If you're going to subsume Gather Information into Diplomacy, you might as well do the same for Intimidate. After all, intimidation is just a form of diplomacy.
And in that case, just call the skill Persuasion ... persuade them to tell you something useful (Gather Information), persuade them (charm) to help you (Diplomacy), persuade them (threaten) to help you (Intimidate).
|
Gather Information = Diplomacy=? No.
Certainly Gather information is both about listening discreetly to, and participating in conversations. But it is the corner of a triangle, the other two corners are Diplomacy and Intimidate.
- Communication Skills
- Gather Information
- Diplomacy
- Intimidation
If anything they should have made it so you could add the Ranks of two Skills if they applied to the same thing: Spot+Appraise were good because they drew the attention of the searcher to valuable objects (I granted this to a Goblin Prestiege Class called the Scrounger). Diplomacy + Intimidation = a Psychopath playing good cop and bad cop.
"Now you dont realy want me to burn out the eyes of your children...all you have to do is tell me where the mercenaries went." Jerome the Butcher holds up the poker and rolls it's red hot point across his own flesh, the sound and smell of searing flesh getting the shackled farmer's attention as his children screamed.
There are a number of "social interaction skills" threads about, so it seems time to take stock. In 3.5 we had Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Sense Motive.
If Hide + Move Silently = Stealth, then it seems unreasonable to roll all 5 of those social skills together.
Given that the "folding" is intended to supercede synergy bonuses, Gather Information should logically be combined with Knowledge (Local), leaving 4 skills left to combine -- two sets of 2, ideally.
The proposed "Deception" (Bluff + Sense Motive) leaves "Persuasion" (Diplomacy + Intimidate), which I have to admit is kind of an odd combo to my mind. More logical to me would be Diplomacy + Sense Motive = Social, and Bluff + Intimidate = (dunno what to call it, but you see what I mean).
|
In our play test we combined Bluff, and Disguise into Deception, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Gather Information into Persuassion, and Sense Motive, Spot, Listen, and Search into Perception; it seemed to work fine! And Open Lock and Disable Device as one skill though just made sense. Originally we had Forgery in the mix with Deception, and Sleight of Hand into Sneak (only because it simplified the Thieving Dexterity thieving skills), but now I'm having some doubts.
If you're going to consolidate all the interpersonal skills into one skill, then just get rid of the skill altogether. If you're going to allow dice to affect social encounters, then having it depend on only one skill makes it unplayable, because every social encounter is going to be determined entirely by the one guy whose PC has the highest Persuasion + Cha modifier.
It would be better at that point to ban dice entirely from social encounters and let the DM arbitrarily decide how the party performs. At least that way there is a chance for other PCs to participate.
Personally, I think that any rules for social encounters involving dice should depend on a variety of Abilities and a variety of Skills. That way every PC has a chance to participate meaningfully in social encounters as something other than the bard's sidekick.
I agree that straight-up rolling dice is not the way to go in social encounters. The DM should have the PC play it out and based on what they say, look at the Bluff chart, assign the DC and then roll the dice. How you want to split up the skills, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
Bluff + Gather Info
Negotiate (CHA) or Diplomacy
Diplomacy + Sense Motive
Intimidate (CHA) or (STR) with Feat
I agree with you that there shouldn't be only one persuasion-type skill by the way, but something less than five would make me happy.
I think we have to be careful with how many skills we consolidate into one skill. Intimidate is very clearly a different matter than diplomacy. Unless you want to adopt Anakin's "diplomacy with a lightsaber" approach.
I just don't picture someone that is good at scaring the bejebus out of people having the same skill as someone that is good at calming people down or burying them under a load of BS.
Superman gives an inspiring speech about how we all have to look out for one another and no matter how bad things get, we can't prey on one another, and the crook feels guilty and gives up the master villain. Diplomacy.
Batman talks in his low, menacing voice and mentions how he knows how to break every bone in the human body and knows where every nerve complex is to make it as painful as possible, and the crook wets himself and gives up the master villains plot. Intimidate.
