Is this quote diplomacy or intimidation?

[Zhentarim]

"How dare you point a weapon at the heir to the throne. If you harm a single hair on my head or the heads of my fellows, I will have orders drawn up for treason. You will face terrors in that royal dungeon that are beyond your darkest nightmares and you will die screaming in agony before you are ever set free. Do you understand?"

[Vaz]

Are you serious?

[Zhentarim]

Are you serious?

I think it is intimidation, but a friend thinks it is diplomacy

[Manyasone]

Happening to you? Or you happening to others? Also nobles.... Never liked them in games. Especially if they are the medieval kind of cliché nobles

[Zhentarim]

Happening to you? Or you happening to others? Also nobles.... Never liked them in games. Especially if they are the medieval kind of cliché nobles

It's a hell's vengeance module and I took the noble born campaign trait that makes you a noble. I did this as an intimidation roll, but I have a guy pm'ing me asking why I used diplomacy but rolled intimidation.

[Zaydos]

But... but... but... all you're doing is directly threatening them. That's Intimidate. It's likely to bite you in the backside due to the effects of intimidate, but it's Intimidate.

[Deophaun]

If you harm a single hair on my head or the heads of my fellows, I will have orders drawn up for treason. You will face terrors in that royal dungeon that are beyond your darkest nightmares and you will die screaming in agony before you are ever set free.
Bluff.

You were going to do that anyway for pointing a weapon at you, right?

[Manyasone]

Bluff.

You were going to do that anyway for pointing a weapon at you, right?

Can you make real? On the threat? If no, Bluff. If yes, intimidate

[Deophaun]

Can you make real? On the threat? If no, Bluff. If yes, intimidate
No, Bluff because he's implying that there is a way to avoid that fate.

[Ashtagon]

Intimidate if he can (or believes he can) carry the threat out. Otherwise, Bluff.

That is nothing like Diplomacy.

[ryu]

No, Bluff because he's implying that there is a way to avoid that fate.

Sure there is. If he complies you order his execution. See? Perfectly truthful.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's very plainly intimidation. Even if you lost the "how dare you" and delivered it with a deadly calm tone that would -still- be intimidate. It's a damned threat for pete's sake. I very much hope the guy PM'ing you ins't the party's face.

[Mordaedil]

I think it is intimidation, but a friend thinks it is diplomacy

You are 100% in the right. It's a threat, not an attempt to reach even ground. Diplomacy is talking down violence. Intimidate is threaten down violence with greater violence. Bluff is confusing your opponent from being violent.

[Zanos]

I don't understand how "I will torture you if you don't do what I want" could be anything other than intimidation.

[Deophaun]

Sure there is. If he complies you order his execution. See? Perfectly truthful.
If he was trying to Intimidate him, he would have told him what would happen to his family if he didn't yield. Instead, he tried to leave open the possibility of mercy. Bluff.

Diplomacy is talking down violence.
Diplomacy is for convincing him to do the honorable thing and kill himself while you watch, sipping from a golden cup.

[ryu]

If he was trying to Intimidate him, he would have told him what would happen to his family if he didn't yield. Instead, he tried to leave open the possibility of mercy. Bluff.

Diplomacy is for convincing him to do the honorable thing and kill himself while you watch, sipping from a golden cup.

That only counts as a possibility if we know the would-be assassin has family.

[Deophaun]

That only counts as a possibility if we know the would-be assassin has family.
Of course he has a family. You don't let people who don't have something you can leverage against them near you. This is Overlording 101.

[ryu]

Of course he has a family. You don't let people who don't have something you can leverage against them near you. This is Overlording 101.

What about the possibility this assassin was competent enough to get near without being let in? I'm just saying you can't assume these things and must be prepared for situations where the usual tricks are impossible for various reason.

[Deophaun]

What about the possibility this assassin was competent enough to get near without being let in? I'm just saying you can't assume these things and must be prepared for situations where the usual tricks are impossible for various reason.
Then why try to talk? Don't dignify the intrusion; he's not worthy of your voice. Just put a sword in his gut and be done with it.

No, the question requires the usurper be known.

[Mordaedil]

Diplomacy is for convincing him to do the honorable thing and kill himself while you watch, sipping from a golden cup.
That's actually Persuasion, a skill dropped from playtesting.

