PDA

View Full Version : 4E: On Diplomacy checks in combat



Tough_Tonka
2010-09-10, 06:48 PM
According to the rules making an Intimidate check to pacify enemies is a standard action. By that logic should making a Diplomacy check take a standard action as well? It seems like a good way to make sure players don't consider it an option to me though.

What are your thoughts on this? So any of you have experience with with this system or alternate methods for making diplomacy checks in combat?

I've also considered having making diplomacy checks a minor action, but it requires a skill challenge to win.

tcrudisi
2010-09-10, 07:01 PM
You can influence others with your tact, subtlety, and social grace. Make a Diplomacy check to change opinions, to inspire good will, to haggle with a patron, to demonstrate proper etiquette and decorum, or to negotiate a deal in good faith.

Diplomacy is already (arguably) one of the most important skills in the game. I would not increase it's power even more by allowing it to be used in combat, especially when the definition doesn't make much sense for it to be used in such a way. Tact, subtlety, and social grace are not things that one normally exhibits in the middle of a life-or-death combat.

However, when there is a skill challenge mixed with a combat and Diplomacy is a skill, it's usually a standard action.

kyoryu
2010-09-10, 07:02 PM
There's nothing in the skill description that suggests it has a combat application at all, and I see no logical reason to suppose that it does.

I wouldn't allow it in combat. It just doesn't make sense.

Edit: Though, the humor potential is endless.

"ARRRRGH! THORG CRUSH PUNY HUMAN!"

"But, Thorg, you should listen to our proposal. If we can arrange a deal here, we can form an alliance and you would see the potential villages open for sacking increase at least 100% over the next three years."

"Hrm. Puny human have point. Me not crush... yet. Keep talking."

Esser-Z
2010-09-10, 07:04 PM
It makes sense in combat if, say, you're trying to feed the starving wolves instead of killing them!

We ended up keeping one as a pet.

RebelRogue
2010-09-10, 07:06 PM
There's no standard RAW use of Diplomacy during combat in the rules. But once in a blue moon, it may make sense - it's up to the DM on a case-by-case basis.

Jothki
2010-09-10, 07:13 PM
Could be handy if your opponents have misunderstood your intentions, or if you want to negotiate a surrender of either party. There are some situations for which Intimidate just doesn't cut it.

RAWR I'M BIG AND SCARY AND ALSO NOT ONE OF THE BANDITS YOU'VE BEEN HUNTING SO STOP ATTACKING ME!

oxybe
2010-09-10, 07:17 PM
There's nothing in the skill description that suggests it has a combat application at all, and I see no logical reason to suppose that it does.

I wouldn't allow it in combat. It just doesn't make sense.

Edit: Though, the humor potential is endless.

"ARRRRGH! THORG CRUSH PUNY HUMAN!"

"But, Thorg, you should listen to our proposal. If we can arrange a deal here, we can form an alliance and you would see the potential villages open for sacking increase at least 100% over the next three years."

"Hrm. Puny human have point. Me not crush... yet. Keep talking."

it's possible, so long as you happen to fight Blanka, model gentleman
http://images.memegenerator.net/Gentleman-Blanka/ImageMacro/1930988/Riveting-tale-RAWRRROR.jpg

Thajocoth
2010-09-10, 08:57 PM
It makes sense in combat if, say, you're trying to feed the starving wolves instead of killing them!

We ended up keeping one as a pet.

That's Nature, not Diplomacy.

Intimidate in combat to get the opposing side to completely surrender is what requires a Standard Action. It also requires that only one guy is alive and they're bloodied.

Intimidate for any other reason... Such as to scream real loud to try to appear as the biggest threat, is not listed in the PHB, and is therefore up to the DM to decide what to do with. I'd make this example a Minor Action.

Similarly, lets say you're fighting Vampires and offer them a sacrifice of blood to leave you alone. That's Diplomacy, and makes perfect sense in combat. Again, I'd use a Minor Action here.

Your DM may simply not allow the actions at all. Also, attacking the same turn should detract from such a Diplomacy check... I'd give you a -5 penalty to the Diplomacy check if you attacked that turn. But you could ready for their response, which I'd give on their turn...

Tough_Tonka
2010-09-10, 11:18 PM
The reason I was wondering about how to use diplomacy in combat is for two reasons.

1. Last session my players were accidentally mistaken for slavers and were trying to convince the tribe warriors they didn't want to fight.

2. In a coming adventure the PCs are going to be a gladiatorial match against 3 other teams of gladiators. In the fight I'd the PCs to have the option of teaming up with some of the teams against the others, or playing the teams against each other.

So I'm trying to figure out how social skills other than intimidate should play in these scenarios.

I guess the PCs can use other methods than skill checks to solve these kinds of problems, but most of the time that's their first choice and I don't believe its a bad one.

HMS Invincible
2010-09-11, 02:50 AM
My dm's response to diplomacy or intimidate is to make me waste my standard action doing so. Then he attacks me anyway. Once the battle is boring/over to the DM and he can't do anything significant, he'll arrange some way for the battle to end early. I haven't bothered with intimidate since.

FelixG
2010-09-11, 05:00 AM
There's nothing in the skill description that suggests it has a combat application at all, and I see no logical reason to suppose that it does.

I wouldn't allow it in combat. It just doesn't make sense.

Edit: Though, the humor potential is endless.

"ARRRRGH! THORG CRUSH PUNY HUMAN!"

"But, Thorg, you should listen to our proposal. If we can arrange a deal here, we can form an alliance and you would see the potential villages open for sacking increase at least 100% over the next three years."

"Hrm. Puny human have point. Me not crush... yet. Keep talking."

this made me laugh heartily as in a 3.5 game i was the human necromancer and Thorg was a wraith that i won over to my side by promising to plunge the whole world into darkness so wraiths could fear nothing of the sun at the end of my quest :P