Can we please stop with the..

[Pycroft]

...

I have a question about something that happened online, and figured this is as good a place as any to ask it.

I was playing Pycroft, neutral rogue. I have been trying to unload some goods, and found a possible willing buyer for a sword. He was with 2 or three peole. I showed him the sword (Corrosive Greatsword, +1 attack, +1 acid damage), and tried to bluff him by saying it was 2,000 coins (I believe I saw a similar sword for a bit over 1600 on the server, so I figure it was a reasonable bluff). I passed my roll. Someone else said he couldn't believe it and wanted to see it. I passed my roll again. Then the buyer tried to intimidate me. He rolled (On his request) his intimidate v. my intelligence. I passed. He then told me that he only had 500 coins, and he tried to trade something else for it. He tried to intimidate again (This time against my Will save which I thought was a bit fishy, almost like he wanted it to pass, so I had to roll v. something different). I passed, but the deal never got done. My question is, if a character tries to intimidate you, and he fails, does he get to try it again? It almost seems pointless...like I will stare at you with my big eyes until you are scared, even if it takes an hour. Also, let me know if there's anything else I could have/should have done differently.

Thanks a bunch!

Pycroft - Rogue with no home.

[Ithildur]

I'm not an expert on this aspect of DnD rules, but that's suspect on a couple of grounds:

One, RP skillcheck rolls do not automatcly supercede sound RP dynamics; neither party can assume effectively pulling off an attempt at intimidate, bluff, etc if they don't RP appropriately first of all - i.e. If I type out something silly like a gnome wizard (with bio/description that says he's crossed eyed and constantly picks his nose) "looks at you with a very scary expression", that's not very convincing no matter how high my roll might be, but a 7 foot tall scaley half dragon in full plate with a greatsword drawn emoting "the large imposing figure narrows his eyes and flares his nostrils, a deep gutteral snarl eminating from him as he bares his fangs and raises the blade near your throat" and rolling high intimidate, that's a different story.

Same with other skills like steath, which is broken atm in NWN2 against other PCs unless you have HIPS. You can't expect to stand 2 feet behind someone in broad daylight with no cover or shadows nearby and just because your hide/ms skill and roll are high expect that people will RP that they don't see you, again, unless maybe you have HIPS which is a supernatural ability.

Secondly, the problem seems to me that they're rather arbitrarily telling you what rolls you have to make to counter their intimidate rolls. If you go by the D20 rules, he's just plain doing it wrong:

INTIMIDATE

(CHA)
Check: You can change another's behavior with a successful check. Your Intimidate check is opposed by the target's modified level check (1d20 + character level or Hit Dice + target's Wisdom bonus [if any] + target's modifiers on saves against fear). If you beat your target's check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6x10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target's default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile).
If you fail the check by 5 or more, the target provides you with incorrect or useless information, or otherwise frustrates your efforts.
Demoralize Opponent: You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent's resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target's modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.
Action: Varies. Changing another's behavior requires 1 minute of interaction. Intimidating an opponent in combat is a standard action.
Try Again: Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial check succeeds, the other character can be intimidated only so far, and a retry doesn't help. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly resolved to resist the intimidator, and a retry is futile.
Special: You gain a +4 bonus on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are larger than your target. Conversely, you take a -4 penalty on your Intimidate check for every size category that you are smaller than your target.
A character immune to fear can't be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.
If you have the Persuasive feat, you get a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks.
Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, you get a +2 bonus on Intimidate checks

Now NWN2 isn't exactly the same as PnP and different skills function differently, but you can use something like that as a basis/guideline imo - but whatever the case, you can't just roll against one counter roll and then arbitrarily change it and tell someone to roll a different counter without an explanation, just because you're trying to find a weak skill to roll against.

[Pycroft]

Ithildur...

Thanks for that info. The person I was playing with did not roleplay it well at all. He just 'rolled'. I was expecting a, "*Glaring look into Pycroft's eyes* You should know giving me the best possible price is in your best intrest". I felt I RP'd the bluff well, and had ideas of where to go with it. If his intimidate was successful (Depending on by how much) I would lower the price but not give it away. If he 'really' intimidated me, I'd give it to him cheaply (Probrably would have accepted his offer of 500gp) and make a mental note never to deal with him again. As it turns out, no sale. From what I read in your post, the second intimidate try should not have happened, correct?

Thanks,

Pycroft - Rogue with no home.

[Anauroch]

To further Ithildur's explanation:

Don't use conversation skills too much with other PCs... and if you do, leave it open to them to interpret them. It's a different story if a DM is present who can set DCs and tell you what to roll against. But other than that - focus on the rp aspect.

Your goal as a player is not to get the most money - that's the goal of the character. As a player you are trying to play your character and have fun while at it. If your character fails at what is trying to achive, so be it, right?

As a sidenote - going into a bunch of checks and then saying "Wups, I don't have that much money" is kind of lame.

Again - use of conversation skills in such situations could nudge another player to react with his character in a certain way but should rarely force anyone. More fun to be had that way imo.

