|
The GM didn't say just because, he said because I find it unlikely, that a demon will change its behavior due to intimidation. He has an idea about the world he wants to present you and your actions don't fit with that idea.
I get the impression that you are a min / maxer, because you expressed that you don't care about fluff but only about RAW. Consider however, that I don't use min / maxer judgemental. I have a powergaming char myself and I like playing bonekeep with it for example.
However, if the GM feels that your build limits the fun for the rest of the group either by making encounters trivial, or by damaging the consistency of the world I can understand his reaction. When I play my Magus, I don't bother if the GM says please hold back in this adventure, because your character is too strong. If I go to the king's wedding in rags, I expect to be kicked out, no matter how good my diplomacy or bluff score is.
I don't see your logic with the min/max at all. When discussing the rules, you discuss the rules. Talking about fluff isn't going to help discuss the rules necessarily when the rules are the rules and the fluff isn't the rules, but fluff. Like it seems like I'm talking down to you because it's a really silly thing to point out, but I'm really not. So again, I don't care about FLUFF when discussing the RULES, because it won't come to a factual conclusion about the RULES.
I don't get how you determine what the GM did when I told you clearly what the GM expressed to me. He isn't some huge jerk, and was very willing to be upfront and transparent with me, even though he did so in a very passionate loud manor due to trying to defend his views on the matter. He said because a demon is from hell, and I'm just a human, the demon gets those bonus'. It was around +7 or +9 bonus, just because.
You've made plenty of assumptions, and I really would like it if you were more considerate and respectful. My character isn't a min/max ruin the game for everyone, like you assume he is, and I'm not that type of person.
|
He isn't doing that though. He isn't trying to scare off the BBEG and keep everyone at the table from having glory and treasure. He is trying to use the intimidate skill to impose the shaken condition. He is debuffing. Does that -2 on rolls against the party really ruin all the fun for everyone at the table? Does that diminish the challenge so greatly that the DM might as well just hand over he chronicle sheet and tell everyone to piss off?
I don't think so at all. It sounds like the GM in question is opposed to using a social skill to gain a mechanical advantage. Well, too bad, that's how the skill works. Let the player play his character.
Perhaps not. But the potential for what I described exists.
If all it is is an auto -2, then yeah, not so bad. Witches essentially can do that more or less too.
But still, it does destroy credulity if a Huge Red Dragon can be shaken by a medium human half their hit dice.
|
|
Andrew, my character isn't built to be a power house skill focus distrusting thing though. He is like level 5 with a +14 to intimidate. Is that bad? I'm taking feats to allow me to go up the skill tree for Shattered Defenses, and possibly Deadly stroke. I just want to have the possibility to demoralize a creature in combat so I can have the benefits. I wouldn't mind using dazzling display and having it work too. I don't plan to abuse what I have and be a jerk in any way shape or forum. I will fight the cool BBEG because my character in the situation would most likely do it. I do have the option to attempt intimidate if I feel like in role playing with my character he would do, and I am indeed entitled not to metagame that aspect. I do take other peoples fun into consideration.
I still don't know where people are getting this idea that I want to just steam roll the game with abusing this mechanic. I need to demoralize to be able to use my character, and if I invested with my petty skill points i get into intimidate, then why can't I get a shot to have it work out?
If you aren't abusing the mechanic, then realistically there is no harm to having it.
|
|
He was trying to change the attitude of a demon with intimidation. And people are making comparisons to illustrate a point. Just because a character works mechanically by "RAW", doesn't mean it is a fun or good thing to do. And if a character destroys an adventure because "it is the build", I am going to stop that at my tables.
People aren't doing that for the most part. Most people here are justifying things that don't exist, that for anyone in the game would be horrible. The game doesn't work, and people seem to be clearly biased by things that never existed by assuming I'm min/maxing. Even if I was, it is irrelevant.
@BigDTBone, I'm a dude that only plays fighters, and I have recently made a slayer. I get to a table, and some dude is going super saiyan 3, and I am content with doing my cool fighter stuff that doesn't really compare. I'm fine with that. I want to have an awesome time. I might occasionally do tons of damage, but that's what the fighter does. I finally get the chance to put some points into a social skill that I'VE ALWAYS HATED, and it's taken away from me "just because".
I look at the skill, and I see it does an effect. I figure "Oh, I can help the party out by getting information about our quest by using this skill." This isn't me being a jerk or hurting anyones experience. At the end of the day, I am entitled to play how I want to play at PFS within the rules. I'm sure if my character ruined the game for people that they'd tell me, or unfortunately not want to play with me, but that isn't the case here.
