# Diplomacy vs. Bluff vs. Intimidate



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 27, 2006)

I've never felt like I completely had a handle on how these skills balance with each other.  In what situations will only one be applicable, and in what situations should a PC be able to choose from multiple skills to get the same result.  Of the three, I think I understand Intimidate the least.

Here's my interpretation of the three skills:

*Bluff*: Essentially, you are are trying to convince someone that you are telling the truth as you understand it.  In most situations, this will result in the target assuming that if you are telling the truth, then the facts as you present them must also be true.  In some extreme situations the target may believe you are telling the truth as you understand it, but still think you are mistaken or decieved yourself.  "You saw the holy father strangle a prostitute in the back alley?!  It must have been someone using illusion magic to mimic his face!"

Bluff may also be useful when you are telling the truth, but the truth is so incredible that most people would assume you to be lying.  I'm not sure how this should work mechanically, though.

Combat: Bluff can be used to render a target flatfooted against attack.

*Diplomacy*: You are trying to make a target view yourself and your actions in the most favorable possible light.  I get a little tripped up with where this interacts with Bluff, though, because if someone's attitude towards you has been improved, won't that make them more likely to assume you're telling the truth as you understand it?  And of course, deciding how an NPC will react when viewing someone favorably is a burden on the DM.

Combat: None.

*Intimidate*: You're trying to frighten/impress someone so that they will act in the way you want.  I don't like the rules for intimidate, because it mandates flat-out that NPCs will develop a negative attitude towards a PC due to skill use, and that seems to place a powerful limit on the skill's usefulness.  While it's true that nobody likes a bully, in real life people are often drawn to those who project an aura of power and invincibility.  Soldiers don't want to follow a leader who is "nice", they want to know that their commander is the roughest, toughest, SOB out there.  A corporate executive may feared by everyone in the halls of power, but his employees respect him all the more for it.  Or in a less leadership-oriented scenario, someone selling a house might use Intimidate to make a potential buyer fear that the house is going to be sold to someone else if they dont' offer more.

Or would that be bluff?  Regardless, I feel like Intimidate needs to be fleshed out better ruleswise, so it doesn't end up as the social skill people take because, "I didn't have Diplomacy or bluff on my class skill list."

Combat: Can be used to create a fear effect in an opponent, which can be surprisingly devastating when stacked with other fear effects.


*General Social Situations*: Diplomacy often gets used as catch-all social skill, whenever a social situation not directly on-point for the other skills comes up.  Need to negotiate with somebody?  Diplomacy.  Need to calm down a scared person?  Diplomacy.  Need to circulate through a party and leave a strong impression?  Diplomacy.  Trying to inspire some troops before a battle?  Perform (oratory), but maybe diplomacy.

Yet I'd argue that either of the "lesser" skills could be used in the same situations.

When you're negotiating, you can try to make them like you.  Or you can use Bluff to confuse the issues about how good the deal is for either side.  Or you could use intimidate to make the target afraid of losing out on a good deal.

Calm down a scared person?  Talk with them nicely, or convince them that you don't think the situation is as bad as all that, or shake them by the shoulders and yell that if they don't get themselves together, they'll have more cause to fear harm from you than from the monsters.

Circulating through a party?  Any of the skills should be sufficient to leave a strong impression, although by obviously different methods.

Same for inspiring army before a battle.

*Magic*: A few spells such as charm person or planar binding call for charisma checks.  And Suggestion depends on the definitioon of "reasonable".  It's always seemed to me that the appropriate skill checks should be usable in conunction with those spells.

Just in general, anyone have responses to the above or thoughts on the trio of social skills?  (Realizing that I haven't touched Sense Motive yet.)


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 27, 2006)

You could use Diplomacy, then use Bluff with a lower difficult (since a story is more likely to be beleived when you trust the source).

