Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Duration_10_Rounds 08-27-05, 11:58 AM	Ok I have an NPC wanting to be an "Urban Ranger" then going into some kind of Bounty Hunter NPC out of a D&D Suppliment he has. As for making arrests how should I adjudicate how the NPC's react? Intimidate can turn a hostile foe into a "friendly" reacting NPC. If friendly (using the tearm loosley as they are more scared into acting that way) will they surrender for arrest, i assumed not as arresting some one would break "friendship" IMO. OR should a diplomacy role be used to force friendly into helpful before a willing arrest can bemade? Can you use Diplomacy on an intimidated foe? I've been watching a few eppisodes of Dog the Bounty Hunter (ok its cheesy and stupid but its good entertainment ;) ). And thier initial tactic is to come in strong, in force, with mace spray & shouting at thier target (Intimidate), then when they have him/her pacified they talk them down, making it seem like its in thier best intrest to come along (Diplomacy). Is this how i should have my Bounty Hunter player do it? 1) Intimidate to pacify the target. 2) Deplomicy to get them cuffed and willing to come quietly.
Nagol 08-27-05, 12:24 PM	It would depend on the expected treatment/punishment of the foe. If the foe is expecting to be killed, then he probably wouldn't surrender even to a friend. He would try avoidance over aggression.
Eightbitmage 08-27-05, 12:26 PM	If theyre really intimidated, and believe that they cant escape alive they will go along, if not they will probably fight, or run. I think you are reading too far into the rules saying that arresting them would break the friendship. Remember the intent of the rules above other things. Just use your best judgement.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-27-05, 12:37 PM	So it would be viable to assume a "friendly" status could result in a peaceful arrest? Its not always going to be the case that they have no chance of escape and thats where the idea of diplomacy comes in.... they might need to be convinced they will not be killed if taken captive OR that going queitly now will seem them get a lighter sentance than running and being hunted down like dogs.
Yak of Darkness 08-27-05, 01:16 PM	I don't necessarily think that "attitute" (at least as it is presented in the PHB for Diplomacy rules, which in my opinion, is not always the best place to base a decision on NPC behavior--the attitude rules are a little wonky) is going to be the primary factor in whether someone considers surrender/arrest. Instead, I'd argue for a variety of other factors. The culture of the area the battle is taking place in. Assuming a standard "good party fighting the evil bandits/cultists/mimes" kind of conflict, the baddies may see the PCs, if the option for surrender/arrest is on the table, an extention of the legitimate law. If, then, the region's king is famous the world over for his leniency and mercy in dealing with criminals, surrender is more likely than if the ruler has a reputation for tyranny or sadism. Whether or not the bad guys' assumptions about the PCs/area are true, however, is a different story. The culture the bad guys were raised in. Take two groups of bandits--humans raised in a lawful kingdom where thieves are arrested and given a short jail/work sentence; and orcs raised in a chaotic tribe where thieves are executed upon being caught. Which one is more likely to consider surrender instead of fighting to the death? An NPC can't say they surrender if they have no concept of what the word means. Tactical considerations. Nobody (okay . . . most people) don't actually want to die. A large percentage of these people are also rational, at least as far as their own safety is concerned. If death looks imminent and surrender is an option, many will throw down their weapons just to keep from dying. Even if they are absolutely not planning on being sent to jail peacefully, they may agree to surrender now, if it'll save their lives and open up the possibility of escape later. Who they're fighting. The orc is going to surrender to the party of humans and half-orcs long before he surrenders to the party of dwarves and elves. The NPC's personality. Some people are cowards. Some people are stubborn. Some people love violence. Some people abhor physical fighting. Some people have honor systems that demand never giving up. Some people understand 'tis better to live and fight another day. Some people would sooner die than give up their freedom. Some people may not surrender to captivitiy, but will rather run than die. Some people just don't know when they're outgunned and will fight like idiots, thinking they're winning. It all depends on the NPC.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-27-05, 02:19 PM	The players come from a society of "Peace Keepers" who maintain political equilibrium and aid the cause of justice in all the surrounding cities. Thier internal laws offer only one penalty: Death! but that is only doled out to thier own memebers. This gives the Players a bit of a rep for being "tough-nuts" raised in a society that kills its own as the only form of punishment BUT these peace keepers have politcal and diplomatic roles to play and must appease all they keep the peace for so they are bround to bring wrong do-ers to much more leiniant local justice. This role is a bit of a double edged sword for them. In knowing they are there to clean up the "baddies" sentances are often lighter as local authorties will just relly on them to re-catch re-offenders (somthing that hopefully stop offenders re-offending) BUT thats not all bad as seeing this society out on the streets catching wrong dooers left, right and centre bolsters everybodies respect/fear of them. This puts the players in a role where taking a target peacfully is totaly viable, BUT they are fully sanctioned to take fellons out by any means nessesary if they resist... making surrender a viable option in the current game setting.... hence me asking this question ;)
