Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Sun Wukong wrote:So did you roll Bluff or Diplomacy? Edit: And what were you exactly trying to do? What was the situation, etc?

Bluff. Tried to convince person that he have seen another halfling instead of me. I guess it should work in pnp, he was not truly hostile against me, he was assured.

Why were you trying to convince him?

I would like to try to use social skills when i can as I figure it creates a potential added element of excitement. The pass/fail gives different outcomes for your actions especially for intimidate and bluff. Outcomes one would never otherwie expect in some cases.

I find what happens now is that if my pc just lies, without the roll, the other player will likely beleive what I am telling them. If they do not I can just keep stretching the truth until they do. If they still doubt me they usually just let it go. No sense motive no ability (int/wis) check, is rarely ever used.
With the bluffing skill there is that chance you may get caught or better yet a chance another player will catch you. This can stimulate RP.
Sometimes the other players are like, finally a chance to use my sense motive skill.

But there must have been a ruling at one time where it was declared that players do not have to pay attension to such social roles. This seems to be well known amoung players across the server now and so I find most folk just ignore my rolls, like they never happened. I have rolled bluff and diplomacy checks and literally had folk say they do not have to pay attension to these rolls.

I remember folk abusing intimidate in the past. That strength fighter losing an argument - rolls a skill and bullies his way to an instant victory with one simple skill check. Like you all have said, Its just really hard to regulate/moderate how to use these skills, in terms of modifyers etc.
- I have also seen intimidate used with lots of subtlety, like a more physical version of diplomacy, as well.

I still like to stick to making checks for my own satisfaction though and will still make rolls an ability check, even if its ignored by others. It helps flush out the individuality of the character itself. I have something like 5 alts atm and I want them to all have different personalities, ways of thinking. Skill check remind me what each of their int, wis, chr are, which helps me define their special delicate snowflake personalities.
Sometimes I will do a int check to see if my toon will figure something I myself has figured out already. Maybe a wis or int check to see if I can clue into something, to keep it real.
Maybe I should start doing chr checks as well to determine how shy, friendly, obnoxious I should be in various relations as a reminder that some of my PC's have terrible CHR and others have high CHR...maybe.

Playing evil, I like to use Bluff to provoke conflict RP -It might be metagaming a bit, but it is an easy way to provoke otherwise apathetic players into becoming interested in what my player is up to...((what is he/she trying to hide?)) .

I wish we could find a way to enforce skill checks a bit more but in game, but using them, even for just personal use can still be fun.

About intimidate...

You can change another’s behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target’s modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target’s Wisdom bonus [if any] + target’s modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).

As for those modifiers against fear, I would say it also includes all items that increase the will save. (Since those do have an effect against fear.) So for a level 30 character, with -1 wisdom modifier, and +8 to all saves from equipment:

It would be something like: 1d20 + 30 - 1 + 8 = (38, 39, ... , 56, 57) - which is something that a dedicated intimidate character can easily overcome with very limited equipment and charisma investment. Oh, and Humans could get +4 intimidate against halflings due to being one size category larger.

But intimidate is still not an automatic do as I exactly tell you skill. Willingness to chat is not willingness to share state secrets. Advice might not be entirely accurate. Limited help is literally limited help, it is not life's savings, but perhaps a pouch of gold to see the intimidating person to go aaway. As for advocation on someone's behalf, you could use someone to vouch for your good intentions, which would be risky considering that they can and will say something opposite just a while later.



Oh, and anyone immune to fear is immune to intimidate. For example Paladins, Darkfire Disciples, Battleragers, Dragon Warriors, Dragon Slayers, and Clerics with Good domain are immune to fear from the top of my head.

Sun Wukong wrote:Why were you trying to convince him?

Hmmmm... Maybe not to get killed?

Was there any reason why that other guy wished to see your character slain? Was your character caught doing something 'silly' previously? Were you wearing the exact same outfit? Etc... Etc... There is just not enough information for me to make a judgement on this situation.

Tekill wrote: I remember folk abusing intimidate in the past.

The problem with intimidate skill is that most people didn't know proper counter-roll and rolled will save instead.

A proper DC for intimidate check is:
1. 1d20
2. + target's wisdom modifier
3. + target's will save modifier vs fear.
4. + target's HD.

You can't intimidate someone who's immune to fear, and DC for intimidating a level 30 fighter will be 39 on average (it'll be 29..49 depending on 1d20), even if their will save is 9.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/intimidate.htm

Sun Wukong wrote:Was there any reason why that other guy wished to see your character slain? Was your character caught doing something 'silly' previously? Were you wearing the exact same outfit? Etc... Etc... There is just not enough information for me to make a judgement on this situation.

I allied with drows and he have seen my face for a few seconds.
I changed outfit, of course. Still got killed without proper rp out or even my consent

Oh well, I guess the next time that happens you can just say you've been killed once before.

I think it's a matter of RP. I've used sense motive BEFORE a character rolled a bluff, due to them making contradictory outlandish comments. My sense motive sucked, but my character was doing just that, sensing MOTIVE, not necessarily a lie itself but the characters motivation to do so.

The player THEN rolled bluff, and beat me by 2 points. Subsequently my character shrugged off the initial comments as 'crazy halfling', and ended up partying with him, even though he still retained a certain amount of suspicion, (but not enough to warrant another roll or outright hostile distrust). At the same time, he would not be as helpful towards that particular character as normal, as a result of the RP. I think most people know in general, unless there is severe backstabbing treachery going on, what levels you can trust someone and what levels they trust you at. These mechanics openly reflect that.

I think the rolls can be fun if used as a gauge of guidance on how to RP, but not necessarily how the outcome so be 'ruled' so to speak. I thanked the player for the RP and it was enjoyable. Nothing required him to roll against my sense motive, both were low level low skill rolls, so it was random, but at the same time I wasn't going to be leaping to any extra-ordinary reaction either (though the halfling player did not know this).

It also leads to the question were not my initial roll so low, would the player have meta'd and not rolled against it? This is why it should just be a matter of, possibly, if he failed against me, I allow him a longer chance of being able to explain himself to convince my character he mispoke or something of that nature.

At it's best, a mechanic for more RP to assist RP, not replace it.