Edit: I had someone come along and 'persuade' a character of mine first to talk of events of a war that he did not want to talk about and then after listening for 2 seconds deciding he now wants to go kill the ogre lord and 'persuade' my character to go along (another server). He did not rp it at all, just stated his intention and then rolled and went OOC. Bad, bad form and no fun at all. I was laughing and crying at the same time at this...

[Ithildur]

Ithildur...

Thanks for that info. The person I was playing with did not roleplay it well at all. He just 'rolled'. I was expecting a, "*Glaring look into Pycroft's eyes* You should know giving me the best possible price is in your best intrest". I felt I RP'd the bluff well, and had ideas of where to go with it. If his intimidate was successful (Depending on by how much) I would lower the price but not give it away. If he 'really' intimidated me, I'd give it to him cheaply (Probrably would have accepted his offer of 500gp) and make a mental note never to deal with him again. As it turns out, no sale. From what I read in your post, the second intimidate try should not have happened, correct?

Thanks,

Pycroft - Rogue with no home.

It's not hard and fast if I understand the d20's reading, but again, repeating what Anauroch says, the emphasis in such situations (especially with no DMs refereeing, a good point) should be to go easy on the dice determining conversation skills. I'd say he should've just let it go and not even tried the second roll, and on your end you could've just emoted laughing at his feeble attempt to repeatedly intimidate your PC or gotten angry and walked away.

[marmic]

About that 2000 greatsword bluff. Its a interesting situation and I prob handle it like this:

We both know that it is a 500 maximum, from the merchant (we have all had this experience, and we also know that we are cheated).

I would look at the object and roll "appraise". That would determine where i should start my haggle. If I make a bad roll ill pass 500 with a couple of 100. If I make a good roll ill start at 500. Since its a good object ill prob go as high as 900-1000.

But then there is that "800, its all a got" followed by the bluffroll.

Spotcheck?

Well, ive only done one haggle so far ingame, but its realy a fun part of the game. I even took "silverpalm" as a feat at lvl one...its Malak.

Good rp will overcome minor bumps.

[Pycroft]

...

Well...I could 'SELL' it in a store for 500, but to buy it would be around 1,600. If I remember correctly, I basically told him that it would cost around 2,000 to buy it in a shop, but 'I'm a reasonable guy, so make an offer'. I was hoping to roleplay it from there, but then he tried to intimidate me again, and it got a little fuzzy, because as I said, I didn't think it appropriate to intimidate a second time (I passed the roll anyway). It ended with me walking away, hoping he would say, 'Oh alright, I'll find some more coin', but he didn't so I went and had a few drinks to end the day.

Thanks for all the insight everyone.

Pycroft - Rogue with no home.

[Ithildur]

I just reread the d20 again and realized, you're right. the second intimidate attempt should not even have been made; it makes sense to me; some guy tries to scare you and he fails to make a very scary impression; he tries it again right away you'll probably either be annoyed or laugh at him.

[GodBeastX]

Stat vs Stat is poor choice in my opinion because stats tend to have very low modifiers and the rolls will be more up to chance, not actual skill training.

Stat to Skill is poor because a stat will never meet a skill's ranks.

Will Save vs Skill I accept sometimes since will can be greater, but I don't tend to use that.

Same Skill vs Skill I find to be best choice as generally classes that have the skill also have sense motive.

One thing I'd like players to do more with Bluffing and Diplomacy, is not just taking everything as Black and White. Just because you fail or succeed a roll doesn't mean you have to be true or false with it. If I lie about killing 5 Orcs, does it mean I didn't kill any Orcs or just not 5? Did I kill 5 goblins and not 5 Orcs? Beating a bluff doesn't mean you know the truth or even where they are lying or if their story is the opposite of what happened.

Also, just because someone fails Diplomacy doesn't mean they get treated like crap as a response Or that they even have to fail. If a beautiful woman walks up to a desparate man and rolls Diplomacy to see if he'll loan her a few coins, he could always just loan them regardless of the roll You could also choose to believe a lie.

[crazyjerren]

Thanks for the full rule right out Ithildur, I mentioned it was a level check but didn't provide all the info >.>

Also, one thing I would like to say about skill rolls vs actual RP. The player doesn't necessarily have the same ability to come up with a persuasive lie or provide an intimidating presence as their character may have, as well the character might not posses the ability the player as to do such either. That is where I peronally believe skill rolls should be used and superseed that of the players true ability. This is also very helpful towards non native english speakers.

Over all, if there is an attempt to roleplay the action, fallowed by a skill roll, give the skill roll the more weight in the situation.

[GodBeastX]

Stat vs Stat is poor choice in my opinion because stats tend to have very low modifiers and the rolls will be more up to chance, not actual skill training.

Stat to Skill is poor because a stat will never meet a skill's ranks.

Will Save vs Skill I accept sometimes since will can be greater, but I don't tend to use that.

Same Skill vs Skill I find to be best choice as generally classes that have the skill also have sense motive.

