Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5083059" data-attributes="member: 4937">It's a little too late to back out of the interaction here.  He's spoken up; a diplomacy check is warranted whether he wants one or not.  And sometimes, you are forced to make a diplomacy check whether you want one or not.  If the watch sergeant asks you what happened, however you respond either by saying something or not saying something incurs a diplomacy check.  But if you don't say anything, it incurs a diplomacy check with a rather large circumstantial penalty because the behavior is one which would normally be considered insulting.  So yeah, maybe he isn't the right one for the job, but that's ok, he's roleplaying.  If he gets in trouble, he can always be rescued from the situation by a more charismatic character if there is one.  And, he might actually succeed, in which case its like the wizard scoring a critical hit with a staff attack.I would hope players will react with primary attention on the character of their character.  That is afterall why we call it a character.   The should react how their character would react, and if their character doesn't pay special attention to their lack of social graces, then neither should the player in acting out the character.  That is part of what makes for a fun game.  A game in which everyone is primarily paying attention to the rules, rather than to the game world, is one that I find gets deadly dull in a hurry.Which is I think ridiculous.  So, in your world, all I have to do to be fantasticly charismatic in every situation, is walk around with someone who is?  No one people hire 'escorts'.  This sort of ruling encourages everyone in the party to dump stat charisma heavily, because there is virtually no penalty for doing so.Which is fine, but should be handled I think with two charisma checks.  It's possible for the watch sergent to develop a dislike for one member of the party, which is mitigated by the respect he has for someone else.No.  I don't have an issue with tumble checks being tied to the roleplayer who says them, or spot checks being tied to the character who makes them, or search checks being tied to the character who makes them, or saving throws being tied to the character who makes them.  Why then should I have a special difficulty with social skills?  Why do you want to make proficiency in social skills so much less important than proficiency in every other area of skill?I can't say that I've ever noticed it.  The closest I can think of to this situation is the player who made a Wookie character for Star Wars, and then realized sheepishly that this meant he could primarily interact with most NPC's by grunting and roaring.  But, having realized that he couldn't take the role he was used to in negotiations, he then made the most of it.I find that most gamers are more willing to be involved than they are to sit on their hands whatever stats that they have.  I think its quite possible to play a compelling, interesting, and entertaining character without being the face of the party.   If you absolutely must have a mechanical justification, anyone that can pass a DC 10 diplomacy check can assist the party face by granting him a +2 bonus.  Thus, if the player plays his character in a supporting role to the party face - much as if the player plays his character in a supporting role to the party tank in combat - he can both roleplay and effectively contribute to party success.I wouldn't allow that.  It risks making the bluff skill too broadly applicable.  In my opinion, Bluff has a very narrow application - if you succeed at your check, the hearer is convinced that you believe what you say even though you actually don't.  Generally, for most people in most situations this convinces them that what you say is true, though, in the event of a really outlandish lie, what you might actually convince them is that barring any evidence to the contrary that you are insane.  Note that bluff does not do either of the following:a) You can't use bluff to persuade anyone to believe what you say.  You can only convince them to believe that you believe it.  Most people take this as a point of evidence in favor of what you say being true, but it doesn't automatically convince anyone to believe what you tell them or to act on that belief in a particular way.  More on that latter.b) You can't use bluff if you yourself believe it to be true.  You can only use bluff to be deceptive.But now, you must make a bluff check.  If it succeeds, the gaurd almost certainly buys your story - because all other evidence points to it and he has no reason to not believe you.  If it fails though, the gaurd knows you to be lying so his reaction with respective to you deteriorates, act he still doesn't know the truth.  And because his reaction to you has deteriorated, a diplomacy check to persuade him of the truth now gets much harder. For a high bluff but low diplomacy character, it might make sense to lie alot - you are more likely to be believed.No.  