Diplomacy vs. Bluff vs. Intimidate

[Wolfwood2]

It sounds like you're proceeding from the assumption that the skills should be equally useful. I'm not sure I share that assumption.

Well.... Let's just say I'd like to see more encouraging its use as an interesting alternative.

I mean, Decipher Script isn't as useful as Diplomacy, but at least it's a unique skill that does things that no other skill does. It's not like it's competing with an Understand Language skill that works on both spoken and written word and can be stacked with higher bonuses.

I just want, in a party with a PC who has maxed out his Diplomacy and a PC who has maxed out his Intimidate, there to sometimes be a good reason to send in the Intimidate guy to talk to people instead of the Diplomacy guy. Or at least making sending in either of them have its benefits and faults.

OTOH, Diplomacy isn't always better than Intimidate. Let's say you want to get past some orc guards, and need to do it without fighting (for whatever reason).

Diplomacy: Getting a Hostile opponent to Friendly via Diplomacy is a DC 35 check...certainly not impossible for a Dip-monkey, but not a slam-dunk, esp. at lower levels.

Intimidate: Suceeding at an Intimidate check has the same net effect as using Diplomacy to get them to Friendly. Your "stock" orcs (1HD, Will -2) are going to be making a modified level check at -1 versus your Intimidate roll, so the highest "DC" you'd face would be 19 (and, on average, you're looking at a DC of 8 or 9). Even if you're dealing with "elite" orcs, they'd have to be pretty dang elite (as in, 8-10 HD or more) to even have a chance of hitting a 35 on that modified level check.

These are good points.

Hmmmm. Does anybody have any interesting stories of intimidate use to share?

 

[Klaus]

Precisely.

And there's the Core (as in, it's in the core books) rule for letting Intimidate be modified by Strength when threatening a target with physical harm.

 

[Zaruthustran]

They three social skills are a mess. The simple "Look behind you!" could arguably be performed using any of the three skills.

It'd help if they clearly described the effects. Dispensing with the name of the skill itself (the words carry connotations that the rules might not necesarily enforce):

Skill A: Indefinitely improve a subject's attitude by a variable amount. Usually a set DC. Takes a long time to perform.
Skill B: Briefly get a person to perform as you wish. Opposed roll (vs. Sense Motive). Takes a short time to perform. Can also be used to feint in combat.
Skill C: Temporarily improve a subject's attitude to Friendly. Opposed roll (vs. modified level check). Takes a short time to perform. Can be used in combat to impose Fear penalties. Indefinitely worsens attitude after effect wears off.


Reading it that way, I suppose Skill A (diplomacy) can be a long, elaborate lie. Someone could use skill A to to flatter, or evoke sympathy through self-deprecating comments, or other tactic. The goal and purpose of the skill is simply to improve the attitude of the subject. The mechanism (flattery, intimidation, reason, guilt-trip, playing to the subject's emotions, etc.) is up to the player.

Skill B (bluff) does not need to be a lie. It could be a barked command, or whining whimper, a fast-talk, an truthful appeal to reason, or wordless feint. The goal and purpose is to get the subject to "react as you wish".

Skill C (intimidate) is very similar to skill A except that success means a guaranteed result of Friendly attitude (as opposed to Skill A, which improves attitude by a variable amount). Since skill C won't work on creatures immune to fear, skill C--unlike the other skills--has a single mechanism: intimidation. While you can use Diplomacy to tell a lie, or Bluff to tell a truth, Skill C requires the player to change behaviour using fear. I don't think the skill requires the player to be the threat; you could temporarily make someone Friendly to you by making that someone aware of the highlighting the threat of terrorist attack, for example.

So...

Player A runs around the corner and sees Guard B. Player A shouts "There's a troll right behind me! Run!"

This situation could call for a Bluff check: regardless of whether this is true or not, player A needs to make a Bluff roll because he's trying to get the subject to react as he wishes.
This situation could call for a Diplomacy check: if the player improves the guard's attitude, then the guard may wish to help out.
This situation could call for an Intimidate check: trolls are scary, satisfying the requirement that the subject of Intimidate by made fearful.

 

[pawsplay]

They three social skills are a mess. The simple "Look behind you!" could arguably be performed using any of the three skills.

How? A Bluff check could convince someone they should look behind them. A diplomacy check could make them your friend, and you could say, "Look behind you!" And you could intimidate them, such that they are inclined to agree to reasonable requests, such as "Look behind you!"

But none of the three will actually, unconditionally, cause them to look behind them. Nothing short of a spell removes someone's ability to weigh consequences. For instance, "I am your friend, wear this chain mail shirt my fine druid friend," may convince your druid friend that you think it's a good idea, and he may want to help you, but he won't do it. Even a successful Bluff that the armor is sacred to druids and won't cause him to lose his abilities still leaves open the chance he will decide that he would rather follow the spirit than the letter of the law and still refuse to wear it.

