I wanted to make a certain statement with one of my characters that seemed to be both a diplomatic statement and a possibly an underhanded threat. While my fellow players stopped me out of character from saying it for the sole reason that there was a "pacifist" cleric in the party with mad social skills, I'm curious as to how it would have played out.
The situation was this. The whole point of this adventure was to find this guy, and do one of two things. First, try to get him to work for the pathfinders, if he says no? Kill him. (Little dark for the pathfinders I thought) Well we find the guy, so the cleric starts rolling some diplomancy checks. Despite his crazy good checks for our level, the man is hesitant. My character being a straight shooter and all, wanted to explain the gravity of his situation, since the cleric was simply making him gracious offers of what benefits working for the pathfinders would provide, I basically wanted to say,"Yes, the pathfinders would provide you a safer means to do the same work you are doing and will compensate you, what my comrade here has left out is that if you say no, we have been told to kill you, but we were hoping it wouldn't come to that." Or something to that effect, it has been a while since this adventure happened so I'm doing my best to recreate my statement. While there is a sort of underlying threat here, I feel hearing it said in my characters down to earth, laid back tone would help illustrate that there was no aggression in how it would've been said. Hopefully it would've just sounded like him trying to level with him, explaining his other less pleasant option that he said he was explicitly trying to avoid.
While I can see this easily being thrown off and most people saying yup that is an intimidate check, as this is probably not the best example, but the fact that I wasn't trying to be threatening about this got me thinking about other situations where a single statement involves elements of multiple social skills. The best example I could come up with is:
A character lies about something to make a threat. So does he/she (A) Make an intimidate check as he/she is trying to Intimidate them. Or (B) make a bluff check as he/she can't back up the threat.
I'm sure you all have better examples of this through having more experience, so I'm curious to know how they were handled. I'm sure something like this would see a lot of table variation but still, I'd like to hear if anyone else has ran into or simply thought of something similar.
I think intent matters. If it is done as a "good cop" type thing then it could be a diplomacy check, but if you are actually trying to scare him then the tone will be different and I would say it is an intimidate check.<----with regard to the "we have been told to kill you" thing.
In you lie about something I would make you roll a bluff check, and if you beat the sense motive check then you would need to make an intimidate check. <---However that is really a GM call. I would do it that way because even if he believes you he might not care so you would have to make him care. I will put it another way. Just because someone says they are going to do something that does not mean I think they can do it, or that they are an actual threat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, I do suppose in the instance of one statement that is both a lie and threat, simply having them make both checks, first bluff so they believe the threat, then intimidate check to see if the threat was effective. A nice, logical and clean ruling. I feel kinda silly for not thinking of it. Suppose the lack of GMing may account for not having a good feel of how to handle these things. I'm pretty much just looking at this from a player's perspective, wondering if I ever come across an instance where I may want to say something that would fall into this category, what are some ways of handling it I could expect.
I tend to have the character briefly describe their intent, then they roleplay a bit (actually give a brief speech), then we agree on which one roll is used.
Generally, the tone is decided by the player, as in:
"I'm gonna let him know if he doesn't comply, we are gonna kill him" (intimidate)
or
"I will request his help politely, and subtly let it be known that others have decided that his life may be on the line in regards to this situation"
(diplomacy)
There can be grey areas, but usually let the character excel at the skill they are trying to use, unless it is wildly inappropriate. Not every roll is a contest, it isn't GM vs Player, after all.
I do like that idea. Unfortunately my local PFS group provides little room for actual character dialogue. More of the I say I do this. Uh are we punching stuff yet kinda vibe is what I get most of the time. One of the players literally just rolls dice during combat. The rest of the time she is drawing, occasionally throwing in an out of character joke about something.
It's ultimately up to the GM.
The different skills have different uses, in grey areas as you described, it basically doesn't matter unless the GM says so...
I tend to favor Diplomacy over Intimidate, but they seem to split along these lines:
In combat: Intimidate
Out of combat: Diplomacy
Just kill him and move on, we have little time to play these days.
But it's hard to tell what to do on a general basis. If you roll both checks, who knows if succeeding in just one will be enough, or what will be the consequences of failling on each or both checks? What I think is a reasonable line of arguments may not seem to you or to your GM depending on each situation.
So, I suggest to keep it simple. Rolling both checks sounds reasonable in your situtation, but don't bother trying to classify all the different emotional responses and checks that would go with it during a lover's quarrel.
"That was a lie"
"That was just me deceiving you because I care about you"
"That has nothing do to with you"
"Leave my mom out of this"
"I never touched your sister"
"No, I was not saying that just to hurt you"
"I'm telling the truth"
"I Hate You!"
"I Love You!"
Also check out the diplomacy fix which reduces/ better defines the scope of diplomacy checks.
Well I never really considered dialog much of an option in combat. It seems like it would take some serious diplomatic powers to stop a fight all together with words if even possible. I have played with a tactician fighter who was effective at using intimidate to force foes to charge him provoking lots of AOOs. Was a very interesting fighter indeed. Never really thought of it as actual dialog as he simply made the check as opposed to saying anything.
Wow... I was unaware diplomacy had such, uh, crazy uses. I was totally unaware of the ability to rush a diplomacy check or what a powerful impact it had. That is insane.
Silver Tongued Humans are awesome. Can alter peoples reactions 3 categories rather than just 2...
Diplomacy can be fun, but basically doesn't work in combat:
You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
For extra fun, check out the feat "Antagonize" :D
Never underestimate the power of perception... from the NPC's perspective. Have them roll how others take vague statements.
Also check out the diplomacy fix which reduces/ better defines the scope of diplomacy checks.
The glaring flaw in that article is the following DC modifier for diplomacy:
Give aid that could result in punishment +15 or more
Emphasis on "or more." This puts the actual adjustment in the GM's realm and varies it from target to target. So, sure, you diplomacy the big bad but all his mooks could easily turn against him especially if they're not really mooks and simply allies as is often the case especially in higher level play. Betraying such an alliance is instant enemy territory.
It also assumes a charisma mod of zero. To exist like he did, Sauron had to have one hell of a charisma score for all that force of personality. A +10 mod, minimum, feels like a good starting point for him, imo.
Also, the "nonfix" the article claims around high DCs paints a picture that if you can't turn a god from a heated enemy to an ally as a standard action then the skill is wholly useless. That's some weird logic there.