Intimidation?

[Ioskeha]

ok so we really dont have a consensus on this. Both as to method and to reaction. Although the method SZ laid out seems very clear (I will call it the 3.0 method) it is still only one of three at this point (3.0, will, and same vs same methods). If a GM (or GMs) could weigh in on this it would help. As to the reaction, we have for the most part a common thought "you would be intimidated". Now WH's point above is a good one. The PC's are mostly heros ready and trained to face danger (except the evil ones which I dont know what they are). They are used to seeing a room full of nasties that could kill them and charging in anyway. So if faced with what they see as real danger and not just an empty threat (failed roll) would they not react in kind. Of course most heros are also smart and wont charge into certain death. So if intimidate results in a feelng that this person can and will kill you will the hero retreat?

I was told by Ice at one of those 101 RP meeting, who was told by Dorganath, that since we don't have the proper counter skill for intimidate that we are suppose to just use  intimidate for a counter roll.


 

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Iosheka, that's just one method, and a reasonably common method, at least when dealing with two characters who both have a high Intimidate modifier. It's not balanced, though. As you'll recall at that session, the consensus was that there wasn't really any consensus, and to figure it out yourself, except on DM quests (when you roll what they tell you to).

In terms of Aura of Courage, I'd say that would give +5 to the Paladin's level check, and +2 to everyone he considered with him. (I.e. those in Party.) Nothing should ever give total immunity to it except catatonia.

[Witch Hunter]

it states immunity to fear though...

[darkstorme]

That would be immunity to spells that play on fears.  No spell can grant immunity from genuine fear; nor would you wish it to.  Fear, most of the time, is your hindbrain telling you, "This is dangerous.  REALLY dangerous.  Be careful."

[Ioskeha]

Iosheka, that's just one method, and a reasonably common method, at least when dealing with two characters who both have a high Intimidate modifier. It's not balanced, though. As you'll recall at that session, the consensus was that there wasn't really any consensus, and to figure it out yourself, except on DM quests (when you roll what they tell you to).

In terms of Aura of Courage, I'd say that would give +5 to the Paladin's level check, and +2 to everyone he considered with him. (I.e. those in Party.) Nothing should ever give total immunity to it except catatonia.

Thanks, but I was told otherwise.  We're to use the same soical skill check for counter rolls.  Not a pefect system, but that is what we're suppose to do.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

As I am certain any DM will tell you, that is not an absolute statement, and not the official be-all-end-all statement. The official statement is "Common sense, and on DM quests, whatever the DM asks for."

[jrizz]

But we still need a standard way to do this between PCs when a DM is not present. So which way do we go?

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

I advise going with a Wisdom (not Will) check + character level (+ any bonuses against fear) to oppose. However, as I'm not part of the Team, I can't say that that's any "official" way.

[Ioskeha]

Using the same social skill for a check is the standard, otherwise the GMs would not have told us in RP101.  A copy and paste from the log.  Thanks, Lynn!

CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:47:20] Sallaron Tempest: Oh...just a quick one......
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:47:39] Sallaron Tempest: ....bit of confusion over it.....what counter's a Intimidate and Bluff check when out of a DM quest?
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:47:55] Death's Harbinger: thats really a tough one
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:06] Muireann: I know what Dorgy told me.....
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:07] Kutya'I: *raises his hand*
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:10] Muireann: for ease
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:25] Death's Harbinger: since its DnD skills there SHOULD be skills to counter them but they aren't put in NwN go ahead Muir
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:31] Death's Harbinger: one sec Kut
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:48:46] Kutya'I: I looked into this and for NWN a will save is what is typically use.. was rasing my hand for that
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:02] Muireann: Dorgy said that due the the fact there aren't skills to counter them and it's not fair to counter with a will....
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:17] Muireann: as you can't up your will in the same way someone can with skill points...
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:34] Muireann: He said to go with an opposed roll of the same skill
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:47] Sallaron Tempest: *sighs miserably* Will save huh.......that's just great
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:51] Death's Harbinger: *nods to Muir*
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:52] Muireann: No
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:56] Death's Harbinger: not a will save
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:49:57] Muireann: Not will
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:06] Sallaron Tempest: Oh *perks up*
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:15] Muireann: Opposed roll of the same skill
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:19] Death's Harbinger: a will save is what you would use on a dm quest where a fair DC could be determined by the DM
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:43] Sallaron Tempest: So....bluff vs bluff.....intim vs intim?
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:51] Death's Harbinger: yes
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:52] Muireann: That's what Dorgy said
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:50:53] Kutya'I: cool!  
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:51:02] Sallaron Tempest: Sounds better to me *grins*
[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Tue Feb 27 11:51:27] Muireann: Otherwise the high level rogue will always bluff you unless you've very lucky

[twidget658]

As I am certain any DM will tell you, that is not an absolute statement, and not the official be-all-end-all statement. The official statement is "Common sense, and on DM quests, whatever the DM asks for."

