PDA

View Full Version : A simple 4e skills question;



Dust
2010-09-08, 08:47 PM
Can skills such as Bluff be used on other PCs? Where are the rules regarding this, if any?

Master_Rahl22
2010-09-08, 08:59 PM
I don't see any mention of PCs at all in the rules for Bluff, so I say it works like normal. You roll your Bluff, they roll their Insight, highest number wins. Tie means both reroll.

Dust
2010-09-08, 09:02 PM
This is sort of what my group has agreed-upon as well, which troubles me. I don't like not having full control over my character's beliefs, metagame knowledge aside. Especially when it gets into the realm of, say, Intimidation or Diplomacy checks to influence my attitude against my better judgment.

Tiki Snakes
2010-09-08, 09:05 PM
It's not spelled out, so it basically boils down to what the DM and Group prefer.
If you feel uncomfortable with those uses of the skill, just say so, and work something out with your other players and specifically the DM.

If people are using such skills against each other, there's a very good chance that there's some kind of other tensions involved, anyway, so talking things over is probably a good idea.

Kylarra
2010-09-08, 09:05 PM
I always just make it so bluff means that target thinks the user honestly believes what they're saying is the truth, not that they have to take it as truth.

Urpriest
2010-09-08, 09:22 PM
So does 4e lack 3.5's "Social skills shouldn't be used between PCs" blurb? Not flaming, legitimately curious.

Tiki Snakes
2010-09-08, 09:25 PM
So does 4e lack 3.5's "Social skills shouldn't be used between PCs" blurb? Not flaming, legitimately curious.

Off the top of my head, I haven't the faintest idea. I'm certain it doesn't have the reverse, beyond that I'd have to go digging through books, and things piled on books, to try and find my PHB1.

I think it varies though. Bluff vs Insight to hide a lie, that seems fair game, but Diplomacy to try and change a PC's opinion? eh. not so much, I'd think. Likewise Intimidate, should probably remain strictly RP.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-09-08, 09:49 PM
I'm fairly certain it doesn't say, but I think most groups houserule that you can't use it against PCs.

kieza
2010-09-08, 10:55 PM
RAW, yes, you can use social skills to influence other PCs. However, a common houserule, however, is to ban using them if the target character's player doesn't agree to it. Having your character intimidated into giving up his share of the loot isn't fun if you aren't trying to play a coward, and trying to dictate another player's actions is a good way to break up a game.

On the subject of Bluff, I generally rule that all Bluff does is convince someone that you're telling the truth. They might still decide that you're mistaken (or insane). It also can't force you to believe something contrary to observed evidence (e.g. the sky is green).

Swordgleam
2010-09-08, 11:20 PM
My group uses those rules sometimes and not others. If the players think it would be fun to have their PCs deceived, they roll bluff and insight. If they're really against it (which seldom happens in my particular group) then they don't.

RebelRogue
2010-09-08, 11:21 PM
I'd say it's covered in the usual "don't be a jerk" rule - making rolls against each other can be a guide for RPing, but they should never force a PC into any specific course of action, IMO (unless everyone agrees of course).

Nightson
2010-09-08, 11:32 PM
I always just make it so bluff means that target thinks the user honestly believes what they're saying is the truth, not that they have to take it as truth.

^this a thousand times over

I simply call for a bluff check every time a PC tries to tell a lie or misdirecting statement, other people can use insight to try and see through it.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-09, 04:14 AM
I'd say it's covered in the usual "don't be a jerk" rule
This, absolutely. "Rule one" trumps RAW any day.

For instance, intimidating a fellow PC out of his share of the loot clearly goes against the 4E design intent.

dsmiles
2010-09-09, 04:23 AM
So does 4e lack 3.5's "Social skills shouldn't be used between PCs" blurb? Not flaming, legitimately curious.

I honestly never knew there was a blurb in 3.x. I just thought it was understood that PC-to-PC interaction was all roleplay, and not rollplay.

Grogmir
2010-09-09, 04:28 AM
My Group uses Skill PvP. I really dislike it - but it is a good way of ruling 'metagame' knowledge.