This situation has been the most stressful thing I've had in PFS. I've had plenty of moments where I just ate it, and allowed mechanics to go off wrong for the sake of the time not taking time to argue it. It feels horrible. When you wait until the end of the session and you're refused RAW and are told house rules are enforced, then you just feel awful.
He isn't doing that though. He isn't trying to scare off the BBEG and keep everyone at the table from having glory and treasure. He is trying to use the intimidate skill to impose the shaken condition. He is debuffing. Does that -2 on rolls against the party really ruin all the fun for everyone at the table? Does that diminish the challenge so greatly that the DM might as well just hand over he chronicle sheet and tell everyone to piss off?
I don't think so at all. It sounds like the GM in question is opposed to using a social skill to gain a mechanical advantage. Well, too bad, that's how the skill works. Let the player play his character.
Perhaps not. But the potential for what I described exists.
If all it is is an auto -2, then yeah, not so bad. Witches essentially can do that more or less too.
But still, it does destroy credulity if a Huge Red Dragon can be shaken by a medium human half their hit dice.
It destroys credulity when I say "magic missile" and FREEKING MISSILES OF FORCE MAGIC COME OUT OF MY FINGERS AND FLY TOWARD SOMETHING AND KILL IT.
It's a game, he made a check, it imposes a condition. Those are the rules. Play the game!
|
|
He isn't doing that though. He isn't trying to scare off the BBEG and keep everyone at the table from having glory and treasure. He is trying to use the intimidate skill to impose the shaken condition. He is debuffing. Does that -2 on rolls against the party really ruin all the fun for everyone at the table? Does that diminish the challenge so greatly that the DM might as well just hand over he chronicle sheet and tell everyone to piss off?
I don't think so at all. It sounds like the GM in question is opposed to using a social skill to gain a mechanical advantage. Well, too bad, that's how the skill works. Let the player play his character.
Perhaps not. But the potential for what I described exists.
If all it is is an auto -2, then yeah, not so bad. Witches essentially can do that more or less too.
But still, it does destroy credulity if a Huge Red Dragon can be shaken by a medium human half their hit dice.
that's why the DC is so high. You make sacrafices to demoralize in combat. A fighter can't have a -2 debuff, but other classes can save or die, or other utterly insane things. I don't like other classes because I don't want to be that jerk who does insane stuff at the table. I'm just shocked that I'm being accused of being that dude over trying to demoralize a drake that I couldn't reach for an attack on my turn, or extract information from a NPC creature that was just dome creature in a hole chilling out for the sake of helping my party out.
|
|
He isn't doing that though. He isn't trying to scare off the BBEG and keep everyone at the table from having glory and treasure. He is trying to use the intimidate skill to impose the shaken condition. He is debuffing. Does that -2 on rolls against the party really ruin all the fun for everyone at the table? Does that diminish the challenge so greatly that the DM might as well just hand over he chronicle sheet and tell everyone to piss off?
I don't think so at all. It sounds like the GM in question is opposed to using a social skill to gain a mechanical advantage. Well, too bad, that's how the skill works. Let the player play his character.
Perhaps not. But the potential for what I described exists.
If all it is is an auto -2, then yeah, not so bad. Witches essentially can do that more or less too.
But still, it does destroy credulity if a Huge Red Dragon can be shaken by a medium human half their hit dice.
It destroys credulity when I say "magic missile" and FREEKING MISSILES OF FORCE MAGIC COME OUT OF MY FINGERS AND FLY TOWARD SOMETHING AND KILL IT.
It's a game, he made a check, it imposes a condition. Those are the rules. Play the game!
I have 2 players in the on-going session that on their turn... "MAGIC MISSILE!" and that has literally been the only attack action except for I think someone did a cone spell because it worked out better for the situation. I don't consider them ruining my time in the game, because that is what their character is for. We work as a team, and everyone including the GM is there to have fun. My main concern with all of this is how to prevent the GM from being upset, and fixing he issue so we can all continue to have fun.