[ryu]

Then why try to talk? Don't dignify the intrusion; he's not worthy of your voice. Just put a sword in his gut and be done with it.

No, the question requires the usurper be known.

Distraction tactics/tactics that cost nothing have value even with strangers. Same thing for stalling.

[Duke of Urrel]

"How dare you point a weapon at the heir to the throne. If you harm a single hair on my head or the heads of my fellows, I will have orders drawn up for treason. You will face terrors in that royal dungeon that are beyond your darkest nightmares and you will die screaming in agony before you are ever set free. Do you understand?"

I believe this cannot possibly be Diplomacy skill. When you use Diplomacy skill, I believe you never use threats, you appeal to common interest. You also don't lie. (When you lie during a negotiation, I require you to make a Bluff check before you make a Diplomacy check.)

So your example can only be either Bluff skill or Intimidate skill. I believe both skills may use deception.

I usually draw the line between Bluff skill and Intimidate skill this way. If you try to make someone fear you personally, that's Intimidate skill. If you try to make someone fear anything other than you, that's Bluff skill.

However, I recognize a grey area when you threaten to command others to carry out your threat for you. Here's what I would rule as a DM: You may choose whichever skill you believe is more likely to succeed: Bluff or Intimidate.

[PaucaTerrorem]

It's only Bluff if you don't intend to carry out the threat. It's Intimidation all the way otherwise.

[stanprollyright]

Definitely Intimidate.

[Duke of Urrel]

It's only Bluff if you don't intend to carry out the threat. It's Intimidation all the way otherwise.

I don't believe it's as cut and dried as that. Intimidate is a class skill for aristocrats, barbarians, rogues, and warriors, regardless of how well characters of each class may or may not be able to carry out the threats they make. If a halfling rogue can use Intimidate skill as well as a half-orc barbarian, I think the ability to carry out a threat is desirable, but not necessary, for a skilled intimidator.

But, as I said before, there's a grey area. You may be better at deceiving and misleading with words, in which case you will have invested a lot in Bluff skill and will be more likely to succeed with a Bluff check when you make a threat. Check out the sentences that appear in the "Bluff Examples" table on page 68 of the Player's Handbook v. 3.5. One of these is clearly a threat made to a party of orcs, but it uses Bluff skill. Personally, I prefer to consider threats that make people fear you personally to be threats that use Intimidate skill, but the PH expressly allows Bluff skill to be used. Moreover, the OP's example includes a threat that relies (I believe) on the actions of others besides the intimidator.

On the other hand, you might be better at using body language to make people believe you mean business. In this case, you will have invested more in Intimidate skill and will be more likely to succeed with an Intimidate check. I believe Intimidate skill has more to do with body language than Bluff skill because you add a size-category bonus or penalty to your Intimidate check if you're one or more size categories bigger or smaller than your opponent.

The credibility of your threat really matters only if you use Bluff skill, probably because this skill (as I understand it) relies more upon words and less upon body language. If your threat really isn't believable, your opponent gets a bonus on their Sense Motive check. This doesn't happen with Intimidate skill.

In short, when choosing between Bluff or Intimidate skill, I favor flexibility. I think how you choose to invest your skill points may sometimes matter more than your intention.

(Intention matters more with Diplomacy skill, which I believe requires an ability to recognize and build upon common interest.)

[Erit]

-Snip-

Well, if we pull open the Book of Vile Darkness' "Rules of Torture" section (yes, I know), we get two paragraphs which can be summed up as "Threatening with torture is Bluff, and actually torturing them is Intimidate". Which makes sense when you consider the nature of the "Noodle Implements" trope, and how torture is about making the victim so terrified of further suffering that they say anything (but hopefully something useful and true) to make it stop.

Having referenced that thing, if I were in this scenario I'd have rolled Intimidate as well simply because my character would not be screwing around here. Mr Nice Guy left the building three rounds ago; if you don't comply, you will get the snot beat out of you, no exceptions.

[SethoMarkus]

This is how I look at the three relevant skills.

Diplomacy is an attempt at improving relations.

Intimidate is an attempt at influencing/coercing behavior.

Bluff is an attempt at controlling reactions and disseminating misinformation.


