Skill checks(bluff, intimidate, etc)

[LordAers]

I have been seeing more skill checks lately, and while i like it, it sometimes starts a debate on if the skill check 'passed' or not. Some of the checks seem obvious to me - someone rolls intimidate, the person being intimidated rolls a will check. That my not be right, but to me it seems logical.
Now, say someone rolls a bluff check. What opposes that? a wisdom roll? (one player told me he rolled a bluff check on a member of the fleet, and the fleet member rolled a 'listen' check to oppose that to 'hear if he was lying or not. that does not seem at all close to the proper skill check)What about diplomacy? I have been subjected to a few lore rolls as well, and in my opinion, that is really up to the player to decide what bit of information requires how much lore.
This is something I have wondered about for a while, so any input would be helpful
Thanks.

[Mensha Khaine]

a person that is used to intimidating other people are usually less likey to be intimidated themselves, so an intimidate check should be vs intimidate or wisdom which ever is higher. Bluffing I don't think is so straight forward, if the person you are trying to bluff is well versed in the subject then a will save doesn't really cut it, however it would if it is a generalise or "white lie", you also have a "bluff" in card games like poker, more experienced player learns other tells so a bluff check could be vs bluff, or even if you were trying to con a con man. So depending on how it is being used it could be vs, bluff/lore/will. You could argue a "lie to me" (the tv show) senario but mechanically that would be a spot+listen+concentration-difficulty penalty check that is not really avaliable.

[The Explorer]

It was my Fleetsmen that rolled a listen check against the bluff it and thats because of his particular background he would most definetly be able to hear = listen or spot the tells of someone talking lieing that way. IMO a roll against a Bluff check would be variable depending on the chars involved and their backgrounds.

Intimidate IMO is as Mensha suggested againt intimidate if appropriate or other options; Int/Wis roll (to see how important it is for the char to stay there and conclude whatever business they were doing or to find out if the odds are in their favor/tactical advantage)

[LordAers]

It was my Fleetsmen that rolled a listen check against the bluff it and thats because of his particular background he would most definetly be able to hear = listen or spot the tells of someone talking lieing that way. IMO a roll against a Bluff check would be variable depending on the chars involved and their backgrounds.

I'm going to have to completely disagree with you here. Mensha makes a very good point that rolling a check against a bluff isn't so simple, but I can not see any way, shape, or form where listen would work. Listen is describe as 'Listen alerts a character to hidden creatures that may be nearby. Check: Listen detects hidden creatures by opposing their move silently check' which has nothing to do with speech. I would compare it to a wizard rolling a will check against poison instead of fortitude because he knows his will saves are better. Or like a warlock rolling a charisma check instead of strength to pick something heavy up. Neither of those examples would make any sense - and I think listen vs bluff falls into that group.

[The Explorer]

I'm going to have to completely disagree with you here. Mensha makes a very good point that rolling a check against a bluff isn't so simple, but I can not see any way, shape, or form where listen would work. Listen is describe as 'Listen alerts a character to hidden creatures that may be nearby. Check: Listen detects hidden creatures by opposing their move silently check' which has nothing to do with speech. I would compare it to a wizard rolling a will check against poison instead of fortitude because he knows his will saves are better. Or like a warlock rolling a charisma check instead of strength to pick something heavy up. Neither of those examples would make any sense - and I think listen vs bluff falls into that group.

You are welcome to disagree with my opinion but if you've frequently been in the presence of people that talk crap alot you get used to hearing the slight changes/inflexions in their voice whilst pranking/amusement/or criminal reasons etc lie it's another form of tell that can be picked up and since listen is the only check available which involves hearing it therefor fits for my char since he could pick up hidden tells within the bluffers voice, I wouldn't think it would suit many chars in Das though. Since as you posted the char has to listen for hidden people listening for hidden changes within the Bluffers voice it's very relevant IMO.

[Wired]

Some Guidelines

[The Explorer]

Lmao cheers for that Wired seems by that illogical reasoning he was supposed supposed to roll a Wisdom roll which would make it pointless to roll for well all my main chars to every bother rolling against bluff oh well no matter I can work around it with Rp.