He was trying to change the attitude of a demon with intimidation. And people are making comparisons to illustrate a point. Just because a character works mechanically by "RAW", doesn't mean it is a fun or good thing to do. And if a character destroys an adventure because "it is the build", I am going to stop that at my tables.He was using a skill check to impose a debuff condition. That's how the game works. Get off your righteous high horse.To quote myself from Page 2:
Usually I would allow a demoralize check for most opponents since you sacrifice a standard action. Furthermore the game impact is not as severe as in the first example.However, he had 2 examples, one being to change the attitude of a hostile (?) demon by applying intimidation. And I'm not on a righteous high horse, I'm simply saying that I don't think, that this is a scene I would like to have in my adventure.
@ Rapanuii: Roleplaying adventures are about imagination. To the most, fluff is more important than pure mechanical rules. Yes, you are probably right in your statement about the rules. However, I feel that the action (for BigDTBone: the attitude shift, not the demoralization attempt) destroys the atmosphere of the encounter and can understand the GM and would have probably done the same. And this has nothing to do with "it's not magic".
Really? You would cry the same foul if someone had cast charm monster?
|
A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.
The barbarian can miss, the monster can save vs. the wizard. The complaint against one use of intimidate is that you pretty much CAN"T miss the roll: the dcs are so easy that its autowin with a very minimal investment. Strict raw, everything that's not immune is just going to wet itself and surrender to you even if you roll a 1.
(and people do complain about slumber hex happy witches)
Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.
Cormegon smash et all should work on most things. Instawin intimidate not so much.
|
|
@Chevalier83, your views on how the mechanic of intimidate make me not want to talk to you ever, and not respect your opinion. I'm not trying to be offensive, but honestly, that is too much.
I role play, and you have offended me quite enough, especially by saying otherwise with your ignorant position of assuming I'm a min/max player. I invest a lot of time into this game, and you have been acting pretty subtle in disusing your insulting behavior at me.
The fluff in consideration to the rules doesn't matter, but you are telling me of how important they are while saying you disagree with this mechanic working. The fluff that I have been fighting for is how the mechanic reflects when you roll the dice. You roll, beat the check, and not your character through their stats reflects what is happening. My guy goes to the demon and doesn't give a s~$+ where he is from. HE IS THE DUDE THAT INTIMIDATES DEMONS, AND THAT'S THAT! That demon could have absolutely no respect for humans, and off-handedly disrespects them being weak or whatever. Well today, he met THE GUY, and he is feeling unpleasant about it.
Use your imagination to have someone do that to a demon. Imagine me being successful and the people at the party imagining their bias for a demon too when a human just gives him the verbal business. You demon, are my b$&#%! I imagine people wouldn't be able to stop from smiling and feeling pumped, and I assume you, I would role play it up real good to make everyone enjoy it.
Again, I see what you write to me as extremely insulting, and if you sat with me at my tables that I play in, I assure you, you wouldn't feel threatened by me taking away your experience, but rather adding to it.
A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.The barbarian can miss, the monster can save vs. the wizard. The complaint against one use of intimidate is that you pretty much CAN"T miss the roll: the dcs are so easy that its autowin with a very minimal investment. Strict raw, everything that's not immune is just going to wet itself and surrender to you even if you roll a 1.
(and people do complain about slumber hex happy witches)
Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.Cormegon smash et all should work on most things. Instawin intimidate not so much.
Since when does the shaken condition make you wet yourself and surrender? Is that errata?
|
|
A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.The barbarian can miss, the monster can save vs. the wizard. The complaint against one use of intimidate is that you pretty much CAN"T miss the roll: the dcs are so easy that its autowin with a very minimal investment. Strict raw, everything that's not immune is just going to wet itself and surrender to you even if you roll a 1.
(and people do complain about slumber hex happy witches)
Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.Cormegon smash et all should work on most things. Instawin intimidate not so much.
1 minute being 10 rounds of conversing with a creature to intimidate it. If the creature doesn't like what is being said, they can do things about it. Roll for initiative? If someone wants to metagame me with this, perhaps I'll spend the last 3 rounds needed to complete my minute to continue conversing my intimidate, haha. But I'm not trying to break anything. As pointed out, there are ways around this, and please, PLEASE, PLEASE remember that unlike diplomacy, a creature is not going to be very helpful later on. There are ramifications, and if a GM wants to, they can very well bring this back upon the person who initiated the intimidate.
|
If you don't think a Gnome is not only supposed to be able to intimidate the big scary monster, but intended to be able to, then you are wrong.
Check out the Taunt feat.
The second a character starts a hostile action, I let them roll initiative. And casting a charm monster is definitely that.