Not saying the same person might not have both skills, but that they aren't used in the same way.
|
|
While I see many skills as 'unrelated' I think that Diplomacy and Intimidate are a good fit.
I think of Intimidate as a much quicker form of Diplomacy.
In Diplomacy, you show up, and while the man at the door gives you a hard time you convince him that you're all swell people and it is in his best interest to let you in. One minute later, you're allowed into the count's castle.
With Intimidate you convince him that it doesn't matter whether you're swell people or not, and if he doesn't open the door immediately, you're going to kill him. Five seconds later, you're allowed into the count's castle.
Obviously the first one the guy who opened the door will like you better than in the second situation, but either way, you caused him to do what you wanted. Both ways, though, you're making an offer - do this, and this is what your reward will be. Intimidate the reward is more of avoiding punishment, but you're still laying out to the person why it is in his best interest.
I think the difference of opinion differs from three different styles of play.
Diceless roleplay: There is plenty of social interaction, but the DM wants unfettered discretion to decide how an NPC reacts to a PC's appeal. The benefit of this style is that it is very freeform and improvisational. The drawback is that the players end up roleplaying to the DM rather than the NPC, taking the approach this DM favors and not tailoring it to the situation or the NPC.
Infrequent roleplay: There is little social interaction, and when it occurs, the DM wants to get through it simply with minimal dice. Third edition was designed with this in mind. Need to get past a guard. Quick, roll Diplomacy. Need to get someone to cough up info? Quick, Intimidate him. The benefit of this is the simplicity. One roll fits all situations. The drawbacks are that social interactions are shallow, and are generally all going to be determined by the sorcerer or the bard because he's got the Charisma bonus (i.e., the Diplomancer).
Dicey roleplay: Here roleplay is as much a perilous encounter as combat. There are plenty of social encounters, and the DM wants to let PCs differentiate each other by being strong in different areas of roleplay (negotiation, interrogation, oration, etc.), just like the class system allows PCs to differentiate themselves in different areas of combat (ranged combat, the tank, the flanker, the blaster, etc.) The benefits of this are rich roleplay situations in which each NPC feels like more than a DM's alter ego. The drawback are that it can get complicated and if dice are too frequent, they tend to break you out of character.
For the first group, it doesn't matter what system is written, for it will be ignored. For the second, Third edition's Cha + Dip/Int/Bluff is fine, and the proposed Cha + Persuausion would be even better.
I'm in the third group. I want dice to influence (not dictate) roleplay, and I hate the current Diplomancer-heavy system.
Pathfinder has to decide if they want to cater to the first or second group. Personally, I think there's a way to cater to both, by including a "Quick and Dirty" social encounter system much like what we have now, and then a richer system for those who crave a little more complexity in their social encounters.
|
|
Categorization and classification can be tricky. There are four semantic relationships to keep in mind that can help:
A is the same as B - two terms are synonymous
A is a subset of B - the two terms are hierarchical
A shares characteristics of B - the two terms are associated
A is unrelated to B - the two terms have nothing in common
So the key to creating skill families and combining skills is to determine which are just synonyms or share a hierarchical relationship because these should definitely be candidates for combination into one skill. The tricky part is that there will be some skills that share a associative relationship and can be combined if they overlap in a meaningful way.
I think the guiding principle should be - skills help shape a PC's core nature.
So the unfiltered list with the current use, mechanically speaking:
- bluff - deceptive communication and behavior
- diplomacy - honest persuasion
- sense motive - detecting deception
- intimidate - forceful communication and behavior
- gather information - the ability to collect gossip and clues
I see three communication styles that are associated but distinct enough to remain independent since they capture very different personalities:
- bluff
- diplomacy
- intimidate
I can even see them by class:
- bluff - rogue, ranger, bard, sorcerer
- diplomacy - cleric, paladin, druid, bard, monk
- intimidate - fighter, barbarian, rogue, paladin
Then there are two functions:
- gather information
- sense motive
It seems that gather information as a sub-category, instance, or just a use of bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate. I can see the party combing the city for clues - the fighter twisting arms, the rogue playing the spy, and the cleric petitioning the authorities. Each would use their own particular communication skill.
