Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Master_Vega 11-26-07, 03:27 PM	Karrus had managed to arrange a meeting with the noble quickly enough that his target could not have escaped the estate. He had watched the man make a break passed the fence, and knew there was a connection between the target and estate owner, "Thank you for seeing me on such short notice, sir. The matter is important, I can assure you." "Oh?" the older, well-dressed man asked. "Indeed. There is a felon trespassing on your property." The land owner looked confused, "A felon? I can assure you, my good man, that there is no such person on my estate. The guards would have caught him on entry." "Sir, you can trust my word that there is an outlaw on these grounds. I have several witnesses who will testify this clearly. If you were to allow me to search for this man, I'm certain I could find him," the mercenary replied patiently. "I don't believe this is necessary. How can you be sure he's still here?" "Surely you don't plan on harboring my target, sir. After all, harboring criminals is a crime in and of itself, and an esteemed man like you should not let his reputation be tarnished by such a thing. Imagine the gossip if you were to refuse the search..." So what is this, diplomacy, intimidate, or a mix of both?
LadyLindis 11-26-07, 03:35 PM	Both, thought he's being very diplomatic about his intimidation of this man. XD
Wheldrake 11-26-07, 03:46 PM	Assuming what the mercenary says is true, I'd let him decide whether he is emphasizing the threat (make an intimidation roll) or emphasizing the persuasive angle. If any part of what the mercenary is saying is false, he'd need a bluff roll in lieu of or perhaps in addition to the above. Nice example. --- Wheldrake
BW0222 11-26-07, 04:05 PM	Master_Vega Diplomacy or Intimidate? It was diplomacy up until the final sentance. There after it was a threat which is intimidate. Diplomacy takes about one minute to take affect. IMO, the threat happened with in one minute, so I'd rule that the lord is only likely to react to the threat, so I'd ask for an intimidate check. No point in asking for a diplomacy check, as the lord stopped listening to you once the threat was made. However, I find it easier if roleplay your rolls, rather than try to roll your roleplaying. For example, if the PC wasn't trying to intimidate the person, then he would never had said what he did at the end. If the diplomacy roll was low, then chances are his character never phrased all this nicely to start with. If he rolled high on diplomacy then chances are the lord was likely receiptive to hearing about this criminal.
tyrecian 11-26-07, 04:05 PM	well, its a diplomacy check that fails when the noble says :"I don't believe this is necessary. How can you be sure he's still here?" Then he begins to try to intimidate the noble in the next few lines (i would give the noble a bonus for being, well, noble and therefore less subject to intimidation than a mere guard/manservant/peasant/enemy). If the noble then questions the "mercenary's" lawful ability to conduct a search, he will have failed the intimidate and either have to Diplomacy his way out of a touchy failed intimidation, or then Bluff his way to making the noble believe the intimidation is a valid threat (reroll the opposing with a +2 synergy applied to the intimidate). I would play it out this way. Gives the players more wiggle room than simply applying one roll and taking it... Also this is a perfect conversation for such rolls, so i maximize the potential of these situations, as maneuverring such well behaved PCs rarely if ever happens once in my campaigns. My PCs are less subtle... a similar situation in my campaign would go like this.... Karrus had managed to arrange a meeting with the noble quickly enough that his target could not have escaped the estate. OOC Paladin: WTF is Karrus? I charge the estate grounds, i know that guy is still there! Oh and Wizard, could you maybe use a fireball as a distraction somewhere else? Wizard: I have a name, doofus! Sure, i will do that, Cleric can you buff us? Cleric: Maybe we shouldnt split up so much... Yeah i will buff you both. Rogue: I am going to rob the hell out of that noble. Paladin: We'll get him too, need to loot for clues. Wizard: Do i sense with my 20 intelligence that this noble might have guards and such that are higher level than us? Paladin: Who cares, i will reroll a barbarian. Cleric: I want to play a rogue, i think. Wizard: I cast FIREBALL on the TREE!!!!!!! Paladin: I CHARGE!!!!!!
Master_Vega 11-26-07, 04:27 PM	Ladylindis -- Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. Wheldrake -- Understood. I'm going to be playing a lawful-good swordsage merc in an upcoming game, and this sort of situation may come up. Thanks for the advice. BW0222 -- My usual GM gives his players bonuses to checks like this if they roleplay what they say... so I have a tendency to say things and then roll for them. I'm not sure how the DM for the coming campaign will do things, though. Thanks. tyrecian -- Your rendition of this example has made me and my girlfriend laugh very hard. Have a :cookie: Thanks again for the advice, everyone. In addition to attending one campaign, I also plan to run another with a different group, so the GM's view of the conversation really helps me as well. :D
Kyuketsukiouji 11-26-07, 06:00 PM	Again, as people said, this hovers on both. It's either a -rushed- diplomacy check, or an intimidate attempt. I'd ask the player, really.
Vegepygmy 11-26-07, 07:08 PM	I agree that it's really a question of the player's intent. There doesn't appear to be anything -rushed- about it, though. This conversation clearly takes longer than a single round to occur.