FriendoftheDork 08-27-05, 06:04 PM	never mind rolls and attitudes, it's better to think as the NPC. If said NPC believes he will lose and that the hero will show some mercy then he might surrender. An intimidate check will help to make the NPC scared, thus might help him surrender. If the criminals know that if they surrender to the "Peace Keepers" they will live, they are more likely to do so. If they think they can get away safely, they will try.
Man in the Funny Hat 08-27-05, 09:42 PM	Ok I have an NPC wanting to be an "Urban Ranger" then going into some kind of Bounty Hunter NPC out of a D&D Suppliment he has. As for making arrests how should I adjudicate how the NPC's react? In whatever way YOU think it is appropriate or useful for them to act. The dice can't run your NPC's for you except in the most limited, redundant, and superficial ways.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-27-05, 10:02 PM	Thing is i want to encourage this style of play. I want my players to have meaningful social interaction during battle... roleplaying how they intimidate thier foes... talking them round to giving up while they clash steel. Having a dynamic where by combats not all cheasy.. fight, kill, loot the corspe. forcing them to think about doing subdual damage, talking a foe into submission, etc. But the problem is Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate can sometimes seem so wishy washy and insubstantial so..... upto the DM's whim. That the players fall back to what they know... and thats rolling to-hit vs. armour class. So i wanted the basis of some ground rules that i can lay down and say to my players.:"Get creative and dynamic in combat, get talking, sassing, bullying your foes, there are rules here as clear as the rules that govern if your sword hits or your spell fizzles so how about considering them as an alternate avenue to hack and slash". Sure I will be applying LOTS of on the fly modifiers... my players wont just stroll onto a pirate ship and Intimidate the captain in one easy roll then sail the ship back to town and claim thousands of GP's worth of bounties. They will have to engineer and control situations to gain posative modifiers or remove negative modifiers... but in the end i want them to have some idea of how much of a chance they stand by trying to resolve combat more peacfully and to do so i need reasonably clear rules on what will cause a for to give up, accept defeat, arrest etc.
FriendoftheDork 08-27-05, 10:09 PM	If you want to encourage roleplaying and peaceful ways of resolving combats, than making new rules for social skills etc. is prolly not the best way to do it. Do it by example, have your NPCs do these things. Start dialogues in combat, never mind realism and 6 second limit. If the players come up with cool ways of intimidating foes in and out of combat, then let them. If you only respond with "make an intimidate check" then the PCs will just make rolls instead. However if you respond with the NPCs reactions and descrive their fear, then the you encourage this behaviour.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-27-05, 10:23 PM	If you want to encourage roleplaying and peaceful ways of resolving combats, than making new rules for social skills etc. is prolly not the best way to do it. Do it by example, have your NPCs do these things. Start dialogues in combat, never mind realism and 6 second limit. If the players come up with cool ways of intimidating foes in and out of combat, then let them. If you only respond with "make an intimidate check" then the PCs will just make rolls instead. However if you respond with the NPCs reactions and descrive their fear, then the you encourage this behaviour. Thing is im not making up new rules intimidate and deplomicy work in this manner as per the core rules... all i want to know is whether foes will surrender, or be arrested peacefuly while in a friendly or helpfull attitutde. It wont result in players making rolls over roleplaying becuase i dont allow players to make social skill rolls without actualy roleplaying what they say while attempting it. Players in my games have never intimidated silently, lied without moving thier lips or made firends and influenced people by just roling dice. My goal is to bring roleplaying to the battle feild in a way that can be quantified. If they say thier peice then i just make a judgement call on how well its recieved by the oppoenent then form the players point of view (as they will be keeping track of the results more closley than me) the results are going to be getting pretty wishy washy and varied if i dont have some hard line to take on the matter. As it is the intimidate skill gives me this hard line... Its the foe making a roll taking into account his level and wisdom plus or minus on the fly modifiers based on how intimidating i thought the players where.... and in the end this is just an equasion for what i might come up with in my head if i just judgement called every intimidate attempt.... except this has semi predictable results and the players can rationalise it the same way they can hitting foes with swords.