An aura of invincibility and toughness is still Diplomacy. Intimidation is creating the fear in someone that if you don't comply, terrible consequences will be inflicted upon them.  Simply acting tough and getting compliance is a +2 synergy bonus from Bluff to Diplomacy.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 27, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> An aura of invincibility and toughness is still Diplomacy. Intimidation is creating the fear in someone that if you don't comply, terrible consequences will be inflicted upon them.  Simply acting tough and getting compliance is a +2 synergy bonus from Bluff to Diplomacy.




Are you saying that is desirable way to apportion the social skills, or are you simply telling me what you think the rules say, before we discuss how to correct them?

Because that seems to make Intimidation very, very limited in the things it can do compared to the other social skills.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 27, 2006)

Intimidate, when used out of combat (the demoralize option) makes the target your "friend" out of fear. Once the fear wears off, the target will be less friendly to you than before, because you're being mean to the target.

Projecting an aura of invincibility when you have none is Bluff. Project that aura (Bluff), then convince the target to join/follow you and share that invincibility (Diplomacy).


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 27, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Intimidate, when used out of combat (the demoralize option) makes the target your "friend" out of fear. Once the fear wears off, the target will be less friendly to you than before, because you're being mean to the target.
> 
> Projecting an aura of invincibility when you have none is Bluff. Project that aura (Bluff), then convince the target to join/follow you and share that invincibility (Diplomacy).




So just to be absolutely clear, there is no way by the core rules (or any official supplements) to use intimidate without incurring long term adverse effects in your relations with those affected?


----------



## darthkilmor (Sep 27, 2006)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> So just to be absolutely clear, there is no way by the core rules (or any official supplements) to use intimidate without incurring long term adverse effects in your relations with those affected?




Sure there is, kill them afterwards. Speak with Dead doesnt care if you intimidated them before right? 


Anecdote: In my soon to start Ptolus game, I've combined Diplomacy and Intimidate into one skill(Negotiation). They effectively do the same thing, just one was is positive and the other negative, so I figured meh, put them together.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 27, 2006)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> So just to be absolutely clear, there is no way by the core rules (or any official supplements) to use intimidate without incurring long term adverse effects in your relations with those affected?



 Intimidate people to get help in a hurry, then after it's all said and done, use Diplomacy to apologize. Intimidate will get you help, but ends up worsening the attitude of the NPC. Diplomacy can improve the attitude back to what it was, or even better.

You might even use Bluff to fool the NPC into believing that the Intimidate was necessary at the time...


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 27, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Intimidate people to get help in a hurry, then after it's all said and done, use Diplomacy to apologize. Intimidate will get you help, but ends up worsening the attitude of the NPC. Diplomacy can improve the attitude back to what it was, or even better.
> 
> You might even use Bluff to fool the NPC into believing that the Intimidate was necessary at the time...




It seems that this makes Intimidate very much second class compared to Diplomacy.  It's inferior in almost every way.  Diplomacy has more functions, lasts longer, leaves your character with a better reputation, and has fixed DCs rather than being harder with higher level characters.  Sure you can say Intimidate is faster, but if you're talking instead of fighting anyway, it seems like situations where you can talk for an action but not a minute are going to be very rare.

EDIT: Oh, and Diplomacy has more potential synergy bonuses, so it's a lot easier to pump your bonus.

Am I the only one who thinks something needs to be fixed there?

Maybe introduce some kind of duration tables where a better check result can leave people intimidated for longer and longer periods; potentially permanently.

Or add new functions to the skill somehow, swiping them from Diplomacy.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 27, 2006)

Intimidate is vastly more effective on people who are unfriendly to you. Also, it has useful combat effects.


----------



## kenobi65 (Sep 27, 2006)

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

Yes, it is certainly possible to pump your Diplomacy score to high heaven (have seen it done myself), in ways that Intimidate can't match.

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.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Sep 27, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 27, 2006)

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 (Sep 27, 2006)

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 (Sep 28, 2006)

> 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 (Sep 28, 2006)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> 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):
> 
> ...



 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 (Sep 28, 2006)

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


----------



## Storyteller01 (Sep 28, 2006)

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 (Sep 28, 2006)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> 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...


----------