Tony Vargas 11-26-07, 08:46 PM	I think the 'threat' is sufficiently veiled and non-physical to not really count as intimidation, but to be part of diplomacy. Intimidation is resisted by a level check, which is a rough measure of overall power. Sure, intimidation can be veiled, or rest on other sorts of violence than crudely physical (like the threat of being turned into a toad), or even not include an actual, specific threat, but it's point is to induce real, immediate fear that keeps the victim in line while he's in your presence. Threat to one's reputation isn't that immediate. A reasonable thing to try if you have both is to lead with diplomacy, and, if it fails, instead of a re-check, try intimidate (remember that, even if you succeed, the target's attitude will drop to unfriendly or hostile afterwards, so you're 'burning bridges' by resorting to it).
Jaxgaret 11-26-07, 11:50 PM	PURE AWESOMENESS So many cookies.
Voran 11-28-07, 07:28 PM	I'd allow a combination of both. In my games it would be perfectly alright to use Intimidate to start with, especially if you're pressed for time. Basically the goal is to jolt them and use your presence to get them to stop and listen to you. Then you use Diplomacy to try and achieve a more permanent result. For the purposes of the Diplomacy check, the target is treated as if the Intimidate had lapsed, becoming 'unfriendly' or 'hostile' the only thing is here, because Intimidate is technically still in place, it gives you a time to TRY diplomacy. In real life I'd figure the example is like this: (cinematic) Some misunderstood 'driven over the edge but otherwise decent dude' is holding a hostage, lets say a scumbag who's been sleeping with his wife, the heroic cop characters bust in aiming their guns and (intimidating) said story-plot-dude into not 1)shooting at the cops 2)shooting the hostage 3)shooting himself. Lets say they succeed in rolling their Intimidate check. They've used intimidate to halt the S.P.D's immediate actions and make him receptive to talking. Now they use diplomacy, 'talking the guy down', he starts off hostile but since he's <intimidated> he holds his actions, since you know he wants to cap the scumbag adulterer, but the heroic cop characters keep easing him into not whacking the dude. In the context of this OP example, the use of Intimidate would be to forstall the landowner from immediately kicking you out, otherwise preventing you from talking. Intimidate is a brash way of 'getting your foot in the door'. If you've got a sucky diplomacy rating, all you can do is keep intimidating, and the guy will hate your guts afterwards. If you've got a GOOD diplomacy rating, he might start off hostile, but not end up hating you when you leave. In general though, target conviction and intent should still remain the same. In some cases Diplomacy won't have success unless you've got Epic Ratings. In this case, if the Noble were likely to suffer MORE from letting you in than the damage 'gossip about his character,etc' would do, I'd say you wouldn't have success.
sapient 11-28-07, 07:47 PM	It could be either, it's the DMs call. But myself, I'm partial to the finesse of the description so I would say Diplomacy. Intimidation -to me- would be more like: "Thog saw bad man run into grounds. Thog wanna search." "Oh?" the older, well-dressed man asked. "Yeah. Bad man did no good thing. Him fel-on." The land owner looked confused, "A felon? I can assure you, my good man, that there is no such person on my estate. The guards would have caught him on entry." "Thog saw bad man. Thog wanna search." "I don't believe this is necessary. How can you be sure he's still here?" "Old man make Thog angry with all talk. THOG WANNA SEARCH FOR BAD MAN. Old man let Thog search or make Thog mad?"
tyrecian 11-28-07, 11:42 PM	Oh come on Sapient, what if the man's wife is a Cleric? What if he is a lvl 13 CoDzilla. True it is intimidation, and Thog might win, but really, not all intimidation has to be so blatant. OP: ""Surely you don't plan on harboring my target, sir. After all, harboring criminals is a crime in and of itself, and an esteemed man like you should not let his reputation be tarnished by such a thing. Imagine the gossip if you were to refuse the search..."" This statement by the mercenary could also carry the weight of an intimidation, since it is reputation that is at stake, and that can carry weight... More a DM call, but the mercenary could have been more diplomatic: "Surely you don't plan on harborring my target, sir? I assure you this man is wily and on your grounds, as i have already stated, we have witnesses and we are wasting time. Allow us to roam, but come with us if need be, and allow your captain of the guard to follow us as well. We will have this man in custody in short order!" Far more diplomatic, and then if that fails you can move to threatenning his reputation. Then if that fails you allow the barb with the 5 int and 8 chr to try his hand... Your example of intimidation must have been pulled out of the most stoned group of adventurers ever... (what we used to refer to as chaotic neutral :D) Cleric: What, man? Wizard: bong, dude... bong DM: You are at the gate. OOC Thog: I should probably do all the talking.
sapient 11-29-07, 12:58 PM	Yeah, well - I said I was partial to verbal finesse... :D But it can certainly be either. I said it is the DMs call. One of the things that can matter is, as you point out, who tries to intimidate whom. What would be an attempt to intimidate a 2 lvl Bard would perhaps not even qualify as a threat to a 12 lvl fighter...
Mindolin 11-29-07, 03:50 PM	What I might do is have the character make an Diplomacy check against DC 10, taking the penalty for rushed time, and if successful gain a +2 bonus on the Intimidate check.