Furthermore, there is a severe difference between spells and skills: skills can be used all day long and the bonuses can very easily be exploited. A 8th level PC would probably never be able to charm a Balor with a +25 Will save. A 27 (-4 on the check due to size) on an intimidate check is far easier to accomplish though.
E.g. +3 Skill Focus, +4 Cha, +3 Class Skill, +4 Intimidating Prowess, +8 Ranks makes a +22 before items, giving a chance of over 50% even before magic items. Does this mean I let this character attitude shift intimidate all NPCs in an adventure? Heck, no!
So it is a "this isn't magic" thing.
Plus the character in your example took 2 feats and spent half his skill points on that. Why shouldn't he be able to move the attitude of the Belor towards friendly? Oh, and a trait. fighters don't get it as a class skill.
And why not let them attitude shift using intimidate? It would get really problematic really quickly after people fell out of being "persuaded"
|
1 minute being 10 rounds of conversing with a creature to intimidate it. If the creature doesn't like what is being said, they can do things about it. Roll for initiative? If someone wants to metagame me with this, perhaps I'll spend the last 3 rounds needed to complete my minute to continue conversing my intimidate, haha. But I'm not trying to break anything. As pointed out, there are ways around this, and please, PLEASE, PLEASE remember that unlike diplomacy, a creature is not going to be very helpful later on. There are ramifications, and if a GM wants to, they can very well bring this back upon the person who initiated the intimidate.A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.The barbarian can miss, the monster can save vs. the wizard. The complaint against one use of intimidate is that you pretty much CAN"T miss the roll: the dcs are so easy that its autowin with a very minimal investment. Strict raw, everything that's not immune is just going to wet itself and surrender to you even if you roll a 1.
(and people do complain about slumber hex happy witches)
Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.Cormegon smash et all should work on most things. Instawin intimidate not so much.
Here is, IMHO, where your GM went wrong. He didn't play the creature correctly. The hostile creature SHOULD HAVE interupted your 1 minute attempt and attacked without warning.
Have a talk with your GM about tactics. Have a good day.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, with the Taunt feat, a Sprite Thug can leave a big Dragon Frightened.
I think the situation here is not about Demons wetting themselves, but some players/DMs soiling themselves.
If you can't imagine why a Dragon would be afraid of a Sprite, then that's not a problem with the rules, but a problem with your imagination.
|
|
1 minute being 10 rounds of conversing with a creature to intimidate it. If the creature doesn't like what is being said, they can do things about it. Roll for initiative? If someone wants to metagame me with this, perhaps I'll spend the last 3 rounds needed to complete my minute to continue conversing my intimidate, haha. But I'm not trying to break anything. As pointed out, there are ways around this, and please, PLEASE, PLEASE remember that unlike diplomacy, a creature is not going to be very helpful later on. There are ramifications, and if a GM wants to, they can very well bring this back upon the person who initiated the intimidate.A Wizard ends an encounter, with a single spell, or a Barbarian, with a single swing of a sword, and no one blinks an eye.The barbarian can miss, the monster can save vs. the wizard. The complaint against one use of intimidate is that you pretty much CAN"T miss the roll: the dcs are so easy that its autowin with a very minimal investment. Strict raw, everything that's not immune is just going to wet itself and surrender to you even if you roll a 1.
(and people do complain about slumber hex happy witches)
Now, one uses words, to not even end, but to contribute to the encounter, and frothy bile spews forth from the mouths of the masses.Cormegon smash et all should work on most things. Instawin intimidate not so much.
Here is, IMHO, where your GM went wrong. He didn't play the creature correctly. The hostile creature SHOULD HAVE interupted your 1 minute attempt and attacked with warning.
Have a talk with your GM about tactics. Have a good day.
Nope, because you don't know the full details and are just assuming. The creature was paralyzed and unable to do anything. It's irrelevant though, because WHAT HAPPENED IN THE GAME IS WHAT HAPPENED. I'm sorry you would have ran it differently, but that's what happened. The creature had to hear the entire thing. He went wrong with how he dealt with the skill as a whole, and thus, we are in this thread.
EDIT: Have a good day =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.
I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.
|
|
He isn't doing that though. He isn't trying to scare off the BBEG and keep everyone at the table from having glory and treasure. He is trying to use the intimidate skill to impose the shaken condition. He is debuffing. Does that -2 on rolls against the party really ruin all the fun for everyone at the table? Does that diminish the challenge so greatly that the DM might as well just hand over he chronicle sheet and tell everyone to piss off?