Because I don't feel that bluff persuades people, per say.  It's used to tell a lie without it being noticed.  Whether that lie is persuasive will depend on other factors.  Generally the lie may sow doubt and confusion, and in the event the target has no reason to disbelieve the lie it will certainly be acted on.  But, a bluff like, "What do you mean the sun is shining?  It's night and as dark as pitch", may succeed as an outlandish lie, but the target is more likely to believe you are simply insane or magically enchanted, than they are to disbelieve the evidence of their senses - unless of course they have reason to believe that they are magically enchanted, in which case doubt and confusion may be sown.If bluff could actually persuade someone, it would be an at will suggestion spell.  This is clearly more powerful than intended.  For one thing, the Epic Handbook defined the DC of using bluff to perform a suggestion at +50 above the normal DC.  So sure, if you can make 80 or more on your bluff check, you can get people to believe just about anything and persuade them to act on it, but that quite a bit more powerful than a standard bluff.I think it does.  I think the basic divide is Diplomacy = honest attempt at persuasion, Bluff = dishonest attempt at persuasion.  Or, bluff = trick, diplomacy equal persuade, though really you have to extend the definition of diplomacy somewhat to even encompass persuasion. Intimidate is the only one of the three that directly gets you what you want regardless of the reaction of the NPC toward you.  You can not only use intimidate to persuade, but you can use it to persuade individuals who - because they are hostile to you - would be virtually impossible to persuade by diplomacy.  In some respects, it is therefore the most powerful skill of the bunch.  On the other hand, it carries the most dramatic penalties, since it deteriorates the reaction of the target to you regardless of whether it succeeds or fails.I very much disagree.  If this was true, there would be no point in having the intimidate skill.I think you have to draw a very clear line between the ability to frighten someone, and the ability to intimidate them.  The intimidated character does what you ask.  The frightened character essentially acts randomly and illogically, or becomes angry - and acts randomly and illogically - or if they are strong willed, acts stubbornly and cunningly to thwart your will.Why?  I don't.  I have virtually no flight instinct.  It's nearly gotten me killed on occassion.  You threaten me and I know from experience that I go beserk in a very irrational and illogical manner.  The DC, especially when you are dealing with a hostile target, is much lower than with diplomacy.  And the time required to make the check is much lower.  Diplomacy might require minutes or even hours of in game time to make the check.  Intimidate can be done basically as a full round action.  And the effects are more direct.  If you succeed, the target does what you say more or less immediately.  Diplomacy might take a whole bunch of checks to build up good will and agreement on a complicated issue.Absolutely.  Intimidate is a threat of any kind.  Hmmm.... ok, I agree, but then the next thing you say isn't necessarily an ultimatum.That's a threat only if its understood that you will be the one of the persons instrumental in its fall.  Intimidate is, "Cooperate or else."  It isn't, "Take my advice or bad things will happen."  For example, "You must head to higher ground or the hurricane will wash you away.", isn't intimidate.  That's diplomacy.  If it fails, then you might resort to, "Head to higher ground, or I'll drag you there myself kicking and screaming.", which is intimidate. No. No.I tend to play everything by ear.  If I had to define it, I'd say intimidate lasts until the target fulfills the request or feels he has some measure of safety.  At which time, I'd require a second check to extend the intimidation.No.  I would have frightened beings take essentially random action.  Some might surrender.  Some might fight to the death.  Some might try to run away.  Others might try to open negotiations.  Less frightened beings will take rational action as I see fit.  But if you succeed at that intimidate check, then you get surrender.Incidently, if "We're going to kill you all if you don't surrender" isn't true, then it first requires a bluff check, then an intimidate check.   If the bluff check fails, then they certainly aren't going to be intimidated.  If on the other hand, its true and their is manifest evidence of it, there is likely to be a large bonus on the intimidate check.  Although I should say that I think, "We won't kill you if you do surrender" is likely to grant a bigger bonus.  Again, bluff check may be required.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" /></blockquote>

Verification