I see absolutely no way this could be construed as diplomacy. I agree with the others saying it is Intimidate, but I could see (under the right circumstances) it being Bluff. As presented, though, definitely Intimidate at my table.

[Keldrin]

The specific example is intimidate.

I quite like SethoMarkus' definitions.

[Luccan]

I don't believe it's as cut and dried as that. Intimidate is a class skill for aristocrats, barbarians, rogues, and warriors, regardless of how well characters of each class may or may not be able to carry out the threats they make. If a halfling rogue can use Intimidate skill as well as a half-orc barbarian, I think the ability to carry out a threat is desirable, but not necessary, for a skilled intimidator.


Assuming he has put the same number of ranks in it, the average halfling rogue probably has a better intimidate than the average half-orc barbarian. Although that's a different discussion

[Genth]

Assuming he has put the same number of ranks in it, the average halfling rogue probably has a better intimidate than the average half-orc barbarian. Although that's a different discussion

Also, the halfling rogue is probably not intimidating by saying "If you don't do what I say, I'll use my giant Orcish Battle Axe to chop you into bits" :p Your threat does not have to be purely physical and thuggish.

[ryu]

Also, the halfling rogue is probably not intimidating by saying "If you don't do what I say, I'll use my giant Orcish Battle Axe to chop you into bits" :p Your threat does not have to be purely physical and thuggish.

Oh it can still be physical. It's just less about mutilation and death, and more about knowing all the sensitive spots. Using a little knife to savor *smacks lips* all the little emotions. Mind screwing involving putting smiles on peoples faces, conflicting stories about how you got your scars, pencil magic tricks, and intractable moral dilemmas optional, but recommended.

[ProGun]

"How dare you point a weapon at the heir to the throne. If you harm a single hair on my head or the heads of my fellows, I will have orders drawn up for treason. You will face terrors in that royal dungeon that are beyond your darkest nightmares and you will die screaming in agony before you are ever set free. Do you understand?"

all my NE rogue hears is "blah blah I'm a rich douche blah blah" so I'll pickpocket him while he delivers his monologue, backstab held in reserve waiting for friends to make their call...

and if they back down I'll sneak into the room's corner get my cowardly compadres back asking the royal brat to treat us to a round of drinks for patching things up... so he will notice his purse is gone. LOLZ

[ryu]

all my NE rogue hears is "blah blah I'm a rich douche blah blah" so I'll pickpocket him while he delivers his monologue, backstab held in reserve waiting for friends to make their call...

Well technically talking is a free action and pickpocket requires it to be your turn....

[ProGun]

Well technically talking is a free action and pickpocket requires it to be your turn....

well ill ask the GM to say that in under six seconds and see how effective that speech would be.

my thief would be over there, have his purse, and seated back down at his corner table... and my selfish character doesn't listen to anyone unless they are paying him to or he hears $$ in the language. he's impossible to catch flat footed and would jump (surprise attack) at an opportunity to pickpocket some performer or speechmaker like this. They are their own built in distraction.

[ryu]

well ill ask the GM to say that in under six seconds and see how effective that speech would be.

my thief would be over there, have his purse, and seated back down at his corner table... and my selfish character doesn't listen to anyone unless they are paying him to or he hears $$ in the language. he's impossible to catch flat footed and would jump (surprise attack) at an opportunity to pickpocket some performer or speechmaker like this. They are their own built in distraction.

That's nice. Talking is still a free action so it doesn't matter. Be glad he was being fairly brief. By raw he could read you War and Peace in the span of a single turn.

[nyjastul69]

This is definitely intimidate and not diplomacy. Although, I think the diplomacy skill can potentially use threats or imply violence, I dont think this is one of those cases.


That's nice. Talking is still a free action so it doesn't matter. Be glad he was being fairly brief. By raw he could read you War and Peace in the span of a single turn.

The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#speak) disagrees. Even if you were to string together multiple free actions of speaking the DM is allowed to put a limit on the number of free actions.

[ryu]

This is definitely intimidate and not diplomacy. Although, I think the diplomacy skill can potentially use threats or imply violence, I dont think this is one of those cases.



The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#speak) disagrees. Even if you were to string together multiple free actions of speaking the DM is allowed to put a limit on the number of free actions.