Sense motive has always seemed an odd choice for a skill. Though it is related to communication it seems to be more like a fundamental characteristic. To me it is already covered by a PC's wisdom. If it then becomes just a wisdom/level check then there is no need to have it as a skill.
|
|
Good points, crosswiredmind.
Regarding sense motive, I think you may be right about doing away with it as a skill, but using it as some form of level check.
The bluff skill when used to deny a target a dexterity bonus already uses something other than a sense motive check.
One thing that the rules don't cover well is when a character believes something to be true, but the player does not. No amount of die rolling can fix that.
But, if the PC is attempting to convince an NPC of a falsehood, what do you think the check should be? Since bluff can be at a higher level than a straight skill (+3 currently) a simple opposed level check always gives the advantage to the liar (assuming they're good at lying).
In my games, I have frequently used only the Deception (Bluff), Persuasion (Intimidate/Diplomancy), and Perception (Senses and Sense Motive).
It has worked out well. I've been happy with the results. The players simply chose what method of persuasion they were using; it provided no mechanical benefit or difference.
Though, so long as each can to a degree be used for the same effect, I don't mind there being Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidate, as any given PC will probably only have 1 or 2, not 3.
Sense Motive should probably go into Perception, Deception, or both. Putting it into Perception allows for the lie-detector who can't bluff at all, while having it in Deception allows the obvious connection of knowing how to lie making you good at seeing through others'. The best option, then, is to let both skills detect lies (i.e. I can use my better skill to determine truthfulness, I don't need to have both).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I may be coming out of left field on this one but what if Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff were folded into one skill called 'Influence' or 'Persuasion' but the ability modifier varied depending on whether one was trying to physically intimidate (str), intellectually bully (int), charm (cha), pacify (wis), etc? Too much work?
Selecting this as a skill would indicate an understanding of how people think and can be influenced. This type of knowledge could help in a variety of types of influence ... intimidate or diplomacy.
|
I may be coming out of left field on this one but what if Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff were folded into one skill called 'Influence' or 'Persuasion' but the ability modifier varied depending on whether one was trying to physically intimidate (str), intellectually bully (int), charm (cha), pacify (wis), etc? Too much work?
Selecting this as a skill would indicate an understanding of how people think and can be influenced. This type of knowledge could help in a variety of types of influence ... intimidate or diplomacy.
They could work as subskills such as Craft or Profession has multiple "specializations".
I prefer how they currently have it arranged: Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidate as separate skills.
|
|
.The proposed "Deception" (Bluff + Sense Motive) leaves "Persuasion" (Diplomacy + Intimidate), which I have to admit is kind of an odd combo to my mind. More logical to me would be Diplomacy + Sense Motive = Social, and Bluff + Intimidate = (dunno what to call it, but you see what I mean).
You could simply call it "Influence"
Other than that:
Personaly I'm not thrilled about Sense Motive being part of Deception. Sense Motive is important to Paladins IMO, but deception is not.
If you're going to combine Sense Motive into Deception to have an "opposed bluff" sorta speak, then it should ALSO be included in Diplomacy - which the more well-spoken can have access to the same ability - to sense motive.
Disguise should be part of Deception if you're going to have Deception as a skill.
Intimidate should have STR as the modifier - not charisma. I know I'm not the only person to get intimidate more by Tiny "Zeus" (Deebo from Friday) than you do by Tom Cruise.
Gather Info should be something you can/should do with either Diplomacy or Intimidate. It should be a particular ability you can do under the skill - just like balancing, tumbling and jumping are all activities you can do under acrobatics. One way is coercing the infomation out - the other is gently getting it. You can even make it part of Bluff, if your so inclined to believe that lying to get information also works.