 
Common sense is not as common as you may think. It is a default way of answering a question without providing an answer.
 
My common sense may tell me to use a skill that I am best at and then to try to find justification in using it. My sorceress has a CHA of 34 and her Will saves are high. However, her WIS is average. By using common sense, would I use a WIS roll?
 
There has to be a standard or people will roll whatever they want.

[Gulnyr]

Using the same social skill for a check is the standard, otherwise the GMs would not have told us in RP101.

At another RP101 meeting, after a long discussion was held about the strengths and weaknesses of various methods, GMs said there is no official Layonara standard.  *shrug*  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying other people were told differently.

Just to add a completely unofficial opinion, I think an opposed Intimidate check is very unbalanced, and were it decided that it is the official Layonara position, I would argue vigorously against it.  Imagine that someone like Plenarius or Triba or Reventage or Brisbane, any character we all see as tough and experienced, the kind who would stand face-to-face against Blood, had no ranks in Intimidate.  Any Joe Nobody with a few Intimidate ranks could often frighten these great heroes into submission with opposed Intimidate checks, and that's just silly.

[jrizz]

SZ's posted method from 3.0 has my vote. I too would argue against the same skill method it is very unbalanced and does not take into account a PCs level in anyway.

SZ, would the same method be used against a bluff check, pers check, taunt check and so on? If so then it could be the standard very easy. It is ok for the team to say there is no standard method we can still try to set one by default if we can get a movement behind it. This is how a community works.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

No, the same method would NOT (imo) be used against the other checks.

Resisting an Intimidate check involves (and very much so) one's experience - after all, someone who's been in countless battles isn't likely to be daunted by Joe Schmoe Orcenstein.

Beating a Bluff, on the other hand, requires the person to be perceptive - very much so. After all, you're catching clues in body language and wording (as well as spotting holes in the bluff itself) that the person's not telling the truth. However, we don't have Sense Motive. This makes it very difficult to adjudicate properly. Myself, I would say that one of the following (whichever's highest) would be appropriate:

- Opposed Bluff check (if you know a good lie when you see one...)
- WIS check + 1/2 levels (not everyone maxes out Sense Motive, but this would be nice for those perceptive characters)
- INT check (this may not seem quite as intuitive, but a smart person can catch flaws in a person's bluffs)

Onto Persuade...

Now, in the Diplomacy skill description (which is basically a renamed Persuasion), it states that one simply opposes one skill check with another. This represents two characters interacting and trying to assert their force of personality over the other. So, an opposed Persuade check.

Taunt. Ick.

I'm not a big fan of NWN's Taunt, just like I'm not a big fan of Parry (however much I use Parry). That said, the standard opposing roll is Concentration. In battle? Sure, fine, I'll go with that. But... I have to say that it doesn't make as much sense to me as, for example, our Sense Motive stand-in, WIS check + 1/2 level.

Oh, and as a note, the method for opposing Intimidate that I and Gulnyr proposed (that the latter corrected the former on) is from 3.5. I'm not sure if it was the same in 3.0 - I've only got the 3.5 rules handy. That said, 3.5 is better-balanced.

[Witch Hunter]

Maybe they could add all those nifty rolls we need to the dice bag

[Gulnyr]

Beating a Bluff ... I would say that one of the following (whichever's highest) would be appropriate:

- Opposed Bluff check (if you know a good lie when you see one...)
- WIS check + 1/2 levels (not everyone maxes out Sense Motive, but this would be nice for those perceptive characters)
- INT check (this may not seem quite as intuitive, but a smart person can catch flaws in a person's bluffs)

"Pick whichever works best for your character" is weird, but without an actual Sense Motive skill, I can see how it might be appropriate.  

I'm not convinced that a Wisdom roll + 1/2 Character Level is fair.  Imagine that we did have Sense Motive available, and imagine that there are two characters, Billy Bluffer and Scarlett Skeptic.

Billy Bluffer is level 10, has no Charisma modifier, and has maxed his ranks in Bluff (13).  Scarlett Skeptic is level 10, has no Wisdom modifier, and has maxed her ranks in Sense Motive (13).  On average, each rolls 23 or 24 on their opposed check when Billy tries to bluff Scarlett. (10.5 + 13 = 23.5).

