I've never felt like I completely had a handle on how these skills balance with each other. In what situations will only one be applicable, and in what situations should a PC be able to choose from multiple skills to get the same result. Of the three, I think I understand Intimidate the least.
Here's my interpretation of the three skills:
Bluff: Essentially, you are are trying to convince someone that you are telling the truth as you understand it. In most situations, this will result in the target assuming that if you are telling the truth, then the facts as you present them must also be true. In some extreme situations the target may believe you are telling the truth as you understand it, but still think you are mistaken or decieved yourself. "You saw the holy father strangle a prostitute in the back alley?! It must have been someone using illusion magic to mimic his face!"
Bluff may also be useful when you are telling the truth, but the truth is so incredible that most people would assume you to be lying. I'm not sure how this should work mechanically, though.
Combat: Bluff can be used to render a target flatfooted against attack.
Diplomacy: You are trying to make a target view yourself and your actions in the most favorable possible light. I get a little tripped up with where this interacts with Bluff, though, because if someone's attitude towards you has been improved, won't that make them more likely to assume you're telling the truth as you understand it? And of course, deciding how an NPC will react when viewing someone favorably is a burden on the DM.
Combat: None.
Intimidate: You're trying to frighten/impress someone so that they will act in the way you want. I don't like the rules for intimidate, because it mandates flat-out that NPCs will develop a negative attitude towards a PC due to skill use, and that seems to place a powerful limit on the skill's usefulness. While it's true that nobody likes a bully, in real life people are often drawn to those who project an aura of power and invincibility. Soldiers don't want to follow a leader who is "nice", they want to know that their commander is the roughest, toughest, SOB out there. A corporate executive may feared by everyone in the halls of power, but his employees respect him all the more for it. Or in a less leadership-oriented scenario, someone selling a house might use Intimidate to make a potential buyer fear that the house is going to be sold to someone else if they dont' offer more.
Or would that be bluff? Regardless, I feel like Intimidate needs to be fleshed out better ruleswise, so it doesn't end up as the social skill people take because, "I didn't have Diplomacy or bluff on my class skill list."
Combat: Can be used to create a fear effect in an opponent, which can be surprisingly devastating when stacked with other fear effects.
General Social Situations: Diplomacy often gets used as catch-all social skill, whenever a social situation not directly on-point for the other skills comes up. Need to negotiate with somebody? Diplomacy. Need to calm down a scared person? Diplomacy. Need to circulate through a party and leave a strong impression? Diplomacy. Trying to inspire some troops before a battle? Perform (oratory), but maybe diplomacy.
Yet I'd argue that either of the "lesser" skills could be used in the same situations.
When you're negotiating, you can try to make them like you. Or you can use Bluff to confuse the issues about how good the deal is for either side. Or you could use intimidate to make the target afraid of losing out on a good deal.
Calm down a scared person? Talk with them nicely, or convince them that you don't think the situation is as bad as all that, or shake them by the shoulders and yell that if they don't get themselves together, they'll have more cause to fear harm from you than from the monsters.
Circulating through a party? Any of the skills should be sufficient to leave a strong impression, although by obviously different methods.
Same for inspiring army before a battle.
Magic: A few spells such as charm person or planar binding call for charisma checks. And Suggestion depends on the definitioon of "reasonable". It's always seemed to me that the appropriate skill checks should be usable in conunction with those spells.
Just in general, anyone have responses to the above or thoughts on the trio of social skills? (Realizing that I haven't touched Sense Motive yet.)
Here's my interpretation of the three skills:
Bluff: Essentially, you are are trying to convince someone that you are telling the truth as you understand it. In most situations, this will result in the target assuming that if you are telling the truth, then the facts as you present them must also be true. In some extreme situations the target may believe you are telling the truth as you understand it, but still think you are mistaken or decieved yourself. "You saw the holy father strangle a prostitute in the back alley?! It must have been someone using illusion magic to mimic his face!"
Bluff may also be useful when you are telling the truth, but the truth is so incredible that most people would assume you to be lying. I'm not sure how this should work mechanically, though.
Combat: Bluff can be used to render a target flatfooted against attack.
Diplomacy: You are trying to make a target view yourself and your actions in the most favorable possible light. I get a little tripped up with where this interacts with Bluff, though, because if someone's attitude towards you has been improved, won't that make them more likely to assume you're telling the truth as you understand it? And of course, deciding how an NPC will react when viewing someone favorably is a burden on the DM.
Combat: None.
Intimidate: You're trying to frighten/impress someone so that they will act in the way you want. I don't like the rules for intimidate, because it mandates flat-out that NPCs will develop a negative attitude towards a PC due to skill use, and that seems to place a powerful limit on the skill's usefulness. While it's true that nobody likes a bully, in real life people are often drawn to those who project an aura of power and invincibility. Soldiers don't want to follow a leader who is "nice", they want to know that their commander is the roughest, toughest, SOB out there. A corporate executive may feared by everyone in the halls of power, but his employees respect him all the more for it. Or in a less leadership-oriented scenario, someone selling a house might use Intimidate to make a potential buyer fear that the house is going to be sold to someone else if they dont' offer more.
Or would that be bluff? Regardless, I feel like Intimidate needs to be fleshed out better ruleswise, so it doesn't end up as the social skill people take because, "I didn't have Diplomacy or bluff on my class skill list."
Combat: Can be used to create a fear effect in an opponent, which can be surprisingly devastating when stacked with other fear effects.
General Social Situations: Diplomacy often gets used as catch-all social skill, whenever a social situation not directly on-point for the other skills comes up. Need to negotiate with somebody? Diplomacy. Need to calm down a scared person? Diplomacy. Need to circulate through a party and leave a strong impression? Diplomacy. Trying to inspire some troops before a battle? Perform (oratory), but maybe diplomacy.
Yet I'd argue that either of the "lesser" skills could be used in the same situations.
When you're negotiating, you can try to make them like you. Or you can use Bluff to confuse the issues about how good the deal is for either side. Or you could use intimidate to make the target afraid of losing out on a good deal.
Calm down a scared person? Talk with them nicely, or convince them that you don't think the situation is as bad as all that, or shake them by the shoulders and yell that if they don't get themselves together, they'll have more cause to fear harm from you than from the monsters.
Circulating through a party? Any of the skills should be sufficient to leave a strong impression, although by obviously different methods.
Same for inspiring army before a battle.
Magic: A few spells such as charm person or planar binding call for charisma checks. And Suggestion depends on the definitioon of "reasonable". It's always seemed to me that the appropriate skill checks should be usable in conunction with those spells.
Just in general, anyone have responses to the above or thoughts on the trio of social skills? (Realizing that I haven't touched Sense Motive yet.)