One thing I'd like players to do more with Bluffing and Diplomacy, is not just taking everything as Black and White. Just because you fail or succeed a roll doesn't mean you have to be true or false with it. If I lie about killing 5 Orcs, does it mean I didn't kill any Orcs or just not 5? Did I kill 5 goblins and not 5 Orcs? Beating a bluff doesn't mean you know the truth or even where they are lying or if their story is the opposite of what happened.

Also, just because someone fails Diplomacy doesn't mean they get treated like crap as a response Or that they even have to fail. If a beautiful woman walks up to a desparate man and rolls Diplomacy to see if he'll loan her a few coins, he could always just loan them regardless of the roll You could also choose to believe a lie.

Also, to add to this, some lies I think would have such a high modifier you can just assume the other fails. If a guy you never met before comes up to you and gives you his wrong name. Why should he have to roll bluff? You don't know that he has any other name or any mannerisms about him.

[crazyjerren]

Info straight from the DM guide that may be helpful for both DMs and Players when trying to decide if they should make a check or a save:

"A character slips and falls. He tries to catch himself on a ledge, while another character reaching forward attempts to catch him. Are these Reflex saves or Dexterity checks?
The Answer to the above question is "Both." The character attempting to save himself makes a reflex save. The character trying to grab him makes a dexterity check.
Key Concept 1: Checks are used to accomplish something, while saves are used to avoid something.
Key Concept 2: Check modifiers don't take into account character level or class level. Save bonuses always do. If a task seems like it hsould be easier for a high-level character, us a saving throw. If it seems like the task should be equally difficult for any two characters with the same score in the relevant ability use a check. For example, [force] opening a door is merely a reflection of strength, not experience. Thus, it's a Strength check. The middle ground is a skill check, such as a balance check to avoid falling while running over broken ground. A balance check takes level into account only if the character has ranks in the skill."

So in other words... unless its something that can be practiced or something you naturally do better through experience, us ability checks.

[Ithildur]

Info straight from the DM guide that may be helpful for both DMs and Players when trying to decide if they should make a check or a save:

"A character slips and falls. He tries to catch himself on a ledge, while another character reaching forward attempts to catch him. Are these Reflex saves or Dexterity checks?
The Answer to the above question is "Both." The character attempting to save himself makes a reflex save. The character trying to grab him makes a dexterity check.
Key Concept 1: Checks are used to accomplish something, while saves are used to avoid something.
Key Concept 2: Check modifiers don't take into account character level or class level. Save bonuses always do. If a task seems like it hsould be easier for a high-level character, us a saving throw. If it seems like the task should be equally difficult for any two characters with the same score in the relevant ability use a check. For example, [force] opening a door is merely a reflection of strength, not experience. Thus, it's a Strength check. The middle ground is a skill check, such as a balance check to avoid falling while running over broken ground. A balance check takes level into account only if the character has ranks in the skill."

So in other words... unless its something that can be practiced or something you naturally do better through experience, us ability checks.

That's a helpful quote as well and something I'll try and keep in mind.

Your first post (about leaning towards letting rolls take priority if there is an attempt at RPing) I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with in a case like the one in the posted example of the twice attempted intimidation; I think I'd try to balance the rolls with what actually is RPed or even favor the RP content.
If someone tries an intimidate with the cross eyed gnome example I used, I would take any high intimidate roll with a grain of salt, maybe at least add a circumstantial penalty to his roll at the very least.

You're also looking at this from a DM's perspective where the DM is present as an objective neutral party; when it's 2 players going at it I think it's hard to agree on DCs etc, all the more reason to not let the rolls weigh as heavily in determining outcomes. In such cases I think the overriding priority should be good sense and desire to respect/encourage/enjoy good RP, or else it can become a 'conversational PvP' between two PCs/players who cannot agree on DCs and lead to endless bickering over what roll beat what skill/ability/save etc.

[crazyjerren]

Your first post (about leaning towards letting rolls take priority if there is an attempt at RPing) I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with in a case like the one in the posted example of the twice attempted intimidation; I think I'd try to balance the rolls with what actually is RPed or even favor the RP content.
If someone tries an intimidate with the cross eyed gnome example I used, I would take any high intimidate roll with a grain of salt, maybe at least add a circumstantial penalty to his roll at the very least.

Yeah, ofcourse circumstances play a huge part and in your example the DC to intimidate the gnome might increase (because he doesn't understand the perpose of the threat) or decrease (because he wets himself at his own shadow ) And ofcourse a half-demon is going to gain a circumstance bonus to intimidate. These are all observations a DM would have to make in a PnP and adjust accordingly, so should the players on a PW. And I as a dm (or player) would not except a second intimidation check in the same encounter, and maybe even for a certian amount of time from the character even if the dispute was on a different matter. (I believe the rule you posted said something like 1d4 x 10minutes)

[Tratz]

Roll Wisdom to counter bluff; Common sense.

Is that what sense motive relies on? What if the person being bluffed to is an adept bluffer themselves?