TheNatealator 08-27-05, 10:54 PM	You could make a table of general NPC attitudes, to draw from when making NPCs. It would have general personalities and motivations, from "Suicidal and Dogmatic" to "Stutters, and trying to steal money for his Family" to "Cold and Ruthless; only knows life on the Street". Each type would have it's own intimidate DC to be made to run away (a low DC), surrender resentfully and loudly (higher intimidate DC), or surrender peacefully (DC obtainable at higher levels mostly). A diplomacy check against different DCs could also serve to change their views on surrender. Some might not be affected by diplomacy, while others will be comforted that the law is trying to use nonviolent tactics. This is just an idea. You might want to use it directly, or it might spark a better idea in your mind, or the mind of someone else. I hope that when you do decide what to do, that you will post it here, for others to benefit.
FriendoftheDork 08-27-05, 10:56 PM	Thing is im not making up new rules intimidate and deplomicy work in this manner as per the core rules... all i want to know is whether foes will surrender, or be arrested peacefuly while in a friendly or helpfull attitutde. It wont result in players making rolls over roleplaying becuase i dont allow players to make social skill rolls without actualy roleplaying what they say while attempting it. Players in my games have never intimidated silently, lied without moving thier lips or made firends and influenced people by just roling dice. My goal is to bring roleplaying to the battle feild in a way that can be quantified. If they say thier peice then i just make a judgement call on how well its recieved by the oppoenent then form the players point of view (as they will be keeping track of the results more closley than me) the results are going to be getting pretty wishy washy and varied if i dont have some hard line to take on the matter. As it is the intimidate skill gives me this hard line... Its the foe making a roll taking into account his level and wisdom plus or minus on the fly modifiers based on how intimidating i thought the players where.... and in the end this is just an equasion for what i might come up with in my head if i just judgement called every intimidate attempt.... except this has semi predictable results and the players can rationalise it the same way they can hitting foes with swords. Well thing is you can't make rules for behavior, as behavior is always case by case. Yes, highwayman #42 may back off against the party with a successful intimidate check, yet a religious fanatic of the death cult of Nerull may not. In combat intimdate is only good for demoralizing for 1 round, unless multiple players do it simoultaneusly, where they may become frightened for 1 round instead, or possibly even panicked, giving the PCs AoO and dropping weapons. Outside combat, intimidate are made for various reasons. Some are harder than others, there are no set rules for that. Perhaps you can use some of the Bluff skill modifiers, from -5 to +20 on the enemy's resistance check, but some should be ruled impossible from start. Ok, say the group of 5 PC bountyhunters finds their prey in a remote tavern somewhere, sitting and drinking. They surround his table, dropping a wanted poster of him before him, and the PC spokesman says: "This says dead or alive. Which do you prefer?" Say the spokesman has an intimidate of +8, and 3 of his friends succeeds in aid another checks. He rolls a 15, for a total of 29. Ouch. The criminal is 5th level and has a wisdom score of 13, giving him +6.. he can't succeed! Unbeknownst to the bounty hunters however, the criminal has joined a group of brigands currently occupying the tavern, all 24 of them. This gives a +20 bonus to his roll, which means he only needs 3 or higher to resist their attempt. His answer: "Hey guys these people think they can take me alive.. do you think we shall offer them the same courtesy?" The whole tavern draws a bunch of weapons and faces the Bounty hunters-- who now knows they're in a tight spot.... This is how I do it, sounds ok to you?