[Peregrinus]

One of the problem with NWN2 is the lack of normal opposing, Sense Motive being the PnP counter to bluff. Further, something to keep in mind, is a simple ability score check always favors the person who has skill ranks, as the highest an ability check can really get in Dasaria is around a +8, and that's for Strength on a few very specific builds. By level 4 any normal skill will have that many skill ranks, to say anything at level 20.

My rule of thumb is that is the skill has a "mental" affect, oppose it with a Will save. This applies for Intimidate and Bluff. Diplomacy, frankly, I don't think should be rolled against other players. Why? Because I believe that skill checks should involve role-playing out the action. Meaning that an intimidate check should include the action that is intimidating. If you just walk up to me an roll and intimidate check without an action that is clearly meant to be intimidating, I'm going to ignore it because A. I don't know if the check was made deliberately or was just you experimenting with the DMFI, and B. frankly most people walking around are not intimidating, not in the way an intimidate check signifies. Intimidate can also backfire, if your average fighter came up and tried to intimidate Phelan, for instance, even if the fighter has max skill ranks, he's just not that scary to a guy who's fought dracoliches, encountered Zumen, and soloed a Canite Harbringer. Diplomacy, on the other hand, carries no real penalty for failure like Intimidate does, it can merely be used to shortcut actually having to negotiate with a character. In other words, it bypasses role play instead of supplementing it like Bluff and Intimidate do, which is why I don't think it should be used between players.

I have very mixed feelings about Bluff, as I'm concerned with people meta-gaming with it. While it's nice to have the ability to know someone is lying, it's also very easy once someone sees the bluff check, even if they fail, they'll start talking towards trying to find out the truth. I tend to use it only when I want people to find out the truth, but the character themselves wouldn't tell the truth, simply because of my meta-game concern.

So, my personal guidelines when I see/use skill checks:

• Intimidate and Bluff opposed by a Will Save.
• Magical effects looked at with Spellcraft.
• Using OOC lore* that the player knows IC via a Lore check.
• Finding out information from a DM concerning new things to the players but perhaps not to the character via a Lore check.
• RPed Scrying (with other player's permission or during a DM event with a specific NPC) are done by a Concentration check and a Spellcraft check.

*In this case the type of Lore I'm talking about would be Lore that is known publicly, but is not necessarily common knowledge. For instance, knowing details about the life of Phelan's grandfather, which is public, but not common, knowledge outside of certain characters. Knowing details of how certain beliefs (Girrite, Utuian) when not a member of those faiths. Etc.

[LordAers]

Thanks Wired, that is a big help.
What it had to say about Intimidate is very interesting. 1d20 + char level + wis modifier + any bonus against fear. It also says that anyone immune to fear cant be intimidated. I wonder, does that mean just fear, or if someone is immune to all mind affecting spells(which would include fear) does that mean they are immune to intimidate as well?
Reading about the Bluff skill, it says the opposing check is 'Sense Motive'. I do not know what the closest skill in nwn2 would be to sense motive. I think that explorer would argue that it is Listen, but I still do not agree, as listen is movement based. In that case, since any check against Bluff would be wisdom based, and it makes sense to me that the higher level someone is, the more experienced they will be, and thus the more likely they will be able to call someone on their bluff. So, a similar check to intimidate?
Reading about Diplomacy was interesting, and simple. I had expected a opposing roll, but there is just a chart, and the chart makes sense.
Of course, none of this matters if the person on the other side of the bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate check doesnt do anything other than say 'whatever' and walk away.

[LordAers]

So, my personal guidelines when I see/use skill checks:
* RPed Scrying (with other player's permission or during a DM event with a specific NPC) are done by a Concentration check and a Spellcraft check

That is very interesting, and something I have never considered. Of course, that brings up the question, whats the DC to beat to find someone? does it vary between friend or foe? level?

I had not considered what you said about diplomacy either, and that is a very good point. I do not think i have seen that one used in game, but i figured I would include it because maybe someday I would see it.

[Alterity]

So, my personal guidelines when I see/use skill checks:
* RPed Scrying (with other player's permission or during a DM event with a specific NPC) are done by a Concentration check and a Spellcraft check

That is very interesting, and something I have never considered. Of course, that brings up the question, whats the DC to beat to find someone? does it vary between friend or foe? level?

