maximvs
Active Member
Governator
Posts: 130
|
Post by maximvs on Jan 13, 2009 14:27:12 GMT -5
Hello! I play Mary on the server, and wanted to ask a question... perhaps try to solve something, or should I say, set specific rules about the diplomacie, intimidate and bluff skills.
After using those skills a few times, I couldnt help but notice that folk usually roll different skills to determine wether mine diplomacie and bluff checks succeeded or not... example, one used spot and listen checks against my bluff, others used a will save, others, another bluff check...
And thus, I wanted to ask the very present! DMs if they could set specific rules concerning those three social skills...
My suggestions are as follow :
Against a diplomacie check, either a diplomacie check or a will save,
Against a bluff check, either a bluff check or a spot check,
Against an intimidate check, either an intimidate check or a simple DC of 11 + the character level.
These are simple suggestions, mind you... I dont like the spot check against the bluff check, it makes sense, but Spot is already used for A LOT of things already... perhaps changing it for a will save...
Just a suggestion!
|
|
|
Post by adzling on Jan 13, 2009 14:39:11 GMT -5
it's hard as circumstances can vary greatly. In one instance Int makes sense in another wisdom could and in another bluff might make sense.
A will check makes little sense against anything except attempt coercion imho as it's just force of willpower essentially.
Wisdom is useful for spotting liars as is intelligence as is bluff (it takes a liar to spot a liar) so any three could be used imho depending upon circumstances.
Diplomacy is helpful if you wish to use words to convince someone of your position on an issue or sway them to your side of an argument so opposing with diplomacy or int seems reasonable. Opposing diplomacy with bluff makes no sense.
Intimidate makes sense to be opposed by will as your attempting to coerce them to do something against their will. In this case int and wisdom make no sense. Opposing intimidate with intimidate would also seem to make sense as you in effect have two people "getting all up in each-other's face" and seeing who will back down first.
However the main problem here is using skill checks like this against another PC are always bound to cause problems. It's much better if you personally can actually concoct a believable story, cultivate an intimidating demeanor or master the use of language so as to lead your target into verbal pitfalls and traps. My favorite tactic is to back an opponent into a corner by the careful use of logic traps. Get them to admit to things one by one that would individually seem to be benign enough and hard to deny, each of which leads to a position that they then have a hard time refuting once they put themselves into it.
RPing against another RPer is always going to work out better than a dice roll.
|
|
|
Post by broham2 on Jan 13, 2009 14:45:49 GMT -5
I'd love to see a table on this as well, as in my experience the counter roll is usually whatever the counter-roller is best at...
I dont like Spot vs Bluff either.. Spot should be used as a visual skill.. and you cant visually see a lie. I can see Spot used vs Bluff if I am trying to sell something as something it isnt.. but even then Appraise would be much more valid.
Your suggestion of logic traps is illogical when dealing with a half-orc barbarian using intimidate.. among others. Not everyone is playing an intelligent character.
|
|
|
Post by Zealote on Jan 13, 2009 14:55:44 GMT -5
Personally I like to roll skill vs skill, since sometimes(Most of the time) The skill points will be higher than a save roll, if the characters are at the same lvl. For instance, I doubt people can have more than 38 will or wisdom mode, and thats my paladin's diplomacy. I believe we can use different skills again a skill roll, depending on the situation, like adzling said. But I would never roll a save roll, will or anything like Int and Wisdom, since they will lose by far against skill points. Let me give you an example:
Against diplomacy: You can diplomacy back, with a different argument. You can roll intimidation, to counter the argument with a threat. You can roll bluff, to lie on the guy's face or to impersonate a threat (Much like the intimidation roll) Against bluff: You can roll bluff (Like adzling said: A good liar can see through your lie) You can roll spot to see the changes in the face of the liar that gives you the perception to know that hes doing something to decieve you. (The lie is only as good as the lack of perception of the target) You can roll listen to hear the nuances and changes on the voice that follows the lie.(Same argument above) Against intimidation: You can roll intimidation to get the threat back to him You can roll bluff to lie to his face and simulate the effects of a threat and intimidation You can roll diplomacy to neutralize the threat. I understand that a will save is itchy to be rolled, but trust me, in high lvls or with a huge lvl difference, they will never reach the skill points. Same thing works for wisdom and inteligence. You can even see that with a lvl 30 mage with 30 inteligence. He can ever reach the skill points of a good intimidator, who will possibly have more than 30 points spent. But he can have a good skill, and possibly more than 30 points on that skill.