Duration_10_Rounds 08-27-05, 11:00 PM	Cheers TheNatealator :D They are some nice ideas for me to mull over.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-27-05, 11:18 PM	Ok, say the group of 5 PC bountyhunters finds their prey in a remote tavern somewhere, sitting and drinking. They surround his table, dropping a wanted poster of him before him, and the PC spokesman says: "This says dead or alive. Which do you prefer?" Say the spokesman has an intimidate of +8, and 3 of his friends succeeds in aid another checks. He rolls a 15, for a total of 29. Ouch. The criminal is 5th level and has a wisdom score of 13, giving him +6.. he can't succeed! Unbeknownst to the bounty hunters however, the criminal has joined a group of brigands currently occupying the tavern, all 24 of them. This gives a +20 bonus to his roll, which means he only needs 3 or higher to resist their attempt. His answer: "Hey guys these people think they can take me alive.. do you think we shall offer them the same courtesy?" The whole tavern draws a bunch of weapons and faces the Bounty hunters-- who now knows they're in a tight spot.... This is how I do it, sounds ok to you? Yeah thats pretty much how i see it working out in my games, ... though i would like for it to usable in combat to basicly force a foe who is loosing to give up. I've only got the SRD skill list with me here but it doesnt seem to imply you cant perform a standard intimidate in combat? it only says the Demoralise is an optional effect you can perform in combat not that a standard intimidate islimited to out of combat... is that erretad else where?
FriendoftheDork 08-27-05, 11:35 PM	Yeah thats pretty much how i see it working out in my games, ... though i would like for it to usable in combat to basicly force a foe who is loosing to give up. I've only got the SRD skill list with me here but it doesnt seem to imply you cant perform a standard intimidate in combat? it only says the Demoralise is an optional effect you can perform in combat not that a standard intimidate islimited to out of combat... is that erretad else where? That's because the standard inimidate check takes at least 1 minute...(like diplomacy), hardly useful in combat now is it?
TheNatealator 08-27-05, 11:54 PM	Yes, the PHB also lists "demoralize opponent" as the only way to use intimidate as a standard action. This will make them shaken. If another PC uses intimidate to make him shaken again before the first intimidate wears off, the rules (according to the glossary of the DMG for fear) say that he will become frightened. The problem with being frightened is that they are supposed to flee from the source as quickly as possible; fighting if they can't flee. Personally, I disagree with this aspect of the RAW. The "frightened" category should vary for each NPC and PC, except maybe for the effects of the spell "Fear" etc. Again, having the frightened state of each NPC predetermined would help comfort the PCs. Alternatively, the PCs could try another way to stop the fighting while they used diplomacy and intimidate in the conversational context. I know I can't list every option, but grappling and pinning for 10 rounds can work. Also, talking is a free action, so PCs could try talking to their foes during combat as multiple free actions. You would have to keep the amount of words down a bit, but then after 10 rounds, they (or you) could roll to see how well they influenced their opponent. After the first 10 rounds, they could probably make more frequent checks. Say, every 3-5 rounds, since they are building on what they said before. Besides, it'll be hard enough for them to drag a combat out that long, especially if they don't want to fight it.