I had not considered what you said about diplomacy either, and that is a very good point. I do not think i have seen that one used in game, but i figured I would include it because maybe someday I would see it.

Scrying is magical. Typically it takes quite a bit of strength to properly scry, and usually some sort of viewing material (Water, glass ball etc). A person might feel like they are being watched, and someone strong in the Arcane arts might actually know it is scrying and be able to detect where the scry is coming from, and from whom (Especially if they've encountered the person before).

As to what Pere said, I sort of agree. I think that all of the speech skills (Diplomacy, bluff, intimidate and taunt) should be used as a signifier. I like using Intimidate, Taunt, and Diplomacy to signify that the character is trying to act in the way. Mostly it is for body language, tone of voice, facial expression, things that can be hard to type fast enough to actually explain while trying to intimidate etc. Adding large actions, such as for intimidate "Grabs the wizard and shoves him up against the wall" fit, but the fact that the fighter looks mean, and talks threateningly also plays a part, but if you grab someone and shove them up against the wall and then tell them that his voice is deep and threatening then it could be hard to actually have your character say something.

The same holds true for diplomacy, except diplomacy usually doesn't require actions. But asking a question in a hostile voice, compared to a soft voice with a smile can have a different outcome, one might even be an intimidating question.

However, the one I don't like to use, is bluff. As soon as I bluff I think (Like Pere) that is could be used to metagame. If the player can't figure out you're lieing, then their character probably can't either. The player has more knowledge then the character does and lieing to the player should be much harder then lieing to the character. Usually I just use a bluff check if the character thinks that my character is lieing, or if it is an outright lie (One time my character Lumme was spreading an obvious lie about Cythis. I rolled a bluff for that, because it was an obvious lie).

[Mensha Khaine]

1d20 + char level + wis modifier + any bonus against fear. It also says that anyone immune to fear cant be intimidated. I wonder, does that mean just fear, or if someone is immune to all mind affecting spells(which would include fear) does that mean they are immune to intimidate as well?

Intimidate is not a "spell", so I don't think it would count.

if your average fighter came up and tried to intimidate Phelan, for instance, even if the fighter has max skill ranks, he's just not that scary to a guy who's fought dracoliches, encountered Zumen

I agree that a char's experiences should be considered, however it is not really recorded for the purposes of mechanical manipulation. You could also argue that while engaging those foes you had some degree of forsight and prepared your self mentally/physically for the task at hand. Which would be different to a random encounter with a brute all up in your face, especially while your mage is unbuffed.

I would also point out that it wouldn't be just some random fighter that walks up to you and starts hurling threats, they have spent the points on the skill, denying the roll purely on the basis that you have faced something that you have percieved to be more dangerous (most likely is), doesn't actually make that fighter any less dangerous to you, IE there is still a good chance he could kill you.

I would expect a lvl 1 that fails a roll from a lvl 20 would go running home to mommy, but a battle hardened and cocky mage (you no you all are :p) would have a considerably lesser response, perhaps they go quiet or back down from the arguement. Ignoring the roll would be a bit of a slap in the face for the player.

[Alterity]

I don't think Pere meant Phelan would fully ignore it, more that he'd scoff at the little man that is trying to intimidate a knight thats fought much bigger and scarrier things.

[LordAers]

Intimidate is not a "spell", so I don't think it would count.

Someone that is immune to fear being immune to intimidate makes sense to me. So, it would make sense to me that someone immune to mind spells would also be immune to intimidate, since they would also be immune to fear.

[Mon-da-oth]

Intimidate is not a "spell", so I don't think it would count.

Someone that is immune to fear being immune to intimidate makes sense to me. So, it would make sense to me that someone immune to mind spells would also be immune to intimidate, since they would also be immune to fear.

To keep things simple I agree with the above statements.

Now to complicate things. Say big bad thug comes up and throws an Intimidate at your fear immune character. Now you are not afraid of him but unless you have some reason to think he might be bluffing and making a threat then he really means that he wants to try and snap your neck like a twig. Now things are a bit different. You are not going to run away pissing your pants like a little sissy but do you want to escalate the situation and give him a chance to make good on his promise? At this point you might give into the intimidation simply to avoid an undesirable situation. (Hence Intimidate is a combination of bluff/diplomacy).