I don't think so at all. It sounds like the GM in question is opposed to using a social skill to gain a mechanical advantage. Well, too bad, that's how the skill works. Let the player play his character.
Perhaps not. But the potential for what I described exists.
If all it is is an auto -2, then yeah, not so bad. Witches essentially can do that more or less too.
But still, it does destroy credulity if a Huge Red Dragon can be shaken by a medium human half their hit dice.
It destroys credulity when I say "magic missile" and FREEKING MISSILES OF FORCE MAGIC COME OUT OF MY FINGERS AND FLY TOWARD SOMETHING AND KILL IT.
It's a game, he made a check, it imposes a condition. Those are the rules. Play the game!
Settle down Skippy. No need to raise your voice here. I'm not suggesting not following the rules.
And there is such a thing in a fantasy setting where a dude can demoralize an iconic BBEG twice his size as breaking credulity.
|
|
I'd throw "paralyzed" in your original post. Just a suggestion.
Nope, I don't need to. I wrote that I succeeded in the time spent, and that outside in our conversation without a pit or anything it would have been the same thing. You don't need to know that information, because it's irrelevant. Have a nice day.
@Chevalier83, you're the one who seems to have reading comprehension issues, and I assure you, I responded appropriately fully understanding what you wrote.
Intimidate doesn't matter if you have an army of dudes around you or not. It doesn't matter if you're with an army of dudes and you're tied up or whatever. You speak for 1 minute and the guy you were talking to have a change of heart.
"You've made a grave error. I will make sure that upon my death that all your children will be visited upon me in their dreams, and I will savagely twist their minds so they are forever ruined for all time. Your children will become brutal rapist and murderers, and you will be at odds to stop your own kin, while battling to kill each others children to protect yourself and your own families. I swear that I will inflict the greatest curses upon you personally, and you will suffer even beyond death! Let me go, RIGHT NOW!" Dude even with 100+ guards saying not to, orders you to be released in fear of their own safety.
Have you ever seen the movie 300?
Whatever. I would very much like it if you didn't communicate with me ever again. I hope you don't have an issue comprehending that.
EDIT:
BigDTBone ninja'd the 300
|
|
Actually, with the Taunt feat, a Sprite Thug can leave a big Dragon Frightened.
I think the situation here is not about Demons wetting themselves, but some players/DMs soiling themselves.
If you can't imagine why a Dragon would be afraid of a Sprite, then that's not a problem with the rules, but a problem with your imagination.
If the sprite had levels and was roughly as powerful as the dragon? Sure thing. I'm all over it.
But a 7 HD creature causing a 17 HD creature to flee in fear is not how the game was designed.
It is possible, yes. But just because its possible, does not mean it is a lack of imagination that says it shouldn't be able to happen.
The only way to get something like that to happen, is to make your character so one dimensional, that instead of being a character that could be a real person, they are actually a caricature instead.
If that's how you have fun, far be it for me to say that's wrong. But lets not prevaricate and say that it doesn't break credulity.
When a caricature roflstomps an encounter because their single dimension triggers, that isn't imagination, that's just using the mechanics of the game to win.
All this being said, I firmly believe that Rapanuii is not doing this.
|
|
So, what social skill is acceptable for me to use, and when does the erratta for fighter get it as a class skill?
Intimidate is acceptable for you to use.
a +14 at 5th level does not appear that you are abusing it.
Have at it, and have fun.
It is unfortunate that you have a GM who is imposing his house rules on your PFS game.
|
|
Rapanuii: This is a public forum. If you dislike people expressing their opinion in a public forum, don't visit one. PFS is a public game. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, don't play it. Neither PFS nor this forum is about you. It's about consensus and getting along with each other and I feel you have a problem with that.
Regarding the reading comprehension part: Yes, mechanically, Xerxes would be your b~&+$. However I would not allow this at my table, because I don't like that scene. Get it now?
Yeah, this is a public forum, and I can take people disagreeing with me forever and ever. This thread is proof that I can do this.
So, public forum thing... Yeah, on the bottom of where you post it reads...
"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place. Questions? Check the FAQ."
So, maybe your behavior isn't acceptable for the forums, and maybe if you can't handle being a big boy, then you shouldn't be on the forums.
I didn't tell you to do anything, but just stated my wishes. Maybe at a later point when you can be respectful to others, especially me, then perhaps I will be willing to communicate with you. Until then, I'll try my best to just ignore you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.
