expression? That sounds like a Bluff. Power through with the sheer force of your will? Will, obviously. Are you just a total B.A. mother who can take a beating and keep on ticking? Fortitude.
I don't mean to say a player can't suggest what seems to be a good fit or question a GM's ruling. Just that the automatic, go-to, first-choice response shouldn't be to blurt out the name of a skill and start rolling dice. The GM is the final arbiter of if and when dice get rolled and what we add to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Between you're saves you should never have that much difference, so it's really only such a glaring issue if the GM decides to use a skill that you don't have.
In any event, I still personally think this shouldn't be a check at all.
Unless you're trying to have some impact on (or prevent one) on an enemy.
Which is to say, if you're using stealth and step on a caltrop and you're trying to avoid breaking stealth you make a stealth check with a penalty.
If you're trying to accomplish something else, the check should be whatever you're trying to do with a penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It makes sense that this would be a Will save to not flinch, but I think the "not cry out in pain" scenario is dependent upon what the player is trying to do. If you're in public, and you're trying to not yelp in pain, that would be a Bluff vs. the crowd's Sense Motive check. If you're in a cavern and trying not to be noticed, this would be covered by a Stealth vs. Hearing-based Perception check. You are trying not to be noticed, after all.
I dunno, DM's are gonna vary on this, but personally I'd make it a Stealth vs. Perc check or Bluff vs. Sense Motive, and if neither of those are applicable to the situation, then a straight up Will save would suffice.
...I still personally think this shouldn't be a check at all.
Unless you're trying to have some impact on (or prevent one) on an enemy.
Absolutely. The three Yes's still have to be present to justify any dice action. If there isn't a meaningful chance of success/failure and/or there aren't consequences for such, then don't roll dice.
I assume the OP's situation has something to do with either a character avoiding notice, being impressive/threatening or being harder to impress/threaten themselves.
...I still personally think this shouldn't be a check at all.
Unless you're trying to have some impact on (or prevent one) on an enemy.
Absolutely. The three Yes's still have to be present to justify any dice action. If there isn't a meaningful chance of success/failure and/or there aren't consequences for such, then don't roll dice.
I assume the OP's situation has something to do with either a character avoiding notice, being impressive/threatening or being harder to impress/threaten themselves.
But being "impressive or threatening" aren't things with mechanical effect in game terms, unless you actually start talking about already existing specific mechanical effects.
There probably exist some feat that allows you to intimidate someone when you take damage (I don't know all feats) but if there isn't then you could use this as a space to create rules for it.
But making a check to essentially look cool is bad in my opinion.
But being "impressive or threatening" aren't things with mechanical effect in game terms, unless you actually start talking about already existing specific mechanical effects...
...no. As I said in the same post, there needs to be some sort of consequence of the success or failure of the action to make rolling a die necessary.
Intimidating someone by taking a bunch of damage and not seeming to care, or levying a penalty to someone else's attempt to intimidate you by shrugging off their scary-scary attack. --these are the types of situations I am referring to. Not "making checks to look cool."
But being "impressive or threatening" aren't things with mechanical effect in game terms, unless you actually start talking about already existing specific mechanical effects......no. As I said in the same post, there needs to be some sort of consequence of the success or failure of the action to make rolling a die necessary.
Intimidating someone by taking a bunch of damage and not seeming to care, or levying a penalty to someone else's attempt to intimidate you by shrugging off their scary-scary attack. --these are the types of situations I am referring to. Not "making checks to look cool."
Sorry if you interpreted my statements as being in disagreement with you.
I agree with you. Checks that have no mechanical effect are dumb and shouldn't happen.
If you are trying to keep quite, it's a stealth check with a penalty.
If you want to intimidate someone because you're a monster who doesn't notice damage, then you're rolling an intimidate check. It would make a cool feat that anytime you take damage equal to your character level or more that you can attempt an intimidate check against an enemy.
But if your just rolling not to scream it pain and all it does is "impress" the enemy that's dumb and you shouldn't roll.
I agree with you. Checks that have no mechanical effect are dumb and shouldn't happen.
If you are trying to keep quite, it's a stealth check with a penalty.
If you want to intimidate someone because you're a monster who doesn't notice damage, then you're rolling an intimidate check. It would make a cool feat that anytime you take damage equal to your character level or more that you can attempt an intimidate check against an enemy.
But if your just rolling not to scream it pain and all it does is "impress" the enemy that's dumb and you shouldn't roll.
The OP didn't give a reason why the check was being made, so there is no reason to assume and denounce that the check is being made frivolously.
The OP didn't give a reason why the check was being made, so there is no reason to assume and denounce that the check is being made frivolously.I agree with you. Checks that have no mechanical effect are dumb and shouldn't happen.
If you are trying to keep quite, it's a stealth check with a penalty.
If you want to intimidate someone because you're a monster who doesn't notice damage, then you're rolling an intimidate check. It would make a cool feat that anytime you take damage equal to your character level or more that you can attempt an intimidate check against an enemy.
But if your just rolling not to scream it pain and all it does is "impress" the enemy that's dumb and you shouldn't roll.
Well I have to assume it's frivolous since there are (to my knowledge) no abilities that specifically use a mechanic of not showing pain to have an effect (even if there are that mechanic would explain how it works or be the topic at question here) or it's to maintain stealth or it's frivolous to "look cool" in front of the enemy.
I covered the possibilities in my previous post, and I was pointing out that making a check is dumb if it doesn't have some sort of potential benefit to the player.
I don't believe I was stating that the OP's scenario is frivolous, I was stating that if it doesn't provide some potential benefit it's frivolous and shouldn't be done.