No mind control from Charisma skills. Thank Pelor for that.

 

[Klaus]

They three social skills are a mess. The simple "Look behind you!" could arguably be performed using any of the three skills.

It'd help if they clearly described the effects. Dispensing with the name of the skill itself (the words carry connotations that the rules might not necesarily enforce):

Skill A: Indefinitely improve a subject's attitude by a variable amount. Usually a set DC. Takes a long time to perform.
Skill B: Briefly get a person to perform as you wish. Opposed roll (vs. Sense Motive). Takes a short time to perform. Can also be used to feint in combat.
Skill C: Temporarily improve a subject's attitude to Friendly. Opposed roll (vs. modified level check). Takes a short time to perform. Can be used in combat to impose Fear penalties. Indefinitely worsens attitude after effect wears off.


Reading it that way, I suppose Skill A (diplomacy) can be a long, elaborate lie. Someone could use skill A to to flatter, or evoke sympathy through self-deprecating comments, or other tactic. The goal and purpose of the skill is simply to improve the attitude of the subject. The mechanism (flattery, intimidation, reason, guilt-trip, playing to the subject's emotions, etc.) is up to the player.

Skill B (bluff) does not need to be a lie. It could be a barked command, or whining whimper, a fast-talk, an truthful appeal to reason, or wordless feint. The goal and purpose is to get the subject to "react as you wish".

Skill C (intimidate) is very similar to skill A except that success means a guaranteed result of Friendly attitude (as opposed to Skill A, which improves attitude by a variable amount). Since skill C won't work on creatures immune to fear, skill C--unlike the other skills--has a single mechanism: intimidation. While you can use Diplomacy to tell a lie, or Bluff to tell a truth, Skill C requires the player to change behaviour using fear. I don't think the skill requires the player to be the threat; you could temporarily make someone Friendly to you by making that someone aware of the highlighting the threat of terrorist attack, for example.

So...

Player A runs around the corner and sees Guard B. Player A shouts "There's a troll right behind me! Run!"

This situation could call for a Bluff check: regardless of whether this is true or not, player A needs to make a Bluff roll because he's trying to get the subject to react as he wishes.
This situation could call for a Diplomacy check: if the player improves the guard's attitude, then the guard may wish to help out.
This situation could call for an Intimidate check: trolls are scary, satisfying the requirement that the subject of Intimidate by made fearful.

Actually, the only possible skill here is Bluff, which requires a full-round action. Diplomacy and Intimidate each require *at least* one full minute of interaction.

"There´s a troll behind me! Run!" is a perfect example of a Bluff. You're not trying to make the guard more friendly, nor bullying him into doing what you want (Diplomacy and Intimidate, respectively). You're trying to convince him that a falsehood you're saying is the truth. Ergo, Bluff.

 

[pawsplay]

And even then, he can decide he'd rather fight the troll.

 

[Storyteller01]

I don't think it's so much of 'when is only one of these skills prudent?' vs 'what consequences do I want to deal with later?'.

With DIplomacy, you don't have to lie to get the reaction you want, and it's more likely to leave the target in the same state you put him in.

Joe Shmoethe Guard: "Hey buddy, I remember you from a month ago! The wife's doing fine, byt the way..."


With Bluff you usually lie, and unless it's a well constructed lie it will be discovered.

Joe Shmoe the Guard: "Hey! I remember you! You're that guy who told me the stall was on fire!!!"



With Intimidate, you don't use any real subtlty. It's more of the hammer in your bag of interrigation tricks.

Joe Shmoe the Guard: *Dust trail left by running guard upon seeing you*



My 2 pesos anyway.

 

[Storyteller01]

OTOH, Diplomacy isn't always better than Intimidate. Let's say you want to get past some orc guards, and need to do it without fighting (for whatever reason).

Diplomacy: Getting a Hostile opponent to Friendly via Diplomacy is a DC 35 check...certainly not impossible for a Dip-monkey, but not a slam-dunk, esp. at lower levels.

Intimidate: Suceeding at an Intimidate check has the same net effect as using Diplomacy to get them to Friendly. Your "stock" orcs (1HD, Will -2) are going to be making a modified level check at -1 versus your Intimidate roll, so the highest "DC" you'd face would be 19 (and, on average, you're looking at a DC of 8 or 9). Even if you're dealing with "elite" orcs, they'd have to be pretty dang elite (as in, 8-10 HD or more) to even have a chance of hitting a 35 on that modified level check.

A great point as well. Some people just won't listen to reason...