|
ok so i got into an arguement about skills use in pvp. i was told that in 3.5 you can use bluff to force a player character to believe something. now i remember , somewhere, it said players cannot influence other players with skills, unless a skill or ability has a set dc to force an action.
now i couldnt find the rueling from 3.5 since it was a long time ago, which made me think how this works in pathfinder.
can i use a skill to force a player to believe something?
if you can do it, then that just seems wrong.
If they don't have, or have lousy ratings in, Sense Motive, than it's perfectly possible for a high-Bluff character, PC or NPC to tell them a bald-faced lie and get away with it. Yes, the victim "believes" they are being told the truth. That's how the skills work.
ok so i got into an arguement about skills use in pvp. i was told that in 3.5 you can use bluff to force a player character to believe something. now i remember , somewhere, it said players cannot influence other players with skills, unless a skill or ability has a set dc to force an action.
now i couldnt find the rueling from 3.5 since it was a long time ago, which made me think how this works in pathfinder.
can i use a skill to force a player to believe something?
if you can do it, then that just seems wrong.
If you successfully bluff someone, presumably it just means they have no reason to think you're lying. I dont see why one would be compelled to believe you, just because it didnt seem like you were lying - that would depend on your past history (if you have a habit of lying lots I'm going to think of you as a good liar, not as honest).
"'Forcing' a fellow player to..." is usually a bad idea, in my experience. It can generate some bad blood, group disharmony, competitiveness, etc.
Generally, I would recommend using good role play to bluff your companions. The player knows what's happening, of course. If they are mature about it, and it is actually good storytelling, relevant to the situation, and a reasonably believable "bluff", there is no reason your fellows shouldn't play along.
You should consider though, whether you are enhancing the party's story or your own. Remember, this is essentially group storytelling.
Diplomacy is for use on NPC.
Bluff can make someone believe something, but it can't make them do anything. The GM should apply appropriate modifiers though. Some lies would autofail though.
You can use the system for pvp. I've seen it go that way a fair bit. As the dm, be clear on initiative, when it goes to that. Dip doesn't work on players so well, but if someone tries it, I allow it if it is high enough, and provided they were given time to whisper their honeyed words. A player being targetted for diplomacy can just walk away, thwarting the attempt, something that is often forgotten is how long it takes.
Bluff can absolutely work, tell the characters to stay in character and react to the situation as it is described. Losing a bluff doesn't make one an automaton, it just means you were fooled. It also doesn't mean you are entirely without suspicions. Go with it. Feint via bluff can work, or bluff then sneak attack can go just fine for pvp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah the target character's player is in control of how he or she reacts even flatly ignoring the bluff if desired. It is best if properly role played but then a lot of things are best if role played. In a PvP situation however bluff is still useful for Feint I believe.
Example from a session this weekend:
Azrael made a deal with demons for assistance in a battle. Nobody else in the party was aware of this, but we've witnessed him do it before.
The last time we saw him do it, hellfire literally vomited from my character's aberrant dragonmark.
This time, not only did that happen to me (and a group of other aberrant dragonmarked people), but there were reports of demons in the streets.
So sure, Azrael lied convincingly. But really, in this case, there's no point; Garic (my character) is never, ever going to believe this wasn't due to Azrael making another deal. However, though Garic believes Azrael was lying to him, he believes it entirely due to evidence external to the lie. (If Azrael had made any effort to explain the events beyond "what, no, of course I didn't", perhaps he could have convinced me... but he didn't try to redirect blame either.)
Did he pass the "I don't believe a word that comes out of your lying mouth" check?
The dc truly can skyrocket. Or, I imagine it takes a while to con your char, feed you the b+~%%@*+ story, simply refuse to listen. Much like how diplomacy can easily be countered by one that refuses to listen or doesn't stay to listen. Just simple use the "smells fishy, I'm not listening to what are probably lies" and move off to do something else. If he follows, the suspicion and check goes higher, why is he so eager to insist he is innocent?
If it comes to trickery or such-like and I am dming, it is laid out flat if one side loses. Like if they were playing poker, one is going to dominate ultimately.