mike_beavers 08-27-05, 11:58 PM	the way I see it, the npc isnt stupid and doesnt want to die so he attempts to surrender unless he knows the pc wont accept the surrender. It mostly depends on the morals of the pc involved. Would a good character kill a defenseless enemy? and how does he justify it
Duration_10_Rounds 08-28-05, 12:12 AM	The way i saw it working would be like this: players aprouch thier target as he props up the bar in the Iron Albatross... Bounty Hunter: (Begins intimidation) "Hey! Darkwell! I've been looking for you! Darkwell Dungeond00d: "Oh yeah is that right? you've been looking for trouble then? Bounty Hunter: "Lets not do this again... i have your cornered, i have 4 men at my side, you have that toothpick(points to Darkwell's cutlass) and barley enough strength to stand up under your own power". Darkwell: "Uh... well... you forgot, you forgot about one little thing Glupkis!" Darkwell throws his drink in the hunters face and pulls his cutlass form its scabard. (30 seconds have passed since the hunter started barking at Darkwell). Glupkis goes the grab Darkwell: "Your gona regret that you curr! I'll pull your frekkin arms off". Darkwell AoO's with his cutlass fending off the grab. The rest of the party lunge at darkwell: "Your going down 'slim', take it like a man!" (36 seconds have passed) The Party group pin Darkwell as Glipkis the Hunter shouts: "Your going to come with us Darkwell dead or alive......personaly i want the bigger bounty but Bloodslurp there hasn't eaten today and he loves it when his food screams!" (Bloodslups real name is Edwin.... he's a half elf in disguise and under an enlarge person spell) Glipkis kicks the pinned Darkwell (42 seconds have passed) Party remain pinning Darkwell... Darekwell: "Let me up you bastards!... please!..i'll pay you.. well, i'll owe you, hows that? Glipkis grabs Darkwells head and bounces it off the floor "Your worth a thousand alive! 700 dead, your lies are worth sh**!" (48 seconds havepassed) Darkwell remains pinned Glipkiss: "Look D' your a thief not a child killer they're not going to hang you, but i DO have to bring you in... and in how many peices is upto my discretion" (54 seconds have passed) Glipkiss "Darkwell! dont make me...." Darkwell: "Ok, ok I give just get that giant ... things knee off my neck and slap the irons on will ya?.... prison is better than getting gang molested by you oafs" (60 seconds). Basicly the Intimidate attempt starts as soon as the bounty hunter starts acting like some psychotic, law man who will track his foe over desert or ice flow and drag him back kicking and screaming or in 63 tiny little bags... As soon as he starts acting intimidating. If combat starts that second then he has 10 rounds to goto work. If there is some back and forth and the hunter remains relentles in his attempt then the clock is still ticking. And this is my goal... the above combat is sooo much more preferable form an Role Playing point of veiw to a 3 rounds slash, kill, loot fest.
FriendoftheDork 08-28-05, 12:17 AM	Yes, the PHB also lists "demoralize opponent" as the only way to use intimidate as a standard action. This will make them shaken. If another PC uses intimidate to make him shaken again before the first intimidate wears off, the rules (according to the glossary of the DMG for fear) say that he will become frightened. The problem with being frightened is that they are supposed to flee from the source as quickly as possible; fighting if they can't flee. Personally, I disagree with this aspect of the RAW. The "frightened" category should vary for each NPC and PC, except maybe for the effects of the spell "Fear" etc. Again, having the frightened state of each NPC predetermined would help comfort the PCs. Alternatively, the PCs could try another way to stop the fighting while they used diplomacy and intimidate in the conversational context. I know I can't list every option, but grappling and pinning for 10 rounds can work. Also, talking is a free action, so PCs could try talking to their foes during combat as multiple free actions. You would have to keep the amount of words down a bit, but then after 10 rounds, they (or you) could roll to see how well they influenced their opponent. After the first 10 rounds, they could probably make more frequent checks. Say, every 3-5 rounds, since they are building on what they said before. Besides, it'll be hard enough for them to drag a combat out that long, especially if they don't want to fight it. If you are going to house rule the effect of the skill you might as well just determine how the NPCs are going to react. If the PCs can pin an enemy for 10 rounds they might as well tie him up, willing or not. And then you have the prisoner. NPCs are likely to surrender in combat if there is any gain in it, rather than through fear (which intimidate is all about). Fear causes them to run, not surrender.
