Dealing with talk monkeys

[Primitive Screwhead]

I allow an in-combat diplomancy check {with the -10 hostile mod} to break combat and start a skill challenge....

... and the skill challenge is generally a barter approach, not a *poof, you are my freind* deal

 

[KKDragonLord]

On these occasions the best thing is to allow a partial success to occur, for example, the Diplomacy roll was quite good indeed and considering the level of the enemies it definitely should have an effect, the battle should not be avoided by any means whatsoever but there still should be a visible tangible gain from it instead of just a "sorry, it was great but you can't avoid this combat therefore it wasn't really useful".

What i would have done in that instance was:
A) Make a commanding officer tell them to wait while he goes to another post, or send one of the guards try to get them a permission to pass (or something similar), making the encounter easier.

B) Provide an opportunity for making the fight easier by removing some enemies from fortified positions, or just lowering their alertness level and making some enemies under-equipped. Making the encounter easier, if the players take advantage of the opportunity.

Etc..., on both counts it would be good measure to stress to the player that he won't have a way out of combat if he wants to pass and he should take the opportunity for an easier encounter instead.

This way you get to keep the encounters going and still make visible substantial rewards for diplomatic efforts, and can even point out that they are still getting the full xp for the encounter.

 

[Chimerasame]

*possibly* intimidate (or maybe that could backfire)

This is kind of a tangent, but I'd say that dealing with hostile monstrous humanoids is one case where intimidate might actually be better than diplomacy. If you've ever seen one of those Star Trek episodes where the setting is on a Klingon ship, that's about what I picture for orcs and hobgoblins.

"Please check the sensors, Karg!"
"WHO ARE YOU TO GIVE ME ORDERS, P'TACH"
"KARG I WILL CARVE OUT YOUR INTESTINES AND USE THEM TO CHOKE YOU"
"YES SIR"

 

[Ryujin]

This is kind of a tangent, but I'd say that dealing with hostile monstrous humanoids is one case where intimidate might actually be better than diplomacy. If you've ever seen one of those Star Trek episodes where the setting is on a Klingon ship, that's about what I picture for orcs and hobgoblins.

"Please check the sensors, Karg!"
"WHO ARE YOU TO GIVE ME ORDERS, P'TACH"
"KARG I WILL CARVE OUT YOUR INTESTINES AND USE THEM TO CHOKE YOU"
"YES SIR"

Perhaps, but Kirk was crowned king of bluff, when it came to dealing with Klingons. Well..... dealing with just about everyone actually.

Intimidate gets modified by how the opposition views the PCs. So does Diplomacy. Bluff is where it's at baby!

 

[Mort_Q]

This is kind of a tangent, but I'd say that dealing with hostile monstrous humanoids is one case where intimidate might actually be better than diplomacy. If you've ever seen one of those Star Trek episodes ....

I was thinking something similar, with slightly more cheese.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izmSjmUaD_8"]Here, at about 4 minutes...[/ame] ... at about 4 minutes in.

 

[Chimerasame]

Intimidate gets modified by how the opposition views the PCs. So does Diplomacy. Bluff is where it's at baby!

The rules for intimidate seem strange to me. I don't understand why you get a -10 for dealing with hostiles. I understand that without that modifier it would be overpowered, so I would say that the DCs for Intimidate should be arbitrarily higher overall (except for monstrous humanoids who might respond better to intimidation as it's a bigger part of their culture than diplomacy is.)

However, I think it should be just as high for using it on friendlies, too. I'm no psychologist, but--speaking personally--if someone I perceive as friendly tries to "intimidate" me, it's much less likely to work than if they "use diplomacy" (or bluff, if I don't catch it!) It catches me off guard and puts me on the defensive... and doesn't make me especially more likely to follow along with what they want. If someone who I already expect to be hostile/intimidating does so, then it won't necessarily work better, but it won't work worse either.

I was thinking something similar, with slightly more cheese.

Haha yes. Good ol' first season Wesley, wunderkind.

 

[KKDragonLord]

And a good diplomat is one who knows how to adapt to the situation.
It can be still considered a diplomacy check or it can be made a skill challenge where a diplomacy roll tells the need of an intimidate roll.

 

[Ryujin]

The rules for intimidate seem strange to me. I don't understand why you get a -10 for dealing with hostiles. I understand that without that modifier it would be overpowered, so I would say that the DCs for Intimidate should be arbitrarily higher overall (except for monstrous humanoids who might respond better to intimidation as it's a bigger part of their culture than diplomacy is.)

However, I think it should be just as high for using it on friendlies, too. I'm no psychologist, but--speaking personally--if someone I perceive as friendly tries to "intimidate" me, it's much less likely to work than if they "use diplomacy" (or bluff, if I don't catch it!) It catches me off guard and puts me on the defensive... and doesn't make me especially more likely to follow along with what they want. If someone who I already expect to be hostile/intimidating does so, then it won't necessarily work better, but it won't work worse either.

I think that part of the reason why friendlies are just as badly effected by intimidate as are people with a neutral, is because of the unexpected nature. There's a certain shock factor involved. With someone who is already expecting the worst, they're mentally prepared for an intimidate.

 

[Chimerasame]

I think that part of the reason why friendlies are just as badly effected by intimidate as are people with a neutral, is because of the unexpected nature. There's a certain shock factor involved. With someone who is already expecting the worst, they're mentally prepared for an intimidate.

I totally agree, but what I'm saying is that that's not provided for in the PHB.

Hostile - Intimidate vs. Will+10 (or an arbitrary DC set by the DM)
Unfriendly - Intimidate vs. Will+5 (or an arbitrary DC set by the DM)
other - Intimidate vs. Will (or an arbitrary DC set by the DM)

I'm not sure how I'd tweak this as a DM, without making it too complex. I'd probably just want to wing it. I do think that intimidate should be roughly equally useful as diplomacy throughout the course of a campaign, but diplomacy should be better when dealing with friendlies. Intimidate should be better in combat or near-combat situations.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, most of what can be said on the subject has been, but one thing that can help with this sort of situation and probably should be used when you have PCs that are prone to try to negotiate with everything is to assign (at least some) monsters with motivations.

This can be pretty simple. Maybe the Orcs of Blood Mountain really hate the hobgoblins over in Death Pass. OK, well, maybe they'll talk if the talk involves kicking hobgoblin butt. Or it could be even much simpler. Maybe the gate guard is simply extraordinarily greedy and doesn't like guard commander, so he lets the party through if they pay him a decent bribe. In other words a one sentence description of a monster or group of monsters motivations will often open up the possibilities in terms of what can or can't work. It will provide a basis for a skill challenge or at least suggest the direction the action will go in when it starts with talk.