Guard: "Halt! No one enters while the nobles are in session"
PC: "See this ring? It is the crest of my father's family - by right, I should be in there!"
Guard: "You? You're the most dishevelled warrior I've ever seen. You're telling me you're a noble? I don't think so"
..but of course, in this case the PC is telling the truth, she really is the daughter of a Lord.
There has been some back and forth on how to adjudicate how you convince someone of the truth - especially when that truth is unlikely.
The base DC to determine trustworthiness with Sense Motive is 20. Says so right in the skill description. The problem is, that's kind of high for NPCs. Especially low level ones.
So this is my take:
Start with the base DC of 20. Modify it using the table found under the Bluff skill - only inverse. So a 'far-fetched' truth adds 10 while 'the target wants to believe you' reduces it by 5.
Then, the convincer can make a Diplomacy check to help convince/implore their case. Half their check result is then subtracted from the DC and the final result is what they have to beat with Sense Motive.
Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure if you have been following my recent thread on this very topic or whether great minds just think alike.
The recommendation in that thread (and apparently supported by Ultimate Intrigue) is to use Bluff vs. Sense Motive. The PC is still trying to persuade an NPC to believe something he is not inclined to believe. If you want to give a bonus to the PC because it is true, that is a reasonable if not RAW adjustment.
I wish that Bluff was named "Persuasion" and Sense Motive was named "Social Perception". That seems to better match all their uses.
Another House Rule which makes sense to me is to incorporate degree of success into the outcome.
PC fails by less than 10 = suspicious, "If you would please stand over there while I send a messenger to the royal recorder"
PC fails by more than 10 = hostile, "Guards, seize her!"
PC succeeds by less than 10 = acquiescent, "Very well, my lady, may we escort you to the baths to recover from the road?"
PC succeeds by more than 10 = accommodating, "Of course, my lady. Fenrik! Open the door for Lady ... what did you say your name is?"
I am not sure if you have been following my recent thread on this very topic or whether great minds just think alike.
The recommendation in that thread (and apparently supported by Ultimate Intrigue) is to use Bluff vs. Sense Motive. The PC is still trying to persuade an NPC to believe something he is not inclined to believe. If you want to give a bonus to the PC because it is true, that is a reasonable if not RAW adjustment.
I wish that Bluff was named "Persuasion" and Sense Motive was named "Social Perception". That seems to better match all their uses.
Ha.. nope. Just two random people having the same thoughts!
My only issue with using Bluff is, although it makes sense from a "trying to convince someone of something" perspective, it creates some issues:
If the PC makes a high Bluff check, it makes it harder for the NPC to beat with Sense Motive. Is that right? What does it mean if the NPC fails? Passes? Which means she believes the PC and which means the PC was not convincing enough?
Set a base DC modified by the target's level (important people are probably used to being lied to), and subtract the target's wisdom modifier. Make a bluff check against that, using bluff modifiers. I'd probably use base DC of 15.
I haven't read Ultimate Intrigue yet, but making a Bluff check to convince someone of the truth sounds ridiculous to me. You don't have to control your body language to conceal the fact that you are lying (Bluff), you are making a request to an NPC with an attitude of at least indifferent (Diplomacy). Since it might result in punishment for the guard, the DC would be quiet high. If the guard's starting attitude is unfriendly, you have to make him friendly first. That takes time. Alternatively, you could threaten your way past the guard (Intimidate) or fast-talk yourself past the guard using a lie (Bluff).
Obviously, to be an accomplished liar in the Pathfinder system, you would need a high Diplomacy check as well.
In some cases, it is easier to convince somebody of a believable lie than tell an unbelievable truth in a convincing manner. (It's a classic trope in fiction.)
making a Bluff check to convince someone of the truth sounds ridiculous to me. You don't have to control your body language to conceal the fact that you are lying (Bluff), you are making a request to an NPC with an attitude of at least indifferent (Diplomacy).
Hence my recommendation to give a "telling the truth" bonus to the Bluff check (and my wish to rename the skills).
The overlap with Diplomacy is a good point. Maybe the right way to think about it is that Bluff vs. Sense Motive is about the person believing what you say and attitude (w/potential Diplomacy) is what they do about it.
PC succeeds at Bluff check. Guard believes her. Roll Diplomacy to see whether/how much he helps her.
PC fails at Bluff check. Guard doesn't believe her. Roll Diplomacy to see whether/how he reacts.