Using Diplomacy After Intimidate


Rules Questions


Okay, this issue came up a few days ago, and I was hoping to get a little clarification on the matter.

Basically what happened was my character successfully intimidated a bandit into surrendering (we had basically killed all his buddies and he was the last one standing. We managed to pin him, tie him up, and after that I intimidated him to tell us where the rest of his party was located).

Now, here comes the issue: because the bandit was now forced to be 'friendly' towards me for roughly 30 minutes, I then decided to make a Diplomacy check to get him to aid our group in assaulting the camp of his former comrades.

Due to the condition of intimidate (meaning that the bandit was now at friendly status) I asked my GM if I could make the diplomacy check based on the appropriate modifier (in other words: 10 + creature's Cha Modifier + 10 more due to the 'dangerous aid' modifier).

My GM stated that I could not make the diplomacy check based on that modifier because the bandit was 'only' at friendly status due to the intimidate skill. He stated that I would need to use the 'unfriendly' status modifier (making it instead 25 + Cha Modifier + 10) since that is what the bandit's status would have been under normal conditions.

So my question is, which modifier was the appropriate one? Could I have used the 'friendly' modifier because that was what the bandit was at the time of making the diplomacy check, or should I have used the 'unfriendly' modifier instead?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


I would say unfriendly is right, but not for the same reasons.

After intimidate expires, all people are unfriendly. It would make sense that this status would exist simultaneously with the friendly status granted by intimidate.

It's hard to scare the crap out of someone, and then be nice about it.


It's also a lame way to abuse the rules (not saying you are doing that).

If this worked, it would be far easier to always start with intimidate and then soften with diplomacy.


Globetrotter wrote:

I would say unfriendly is right, but not for the same reasons.

After intimidate expires, all people are unfriendly. It would make sense that this status would exist simultaneously with the friendly status granted by intimidate.

It's hard to scare the crap out of someone, and then be nice about it.

This is how I'd do it.


Bad cop, Good cop. It works IRL.

I am uneasy about letting the same PC do both, however.


Also, just from a practical perspective, look what you are asking. You just bullied someone into betraying his allies, and now you are asking him nicely to help you fight them. Unless you are magically compelling his aid, or going way overboard with the intimidation (to the point that it's more like psychological torture), I can't see him agreeing to that.

The best you might be able to do is get him to agree, only to sneak away when the fight breaks out, and that's assuming he doesn't sneak away before hand and warn the others, or show his associates that he hasn't turned on them by dramatically stabbing you in the back to start the fight.

It's your call, but I would turn him over to the authorities, if any were available, or I'd just leave him restrained until after the fight, if I didn't just kill him when he outlived his usefulness.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually it does work, only if the person is intimidated.

If the person is intimidated by one, they'll be happy to talk to the nice one

The real problem is when the person feigns being intimidated and pulls it off. Then they can easily give bad information at a bonus to BLUFF the PCs!

It's a world of feint, counter-feint, counter-counter-feint and so on

If the NPC fools the PCs with the intimidate, fooling with diplomacy and bluff is even easier for the NPC

That's why there's a camera or others behind the mirror to see what went on


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with this is intimidate only lasts a short while. Therefore if you want to use the friendly status provided by it you would have to ask for something that could be done within the intimidated time frame. If you asked him to help you go fight the other bandits and halfway there your intimidate wears off then he is unfriendly and you can't ask for favors from unfriendly people.

As for Bad Cop, Good Cop... Intimidate doesn't help in this instance as anything other then a circumstance modifier. The person who uses Intimidate has no need for diplomacy, and the person doing diplomacy doesn't treat the enemy as friendly like the guy who rolled the intimidate.

Basicly, an NPC's attitude may vary per person. Using intimidate or Diplomacy doesn't necessarily apply to the entire group. This can be a good thing as the NPC may not like Bob the Barbarian who intimidated him earlier, but he's warmed up to the bard who has been using diplomacy since.


RULES: Diplomacey doesnt work on someone who means you harm.

This guy wants to kill you in your sleep


thenovalord wrote:
RULES: Diplomacey doesnt work on someone who means you harm.

Rules: Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.

This is completely up to GM discretion. Sometimes a captured bandit would just be happy to escape, and would be grateful to his captors, knowing that he only deserves to be dead.

Duskblade wrote:
So my question is, which modifier was the appropriate one? Could I have used the 'friendly' modifier because that was what the bandit was at the time of making the diplomacy check, or should I have used the 'unfriendly' modifier instead?

I would say that just because you've intimidated someone into giving you information etc, doesn't mean they actually like you. They're doing it only because they're intimidated by you. He still dislikes you.

