Hi, I just have a quick question about using the persuade skill to persuade other PC's. Is this allowed? If so what do they roll to counter the persuade? Some servers have them roll character level + will save as to prevent high charisma people from just persuading everyone to do anything they want with little chance of failure. Is the system some what like that?
~Kriati
Unless you are told to roll a check by a DM, it is entirely optional. No one else can demand it from you. You do, however, have to roleplay your skills.
i.e.- Don't play a good liar without high Bluff scores, don't play a master lute player without a good Perform, etc.
The DMs could most likely explain it better.
I would probably roll a discipline check. Disciplined people aren't very susceptible to being talked into things. It could also be a concentration check depending on what the persuade is referring to.
But it's more important to know your character and what they would do in that situation. Also, if they have a low INT and/or WIS, they would be more likely to be persuaded I think.
If somone tries to bullshit one of my PCs, I'll base whether they succeed on:
Is it believable? Petey in the UD had insanely high Bluff, and got a score of about 30, but still didn't persuade Egon he'd jumped over all of Lower in one go because it was so ridiculous. I'd not try and be cunning at persuading without a high persuade check. Mostly I find rolls are useful to show that the PC has the investment in skillpoints to back up the RP persuading, if that's convincing.
Is my character smart enough (INT) to pick up on conflicting evidence of insightful enough (WIS) to guess the PC is trying to con him?
FInally, rolls can be cool for minor stuff. Asking people in a tell to roll a refex save because you've flung a cushion while pratting around, or a lore check to see if they recognise the symbol of your more esoteric god.
I personally don't like dice. I'd much rather RP it out. But if you absolutely MUST use dice for this sort of stuff, I probably would do it like this.
Think in your head how unlikely/retarded/disagreeable the thing is you're trying to persuade someone to do. Now take that, and add half of your target's INT score to it.
Or something.
I HAVE A DREAM. THAT ONE DAY A PLAYER WILL BE JUDGED BY THE CONTENT OF HIS CHARACTER. AND NOT THE NUMBERS ON HIS DICE.
Quote from: "Pup"Unless you are told to roll a check by a DM, it is entirely optional. No one else can demand it from you. You do, however, have to roleplay your skills.
i.e.- Don't play a good liar without high Bluff scores, don't play a master lute player without a good Perform, etc.
I agree. Although I'd like to add that it works the other way too. If you have good scores, then make an effort to RP them. The same bard that rolls 35 to get extra healing should also be able to turn around and make a good case why he deserves the first pick of the loot. The half-orc barb with 18 intimidate does more than *brandishes his great axe* while using the large pheno model.
Don't say, "Come on, this is good stuff!" *Roll bluff check.*
Have an emote following it with like... (His tone is serious and filled with utter conviction, his eyes lock onto yours brooking no disagreement, his stance is intense, ready for action, as he offers you the substance. It is wrapped in a plain silken kerchief, with bold coloring, he smiles decisively, and offers it in a encouraging manner.)
Yes, long winded emotes are a pain, but they are fun making.
Egon the Monkey Said: "If somone tries to bullshit one of my PCs, I'll base whether they succeed on:
Is it believable? Petey in the UD had insanely high Bluff, and got a score of about 30, but still didn't persuade Egon he'd jumped over all of Lower in one go because it was so ridiculous. I'd not try and be cunning at persuading without a high persuade check. Mostly I find rolls are useful to show that the PC has the investment in skillpoints to back up the RP persuading, if that's convincing."
I'd like to point out that all that bluffing was done mainly in jest! Petey surprisingly was able to stay out of too much trouble with NPCs, and thus I felt I should show off the skill focus bluff in good humor and some times.
Petey also claimed to slay dragons. And puppeteer with their heads.
Petey was a blatant liar, and this was meant to be obvious, the whole point of the high bluff check was that dude to his terrible wisdom score, he didn't know how to use it correctly. It bothered people that he sounded like he was telling the truth, but obviously wasn't.
Jeez I miss RPing Petey.
All social rolls (unless requested by a DM) are optional.
Ultimately, it is up to the player to decide if their PC is convinced, if their PC believes your PC, or if your PC intimidates their PC.
