Some rule clarifications, please!

[Larcen]

I have a few questions that I hope this learned forum can answer for me. I believe I know the answers to most of these, but this would help alleviate some discussions our group is currently having.

I. Can social skills, such as Bluff and Diplomacy, be used by a PC against another PC? If so, can is be used to make a PC do something he wouldn’t normally do or knows for a sure is a mistake? If so, how can roleplaying be incorporated into this somehow?

II. The Spiritual Weapon spell uses your BAB. Does this mean:
a) Your regular unadjusted BAB.
b) Your BAB at the time SW is cast, adjusted by Divine Power (for instance) if active.
c) Your current BAB. SW’s BAB goes up if you cast DP later, goes down when DP runs out.

III. At the moment you cast Antilife Shell, will creatures (friend or foe) standing nearby be inside the circle with you, or do they get pushed back? Also, once the spell is up if you are completely surrounded by a hoard of living creatures does that mean you can’t move at all since it would involve pressing the barrier against creatures in any given direction?

Thanks for any and all comments.

 

[Egres]

I. Can social skills, such as Bluff and Diplomacy, be used by a PC against another PC? If so, can is be used to make a PC do something he wouldn’t normally do or knows for a sure is a mistake? If so, how can roleplaying be incorporated into this somehow?

From the SRD:

DIPLOMACY (CHA)
Check: You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy che


II. The Spiritual Weapon spell uses your BAB. Does this mean:
a) Your regular unadjusted BAB.
b) Your BAB at the time SW is cast, adjusted by Divine Power (for instance) if active.
c) Your current BAB. SW’s BAB goes up if you cast DP later, goes down when DP runs out.
IIRC the right answer should be "c"

III. At the moment you cast Antilife Shell, will creatures (friend or foe) standing nearby be inside the circle with you, or do they get pushed back? Also, once the spell is up if you are completely surrounded by a hoard of living creatures does that mean you can’t move at all since it would involve pressing the barrier against creatures in any given direction?

1) No, they aren't pusched back.

2) No.

It simply means that you can move but your movement will collapse the barrier.

 

[Larcen]

I. Yes, it's pretty clear for Diplomacy. But to be honest our group is really having the problem with Bluff. Since Bluff does not specifically mention it's use only on NPCs, do we have to make the assumption then that since Diplomacy says so, then Bluff should be ruled the same way? Are there no definate rules somewhere on PC bluffing PC?

 

[Thanee]

You can use Bluff on other PCs, the players should try not to metagame then.

As for Diplomacy, you cannot change the attitude, but you should still be able to use it, and be it only to determine how persuasive your character is (so the other player can base a response on that to some degree).

In general, what you cannot do to other player characters is changing their attitude. You cannot make them friendly or helpful, it's up to the player how the PC reacts to any given situation.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Diplomacy spells it out nicely, and as a DM I extrapolate it to cover all social skills: a PC cannot control other PCs with skill checks. Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate do not function against PCs, whether used by other PCs, or NPCs. Players get to determine when (and if) their PC will be suceptible to lies, pursuasion, diplomatic reasoning, etc.

It's good role-playing to be consistent in how your PC reacts to such coaxing. It is not bad role-playing to be suspicious or stubborn by nature.

Regarding Spiritual Weapon I have always ruled (c).

 

[Magesmiley]

As a DM, I typically allow Bluff vs Sense Motive checks to determine if another player making a statement is telling the truth. However, that's about the only place I allow it (and I often make the rolls in private as well for both players). From that standpoint, I think it is acceptable, as it is merely providing information on the interaction between two players.

 

[UltimaGabe]

Diplomacy spells it out nicely, and as a DM I extrapolate it to cover all social skills: a PC cannot control other PCs with skill checks. Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate do not function against PCs, whether used by other PCs, or NPCs. Players get to determine when (and if) their PC will be suceptible to lies, pursuasion, diplomatic reasoning, etc.

So, in other words, a PC with Sense Motive of -2 and a PC with Sense Motive of +30 both have the same chance of figuring out whether someone's lying? What sense does that make? And, for that matter, why put ranks in Sense Motive?

 

[Larcen]

Thanks for the responses so far everyone but I am seeing a lot of "that's the way I do it", not anything in black and white. Is there no official ruling on PC bluffing PC? It's too bad it's not spelled out as clearly as Diplomacy is.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So, in other words, a PC with Sense Motive of -2 and a PC with Sense Motive of +30 both have the same chance of figuring out whether someone's lying?

If that someone is a PC, then yes. The person with the -2 Sense Motive can choose to RP his character as being oblivious. Or he can choose to RP his PC having a sudden burst of inspiration and thus realizing he's being lied to. The choice lies with the player.

If the someone is an NPC, then no. The person with the -2 Sense Motive will almost always get the impression the speaker wants him to have. Trustworthy. Honest. Not hiding anything. etc. The PC with the +30 Sense Motive will get a sense that something isn't quite kosher.

What sense does that make? And, for that matter, why put ranks in Sense Motive?

It makes perfect sense. The social skills are a shorthand, a way for the DM to adjudicate countless NPCs whose motives and personality foibles he won't always have mapped out to the finest detail. Social skills allow the DM to determine with a dice roll how an NPC will react to the PC. On the other side of it, a single player is assumed to know his PC best. The player doesn't need a die roll to tell if his PC would be taken in by a certain type of con, is easily pursuaded, or can be intimidated by a big fighter flexing his muscles. Moreover, this is a game, not a simulation, and even though it might be more believable for a low wisdom character to be taken advantage of every single time the bard talks with him, it's also recognized that this isn't always so fun for the player of the low wisdom character. Particularly if the player of the bard is a bastard.

As to "why take ranks in Sense Motive", it should be obvious. To interact with NPCs at an advantage. In my experience, a very significant portion of times a PC will want to Sense Motive, it's vs. an NPC anyway. And Sense Motive works simply and appreciably against NPCs. It simply does not provide the same benefit vs. PCs, because it's more fun for a player to decide his character's personality (including the flaws), than it is for him to be subject to another player that chose to max out Diplomacy and Intimidate.

If you take a moment to work out the bonuses, it becomes clear that at mid-levels (say, 12th+) a social PC (rogue, bard, possibly paladin), can achieve such a high bonus that, were social skills to function the same way vs. PCs that they do vs. NPCs, such social characters would effectively rule the game. The fighter could never say no to anything the bard suggested. The cleric could never decide to stand up to the little halfling rogue with the +30 to Intimidate.

It may be that you and your players would enjoy such a game. Me and mine would most certainly not. Therefore, I rule the way I do, extrapolating from a clear rule (Diplomacy doesn't work against PCs,) to a few other skills where the rule isn't so clear. I haven't had any problems with it so far.

 

[reanjr]

Thanks for the responses so far everyone but I am seeing a lot of "that's the way I do it", not anything in black and white. Is there no official ruling on PC bluffing PC? It's too bad it's not spelled out as clearly as Diplomacy is.

I think it is pretty obvious that it is allowed, since one of the uses of Bluff is entirely combat-oriented (feint). Since the SRD doesn't specify which situations can and can not be used, it only makes sense that is can. Why wouldn't it work? I think that would be a very strange situation. Yes, the player has the final decision on whether to believe a person who is bluffing, but it doesn't stop the DM from answering the question "Does he seem to be having my best intentions in mind?", with a "Yes" because the Sense Motive check didn't beat the Bluff check. Any other ruling would require the DM to adjudicate any kind of decision like this based on no kind of game information at all, just whether he thinks the player should think the other is being deceitful. Then you'll have players complaining about the DM making these judgement calls based on nothing when the rules already have a way of figuring this out.