Now let's remove Sense Motive and let Scarlett use half her levels instead.  Billy's average is still 23 or 24, but now Scarlett's average roll to resist is only 15 or 16 (10.5 + 5 = 15.5), a difference of 8 in Billy's favor.  At level 20, Billy's average with maxed ranks is 33 or 34 (10.5 + 23 = 33.5), and Scarlett's average is 20 or 21 (10.5 + 10 = 20.5), for a difference of 13 in Billy's favor.  That is a big jump in effectiveness for Billy, one that gets more pronounced as his level rises, and it's not fair to justify it by saying "not everyone maxes out Sense Motive."  Not everyone maxes out Bluff, either, but they don't get penalized for it; they just don't know how to lie.  If you want to pick locks, you put ranks into Open Lock; you don't change the rules to make locks weaker.  If you want to be able to lie well, you put ranks into Bluff; you don't make other characters more susceptible.

Instead of half her levels, let's let Scarlett use her full level.  Now, Billy's average is still 23 or 24, but Scarlett's average is up to 20 or 21 (10.5 + 10 = 20.5).  At level 20, Billy's average is 33 or 34, and Scarlett's average is 30 or 31. Billy still has the advantage, but Scarlett isn't so far behind now.  Bluff doesn't become overwhelmingly powerful and difficult to resist at higher levels.

Consider also that the typical Bluff user probably has a positive Charisma modifier, making his attempts more effective than my examples.  The Bluffer is likely to have enough of an advantage over the target without halving the target's level.  

I know level doesn't necessarily seem right as a measure of skepticism, but by adding only half the target's level to the opposed roll, Bluff becomes more powerful than it should be.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

I'll agree with you there, Gulnyr; the advantage is clearly for Bluffers in that instance. But... What about Gary Gullible? He's got no ranks at all in Sense Motive...

I think the thing I was trying to hedge against was the ease of exploitation of WIS + level. Those who have Bluff have actually spent skill points, while those using our ad hoc method haven't. And that much really does seem unfair (at least to me, who values skill points as much or more than feats).

Perhaps we could just replace another skill with Sense Motive, or add it in? We replaced Craft Trap with Gather Information, for example (I think).

Though that would leave a lot of characters who should have ranks in it without them.

[Gulnyr]

I'll agree with you there, Gulnyr; the advantage is clearly for Bluffers in that instance. But... What about Gary Gullible? He's got no ranks at all in Sense Motive...

I think the thing I was trying to hedge against was the ease of exploitation of WIS + level. Those who have Bluff have actually spent skill points, while those using our ad hoc method haven't. And that much really does seem unfair (at least to me, who values skill points as much or more than feats).

I thought about that.  If we use level in place of Sense Motive, how do we compensate for those characters who would have taken ranks in Sense Motive and those who wouldn't have?  Take half the level for everyone.  It makes sense, but it breaks pretty early and gets worse at higher levels.  

Mechanically, I like adding full level for everyone because it maintains the challenge for the Bluffers.  Nothing ever becomes an "I win" button.  There isn't an upper limit of ranks that becomes enough to fool everyone; more ranks will always make a character more effective, and there will always be targets worthy of the effort and the skill points spent.

Roleplay-wise, I think a lot of the social skill rolls should be used sparingly between PCs.  In other words, players should actually roleplay bluffs and persuasion rather than constantly resorting to dice.  Sure, pull out a roll now and then, but try to actually get in there and persuade Biff Buyer that 15000 True is a good price, or Lisa Lowlands that climbing the cliff is the best plan.  Save most of the rolling for interactions with NPCs.  This isn't a great example for the general reader, but there have been good examples of this on the What Is and What Should Never Be series.  Jennara was ready to jump overboard and swim to Audira, but she was persuaded to stay with the group and sail on to North Point.  No rolls were necessary, and I don't think whipping out dice bags would have been as fun and rewarding.  Intimidate is the social skill that should be rolled most often between PCs, if only to get an indication of just exactly how intimidating (or intimidated) a character is.

I like skill points, too, and I know not rolling a skill against PCs seems to make the skill points spent on a skill less valuable, so I can understand if my opinion doesn't sound so great to everyone.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Roleplay-wise, I think a lot of the social skill rolls should be used sparingly between PCs.  In other words, players should actually roleplay bluffs and persuasion rather than constantly resorting to dice.

Hear here. I really agree with this statement. That said...

Again, you've said it... And we've come to the same old conclusion that there isn't really a good opposing roll for Bluff at all.

[jrizz]

I agree with that. But when it does come to rolls it is good to have an idea of the ways to do it.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

In summation:

Vs. Intimidate: Wisdom check + level + modifiers against fear

Vs. Persuade: Opposed Persuade

Vs. Taunt: Concentration

Vs. Bluff: Opposed Bluff OR Wisdom check + level OR Intelligence check

When is a Will Save used to oppose social skill checks? NEVER. (Except when a DM asks for one.)

What's better than rolling skill checks? Roleplaying it out!

Will we ever really get our hands on a good way to oppose Bluff checks? Only time will tell!