I'm playing a Dwarf fighter, we are currently in the underdark, my party also includes a Human Barb, on a little walkabout I end up being mocked by some goblins. I'm close to breaking when he tried to intimidate me.
OOC I wasn't to happy with that - takes away from RP imo - but okay lets play it out. You beat my will so okay I'm intimidated by you now. You noticed that part of the skill that says I'm now hostile? :smallamused:
No I didn't attack him - but he's still mystified about why I keep calling him a goblin speakin whore!

Basically, I feel that when someone uses a skill on you they expect you to act like an NPC - they basically NPC you for a moment. But you know what. my PC doesn't take to kindly to the person who's supposed to be my buddy trying to Bluff me, trick me into doing something bad / against my will etc.

So the players at my table are clear that if they do use Skills against me and fail. Then I'm going to be a little more pee'd off than your average mook.
Makes em think twice about trying to mess with me! :smallyuk:

Way TLDON'TR!

Fallbot
2010-09-09, 04:48 AM
There's nothing I could see in the PHB about it, or the errata.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using bluff against other PCs since it has an opposed check, but I'd be pretty annoyed if another player used diplomacy or intimidate to manipulate my character. It's happened once so far, and I was alright with it given the circumstances, but if it happened again I'd definitely push for house ruling it out. It just doesn't seem fair.

Tiki Snakes
2010-09-09, 10:32 AM
It's worth noting, that the few times I've seen people try to enforce their will on other players via skills, what they are actually trying to do is technically beyond the purvue of the skill itself anyway.

chaotoroboto
2010-09-09, 01:31 PM
It's worth noting, that the few times I've seen people try to enforce their will on other players via skills, what they are actually trying to do is technically beyond the purvue of the skill itself anyway.

Just like when people roleplay that their character is a middle-school maturity level bully, the person himself is a bully with middle school levels of maturity. I've had so much of that.

Blackfang108
2010-09-09, 03:15 PM
I honestly never knew there was a blurb in 3.x. I just thought it was understood that PC-to-PC interaction was all roleplay, and not rollplay.

In my groups, it MOSTLY is.

But... there are times that a PC is lying to another PC, while both players were there for the event being lied about.

ex: My PC hung a captive during his watch and said that the captive hung himself after escaping. To the party paladin. to avoid meta, we had it be a bluff v insight.

Now, it the player of the idiot goblin PC hadn't spilled the beans, he'd still be in the dark.

DabblerWizard
2010-09-09, 03:28 PM
I remember this being a problem at my gaming table as well.

Diplomacy / Intimidate were much more of a problem than Bluff / Insight.

When PC 1 rolls a diplomacy check, and gets PC 2's character to "calm down", PC 1 is doing two things: (1) He is effecting PC 2's character directly, which may or may not be seen as a problem, and (2) the part that I think is more distasteful, PC 1 is essentially forcing PC 2 to roleplay differently, all because of a dice roll.

Bluff / Insight have this problem as well, though it doesn't feel as problematic to me. Concerning (2), there is still a bit of suspension of disbelief that may have to occur, when a PC successfully bluffs another PC. Both players have to twiddle their thumbs and not let this meta-game knowledge impact how they play their characters. That can be annoying, but it's also fairly standard practice.

Diplomacy / Intimidate, when it is used against another PC, feels a lot more like arm twisting subjugation, than when using Bluff / Insight against another PC.

NMBLNG
2010-09-09, 04:06 PM
I pretty much agree with Dabbler Wizard.

Bluff can be used on other players to convince them that you are not lying. That does not mean that they are not suspicious, or believe you to be mistaken. NPCs may also exhibit this behavior, but that is generally reflected in the DC, such as how far out the lie is and how much they trust you in the first place.

As for insight, I personally think that players have plot armor around any back ground secrets they want to remain secret. In other cases, it's usually amusing to watch players go after each other.

I usually don't let players intimidate each other with rolls. The effect of an intimidate check is 'He looks tough and a bit scary'. It's up to the player to determine their reaction. Epic fail = ignore the character. Fail = become hostile. Success = obey the other character.

Thajocoth
2010-09-09, 04:08 PM
My groups tend to work together, eliminating the need for such rolls 99% of the time. Occasionally there's something... Like when the Changeling in the party first joined and claimed to be Human, or when some members of the party did something my Lawful Good character at the time wouldn't agree with, and they Bluffed that it simply never happened... I think in all the time 4e has existed, we've had 3-4 party to party rolls.