Would be a good Efuss skill. No more "Hey, you counter bluff with inteligence, not with spot" "Hell no, it's concentration you moron!"
(that has actually never happened to me on this particular server, but nobody bluffes for this reason i think.)
Basically, it's just a counter to persuade, bluff and.. intimidate and taunt? not sure about thouse two.
Yes please! I'm sick of having to argue about what rolls to use if we're bothering, and trying to figure out what's a good indicator of anti-bluff/persuade, etc
Isn't it somewhat pointless to roll when trying to bluff a PC? You shouldn't determine whether or not you believe someone based on a bluff roll. That's dumb.
Of course people should have some ranks in bluff if they constantly try to lie to PCs, but that is an entirely different matter. It's up to you to decide whether or not you want to believe someone who is trying to bluff you.
Rolls do not make up for good old fashioned roleplay.
I'd say bluff vs bluff.
A person who often lie, and are good at it, could probably also see when someone else does it.
The roll can also be used as a hint, if there is no emoting or such.
I have sometimes complied when people have asked for rolls on this or that, but honestly I don't like it.
As has been mentioned above, if you are going to be lying/bluffing/whatever someone ranks should exist in that skill, but without a DM it cannot be enforced, and no DC can really be set either.
It may work at times, when both parties are reasonable. But to me it just feels mechanical and wierd.
The bluff skill is DC-based, with DCs based on the outrageousness of that what you're saying.
For instance:
"I'm actually Helm in disguise." would have a very high DC.
"My name is Adahn." wouldn't have a very high DC.
It's not supposed to be compared to a lie-detector skill, as that would completely destroy the most important aspect of bluffing, being how big of a bluff you are making.
I personally enjoy seeing RP where, when a PC bluffs, he does so taking the size of the bluff as well as his bluff skill into account, makes a nice comparison out of that, and then, when he thinks it'd probably be too difficult to pull off, toss in a few emotes about how sweaty the character suddenly looks, or that his eyes are darting back and forth or something like that.
Wether or not the PC being lied to would be able to detect the lie is then up to him: does he pick up on the sweaty eye-darting bit and considers it to be because he's lying, or is it just because a goblin could jump out any moment in the volcanic cavern they're currently both in?
The issue with those skills is that either you are a good spokesman in real life, and then you can play either a good or bad skilled pc, but if you are a mediocre spokesman in real life, you need the rolls so that your pc actually is good even if what you say sucks.
So usually, i let people roll to me.
That being said, i don't like rolling much when it breaks the flow of things, especially if people start to argue about the DC or whatnot. In that case, you can be sure i won't bother to comply ;)
It's really on a case by case basis, really.
I'd say bluff v. bluff just for simplicity sake
Well that depends.
Is your name Adahn?
Quote from: Letsplayforfun;149973The issue with those skills is that either you are a good spokesman in real life, and then you can play either a good or bad skilled pc, but if you are a mediocre spokesman in real life, you need the rolls so that your pc actually is good even if what you say sucks.
All this points out is that you'd rather play through a vague game mechanic rather than actually doing good RP. If everyone thought this way, the server would suck. No offense.
We're loosing track of the OP, but nevermind.
I'll rephrase for those who skim over posts without reading them. If a 15 years old teenager plays a lvl7 bard, there's little chance that he's rethorically up to the job. In those kind of cases, i don't mind him rolling a dice to persuade/bluff me.
If you prefer me to tell people they suck at playing bards and should stick to low education/socially deficient PCs, i could, but i -usually- don't treat people that way.
This game is meant for people to get to 'be' what they cannot 'be' IRL That's what RP is. So don't give me the traditionnal elistist answer of 'omg, he sometimes accepts dice rolls!" The machine is 'rolling' for you 99% of the time, you know.
Back on the OP: i've no opinion on that. ;)
I'm against elitist position, I fear none of us would play effectively a mage with Int 16 (one person that can master without problem 4 language), so some degree of dice rolling may be tollerated.
I'm against the dice rule position too, I want to play my pc so some degree of freedom must be left, if I don't trust you, no roll can make me change idea, I may roleplay a mild reaction *raise a brow* skipping my first choice yell LIAR , the skill bluff is not the spell charme , my 2 cents.
I'm sorry, but until I am forced to acknowledge a roll, if your playing does not support your skill amount, no matter how you roll infront of me, I won't go with it.
I want to be persuaded/bluffed with playing, not by numbers.
After that's said, bluff vs bluff doesn't sound bad. But spot or such as well, since lousy bluff roll could show somekind awkward moving, twitching eyebrows or what ever.
It's always been the official DM stance that unless compelled by a DM, dice rolls are entirely consensual. Whether you want to acknowledge a roll or not is entirely up to you. The only non-DM cases I have ever rolled a skill for have been to show off my skill investment rather than to convince someone that I should succeed, and I think that's a far better route to take.
That said: since EFUSS can be an easy way to dump 10 points into something, I'm not sure this is a good idea. People who don't know they have a choice, or frequently allow people to roll against them, will be at a disadvantage. BioWare skills shouldn't be 'countered' by EFUSS skills the rate of investment and quality of choices are rather different. They are different systems.