Just my 2 cents
Thanks - Zeal
PS: Just to remind you that every roll must be followed by a decent argument or text. Same goes to the save rolls. When you roll back at someone trying to save your self, you need to type something. Dont just roll the dice and say: HAHAHA failed.
|
|
|
Post by adzling on Jan 13, 2009 14:57:39 GMT -5
I agree that spot against bluff makes no sense UNLESS its some kind of disguise type bluff. Although now that I think about it what if the bluffer is trying to pawn off some piece of garbage kitchen knife as the "dagger of eternal sharpness"? In that instance i could see appraise, spot, int or bluff being used as a counter.
AND I agree that the target almost always uses their best stat/ability/skill. This could make sense per above example or it may not (most often it does not).
And sure your rp style should conform to your character, so a nuanced conversation may not pertain to a dumb half-orc barbarian and they may not respond to such things.
I just think the range of things possible that people use bluff (and other conversation skills) for are so large it's almost impossible to lay down hard and fast rules in advance.
RP is always better than a dice roll imho. If some expert bluffer comes up to my toon and attempts to bluff him with dice roll into believing something that is on-the-face of it ridiculous I will not buy it no matter what his dice roll. I would just laugh in his face and walk off. However if had a cleverly concocted and well thought out back story, well then i might believe him and he wouldn't need a dice roll!
|
|
maximvs
Active Member
Governator
Posts: 130
|
Post by maximvs on Jan 13, 2009 15:16:56 GMT -5
INT checks, WIS checks, just stats checks will never defend against my maxed diplomacie and bluff. never.
It has to be a skill, or a set DC.
Logic traps are good, but where those three skills gets interesting, is when the other PC refuses to cooperate once. then I just try again and throw the roll...
Oh, and I completely disagree with the intimidate used against a diplomacie check! its the complete opposite, but he can still try to intimidate him somehow!
Ok, how about....
Versus diplomacie, another diplomacie check, or a dc of 8+char lvl Versus bluff, another bluff check or a dc of 8 + char lvl Versus intimidate, another intimidate check or a dc of 8 + char lvl
...?
|
|
|
Post by Zealote on Jan 13, 2009 15:17:04 GMT -5
I posted the dice roll to be rolled back because dice rolls are a big part of RP. Of course you can speak without them, but they add the extra juice in the conversation and are a highly useful tool. And adzling, with enough bluff a character can make you believe he is a diplomat of Chult, looking for his dino pet that got lost inside the Temple of Umberlee. Or that he is a powerfull mage with itchy fingers, even though he looks like a rogue. Just ask DM Haunted. I caught him summoning a skeleton with his high lvl Blackguard that would kill my paladin in seconds. I told him that he should come with me to the city for questioning. He said we should fight for it. I rolled a diplomacy check followed by a peace argument. The roll was a total of 51 diplomacy. He rolled will in response and despite his high will (20) he failed miserably, thus following the correct path IC to listen to my argument. Even though OOC the argument may look silly to you, IC is another story. Of course, crazy arguments like I am a dragon in human shape would never work. If his character had a high skill like I posted above instead of trust in his saves, he would have killed me easily. He was something around 6 lvls above me. And even then my skill saved me.
|
|
|
Post by Zealote on Jan 13, 2009 15:22:35 GMT -5
Oh, and I completely disagree with the intimidate used against a diplomacie check! its the complete opposite, but he can still try to intimidate him somehow! Dont think about the skill rolls like a name. They are just a simple way to resume various types of argumentation. The purpose of intimidation vs diplomacy or diplomacy vs intimidation is to see if the argument for peace(Diplomacy) is far more powerfull than the argument for fight (Intimidation), or the other way around. Which are more powerfull? That is the point. Forget the names of the skills and think about the reality hidden behind them. They simulate the strentgh of the argument, thus can be used against each other. But as stated on my post, you can use other skills, all depending on the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Zealote on Jan 13, 2009 15:26:39 GMT -5
Spot should be used as a visual skill.. and you cant visually see a lie. You can see not the lie itself, but the changes on the body language and face signs that cause you to suspect the behavior and therefore the lie. Everytime you lie, you act different, no matter how you good you are at that. But only the one with a better perception than your ability to lie can see those signs. Thus spot vs bluff. PS: Remember the saying: "Spot a lie". Thats where it comes from. ;D
|
|
|
Post by adzling on Jan 13, 2009 15:28:12 GMT -5
well it always depends upon circumstance zealote.
however in the instance mentioned above if i were the blackguard in question you could roll 1000 and you wouldnt get me to follow your paladin into the city. no matter how nicely you asked or how persuasive you arguments as that is akin to "hi matey, let's go sit in this electric chair shall we? It's fine really, nice electric chair it won't hurt you."
