A thought on PvP

[Acacea]

It's not a matter of 'becoming friendly.' It's like breaking when you want them to do something. If anything they likely become more hostile (like Weeblie stated and I missed while typing), but are temporarily cowed into a different course of action than they would normally take.

No one said great heroes are immune to fear. Again, quite the opposite, and I tried to say that more than once. Intimidation is not just random fear, it is a charisma based pressure tool. Just because Acacea is a bit claustrophobic in the UD doesn't mean she's extra susceptible to someone making faces at her for no reason.

A wise adventurer may do many things, including yes, taking any threat seriously and not falling victim to the illusion that they are immortal - but that is not the same as being cowed by the threat into submission. I'm not sure laughter is the appropriate response for some if the check is very high, even if they pass it with the aid of their level - I firmly believe that they would not have their actions changed by it, but the attempt to do so and the fact that it worked on many other people inspire some response. If you pass the save against the giant barbarian's terrifying rage as it mows down the party, you don't laugh, you eliminate the threat.

Anyway this is kind of off-topic but even when disagreeing with the stance of the PHB it's still unfair to rant about all the people that use it for their reference. Again... not ignoring the rolls or a failure, as that's not right either, just the factoring of the level into the counter is what I'm talking about. If it is now an argument on what it SHOULD be then there are a few threads about Intimidation specifically... I was just clarifying the currently correct equation, not that everyone should like it.

[lonnarin]

How does the epic adventerer's eye distinguish between a 30HD dragon of Gargantuan size vs. a 30HD dragon of equal Gargantuan size that has 15 extra sorceror levels?

Also, Indiana Jones fought the nazis all by himself, yet still screams & nearly has a heart attack when you throw a garden snake at him.

Of course this is all philosophy and behavioral science at this point, far detached from the black & white rule system of D&D, in which the human condition has been watered down into vague generalizations for brevity's sake.  I must cede that it's just a game and that the current standardized check is as it is because to go in depth as I would, the game would be called "Shadowrun" or "Rifts".  They had a nice phobia system and added psychological factors that were a bit more flexible and realistic than 3.5's assumptions.

And no, this is not a rant against those who use the 3.5 system as it is in the book.  The initial qualms I had in this thread were about those not even acknowledging intimidation checks despite the rolls; substituting the level check is still far better than completely ignoring the check at all... or likewise opposing it in whatever manner they chose and refusing to RP failure when the dice roll south of the opposed check, extra levels and all.

Then somwhere along the line my mind went lucid and started recalling years and years of behavioral theory and clinical studies, and I began pondering on a philosophical/theoretical bent.  I'm not rejecting the use of level checks in game at all, just questioning their ultimate validity for that which they are presumed to represent.

[miltonyorkcastle]

Shadow Run ... *shivers* So many numbers...... Rifts, too, but not quite as bad.... played a lot of Rifts last fall....

[Acacea]

But we are not factoring level into phobias and environmental fears, or at least I wouldn't, because many of those only become greater or more pronounced the more someone has been through - we factor level into another PCs attempt to pressure them into doing something they would not normally do (whether giving information or fleeing from combat) by presenting themselves as a greater threat. I would factor my level against that unless I didn't feel like doing the numbers and felt like my PC was having a bad day or something.

I would not factor my character's level against fear that is the result of a 'phobia' actively threatening her and yawning in the abyss and all that.

What I mean -

Lone hulking brute leering and threatening with a knife in an attempt to cow her into submission: d20+level+wismod = something like "I fought all the nazis by myself and have escaped death by the seat of my pants countless times, I think I can find an intelligent way to deal with this rather than breaking"

Put in a small room 2000 miles under the surface = something like "panic"

I would also remind that passing an intimidation check does not necessarily mean one is unaffected... but you keep your cool and react as you would under 'normal' circumstances.

*Shifty* Topic topic, where have you gone...

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Lonnarin: Special Abilities - Frightful Presence :: d20srd.org

I'm afraid that the dragon's fear aura (frightful presence by name) is an Extraordinary Ability, which, while nonmagical, isn't simply gut, That-thing-is-going-to-eat-me-so-it's-smart-to-be-afraid fear. It's OHMYGODMYBRAINISONFIREAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHH fear.

Intimidation isn't about fear. That's why fear is handled differently than Intimidate. I can be nicely intimidated by the big hulking guy with biceps the size of my thighs, and not be afraid of him (so long as I do what he tells me to), after all.

[lonnarin]

Causation need not always define effect.  While the methods of fear in D&D may undergo taxonomy for simplification, the end result of their application is still avoided only via will save or immunity.  While this specific non-magical fear is categorized as an extraordinary ability, it is still the result of extraordinary *circumstances* stemming from looking upon a rather extraordinary-looking dragon.  Without either a magical or psionic conduit to artificially instill this fear, I fail to see how extraordinary-ability fear differs from any other naturally occuring type of fear one would experience.  If this aura persists in no-magic zones, then one would assume that its source was entirely situational to the amount of fearful stimuli witnessed by the viewer.