I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.
Yeah, Xerxes was clearly acting friendly and intimidated after Leonidas intimidated him successfully. Maybe that's why he sent his army and had them all killed.
And the limit is never the imagination. The limit is the question whether the group has fun or not. And when I'm feeling, that an action by a player spoils the fun for the rest of the group, the action won't work. On an unrelated note: if I feel that something is fun for everyone, but I don't find a mechanical reference for it, I may allow it nonetheless.
You mean like when he offered to make him warlord if all Greece?
|
|
You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.
I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.
When the man is the King of Sparta, and a legend in his own right, the implication is that he's of a high amount of hit dice and comes by his Intimidate check naturally.
A 7th level dude is not the King of Sparta, and saying that it lacks imagination to say that a level 7 dude should not be able to make a 17 Hit Die Huge Dragon run in fear, is insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Now if you had a 14 to 20 Hit Die King of Sparta, then yeah, that Dragon may just be intimidated by him. Maybe he's intimidated before the King of Sparta even makes his check.
Its about the ratio of effect, not whether a human could do it at all.
The only way to get a level 7 character to succeed on a demoralize check against the Huge Red Dragon is if you create a caricature instead of a character.
That isn't imagination, that's just using the rules to win. If that's how you have fun, have at it.
But lets not misrepresent what's actually happening in that situation.
Rapanuii: This is a public forum. If you dislike people expressing their opinion in a public forum, don't visit one. PFS is a public game. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, don't play it. Neither PFS nor this forum is about you. It's about consensus and getting along with each other and I feel you have a problem with that.
Regarding the reading comprehension part: Yes, mechanically, Xerxes would be your b$*%$. However I would not allow this at my table, because I don't like that scene. Get it now?
Then you shouldn't GM PFS.
|
|
So, what social skill is acceptable for me to use, and when does the erratta for fighter get it as a class skill?Intimidate is acceptable for you to use.
a +14 at 5th level does not appear that you are abusing it.
Have at it, and have fun.
It is unfortunate that you have a GM who is imposing his house rules on your PFS game.
It's also unfortunate that others have this mentallity too, especially ones that GM PFS. Overall it gives someone ammo to say, "see, look at all these people that agree with me" to enable their behavior.
To be frank, I wrote that as a joke, because I'm the dude that plays exclusively human fighters. I've been disrespected a lot by other people who point out my stats, and lack of investing in knowledge and social skills. I'm told on the board I need to help the party out more, without consideration for how I actually play myself at these games! I've made a lore warden that will be placing a skill point in pretty much every knowledge and perhaps even spell craft, and I made a guy with intimidate too. My efforts have brought me to a point where people are opportunist to drag me down and label me with derogatory names!
I do want to express I do appreciate your rational approach and your approval. Thanks.
|
|
Then you shouldn't GM PFS.Rapanuii: This is a public forum. If you dislike people expressing their opinion in a public forum, don't visit one. PFS is a public game. If you don't like people disagreeing with you, don't play it. Neither PFS nor this forum is about you. It's about consensus and getting along with each other and I feel you have a problem with that.
Regarding the reading comprehension part: Yes, mechanically, Xerxes would be your b$*%$. However I would not allow this at my table, because I don't like that scene. Get it now?
Pretty much what I forgot to add. PFS isn't for a person like him. I show up expecting that everyone will respect one another, and the best part of all with preventing conflict is that the game is ran expecting the rules to be enforced as they're made to be ran. So anyone who comes to the game only needs to grasp the basic fundamentals of the game, and show up to play. I love PFS because some random dude that played D&D 15 years ago we can convince to sit down and play with us... AND NOW HE IS A REGULAR!
You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.
I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.
When the man is the King of Sparta, and a legend in his own right, the implication is that he's of a high amount of hit dice and comes by his Intimidate check naturally.
A 7th level dude is not the King of Sparta, and saying that it lacks imagination to say that a level 7 dude should not be able to make a 17 Hit Die Huge Dragon run in fear, is insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Now if you had a 14 to 20 Hit Die King of Sparta, then yeah, that Dragon may just be intimidated by him. Maybe he's intimidated before the King of Sparta even makes his check.
Its about the ratio of effect, not whether a human could do it at all.
The only way to get a level 7 character to succeed on a demoralize check against the Huge Red Dragon is if you create a caricature instead of a character.
That isn't imagination, that's just using the rules to win. If that's how you have fun, have at it.