Robert
|
|
Intimidate should have STR as the modifier - not charisma. I know I'm not the only person to get intimidate more by Tiny "Zeus" (Deebo from Friday) than you do by Tom Cruise.
I have had this discussion in my group before and the whole STR used for intimidate is not as clear a choice as it would seem.
Intimidation can be more about veiled threat than brute force. Threat of violence is not alway tied to how strong a person happens to be.
I see mob movies filled with intimidation and not from the big burly guys.
|
|
Intimidate should have STR as the modifier - not charisma. I know I'm not the only person to get intimidate more by Tiny "Zeus" (Deebo from Friday) than you do by Tom Cruise.I have had this discussion in my group before and the whole STR used for intimidate is not as clear a choice as it would seem.
Intimidation can be more about veiled threat than brute force. Threat of violence is not alway tied to how strong a person happens to be.
I see mob movies filled with intimidation and not from the big burly guys.
True, both are legitimate; on the other side of the coin, I've seen movies where someone takes a piece of steel and bends it and really makes an impression; or when Jaws going underwater with three barrels attached and Quint say 'not with three barrels he can't' Hooper say, 'thats never happened before' When it happens, it make an impact. It instilled fear do not doubt.
I think its a rare instance where one or the other attribute can apply - but since intimidate is mostly for Fighters and Barbarians, I think the pragmatic thing to do is to overlook the slight bending of realism for the sake of game-play and balance. For the most part fighters nor barbarians are known for their charisma.
Robert
|
|
I think its a rare instance where one or the other attribute can apply - but since intimidate is mostly for Fighters and Barbarians, I think the pragmatic thing to do is to overlook the slight bending of realism for the sake of game-play and balance. For the most part fighters nor barbarians are known for their charisma.
I agree - it's just too bad you can't use either STR or CHA.
|
I prefer how they currently have it arranged: Deception, Diplomacy, and Intimidate as separate skills.
I agree. My thoughts -
Deception (Cha) – Bluff + Disguise + Gather Information
Because a person could reasonably use deception to wander around town and ask questions, pretending to be someone they’re not or just generally being sly, I would add the Gather Information skill to Deception without taking it away from Diplomacy.
Diplomacy (Cha) – Diplomacy + Gather Information
While Gather Information is a good fit with Diplomacy, being diplomatic isn’t the only way to gather information. I would also add Gather Information to Deception and Intimidate.
Intimidate (Str) – Intimidate + Gather Information
First, I’d change it to a Str skill; we already have several ways to influence people’s behavior based on Cha, how about something else. Besides, it is a nice fit for ugly, uncharismatic brutes. I would also add a feat called “Clever Interrogator” that gives a +2 bonus and allows characters to use Int instead of Str as the key ability. Second, because a person could reasonably use intimidation to wander around town and ask questions, threatening folks or just generally being a bully, I would add the Gather Information skill to Intimidate without taking it away from Diplomacy.
I always figured Sense Motive should be a part of Diplomacy. If you are sensitive to the nuances of others' emotions, you can generally play along with them to make a good impression.
I don't like folding Diplomacy + Intimidate. Not only are they different skills, but they belong to different concepts.
|
|
I always figured Sense Motive should be a part of Diplomacy. If you are sensitive to the nuances of others' emotions, you can generally play along with them to make a good impression.
I don't like folding Diplomacy + Intimidate. Not only are they different skills, but they belong to different concepts.
No,
They're not. Both are means of negotiation. The only difference is the leverage used to gain compliance. When I use Diplomacy, I'm negotiating using the impetus of beneficial gain. When I use Intimidate, I'm negotiating using the impetus of detrimental loss.
Two sides, same coin.
JoS
Not sure where Paizo will end up going, but I'm leaning towards rolling together Bluff and Intimidate. The really amiable, diplomatic people I know really can't intimidate at all, even when they try. I'll still leave Diplomacy separate from Gather Information as well, and instead will probably merge Gather Info with Knowledge (local) to create a Streetwise skill. Diplomacy is useful enough to stand on its own, in my opinion.