On the second point, there is a thought to ponder regarding the nature of intimidation.... Intimidation itself may be entirely divided from fear in certain circumstances.  While a Paladin who's immune to fear might shrug off a threat from a rogue that he's going to get gutted in his sleep, he would be foolish to ignore such a threat against the paladin's innocent loved ones.  "let me go or my guild will burn down your church as you sleep and slay every child in your orphanage" might not *frighten* the paladin, though it certainly might be enough to give him pause and coerce him towards some end in the rogue's favor, particularly when worded in a manner that is ultimately believable.

In that sense I'm beginning to see intimidation as less of a knee-jerk fear reaction, and more as a situational mind-game of chess in which the context and believability of the threat is of utmost importance.  It therefore would not entirely tantamount to instill fear in an individual in order to coerce them with a threat of some sort.  This theory might disprove the Paladins' defense of "I have no fear; I can't be intimidated".

Very good points in this discussion, everyone, despite how far from the initial topic it's travelled thus far.  Without active philosophical debate my day job would be truly boring!

*picks up a 12pack and drives home for the day*

[Dezza]

Just to throw in a suggestion here...

What if through pvp you had a greater chance to loose a soul strand?

WOuld this cause people who are taking advantage of the pvp widget or over using it in inappropriate circumstances suddenly consider very seriously their actions?

Entering into combat should be a well thought out event for most people no matter race, class, level or alignment. Its really only CE or perhaps NE to some degree that may take offense over very little and seek to pvp.

But even in saying so...people are trying to do it in the middle of towns, cities and in front of others etc.  

Why? Most likely cause after being denied it so long they suddenly can. Its a long way sometimes to run to Fort Vehl and the arena to 'test' your character out against another.

Its one thing to run around killing giants and ogres and such but to fight each other...wow thats new and so much more challenging lets do it!!!

Hopefully its use will die down...I cant say its going to happen though.

I say give people real repercussions in using it and make them think twice about whether they would in truth use it in those circumstances.

Personally I dont feel its required to enhance our RP experience on layo. The only reason that I can see that its there for now is so that evil guys can pick on good guys moreso than good guys taking out evil guys. Good guys have more morals than that....usually.

Consider this: Does killing another PC for very little reason make the game more fun for you? If so then I would say this world is not for you.

If you RP and there is simply no altenative but to draw swords at 5 paces and smash each other to bits you still need to consider your environment. In many cases it is simply not appropriate for you to engage in pvp. Town guards are around, innocent people, other adventurers, military forces etc, etc.

I advise people to think long and hard about pvp...long and hard!

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Causation need not always define effect.  While the methods of fear in D&D may undergo taxonomy for simplification, the end result of their application is still avoided only via will save or immunity. While this specific non-magical fear is categorized as an extraordinary ability, it is still the result of extraordinary *circumstances* stemming from looking upon a rather extraordinary-looking dragon.  Without either a magical or psionic conduit to artificially instill this fear, I fail to see how extraordinary-ability fear differs from any other naturally occuring type of fear one would experience.  If this aura persists in no-magic zones, then one would assume that its source was entirely situational to the amount of fearful stimuli witnessed by the viewer.

Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

The main focus there is that Extraordinary Abilites do not (necessarily) adhere to the laws of reality as we know them... Or at all. A dragon's Frightful Presence (which, after checking, is NOT the same as a Fear Aura) is one such mentally-pervasive-

----

Actually, after thinking about this a little, I think I have to reverse my stance on Frightful Presence. Yes, it is a natural fear. The whole gut-deep RUNTHE[ahem]AWAY feeling...

However, that said... Frightful Presence is an Extraordinary Ability rooted in A) the creature's Charisma and B) the creature's HD, both of which lend directly to force of personality. After all, to save it is a "Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 frightful creature's racial HD + frightful creature's Cha modifier)". It's an Extraordinary ability for a reason - it's an enhanced-...

Okay, more thinking.

Frightful Presence seems, indeed, to simply be the D20 system's way of quantifying those VERY impressive creatures. As we'll recall, it activates any time they do anything particularly impressive - snarling, attacking, swooping by...

Wow. I've changed my own mind twice in one post after thinking about it hard enough.

EDIT:

AHAH! Now, on to lay out in clear form why Frightful Presence and Fear spells rely on a Will Save, while Intimidate takes a modified Level check.

Frightful/Fear - Both require Will Saves, as they directly confront the character's force of willpower with the onslaught of unreasoning, animal terror.

Intimidate - Requires a Level check, as, rather than presenting the opposing character with FEAR, it presents the opposing character with a situation they DON'T want to be in. I.e. "hand over the money or the gal gets it" rather than "ROAR! SMASH YOO DED!!!"

[Polak76]

Firstly thanks Dezza for bringing this back to the original topic, but alas i'll quikly comment on die roll business.