But lets not misrepresent what's actually happening in that situation.
Ok, that's all well and good and fine and whatever. You have accepted that the OP isn't doing this.
You're off topic. Take it to the home brew forum if you feel the need to continue discussing it.
|
|
So, what social skill is acceptable for me to use, and when does the erratta for fighter get it as a class skill?Intimidate is acceptable for you to use.
a +14 at 5th level does not appear that you are abusing it.
Have at it, and have fun.
It is unfortunate that you have a GM who is imposing his house rules on your PFS game.
It's also unfortunate that others have this mentallity too, especially ones that GM PFS. Overall it gives someone ammo to say, "see, look at all these people that agree with me" to enable their behavior.
To be frank, I wrote that as a joke, because I'm the dude that plays exclusively human fighters. I've been disrespected a lot by other people who point out my stats, and lack of investing in knowledge and social skills. I'm told on the board I need to help the party out more, without consideration for how I actually play myself at these games! I've made a lore warden that will be placing a skill point in pretty much every knowledge and perhaps even spell craft, and I made a guy with intimidate too. My efforts have brought me to a point where people are opportunist to drag me down and label me with derogatory names!
I do want to express I do appreciate your rational approach and your approval. Thanks.
No problems man.
Just remember, that using a skill is fine. Abusing it is what I'm discussing that I don't like.
At what point is it considered abuse?
That is a debate for another thread, and I'm sure would become quite contentious.
|
|
Actually, with the Taunt feat, a Sprite Thug can leave a big Dragon Frightened.
I think the situation here is not about Demons wetting themselves, but some players/DMs soiling themselves.
If you can't imagine why a Dragon would be afraid of a Sprite, then that's not a problem with the rules, but a problem with your imagination.
If the sprite had levels and was roughly as powerful as the dragon? Sure thing. I'm all over it.
But a 7 HD creature causing a 17 HD creature to flee in fear is not how the game was designed.
It is possible, yes. But just because its possible, does not mean it is a lack of imagination that says it shouldn't be able to happen.
The only way to get something like that to happen, is to make your character so one dimensional, that instead of being a character that could be a real person, they are actually a caricature instead.
If that's how you have fun, far be it for me to say that's wrong. But lets not prevaricate and say that it doesn't break credulity.
When a caricature roflstomps an encounter because their single dimension triggers, that isn't imagination, that's just using the mechanics of the game to win.
All this being said, I firmly believe that Rapanuii is not doing this.
You keep throwing this "one-dimensional-min/max-caricature" thing out there, as if any player focused on any thing, is a bad thing.
You have no idea what that player has put into the PC. You have no idea how much roleplay and backstory is involved. You say the game is not all about numbers, but you already made a number of judgements, about the PC, and the player, based solely on numbers.|
|
You should watch 300 and then tell me that a war chief surrounded by his army can't be intimidated by one man. You are wrong . A good check is a good check. The limit is your imagination and that isn't the players fault.
I also find it very interesting that you are saying other people are min-maxers or hate fluff when you are so closed minded to those role-playing opportunities.
When the man is the King of Sparta, and a legend in his own right, the implication is that he's of a high amount of hit dice and comes by his Intimidate check naturally.
A 7th level dude is not the King of Sparta, and saying that it lacks imagination to say that a level 7 dude should not be able to make a 17 Hit Die Huge Dragon run in fear, is insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Now if you had a 14 to 20 Hit Die King of Sparta, then yeah, that Dragon may just be intimidated by him. Maybe he's intimidated before the King of Sparta even makes his check.
Its about the ratio of effect, not whether a human could do it at all.
The only way to get a level 7 character to succeed on a demoralize check against the Huge Red Dragon is if you create a caricature instead of a character.
That isn't imagination, that's just using the rules to win. If that's how you have fun, have at it.
But lets not misrepresent what's actually happening in that situation.
Ok, that's all well and good and fine and whatever. You have accepted that the OP isn't doing this.
You're off topic. Take it to the home brew forum if you feel the need to continue discussing it.
What's your beef dude?
You raise your voice at me earlier for no reason, now you are trying to say that my on-topic comments are off topic and not germane to PFS.
The comments are very germane to PFS, as it relates to maintaining a healthy gaming community.
|
|
Actually, with the Taunt feat, a Sprite Thug can leave a big Dragon Frightened.
I think the situation here is not about Demons wetting themselves, but some players/DMs soiling themselves.
