Ravingdork wrote:
1st Edition's Ultimate Intrigue covers this really well I think.
Page 184: The reverse side of true lies is implausible truths. These are situations in which someone is telling the truth (either saying something that is actually true, or spreading a lie that they believe to be true), but that truth is extremely implausible to the listener. Though the bluffing character isn’t lying, the same skill set that makes an excellent and convincing liar could potentially help characters attempting to spread an implausible truth. In these cases, even if the target succeeds at the Sense Motive check, he can tell that the bluffing character truly believes what she is saying, and he might simply conclude that she isn’t lying, but simply mistaken. The target might later be swayed if presented with evidence or through a verbal duel (see pages 176–181). If a bluffing character successfully convinces a target of a lie and the target attempts to spread that information, this leads to a classic example of an implausible truth.
Instead of having the listener make a Sense Motive check, upud just compare the implausible truth teller's Deception check to t b e listener's Perception DC. All else can remain the same.
That does not actually cover it AFAICT. Unless there is more to it than is included in the quote, it doesn'r say anything about setting the DC (normally it would be opposed by the sense motive check, but it quite rightly says not to do that).
And at the risk of repeating myself, if you use the target's Perception DC, you make a more berceptive target more likely to get the wrong information, which is backwards.
_
glass.
