Writing

[Shadechild]

If you have no reason to suspect something other than what's said/shown, you shouldn't be rolling Sense Motive unless the target is acting suspicious.

Likewise, if you're tossing innocent-enough lies out there (e.g., "I killed orcs yesterday" when you really killed gnolls), that doesn't demand a bluff check. I can walk up to the world's greatest detective and tell them all about my (completely fabricated) yesterday, and if everything in the telling is plausible and they have no reason to suspect otherwise, they have no reason to think I'm lying; they have no reason to roll Sense Motive, so I have no reason to roll Bluff.

Sense Motive /= I DETECT ALL LIES. It measures your ability to see through a ruse if you have reason to suspect a ruse.

Bluff is your ability to sell a lie that people would suspect is a lie.

I once had a Paladin use Sense Motive on Vivian when she said something along the line of 'That spooky graveyard in the Necropolis area will make for a gloomy ballad".

Which then was followed up with the Paladin using Detect-Metagame like they always seem to throw up at every possible moment, ever.

I tend to let people know that I would roll Bluff if Vivi was lying, but she speaks in half-truths and clever wordings almost all the time to avoid suspicion. (Even though Sense Motive is still handed out like candy.)

That makes the skill completely worthless on the server if you can't use it on PC's. It doesn't do anything to the NPC's. That's like saying people can't roll intimidate checks on other PC's.

Half of the people are Immune to Fear =P

[greypawn]

That makes the skill completely worthless on the server if you can't use it on PC's. It doesn't do anything to the NPC's. That's like saying people can't roll intimidate checks on other PC's.

Means a lot to NPCs during events. And if used correctly, players will allow it to direct their role play.

A diplomacy roll, used properly, should be following up a well stated argument or request, and the check is merely to let the other player know that you seem reasonable enough to encourage them to share your viewpoint.

Sure, sometimes people ignore skillrolls. But a DM saying it's not supposed to work on other PC's when the description in game says otherwise in a server which 99% of the time the only people you're being diplomatic with are other PC's seems off.

It is rarely used correctly, from my experience, and more so used as a rp ram or a crutch. Its ignored because its rarely used correctly. And to me its worst than pvping a low level because it can come off as bullying role play results. Personally, I'd rather have a moment in the fugue killed by a high level than be bullied by a high level's rolls.

Your source also doesn't seem to make sense (that it would only be against NPC's) for the fact that most tabletop games are composed of a single group of allied PC's and they wouldn't roll diplomacy on each other in most cases. In a persistent world where both factional and diplomatic contention is commonplace, this skill becomes more and more valid.

Would rather it work as a guide to the discussions direction between characters than a set rule.

[Lotus]

Diplomacy is for NPCs, per the description of the skill. Why?

Because there's a table that specifies exactly what Diplomacy does. People with high Diplomacy can make hostile creatures (will take risks to hurt you) into helpful creatures (will take risks to help you). We're not in to giving people the ability to manipulate other PCs like that.

Can you imagine? Triad goes to arrest a terrorist Banite, Banite talks to him for a minute, finds common ground ("We want the same things: peace, order, citizens who can sleep without worrying about the Bloodmaim sacking their towns"), rolls diplomacy: 50.

"You know what? We need to find a way to get you out of this mess. Here, disguise yourself in my armor."

You see, they're NPCs. These tables help us DMs use them to interact with PCs throughout the world. When it comes to PCs, we don't need such a table: the PCs all have their own personalities and can choose to love/hate the hell out of each other, regardless of what's said.

Also, Diplomacy doesn't have an opposed check unless two opposing people are trying to convince a third person to adopt a different viewpoint, so it's not fair to throw it in someone's face and say, "Ah-ha! Tense situation diffused!"

Intimidate is for everyone. Why? Because if it wasn't, everyone would be Billy Badass, never afraid of a beatdown in his life. What does the skill do? It lets you be a bully. Having a verbal disagreement with someone and getting beaten by logic? Flex up and growl at him. Roll that Intimidate. Win the check, and the other PC doesn't feel like standing her ground so much anymore.

"There's no way that plan would work. We don't have enough rope!"

He lowers his tone, his eyes taking on a murderous gleam. "Got enough to hang you if you keep pushing me on this." Intimidate: 20 (Opposed roll: 15)

She sits back in her chair, and she speaks carefully. "You know, it's probably fine. We can make it work."

Intimidate also has an opposed check (1d20 + level + Wisdom), which makes it friendly to PC-PC interaction.

Apples /= Oranges.

[Mournas]

Except the PC determines the DC of a diplomancy roll. If it is something that they wouldn't do then they wont do it, like the command spell, you can't tell most things under its effect to commit suicide because they simply wouldn't do it. If you want to go by the SRD version that's cool, maybe update the skill description in game so people don't waste skill points. Also Diplomacy's opposed skill check is diplomacy.

It's like intimidate, you can roll it all you want but it is ultimately its the PC's choice if they are or are not influenced by the roll.

[Lotus]

Except the PC determines the DC of a diplomancy roll.

