Bluff or Intimidate?

[Quasqueton]

This came up in our last game session:

The PCs were escorting a 4-wagon expedition. When bandits were spotted in the trail ahead, the PCs rode out to confront them.

The group of 4 (5th-level) PCs (another 1 was hiding) were lined up on horseback in front of a group of 21 bandits on horseback. The PC sorcerer wanted to convince the bandits (especially the leader on a griffon) that they were too tough for the bandits to take on. He wanted to appear more powerful than they were. He wanted the bandits to back down and let them pass without a fight.

The Player wanted to use his bluff skill.

I, the DM, said it would be an intimidate check.

What is the correct/better answer to this?

My Players are welcome to add more info to this post if they feel it is needed.

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

I think either would work. It depends on how the player goes about trying to convince them. If he's lieing and trying to convice the bandits of something untrue I'd use Bluff. If he's trying to frighten or worry the bandits I'd use Intimidate. If he's trying to just lay the facts for the Bandits and just try to get them to leave I'd use diplomancy.

 

[AeroDm]

I'd agree with what Crothian said. However, assuming that the sorc had a better bluff score than intimidate (otherwise it is a non-issue) I would have gone with bluff. If they put points into a skill and then try to RP out of combat, more props too 'em. Additionally, if he was trying to appear more powerful than he truly is, this is a bluff check. I believe one of the examples of the bluff chart is something akin to this.

 

[S'mon]

I would definitely recommend letting the player choose which skill they want to use. If you're feeling mean you can always set the DC higher!

 

[wolfen]

Bluff is a matter of getting someone to believe something that is not true. Even if the bandits believe the party is much stronger than it appears, this doesn't mean they will be feared. It doesn't control RESPONSE, or even the knowledge that the bandits possess (Like maybe every bandit there has a ring of invisibility and the firepower of the party is virtually irrelevant.)

What I'm saying is, bluffing that "We're stronger than you are" should require a huge penalty because ultimately the party doesn't know just how strong the bandits are -- and the bandits would know that.

As I interpret D&D's bluff, you are bluffing about a fact. So I'd make the bluffer specify what FACTS they wish to bluff. Examples: The sorceror can cast devastating fireballs? The party's fighter holds a weapon of great reknown? Just yesterday they killed a group of bandits twice as large?

Backing up a bluff with some illusions or whatever should boost the success substantially. A tornado moving rapidly toward the griffon rider might be effective.


Intimidate is a matter of putting a certain amount of fear into another person and affecting their responses. If you want to affect RESPONSES, this is the way to go.

So I'd probably bluff some facts about the party's power, back it up with some tricks or whatever, and then use Intimidate (with a big bonus if the former are successfully performed). (note, the party's posture should play a role. Is everyone else biting their nails and fidgeting or are they all moving confidently toward the bandits? Big difference.)



wolfen

 

[The Souljourner]

As others have said, it depends entirely on how the sorcerer played it. Trying to convince someone of a fact that is not true (21 bandits with one on a griffon is definitely going to rip apart that party, unless they get very lucky) is definitely bluff. Basically you're saying "I could kill you all without a second thought, so why don't you get out of the way." This seems like a pretty tough bluff, seeing as there were so many of them, so probably the DC 30 one would be in order (unless some display of power was made, to lend credence to your bluff).

Intimidating would also work, but it's not lying, it's using your willpower to make them afraid of you. Basically you're saying "Get the heck out of my way, or you're going to pay for it" You don't say "I can cast fireballs", you just leave it up to the imagination, and rely on the fact that you're a very scary person. You'd be at a disadvantage here too, because the guy has 4-5 times as many friends as you do, and so he's unlikely to take your threat that seriously, plus he's unlikely to want to look like a wuss to the rest of them.

All in all, it's a pretty difficult sell. They have an obvious upper hand, so unless you can somehow demonstrate that their position is not as solid as it is, then you're unlikely to sway them.

So, in the end, you can use whatever skill you want, your choice of skill determines how you go about it (or vice versa).

-The Souljourner

 

[Quasqueton]

So what use is the intimidate skill?

I could see the bluff skill being used to convince the bandits that a army patrol is in the area; or that the PCs are only the spokemen for the really powerful wizard waiting back at the wagons; or that the wagons only carried farm tools; or that if the wagons are late reaching the next town, a major force of cavalry will be out looking for them; etc. But if the bluff skill can also be used to make the user seem more powerful personally, then why even bother with a seperate intimidate skill?

Quasqueton

 

[wolfen]

So what use is the intimidate skill?

But if the bluff skill can also be used to make the user seem more powerful personally, then why even bother with a seperate intimidate skill?

Quasqueton

Remember that both of these skills are mostly used in 1 on 1 situations. You might bluff the guard who doesn't wanna let you through the gate, but you're more apt to intimidate the rogue who has information you want.

In the first example, the guard is not likely to respond well to a threat because his job is to handle threatening people. He's more apt to blow a whistle or yell for help. But maybe you tell him you're sent from Mr. Top Cheese on a super secret mission...that's a bluff.

The rogue is unlikely to believe your bluff. I mean, he might...but what kind of bluff are you going to tell to extract info from him? Most likely you're going to threaten grave harm to him -- and that might not be a bluff at all. He's more likely to respond to that then to some lie. Rogues have Sense Motive as a class skill, after all. If he catches one bluff from you, the rest are going to be a lot hard to pull off. It's easier just to twist his arm.

But intimidate doesn't have to be as overt as that. It could even be just an implied threat to a captive you've just taken. You don't really have to threaten him to much because he's already vulnerable. But checks to push him into cooperating are typically based on intimidation.

These are just examples. There are plenty of situtations that could be used to distinguish their respective utility.


wolfen

 

[The Souljourner]

Bluff is for when you don't care what the target does, so long as he believes what you say.

Intimidate is for when you don't care what the target believes, as long as he does what you say.

The benefit of bluff is that you can often get away without long term repercussions. If the guard you bluffed thinks you're a new recruit, he's not going to bother reporting your entry into the keep to his superior. On the other hand, if he let you in because he was intimidated, he'll definitely tell his superior about it.

The benefit to intimidate is that you can make the target do exactly what you want. "Give me the keys to the deepest dungeon or you will regret it." On the other hand, a bluff that would cause the guard to do the same thing might be really difficult to pull off "Yeah, umm... the prince said the deepest dungeons needed to be swept and said you should give me the keys."

-The Souljourner

 

[Deset Gled]

Seem to me the party was trying to use their power to shift the bandits attitude towards them from hostile to less hostile. This is, to me, pretty much the exact description of the Intimidate skill.

A Bluff check would be appropriate if the party was extremely weaker than the bandits, and knew it.