Notice how I said by RAW. It's a very real distinction.

[Zhentarim]

Thank you for the input

[icefractal]

This one is definitely Intimidate. An interesting case is indirect threats:
"If you don't provide us those supplies, we won't be able to stop the Sea Beast. So you might want to evacuate those coastal cities pretty soon. Well, nice knowing you."

Personally, I'd say that's still Intimidation, although you wouldn't get the "being larger than the target" bonus or any other kind of personal threat bonus. You could get a bonus for the magnitude of the external threat though.

[Deophaun]

This one is definitely Intimidate. An interesting case is indirect threats:
"If you don't provide us those supplies, we won't be able to stop the Sea Beast. So you might want to evacuate those coastal cities pretty soon. Well, nice knowing you."

Personally, I'd say that's still Intimidation, although you wouldn't get the "being larger than the target" bonus or any other kind of personal threat bonus. You could get a bonus for the magnitude of the external threat though.
I would think the threat would have to also justify the "target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile)" clause for it to really be Intimidate as opposed to Diplomacy, which such an example doesn't.

Interestingly, that clause means that if the target was already hostile, it improves to unfriendly after the effect of Intimidate has worn off. So, that's good for the OP's case.

[Vaz]

Notice how I said by RAW. It's a very real distinction.

Actually, RAW says "a few". That very real distinction, would you care to point out how many is "a few". By RAW, it would require a DM to allow you to do the opposite and say more than "a few". How many a few is, is completely indeterminate. To say that gives you infinite is more akin to "it doesn't say I can't".

[ryu]

Actually, RAW says "a few". That very real distinction, would you care to point out how many is "a few". By RAW, it would require a DM to allow you to do the opposite and say more than "a few". How many a few is, is completely indeterminate. To say that gives you infinite is more akin to "it doesn't say I can't".

Nope. The only place ''a few'' is used is to describe what constitutes the limits of a single free action. No such limit is explicitly placed on number of free actions taken. As a matter of fact scroll up from the link. The free action paragraph goes out of its way to say that total number of free actions MAY be limited, but no such limit is stated as a given default.

[Vaz]

Ah I see.

But how many is a "few"? There's no answer to that, outside of the DM's interpretation of "a few". RAW, you're relying on a DM handwaiving the "generally" and/or putting an arbitrarily high (infinite?) figure for the definition of "a few". With no value for what "a few" constituents, it cannot have a figure. You've got to rely on your DM equating "a few" to a number greater than 0 for that to occur, which is even more RAW.

RAW.

[dhasenan]

It's only Bluff if you don't intend to carry out the threat. It's Intimidation all the way otherwise.

Why can't it be both?

You Intimidate to scare the pants off the person. You Bluff to make them think they have a chance to escape your wrath. If you fail Intimidate badly enough, they shrug at your threat and probably don't care if you were honest about potential mercy. If you Intimidate well but Bluff poorly, the person knows they have no chance to survive and might commit suicide or make a panicked, desperate attack.

[dhasenan]

This one is definitely Intimidate. An interesting case is indirect threats:
"If you don't provide us those supplies, we won't be able to stop the Sea Beast. So you might want to evacuate those coastal cities pretty soon. Well, nice knowing you."

Another case of multiple rolls. You roll Intimidate to see how afraid they become thanks to your words. You roll Diplomacy to see how well disposed to you they are.

Win Diplomacy, fail Intimidate: "Thanks for the offer, but we can handle this on our own."

Win Intimidate, fail Diplomacy: "I'll have to talk to the mayor about hiring a band of adventurers -- hopefully Good ones rather than Neutrals like you lot."

[ryu]

Ah I see.

But how many is a "few"? There's no answer to that, outside of the DM's interpretation of "a few". RAW, you're relying on a DM handwaiving the "generally" and/or putting an arbitrarily high (infinite?) figure for the definition of "a few". With no value for what "a few" constituents, it cannot have a figure. You've got to rely on your DM equating "a few" to a number greater than 0 for that to occur, which is even more RAW.

RAW.

By the very definition of few it is a non-zero quantity. That is all that matters here. Good try though. This RAW is checkmate unless you can find a commonly excepted definition of few that allows for literally zero as opposed to near zero.