However, given that we are not our PCsvand we have a tendency to want our PCs to be awesome at everything (it is the age old, "I shot you!/No you didn't!" argument from Cops and Robbers) it can be fun to recognize that and allow the numbers to adjudicate, if you desire.
But how? Well, let's take a look at how Dungeons and Dragons works:
Keep in mind this is informational only, not an opinion that it should be done this way.You have a skill modifier to which you add 1d20, trying to beat a Difficulty Class (DC).
Per the PHB 3.5, there are four 'social' skills. They are Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive.
In EfUA/NWN there are 3 'social' skills. They are Bluff, Intimidate, and Persuade.
Persuade can be reasonably attributed to Diplomacy. Sense Motive is missing outright.
Of these, Intimidate is the EASIEST to directly apply PnP rules. PnP says you roll your Intimidate check DIRECTLY against a 'level' check.
That means the Intimidator rolls his Intimidate, the 'defender' rolls d20 and then adds his level to the result. Whoever is higher 'wins'. In most DnD opposed rolls, tie goes to the Defender.
Now, in PnP, Bluff and Sense Motive are directly opposed rolls. The bluffer rolls a Bluff Check, the Bluffee rolls a Sense Motive Check. Highest roll 'wins' and tie goes to the defender (Bluffee).
In NWN we don't have sense motive, so it is incumbent on the defender to select a reasonable DC.
In PnP, Diplomacy is DC based, so as with Bluff in NWN, Persuade requires us to determine a reasonable DC.
What is reasonable? The PHB lists DCs along with an adjective to describe how difficult it it:
- 0 = Very Easy
- 5 = Easy
- 10 = Average
- 15 = Tough
- 20 = Challenging
- 25 = Formidable
- 30 = Heroic
- 40 = Nearly Impossible
So, when someone tries to Bluff or Persuade you, you need to determine what the DC is for them. If you choose to play this way, often times it is best to tell them your planned DC up front.
For Bluff, the PHB offers some example of modifiers:
You WANT to believe -5
Believable or doesn't negatively affect you +0
A little hard to believe or puts you at slight risk +5
Hard to believe or puts you at risk +10
Outlandish or puts you in mortal danger +15
You can double those up. It's a little hard to believe but you WANT to believe is +5 and -5. Outlandish, but only slightly affects you and you WANT to believe is +15 +5 -5.
So start at 10 (average) add any modifiers above, then add (or subtract) your wisdom bonus and that should give you a pretty reasonable DC.
You can also apply some of that to Persuade checks.
Ultimately it's up to you whether you want to use some sort of system or just decide outright if you want to believe/be persuaded. But I would warn that if you allow others to roll checks against you, do not set up outrageous DCs for them. You may as well, just tell them they fail outright.
I guess I have to add the possibility of telling people things that are half-truths or actual truth. It is kind of strange that a high persuade/bluff/cha wizard would be called a liar with a statement of simply informing people that his imp's familiar bonds are quite mild and there isn't some strong bond of essences (because in this case it is not, as the imp is completely dominated) by PCs who shouldn't really know anything about the details of wizardry, not being a wizard and all.
So before you assume and call the bluff reacting to a person as if they just made a terrible lie and gave it away, that lie may be the truth.
Let it be DM discretion.
I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff in this thread. I'm being a bad DM and not taking time to read it. Your answer is here (http://www.escapefromunderdark.com/old_forums/viewtopic.php?p=123834#123834), however.
Quote from: MisterPAIN;98213simply informing people that his imp's familiar bonds are quite mild and there isn't some strong bond of essences (because in this case it is not, as the imp is completely dominated) by PCs who shouldn't really know anything about the details of wizardry, not being a wizard and all.
And my halfling PC is really a small child with big feet.
What you've got here is an example of cheesing, and even outlandish cheesing (dominate monster is a 9th level spell that thats a few minutes in EfU and a few days in PnP), that is resisted overtly by the realities of the game world (namely that familiar death causes experience loss -- how exactly does a lack of a bond come out with 'if this guy dies, I could lose access to my most powerful spells'?)