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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5083098" data-attributes="member: 63214">Sure, that's reasonable, right out of the books. But my players would take that and just clam up and let the guy with diplomacy trained to talk. I think this is more than just my experience.This is a funny analogy given the above, because most of the time the wizard won't even attempt a staff attack.People dumped charisma before I made any ruling, which none of this is official ruling anyway. But, I'm not going to argue with you about what is realistic. That, frankly, never entered my mind and I simply don't care about that. I want to have fun at the table, and I know that me and my players will dump charisma if it isn't an attack stat or a secondary, or a spell-related thing if its 3E, and I also know that they'll avoid failure. Realism aside, it's no different than just having one person in the party with thievery. Yeah, so one person in the party is the one rolling to unlock all the chests, thus 'encouraging everyone to dump' dexterity?If that's not a valid argument, then maybe it's a issue with the stat itself, which is another discussion entirely. Either way, I respect that you value simulation, but it's not important to me as you I'm sure figured out.Surely you see a difference as far as the player is concerned between physical skills and social skills. I'm not sure we can go further with this particular point without that acknowledgment. The idea is to have the doors always open, especially during a skill challenge. I think it's bad to have the potential of the fighter sitting there because he doesn't want to make the group get a failure in the challenge, or otherwise doesn't speak his mind. Yes, it's completely unrealistic, but in my group it's nice. Thanks for sharing your experience.Well, I'm glad that's the case for "most gamers." My table requires a little more encouragement.Hmm, I'm not sure I'm following. So, let's just keep calling it bluff, and say you can use it to pass off the truth as something you believe as well? That's what I'm getting at. It's jarring to me that a character can be convincing in telling a lie but won't be convincing in telling the truth necessarily. Yes. I know that the rules don't work that way.I'm not sure I said to increase the power of Bluff, that's certainly not my intent. Persuasion is just a name that doesn't imply a lie has to be involved. Feel free to give me a better word. If you think that "Bluff" should have to involve a lie because otherwise it would be brokenly powerful, despite my above objection, then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree there.</blockquote>

Verification