If you can't imagine why a Dragon would be afraid of a Sprite, then that's not a problem with the rules, but a problem with your imagination.
If the sprite had levels and was roughly as powerful as the dragon? Sure thing. I'm all over it.
But a 7 HD creature causing a 17 HD creature to flee in fear is not how the game was designed.
It is possible, yes. But just because its possible, does not mean it is a lack of imagination that says it shouldn't be able to happen.
The only way to get something like that to happen, is to make your character so one dimensional, that instead of being a character that could be a real person, they are actually a caricature instead.
If that's how you have fun, far be it for me to say that's wrong. But lets not prevaricate and say that it doesn't break credulity.
When a caricature roflstomps an encounter because their single dimension triggers, that isn't imagination, that's just using the mechanics of the game to win.
All this being said, I firmly believe that Rapanuii is not doing this.
You keep throwing this "one-dimensional-min/max-caricature" thing out there, as if any player focused on any thing, is a bad thing.
You have no idea what that player has put into the PC. You have no idea how much roleplay and backstory is involved. You say the game is not all about numbers, but you already made a number of judgements, about the PC, and the player, based solely on numbers.
Um, no I haven't.
Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner are very interesting characters with lots of back story and they are quite fun to watch on Saturday mornings.
But they are still caricatures.
|
|
I say it's an issue when the character is designed just for the purpose of abusing such a skill that is seen as broken. If you happen to have the skill to use, then why do you care if it happens to do something you feel is impossible. The intent of the player is what really matters, and if they're not intending to be a jerk, and even when you mention the possibility of being perceived as such, then it should be all good. The player made their save, and now they earned their reward for taking the risk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rapanuii having read the entire thread and being almost wholly in agreement with you I would like to say that I feel you have been impolite and too quick to be dismissive and aggressive to other posters. It is obvious you are trying to be polite, but you quickly seem to become vitriolic. I am not trying to insult you, but to put across how I am perceiving your posts from what I believe is a neutral stand point.
As to the point this being PFS if it is inappropriate for a monster to be subject to the normal rules the Scenario writer will tell you so, it is not your call as a PFS GM.
|
|
I say it's an issue when the character is designed just for the purpose of abusing such a skill that is seen as broken. If you happen to have the skill to use, then why do you care if it happens to do something you feel is impossible. The intent of the player is what really matters, and if they're not intending to be a jerk, and even when you mention the possibility of being perceived as such, then it should be all good. The player made their save, and now they earned their reward for taking the risk.
I agree with you.
But if you run the numbers, the only way for some things to happen (i.e. that level 7 Tiefling character causing a Huge Red Dragon to flee in fear), is if they create a one-dimensional caricature. If they abuse the rules.
If it were a level 14 to 20 Tiefling, then the fact they could cause a Huge Red Dragon to flee is credible, as the 14 to 20th level guy is a legitimate threat. Whereas the level 7 guy is typically secondsies and a yawn before the pre-lunch nap.
Because you along with nearly everyone else on this forum spent 3 pages second guessing, accusing, and shaming the op without knowing anything about his build and blatantly ignoring his accounts of what happened at the table. Spent those 3 pages telling him he was wrong about the rules because you dont like how they work and then when someone finally got you to stop and realize that you were wrong then you turn it and say "well, technically I'm wrong but you shouldn't play the game that way."
When that got shown to be wrong it turned into "well some people might do crazy stuff that you aren't doing so therefore you role-play bad."
It's really really aggravating to read and I'm not even the OP!
|
|
Because you along with nearly everyone else on this forum spent 3 pages second guessing, accusing, and shaming the op without knowing anything about his build and blatantly ignoring his accounts of what happened at the table. Spent those 3 pages telling him he was wrong about the rules because you dont like how they work and then when someone finally got you to stop and realize that you were wrong then you turn it and say "well, technically I'm wrong but you shouldn't play the game that way."
When that got shown to be wrong it turned into "well some people might do crazy stuff that you aren't doing so therefore you role-play bad."
It's really really aggravating to read and I'm not even the OP!
Go back and re-read what I wrote.
You'll note that not once did I ever accuse the OP of doing anything.
I made some "what if" comments at first, because obviously I didn't have the whole story.
But you'll note that the dialogue between me and Rapanuii is rather civil and constructive.
Others may have done what you claim, but certainly not me.
You are putting a lot of words in my mouth, and make a ton of assumptions about the intent behind what I posted. I wish you wouldn't do that.