The intimidate/diplomacy combo is very difficult. In fact, I would put you at an additional circumstantial penalty, since he's now likely harboring even more of a grudge against you for making him pretend to be cooperative.

DC 25 (Hostile) + x (Cha) + 2 to 5 (grudge penalty)

Grand Lodge

I don't think you can have the same person Intimidating then Diplomacy but the use of the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" does work

Still, from what I posted above, a person who is not intimidated but can fake it can turn the tables on the party

Silver Crusade

'TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW OR I'LL...er...really hurt your feelings!'

Schizophrenia won't help you here; Good Cop, Bad Cop takes two cops, minimum.

One person could start with diplomacy, then switch to intimidate if that didn't work. Trying to do it the other way round won't work, and may get you to trust someone who will be highly motivated to betray you.

As for rules, if you successfully intimidate, then use diplomacy while they are still intimidated, use the 'friendly' modifier. When the intimidate has worn off, use the same result but replace the modifier for 'friendly' with the modifier for one step less than his previous attitude, with a minimum of 'unfriendly'.


This is one of those situations where common sense should prevail.

He'll tell you or agree to anything likely... but he's not going to help you murder the rest of his friends especially after you already killed people who were at least his allies/companions and could have been quite good friends.

This seems ridiculous to me. Answering questions and co-operating "as if" friendly... is not the same as being actually friendly. I call shenanigans.


well, the basic idea was to combine skills of intimidate and diplomacy to create a situation kinda like this: 'it is in ur best interests to help us defeat ur comrades, otherwise we have no further use for you.'

In this case, I am being diplomatic by making an offer to a 'currently' friendly creature (due to intimidate of course).

I do agree that once my intimidate wears off of course, the bandit is no longer obligated to help me, in which case I can simply make another intimidate check against him to bring him back into line (taking a +5 modifier to the check due to the 'try again' rules)


the wording definitely needs changing.....intimidating someone to eb friednly doesnt make sense

co-operative maybe


Intimidate specifically says "act friendly" and "If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance."

It does not say the target "becomes friendly". It is a false capitulation, a desire to please the aggressor to prevent harm from occurring, and to likely get some modicum of revenge as soon as possible.

The second line clearly spells out that as long as the target is under the intimidate's "act friendly" they will only take actions for you that "do not endanger it". Fighting your own teammates certainly counts as dangerous. Also, even if you want to reference diplomacy, that skill is not the be-all-end-all of mind-bending. Specifically, the clause "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

Your average bandit' nature is looking out for himself first, second, and third. If he thought the PCs wouldn't execute him, he would likely refuse. If he thought they would, he would agree, but escape as soon as possible or prove as annoying or useless as possible. If forced to be on the straight and narrow, which could require acts on the PCs part that may put their own alignment and natures at risk, he would still be constantly seeking a way out.


Duskblade wrote:
well, the basic idea was to combine skills of intimidate and diplomacy to create a situation kinda like this: 'it is in ur best interests to help us defeat ur comrades, otherwise we have no further use for you.'

This actually sounds a lot more like another intimidate check than a diplomacy check. What exactly do you mean by "Otherwise we have no further use for you"? Sounds like you plan to off him. That's pretty intimidating.


Well, according to the intimidate skill, I can't force the bandit to assist the group in something 'dangerous'. However, I figure that since I am have already threatened him into being cooperative, I can then use diplomacy to threaten his life in order to get him to help us (if you can't tell yet, yes, I am an evil character). Basically I'm using diplomacy to say 'help us or die' (I plan to kill him after he helps us anyway, as I am not a fan of leaving 'loose ends' and potential future enemies behind).

Again, I know it's a strange use for diplomacy, but the truth is that I actually am NEGOTIATING with him: 'you should really consider fighting alongside us if you want to live'.

It's not a matter of good cop/bad cop, and yes, under normal circumstances I'd say the check to make such a request would come from the 'unfriendly' or even 'hostile' modifier.

However, because I have him 'intimidated' I figure that it would make sense to use the 'friendly' modifier because the bandit is basically forced into acting friendly towards me already (granted, he's not compelled to do so forever, but during the time he is intimidated, I would think that he is).

Intimidate can actually be used to great effect in game (I intimidated a balor once in another game....and it was SO cool having a CR 20 acting like my little puppy dog...from there, I actually ended up 'politely requesting' that the balor should let my party 'borrow' his vorpal longsword...and needless to say...he never got it back).


Well, Dusk, I'm glad your GM is indulging you; enjoy it as long as you can! :P


not sure how my GM is indulging me by following the rules ;)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Using Diplomacy After Intimidate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.