Somethings are just beyond the pale.
The guy looking for his lost dino pet seems WAAY more doable as you are not bluffing someone into believing something that will kill them.
My general point is overall RP is way better place to go against another player than a skill check unless you just can't avoid it. And even then no matter how high your roll or how good your skill sometimes you just wont be able to convince someone ("please mister mage just let me hold your enchanted staff for a minute, i just want to look i promise i'll give it back" rigggght....)
|
|
|
Post by Zealote on Jan 13, 2009 15:33:19 GMT -5
well it always depends upon circumstance zealote. however in the instance mentioned above if i were the blackguard in question you could roll 1000 and you wouldnt get me to follow your paladin into the city. no matter how nicely you asked or how persuasive you arguments as that is akin to "hi matey, let's go sit in this electric chair shall we? It's fine really, nice electric chair it won't hurt you." The argument must follow the roll. The argument was to come peacefully, that a fight was not necessary since all it would happen was the questioning. Not death and no trial threats were made. Which is why I said that the argument must be made within reason. Not to accept the fact that you fail to resist a racional argument with a good and succesful dimplomacy roll is bad RP. Just like not being scared of a huge intimidation roll and the threat of death made by a huge half-orc with an axe. PS edit: Both your arguments were bad examples of bluff rolls.
|
|
|
Post by broham2 on Jan 13, 2009 15:46:53 GMT -5
Spot should be used as a visual skill.. and you cant visually see a lie. You can see not the lie itself, but the changes on the body language and face signs that cause you to suspect the behavior and therefore the lie. Everytime you lie, you act different, no matter how you good you are at that. But only the one with a better perception than your ability to lie can see those signs. Thus spot vs bluff. PS: Remember the saying: "Spot a lie". Thats where it comes from. ;D yeah yeah.. I can agree with that to a certain extent.. but the Spot roll that allows one to pick an enemy out of the brush on the horizon during DM events or spot the movements of one trying to sneak past you shouldnt be the same spot roll that allows you to see facial ticks of a liar. IMO, and only my opinion, the best roll to 'spot a lie' would be bluff.. because it would take some training in liars and lying to really catch a liar based on facial movements. You can be great at reading faces in poker, but that wouldnt be the same skill as spotting movement in a nature situation. Characters that use their spot rolls for both are taking advantage of the nuances of character building, IMO. *takes note that Ujio's spot is really high*
|
|
maximvs
Active Member
Governator
Posts: 130
|
Post by maximvs on Jan 13, 2009 15:51:21 GMT -5
Spot is already used for a lot of things...
Also, dont forget that Spot is used against bluff when one uses the feint feat...
food for thought!
|
|
|
Post by Zealote on Jan 13, 2009 16:19:38 GMT -5
Spot is already used for a lot of things... Also, dont forget that Spot is used against bluff when one uses the feint feat... food for thought! That just proves my point. The skills are not static things. Within them you will find implicit all the ways to use them. They are just a resume of lots and lots of behaviors. For instance, whats bluff got to do with combat? Well, in this particular case you 'bluff' an attack. How can a spot roll makes the other character 'know' that the attack is false? Because thats what happens when the spot beats feint. the feint fails because the spotter 'knows' you're lying and the attack is just a simulated attack. But how can he know that before you land the hit? Because spot means all the things you can do with your eye. Not only see far away, but also close. And not only notice movement in a dense forest of a bush, but also facial expressions and body language. If you use only one skill to counter another, like bluff vs bluff or intimidation vs intimidation, you narrow the possibilities or RP and the response will always be the same. And we all know that there are million of ways to end a situation and million of ways to continue a situation. Thats RP. Thanks - Zeal
|
|
|
Post by broham2 on Jan 13, 2009 16:22:04 GMT -5
Itchy Finger!
Ha ha.
I agree Zeal, RP is better than any die roll.
|
|