FriendoftheDork 08-28-05, 12:26 AM	The way i saw it working would be like this: players aprouch thier target as he props up the bar in the Iron Albatross... Bounty Hunter: (Begins intimidation) "Hey! Darkwell! I've been looking for you! Darkwell Dungeond00d: "Oh yeah is that right? you've been looking for trouble then? Bounty Hunter: "Lets not do this again... i have your cornered, i have 4 men at my side, you have that toothpick(points to Darkwell's cutlass) and barley enough strength to stand up under your own power". Darkwell: "Uh... well... you forgot, you forgot about one little thing Glupkis!" Darkwell throws his drink in the hunters face and pulls his cutlass form its scabard. (30 seconds have passed since the hunter started barking at Darkwell). Glupkis goes the grab Darkwell: "Your gona regret that you curr! I'll pull your frekkin arms off". Darkwell AoO's with his cutlass fending off the grab. The rest of the party lunge at darkwell: "Your going down 'slim', take it like a man!" (36 seconds have passed) The Party group pin Darkwell as Glipkis the Hunter shouts: "Your going to come with us Darkwell dead or alive......personaly i want the bigger bounty but Bloodslurp there hasn't eaten today and he loves it when his food screams!" (Bloodslups real name is Edwin.... he's a half elf in disguise and under an enlarge person spell) Glipkis kicks the pinned Darkwell (42 seconds have passed) Party remain pinning Darkwell... Darekwell: "Let me up you bastards!... please!..i'll pay you.. well, i'll owe you, hows that? Glipkis grabs Darkwells head and bounces it off the floor "Your worth a thousand alive! 700 dead, your lies are worth sh**!" (48 seconds havepassed) Darkwell remains pinned Glipkiss: "Look D' your a thief not a child killer they're not going to hang you, but i DO have to bring you in... and in how many peices is upto my discretion" (54 seconds have passed) Glipkiss "Darkwell! dont make me...." Darkwell: "Ok, ok I give just get that giant ... things knee off my neck and slap the irons on will ya?.... prison is better than getting gang molested by you oafs" (60 seconds). Basicly the Intimidate attempt starts as soon as the bounty hunter starts acting like some psychotic, law man who will track his foe over desert or ice flow and drag him back kicking and screaming or in 63 tiny little bags... basiclyas soon as he starts acting intimidating. If combat starts that second then he has 10 rounds to goto work. If there is some back and forth and the hunter remains relentles in his attempt then the clock is still ticking. Actually that didn't even sound like an intimidate check, but more like Darkwell thinking surrendering was his only option. This has less to do with Glipkiss being scary and more with the fact that he's prone, pinned and unarmed while his enemies are armed and ready to kill him... any intimidate check is more to convince him of their intentions of killing or hurting him if he doesen't obey. In any case, I don't count rounds spoken when intimidating, basically whenever sufficient threat is made an intimidate check is rolled. But yeah 1 minute is by the rules. I think that time limit was just to avoid it being used in combat. In my book, you should be able to intimidate someone with a look, a line, and a few seconds for the threat to sink in.... But that's just how I do it.
Duration_10_Rounds 08-28-05, 12:35 AM	Thats pretty much how i ruled it normaly.... before any of this became a consideration. "I will kill you, your family and your pets and your pets family with a rusty scyth" doesnt really need 1 minuite to articulate but will scare the be-wee-jas out of some halfling potato picker when barked at him by some crazy one eyed orc.... So maybe i need some happy medium. I find my players would be served well by getting the foe to give up and come queitly during combat (should it get that far)..... It makes them look like the good guys taking the bad guy down and showing him the law will always win .. so he just gives up. This is important for the party as far as thier organisaiton and polatics are concerned. Pinning the guy, tieing him up as he kicks and screams and sicking a stiletto up his nose and threatening him not to make a peep ... does not show them in a favorable light to the general public. So i'll continue to try and hammer this out.
FriendoftheDork 08-28-05, 02:47 AM	Well taking people against their will, kicking and screaming never looks good, no matter who does it and to whom. Then again some people come willing when the police approach them, these are the generally lawful types that may have comitted a crime for some reason. Anyway the best way to get a criminal silenty is to surround him and calmy state the facts. Some will attempt to flee or resist arrest, but most will give up right away. Of course, thats the police way, not the bounty hunter way. Stereoptypical Bounty hunters either clubs their enemies unconscious, or just shoot them and collect. Of course, no one really liked them, not even the ones that paid them ;)