Diplomacy VS Sense Motive

[Cinnamon]

For those who are not good with bluffing as characters, but excel at Diplomacy, what say you, the community, about this particularly interesting thing?


I would say Perform is a good skill to act in exchange of it, but what about Diplomacy?

I eagerly await the replies!

[Hoihe]

RAW 3.5 says it is a dc of 20 on sense motive to be able to tell something is fishy.

[Theodore01]

Both Diplomacy and Intimidate would make sense.

[izzul]

just sharing all of them here for better judgement

https://www.realmshelps.net/charbuild/s ... f%20others.

https://www.realmshelps.net/charbuild/s ... luff.shtml

https://www.realmshelps.net/charbuild/s ... macy.shtml

[RedLancer]

I would say no, you cannot use other skills to stand in place of skills your character is not good at. You could argue that Perform or Diplomacy might provide a synergy bonus to your Bluff roll under certain circumstances, but they're not interchangeable.

[yyj]

+1 to RedLancer post.

[Cinnamon]

I would say no, you cannot use other skills to stand in place of skills your character is not good at. You could argue that Perform or Diplomacy might provide a synergy bonus to your Bluff roll under certain circumstances, but they're not interchangeable.

It's not particularly in place of, but using your Diplomatic Political knowledge to "Gaslight someone with your sheer confidence and political savvy" into believing your words. So lying through omittance and using guillability as your powerplay against a check sense motive or attempt of RP to find out you're lying.


In terms of a literal Sense, it is automatically against Bluff, of course. I need to remember to not write posts when I'm five minutes from bed time.

Sorry folks

Edit: Example


A's Action: I believe this to be true.

B's Diplomatic Response: This is how it goes. [Uses Diplomacy to Convince them of otherwise]

A's Action Lacking Suspicion: I am convinced.

A's Action, Suspicious - Rolls Sense Motive

B's Response: Bluff, fails, attempts to retcon the failure and blunder with more Diplomacy or Knowledge Checks.

[yyj]

Gaslighting would be a bluff though. It's literally a very elaborated one.

[Dragonslayer]

Gotta go with the paladin on this one.

"Gaslighting" implies that you know you're not telling the truth in the first place but are trying to force your view on someone else through a sheer showing of confidence.

That's opposed to diplomacy, which by its very nature is more meditative rather than forceful. You convince someone to see your line of reasoning as reasonable, rather than pretend that you're right and hope that they agree; it's a matter of what your character knows to be 'true' rather than what your character would like to be true. And it's only supposed to alter demeanor, not beliefs (unlike bluff).

For example:

Character A - "The sky is red."

Character B - "The sky is not red, it's blue."

Diplomacy by Character A - "But can we agree that it is sometimes red?"

Bluff by Character A - "Sure it is, you just have blue tinted windows. When was the last time you were outside?"