A character can be a good lier, and may not need to show the bluff roll, but in that case, how can you be sure he does have ranks in bluff?
I agree rolls should be made in agreement. But sometimes players after agreeing to roll dices, disagree in wich roll answers to wich other, and why.
Sence movite is the way to tell bluffs in D&D that much i know, it is missing in NWN, efuss is a good way to bring it in to aid. Correct me if i'm wrong.
Now, i agree it is easy to dump in efuss, but it is also a sacrifice (alchemy, herbalism are quite desirable efuss skills...) and since players can chose to ignore the roll anyway, no one will be forced to invest in it, just the ones who wish to answer to rolls with something not so improvised.
If i'm not mistaken, it is maxed at 10? If so, a level 4 rogue with 12 cha has a bluff of 8 without items, with items it can go over 10. So it is kinda in disadvantage, i dobut it will be overpowered.
I would certianly use it. I don't see how it could make any significant damage, and if it ends doing so, it can be removed right?
Theory is kinda different from practice, i say we give it a try.
If someone makes a roll for bluff, or persuade, or whatever, at least you as a player know they have invested something in this skill. Then, if all else fails, you as a player, know what they are trying to convey. While nothing says you have to adhere to these rolls, I think they are good to let people know more about your PC and his /her characteristics.
Rolling bluff against anything but NPCs is silly. People are expected to correctly represent their characters' skills.
I am also of the opinion that people are more than welcome to roll bluff/persuade/perform/intimidate checks, but that no one should feel compelled to do anything about them. I do not think that rolling these checks around other PCs is silly.
If anything it allows people to at least give an idea of the skill point investment in an area, especially with regards to something like performing music, or using bluff to disguise yourself. It also at leasts allows people who are still developing their language skills, either because of age or having english as a second language, to make the attempt to roleplay something that may be a little out of their depth.
The response however I feel is totally up to other players, who also should roleplay their stats and skills, and should not be based entirely on dice rolls. Therefore I don't think a "sense motive" should be added, purely because as ScottyB has said, the two skill systems are a bit imbalanced.
I find it hard to believe a low-wis character wouldn't be taken-in by a bluff roll of 30+ and see through a disguise. Whereas a character with high wis, spot or listen, or even high appraise, might roleplay noticing something about them, hearing their voice falter, or noticing that their "signet ring" is nothing but cheap trash. This however is up to the players!
IMO it would be nice to have a DM privately have a PC roll to them, bluff and other skills occasionally and report the general outcome to the other side e.g. "John Doe Prays faithfully to Bane". or "John Doe makes a number of errors in his prayer to Bane, he seems to be making it up as he goes along"
Yes everyone should perfectly play their stats, but I am not sure we are all perfect and an intervention here or there can be good.
Showing your bluff ranks to a PC is self-defeating.
I don't support rolls PC vs. PC. If you're a good liar, show it and have the skills to back it up. How can you counter it? Through the knowledge your character has and what the other character says and emotes. If this is the first time meeting the character then chances are that you won't be able to know if he lies easily, unless the other character is suspiciously strange. PCs asking other PCs for bluff rolls is not something I am comfortable with, as this will give the other player an OOC advantage that is previously not there. And the PC who made the roll has no idea if the other character has the knowledge to see through it.
So guys, play your stats.
Being a player who has been scolded in the past for lying with minimal ranks in Bluff, I would say that a counter-skill is appropriate. Sense Motive seems right on.
Will sense motive address spotting a person through there disguise?
I think not.
This was a good suggestion, but unnecessary. Only a DM can enforce bluff checks if you players want to roll /c roll bluff check all will and good...but honestly, it's silly.
The counter skill is the DC a DM sets. Players shouldn't set DC's of their own against one another nor expect their random roll check to mean anything outside of showing off. If you're character tells lies then you should have bluff. If you don't have bluff you should be bad at telling lies and make it obvious.
In lieu of a Sense Motive Skill, I always thought it might make sense to use your Will Save against a DC of the bluff skill rolled. People who have strong mental defenses may be able to discern bullshit better than those who don't.
Bluff vs Bluff isn't at all realistic, there are plenty of no-nonsense type folks who can see right through your bullshit but have no ability to hoodwink folks themselves.
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned something about a bluff roll DC modified by plausibility, etc... certainly that's something you can simply 'set' and add modifiers as appropriate, but I will point out that in PnP DnD (which EfU is NOT, but sometimes, lacking a better source we can look to PnP for inspiration) Bluff and Sense Motive are directly opposed rolls, with each being the others DC. Modifiers modify your bluff outcome (not DC), thus modifying the DC of the sense motive roll. That's just an FYI.
There are always going to be skeptics and suckers. Some people won't believe you no matter how well you try to sell it, even if its the truth. I mean look at evolution or climate change.
I feel like rolling a persuade, bluff, etc check to give other players an idea of how well your character is doing at said skill is alright if its done in moderation. No one should ever feel forced to roll against it though unless they choose to. And for the love of god don't abuse it (said as someone who has been guilty of it in the past).
