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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Utrecht" data-source="post: 1107354" data-attributes="member: 1411">I tread the differences between Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate as follows:Bluff - Represents some manner of trickery/innuendo which attempts to advance the Bluffer without giving up anything - it has serious consequences if failed - in effect - the perception that the bluffer lied.Diplomacy - represents an actual negotiations - a implied back and forth discussion where both parties hope to realize something.  I do not feel that there is any lieing inolved (I would rule that you could attempt a bluff check and if successful, it would give positive modifiers to your Diplomacy check) - Failure here means that the discussion/offer held no value to the receipient - and if bad enough - would result in a downgraded attitude.Intimidate - Trying to gain what you want out of shear force of will/personality.  Again, I would allow bluff to modify this one as well.So examples in combat Bluff: "I expect that the squad of guards would be here any moment" - if succesful, it would force a tactical change on the part of the opponents - ie. they align themselves to address the new threat, etc.  In effect it would cause the bad guys to operate in a less than optimal manner.Diplomacy: Success - would indicate that hostilities come to a temprary halt - i.e. a white flag while terms are discussed - and based off of these terms, combat could resume.Intimidate - Again this is would attempt to cease combat - but more of a one shot - I.e. stop attacking me, I will be forced to kill all of you - oh and I will do it slowly......I then apply modifiers based off of environmental conditions - but tend to favor larger modifiers than +/- 2 in combat - the nature of combat enhances the normal affects of any modifier.....</blockquote>

Verification