1) If a character uses the demoralize option and their check is successful for multiple rounds but dies or is knocked unconscious before those rounds expire, is the demoralized creature still shaken for the duration of the initial check?
2) Secondly, in general, when using the intimidate/bluff/diplomacy skills, should the character announce which skill he is trying to use and that be the default skill check or should the GM interpret which skill the PC is using according to the words/actions the player said/performed?
My example happened in a combat where a PC inquisitor said to some town militia, "If you guys attack us the guards are going to come get you." This was clearly a lie but the inquisitor wanted it to be an intimidate check.
I fully understand where these two skills could overlap but, in general, what should be the default method for determining which skill to use, GM interpretation or PC preference?
1) If a character uses the demoralize option and their check is successful for multiple rounds but dies or is knocked unconscious before those rounds expire, is the demoralized creature still shaken for the duration of the initial check?
If a character uses the Demoralize action and then dies, the target of the demoralization is still Shaken. There's nothing in the rules to suggest otherwise.
Of course, a GM might rule otherwise. Though if I were GMing, I wouldn't. Few things in Pathfinder combat makes sense, there's no good reason to use some sort of common sense in just this instance.
2) Secondly, in general, when using the intimidate/bluff/diplomacy skills, should the character announce which skill he is trying to use and that be the default skill check or should the GM interpret which skill the PC is using according to the words/actions the player said/performed?
My example happened in a combat where a PC inquisitor said to some town militia, "If you guys attack us the guards are going to come get you." This was clearly a lie but the inquisitor wanted it to be an intimidate check.
I fully understand where these two skills could overlap but, in general, what should be the default method for determining which skill to use, GM interpretation or PC preference?
If it's combat, then use the combat rules. If a player wants her character to use the demoralize action, use those rules. The description shouldn't really matter. You don't force your players to use Dirty Trick if they describe a simple attack with »I hammer blows at the orc, using the rough ground to my advantage«, do you?
You could ask the player to rephrase the intimidation attempt, but I'd just applaud any attempt at a description of an action coming from a player during an encounter, even if that description is a bit off. It's more fun if players give descriptions of what they're doing, best not risk shooting them down.
In non-combat situation, I'd ask a player »So, you're trying to bluff the guard ...?«. The player might have intended for Intimidation instead, in which case I ask the player to explain how what was just said was intimidation or to add an additional threat. Then we roll.
I agree that any role playing should be applauded in a roleplaying game. However, when using social skills, I cannot agree that anything you say or do should not impact what is going on, whether in combat or not. The kind of threat you make or the lie you tell has to be adjudicated for bonuses and penalties to the skill check, no?
2) Secondly, in general, when using the intimidate/bluff/diplomacy skills, should the character announce which skill he is trying to use and that be the default skill check or should the GM interpret which skill the PC is using according to the words/actions the player said/performed?
My example happened in a combat where a PC inquisitor said to some town militia, "If you guys attack us the guards are going to come get you." This was clearly a lie but the inquisitor wanted it to be an intimidate check.
This example sounds like it's a little of both: an attempt at initmidation backed up by a lie. A DM would be fully justified in asking for both checks. The adversary could well be intimidated by the PC (with quantifiable in-combat effects) but still disbelieve the part about the guards, or at least feel iffy about it.
As a DM, I'm a strong believer in having the PCs state their actions, then adjudicate what die rolls are necessary afterwards. You can even have the PC roll a d20 and ask to see his character sheet without actually disclosing what sort of die roll it was, then describing results.
Players shouldn't be saying "I diplomacy him" or "I bluff him" and then make their die roll before the DM even determines what exactly is going on. They need to describe what they're doing, hopefully even adlib a bit of dialogue, benefit from a few situational modifiers or penalties before making the die roll. In some circumstances the result of the die roll should even be hidden (in which case having an opaque cup or coffee mug to cover the die thrown by the player is very handy).
I know some forumites are going to object that players who are utterly devoid of imagination or social skills should be able to play a high CHA character who's invested in social skills, without being required to play the scene with Shakespearean thespianic glory. But as a DM I still want at least a description of the conversational strategy employed, if any. Social skills are simply a different beast than combat skills or disarm traps rolls. Social skills cut to the essence of rollplaying, and since this is a rollplaying game, they deserve special treatment.
YMMV.
I agree that any role playing should be applauded in a roleplaying game. However, when using social skills, I cannot agree that anything you say or do should not impact what is going on, whether in combat or not. The kind of threat you make or the lie you tell has to be adjudicated for bonuses and penalties to the skill check, no?
Out of combat, sure. Although, unlike say Bluff Intimidate doesn't actually say you're supposed to use modifiers like that. But I'd probably do it anyway.
In combat, no. I'm a firm believer that in combat, rules do what they say they do. It's simpler that way. For example: Sleep gives the Helpless condition, it doesn't make people fall over or drop their weapons. That's beyond the description of the spell, it doesn't need to be more powerful than it is. Out of combat, I'm more lenient to common sense and people actually fall asleep by that spell.
Likewise, the Intimidate skill allows for a action called Demoralize. That's how you can use Intimidate in combat, and in no other way (barring special abilities). That means, among other things, that you can't use it against multiple enemies (again, barring special abilities). Out of combat, I'd allow you to intimidate a crowd even without Dazzling Display.
The combat action Feint relies on the skill Bluff. Yet the rules for Feint doesn't mention the modifiers normally applied to Bluff checks (the lie is far-fetched etc.) so those doesn't apply. The revers is also true - Feint attempts against non-humanoids suffer a –4 penalty. I don't apply that when a character is trying to lie to a Fey.
I don't require (only encourage) players to describe how their characters swing swords or use magic. Those are actions in combat and it's sufficient to just state that you do them. It would be weird to require Intimidation- or Feint-builds to describe their actions, and it would be grossly unfair if I penalized them if they did so badly.
If you start penalizing bad Intimidation-descriptions (or Feint-) but don't require your players to give them, I'm adamant that they'll resort to never describing their actions, only to state that they use them. If you do require your players to give these descriptions, then judge them for it, I'm pretty sure your players will be pretty annoyed.
Ok, we'll thanks for the duration answer. It sounds like social skills are up to individual interpretation and there is no standard or default usage of them.
I see social skills differently than sword swings or disarm checks. And this is why, perhaps, there is no answer from Paizo on this or widespread consensus on how to rule on these.