That said, if you do -choose- to roll against someone, I don't see any harm in at least providing the option of Sense Motive. It is the opposing skill roll in D&D. I could also see a number of non-bluff related ways this could be useful skill, especially on DM events. "You sense the Ogre charging at you with an axe wishes you harm..."
"Roll dex or die"
not much work, the haters don't have to use it while some people may actually use it to good roleplay when someone isn't particularly sure if he should believe this guy instead of just outright ignoring it or giving a bs answer
Quote from: PanamaLane;150180That said, if you do -choose- to roll against someone, I don't see any harm in at least providing the option of Sense Motive.
The harm is that EFUSS skills progress differently than standard skills. Someone can easily dump 10 points into Sense Motive at level 2 or 3 depending on their INT and maybe other factors; people who know this will be reluctant or refuse to consent to roll, and people who don't know may feel conned when they do learn.
I think EFUSS's scope should be limited to custom systems (like alchemy), skills that will only be taken into account by DMs or scripts (archeology), and e-penis skills (entertainment). We'll see if that remains the case, but that's the way it's looking.
Not really scotty, because a player may chose to disregard the roll anyway.
I am not really a fan of skill rolling among players. I'm not even a big fan of skill rolling among NPC's.
My reasoning:
If you have a ridiculously high number of points (from leveling, equipment and buffs) it does not always translate into tangible usefulness. For example, with sixty persuade I should be able to convince you to do virtually anything. However, PC's are not bound to go by the skill roll. In most cases I have found they will ignore it if it is even just a little detrimental to their character (such as showing signs of fear).
To give an example I've had PC's with amazing intimidate, and attempted to show this in a number of ways, followed by skill rolls to simply add back-up to my emotes and words, but every time I've done this I've found it to be like giving someone a courage potion. It's ridiculously funny how many people will immediately emote in various ways to show that they aren't afraid despite the fact you just rolled a natural 20 and have like 30 intimidate. About the coolest thing I've ever accomplished with a social skill was just standing around with some other folks, who also had high intimidate (same aforementioned PC), and we were kinda joking around emoting how intimidating we looked and rolling the skill... and a DM had a nearby rat die of a heart attack.
I've had numerous characters with high social skills and have not once really found it translates over into tangible benefits at all.
And attempting to roll a bluff check when you're lying is the worst thing you can do, because like intimidate above, I have done this before, and I have found that even if PC's were not suspicious before they immediately become suspicious afterward. The only time it's been useful to me even remotely is when I know OOCly the player already knows OOCly that I am telling a lie. The bluff skill allows some context, and combined with a persuade might allow you to avoid arrest or something. However, again, if it is even remotely detrimental to another PC there is well over 90% chance of failing or having your actions be counter productive.
Finally, there are two issues that I really hate about the system. First, it is entirely based upon levels and lucky rolls. Why is it that a first level PC is not going to be as good at a social skill than a level four PC? Level should play a minor role compared to background. Second, it is how class skills work. Does it really make sense for a bard to be better at bluffing than a Cleric of Shar, Mask or Cyric? Does it really make sense for a savage barbarian to be more intimidating than a Cleric of Bane, Umberlee or Loviatar? I do not think so.
In the end, I have found that it is best for you to merely play your character as best you can regardless of skill. If your character is supposed to be intimidating at level one, then act intimidating at level one. If you're really good at it maybe the DM's will reward you with an item that will help you be as intimidating as you pretend to be... otherwise just roll with it (no pun intended), and do what is IC for your character.
If a social skill system was setup in which things were more balanced, multiple rolls were required, if DM's used the system frequently, and players more often than not modified their PC reactions on that system then I would find social skills under EFUSS much more enjoyable.
Well said my friend. I agree entirely.
Could've been a bit longer, though.
<3
Rolling to other players is stupid unless you want to show off your massive skills which you may not want them to know you have.
Rolling say for example... bluff - You may not want people knowing your PC has a ridiculously high bluff if he's trying to pose as a trustworthy guy. As soon as people see your skyscraper skill ranks, they are (sometimes unintentionally) going to look at your PC in a new light OOCly and that may affect how/when they beleive you when otherwise they would've taken your honied words without a second thought.
A DM can make a roll private so no other PC sees it, if a situation warrants. And as said above, you shouldn't count on a roll to pull your through a situation. Even if a player with 25-30+ bluff happens to roll 20 on a showoff roll before they lie, it should still be up to what they actually do and say that influences you believing them or not. If the player in the above example rolls a 20 and then just says "*Puts on a straight face* He's went that-a-way!" and someone else with unknown ranks in bluff who doesn't roll makes a detailed emote of somekind, following by something interesting and convincing, I'm more inclined to beleive the second player TBH. Bottom Line? If you're going to max out a skill, at least be able to back it up somewhat with how you play it. If you're going to be a liar or a performer, play your character that way and don't use rolls to pull you through if you can't come up with something. If you don't think you can come up with convincing lies, don't play a PC who is a compulsive liar and expect to have him get away with it.
In my opinion, this is unwanted.
If a roll necessarily is to be made, I'd think it cooler if instead of saying something and then rolling, you roll and depending on how good your check comes of you adjust what you're saying and what you emote along it with it.