You could go by what someone wrote into that skill description in days gone by, though it's completely arbitrary and not very useful.

If it is something that they wouldn't do then they wont do it

Yes, ergo not using it on PCs.

If you want to go by the SRD version that's cool, maybe update the skill description in game so people don't waste skill points.

Not a waste if you want to be diplomatic.

It's like intimidate

Not at all. If you're not immune to fear, you're expected to role play a feasible response to being intimidated.

If PCs want to set DCs for each other and throw their +40 and higher diplomacies around, more power to them, but it's not a house rule and won't be enforced by a DM.

[Elusa]

The way I do it, I take skills that back the kind of character I'm building. Alice is a diplomat, so I took max diplomat and sense motive. She almost never lies, so nothing in bluff. Points in sneak and move silently because when confronted with an obstacle, she has to find a way around. Max points in perform, somewhat for bard abilities, but moreover to back up her use of music and dance. Stats are similar. High intelligence, moderately high wisdom, and charisma that's off the charts.

If you play your stats/skills, there's very little reason to roll for conversational reasons. If you don't, well, you're doing it wrong. I'm hoping the DMs occasionally check for people who RP smart, intelligent, and charismatic characters while using all of those as dump stats.

For intimidate, people tend to forget that you need to back it up in chat. You need something. A menacing glare, hand on the hilt of your sword, towering over the other character if they're shorter, etc. You can't just say "Move aside," roll, and expect my character to do your bidding.

[[DM] Grinning Death]

I'm hoping the DMs occasionally check for people who RP smart, intelligent, and charismatic characters while using all of those as dump stats.

You'd be saddened by the amount of people we have to do this to.

[Elusa]

You'd be saddened by the amount of people we have to do this to.

I can imagine. Friggin' power players. At the same time, I salute those who RP their bad stats.

[Fuzziebunny]

I don't think rolling is wrong or in any way shape or form means you are "doing it wrong". There are times you should roll.

Personally, unless you are known to be an outstanding bard. I like to see the preform roll so I can gage how I should be reacting. Maybe your preformance sucked? It happens.

Intimidate is another roll I like to see. You want me to back down but how scary are you? How should I react? If I know you are a scary guy then I don't need a roll, but what if you are not known to my character?

The only reason I mentioned diplomacy is because I see it consistantly used as the Iwin button in RP.

Character A wants something done.

Character B doesn't want to do it

Character A slapps a diplomacy roll down because they can't seem to get what they want in RP. And instead of trying to actually be persuasive and use an argument tailored to the other character. They go for the Jedi mind trick: "These are not the droids you are looking for."

I don't mind the rolls. I just like to see honest attempts at the RP as well. It goes over better with me to see some try instead of slamming down a high roll.

[Fury]

Diplomacy should never be used as the jedi mind trick. It doesn't make people who are strongly opposed to someone suddenly "see the light". Mostly, I have always figured that it should be used as a "I disagree with you, but I've just presented it in such a way that you don't want to strangle me for not seeing things your way." It's meant to make the opposing side at least *listen* to what you say. They still have the option of, afterwords, saying "Nope... Eff you." But at least they listened.

[Elusa]

Personally, unless you are known to be an outstanding bard. I like to see the preform roll so I can gage how I should be reacting. Maybe your preformance sucked? It happens.

Alice has more than +30 perform before buffs, where I think the last text outcome (bad, routine, excellent, outstanding, etc) is at 30. I still roll because of that 5% chance for a natural 1.

[BubbaCornbread]

Some skills set aside make sense and should be used in RP sessions and running about. However, I do agree that people tend to use some skills such as diplomacy to win even though their argument makes no sense. I say you should craft your argument and then roll with it and do not get frustrated if it does not work. Go down another logic hole or take the loss and move on. Not everyone is going to agree with your standpoint, no matter how persuasive you think you are.

I also think people should roleplay their statistics and not try to be "Johnny" everything when they do not have the prerequisites to pull it off. Those that do use charisma or wisdom/intelligence as dump stats and are very low, should roleplay them. I find that those that truly roleplay their dumb or unwise character have much fun and all in the party or around the fire also enjoy the roleplay.

As to intimidate, if you do it right, as someone said, glower or hold onto your hilt and menace, then it should be accounted for. No matter how billy badass you think you are, there is always someone harder and meaner than you. I am not saying you need to completely knuckle under, especially if you do have a high intimidate also, but you should adjust your thinking during the encounter. If the rolls are extreme as you got beat by thirty points, then maybe a "sqeek" should come from you as you quickly back down.....

[Elusa]

I don't think rolling is wrong or in any way shape or form means you are "doing it wrong". There are times you should roll.

What I said was if you don't RP your stats and skills, you're doing it wrong.

[Lotus]

That is, Sundren has an alarmingly high number of 10 INT / 10 WIS philosophers and 8 CHA pageant queens..

[OnyxTigress]

How about instead of telling anyone what they are doing is wrong, we instead try to encourage them to improve and help them.