What irritates me most when i read these posts is how technical we get over such really simple issues.  Without going into all the fine print of the PHB 3.5 or other resources why can't we just simply play it by ear and enjoy the game for what it is.

Quite simply if my char rolls a skill check against any epic characters regardless of how high they are and beats them with the roll, they had better RP their failure appropriately or i'll simply send them a tell thats probably not going to be very nice and ignore them from then on.  I dont really care if their level isn't factored in the die roll, all i'm concerned with is my total versus their total, or if i roll a 20 and they roll a 1, visa versa.  It's petty squabbling over who's right and who's wrong, lets just play the game as it is.

But back to the PvP, with the widgets we naturally assume that all PvP occurs when both parties agree to combat and they both have a chance to be ready.  How completely different this is in most circumstances.  Most of the time PvP would happen with one party being surpirsed by the sudden attack be it a stab in the back, ambush, assassination or any attack when they least expect it.  So taking that into consideration lets say Mr Big wants to attack my char because i said something that irritated him (which would be most of the time).  He might be visibly angry but my char might simply turn his back and start walking off.  He then might activate the widget and send me a tell saying he wants to PvP.  Now if I at this point accept combat but keep walking off as i may fail a spot check to see him reaching for his dagger and he could then very well kill me without me being ready.  At this point such an action could be viewed as murder if it happened in sight of others and be reported to the town militia.  So basiaclly what I'm getting at is PvP can be agreed with the notion that one party member has no idea that the other is about to launch the attack where death would most likely be imminent.

[Laldiien]

If a PC dies in Layo, they should risk the loss of a Soul Strand.  There needs to be serious, tangible and painful consequences for taking a PC's life.  Some will retort that it's unfair to the lower level or the under-prepared.  I submit they should not have allowed their Level 30 mouth to override their Level 6 body.

[Pseudonym]

*bump* Oh look what I bumped into.

[Krell Himmler]

I know I hear people always talk about intimidate with a roll and many other things to be rolled for, whilst I sometimes find it's necessary to roll an opposed skill check, being an RP server I would much rather someone intimidate by appearance, presence and REAL fear, as opposed to walking up to me and all I see is "*intimidate check* go away".

I was witness to one lame attempt at intimidating, in which one character continued to attack a target despite being told to stop by the whole party whom was then temporarily disabled and threatened me, fine naturally.

Then randomly, some character who doesn't even know the character threatening me, pops out of nowhere, standing infront of me and just does an intimidate check without a word.

The whole system of intimidate, bluff and so forth was mainly designed for PC versus NPC, not PC versus PC. I have seen many PC's intimidate many times without any dice rolls and done is fantastically, forcing me to back down from something, so as not to risk their wrath (if it makes RP sense I never decline PVP, no matter how painful it will be). Remember the old joke, Roleplay, not rollplay. Simply walking up to people and rolling intimidate checks doesn't cut it, as previously stated, if I roll and lose, I will RP it, but sometimes I won't roll, if the situation just doesn't seem appropriate. Another great example is Mr Rogue of level 40 and Mr Barbarian of level 10. Say they've been friends for awhile but things go sour. Say we do an opposed intimidate check and Mr Barbarian wins, now Mr Rogue is more than aware of Mr Barbarians combat ability and is quite sure he can rip him apart. Would he really quake in his boots and cry in the corner, or realistically, would the NE rogue just stab the barbarian and be about his business? This illustrates my point about intimidate as a Roll or a Role check, people should try and RP it out, only using Rolls at an impass and a way to force avoidance of metagaming.

I want to finish with PvP should be used when it makes RP sense and never any other time. If you insult a powerful and evil person you shouldn't hide behind the deny button but accept what you know makes sense, just as you'd be forced to, if you called an NPC lich a number of insults.

[Nehetsrev]

I'm surprised no one's really brought up the converse situation, where you RP your attempt to intimidate someone really well, and by all reasonable accounting, the character you're attempting to intimidate should be intimidated, but doesn't even so much as acknowledge it, except to boldly act as though even if Vorax himself were the one trying to intimidate them they wouldn't back-down.

So, in the end after reading these kinds of posts time-and-again, I say the need to roll or not roll greatly depends upon the players involved in any given situation and their ability to maturely handle it and either acquiesce one to the other, or agree to rolling to settle it.

[merlin34baseball]

Nice and pleasant PMs can solve a lot of issues...

erm... edit...

Nice and pleasant Tells......

[Hellblazer]

I'm surprised no one's really brought up the converse situation, where you RP your attempt to intimidate someone really well, and by all reasonable accounting, the character you're attempting to intimidate should be intimidated, but doesn't even so much as acknowledge it, except to boldly act as though even if Vorax himself were the one trying to intimidate them they wouldn't back-down.

So, in the end after reading these kinds of posts time-and-again, I say the need to roll or not roll greatly depends upon the players involved in any given situation and their ability to maturely handle it and either acquiesce one to the other, or agree to rolling to settle it.

Never met Brian eh? I think I'm using the intimidate check so much with him, that it is fading off my screen.