Talk:Believability (3.5e Variant Rule)

Eh?
Using Bluff to tell the truth and convince people of reality? Sounds more like a Diplomacy thing to me. Unless you are pulling a Jack Sparrow and are telling the truth because no one will believe it.--Teh Storm 21:00, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just make a purpously bad Bluff check that was a lie, so they would learn the truth by not believing my lie. Or a diplomacy check. Depends on how much i wanna screw with people--NameViolation 21:03, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Auto fail a Bluff? That is right up there with auto failing a listen check to not hear the old guy tell you his life story! ... I LIKE IT!!!--Teh Storm 21:08, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeppers, convincing people of the truth sounds more like Diplomacy to me, too. If you had a low diplo skill and a high bluff skill, though, it COULD be useful...  especially if they didn't want to face the truth and kept trying to ignore you.  --Only one truth prevails!  -Conan Edogawa (Case Closed) 21:21, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm missing the point of this variant rule. We'd be using this to convince a woman that her husband died in the woods, or other news she didn't want to hear? So in essence, we're changing "Bluff" to "Convince"? I think the mechanic needs work, I'm getting hideous flashbacks of THAC0... --The Badger 23:08, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is sort of the thing where you're trying to convince the Semi-Reasonable Authority Figure that the moon is falling, or something outrageous - there would probably be associated diplomacy checks for him to trust you, but even from a trusted person, things can be a bit outrageous. But yes - if I could avoid negativizing modifiers, it would be dandy, as would not having to shift modifiers around. -- Aelaris 20:04, May 29, 2010 (UTC)