The person sneaking up on him can try to stay out of sight. They could use Invisibility to help. Or not.
Those modify the opposed Stealth check, not the observer's Perception bonus. Please learn the rules if you're going to debate them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alex's point - you choose what the NPC does, so you're effectively choosing the DC's, modifiers, etc.
Kirth's point - you choose what the NPC does, but what he/she/it is capable of and what the mechanical implications of that are defined by the game rules.
Take a breath. You're talking past each other. Yes, there are likely some things that the GM will have to determine ad-hoc. Depending on the style you and your players prefer, how consistent the results are for the same inputs might be more or less important.
Do they care that sometimes drunk guards get the sickened condition and sometimes they just start out as friendly? Maybe. If that's important to your group, you should determine what it does when it comes up and then take note of whether it made sense/worked and if so, stick with it. If flow is more important to your group than consistency, go with it.
I think this is all boiling down to the period/full stop making the statement that the GM doesn't live by rules. I think that was an overstatement that's leading to pointless argumentation.
The person sneaking up on him can try to stay out of sight. They could use Invisibility to help. Or not.Those modify the opposed Stealth check, not the observer's Perception bonus. Please learn the rules if you're going to debate them.
Your post makes no sense.
I said invisibility would help an NPC sneak up on someone.
Is this wrong somehow?
Regardless, I've simply been trying to correct your false assumption that I ignore rules for some reason, I've simply been trying to point out that GMs are allowed to make choices.
Apparently you don't agree with me on that.
If I choose to have a BBEG use an ability that I gave him when I designed him weeks before a game, by golly he is gonna use it.
As long as it is within the rules.
Because without rules it's all just a bunch of kids yelling at each other about "gotcha!" and "no you didn't!", which is what this thread appears to be degrading into.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The person sneaking up on him can try to stay out of sight. They could use Invisibility to help. Or not.Those modify the opposed Stealth check, not the observer's Perception bonus. Please learn the rules if you're going to debate them.Your post makes no sense.
I said invisibility would help an NPC sneak up on someone.
Is this wrong somehow?
Regardless, I've simply been trying to correct your false assumption that I ignore rules for some reason, I've simply been trying to point out that GMs are allowed to make choices.
Apparently you don't agree with me on that.
If I choose to have a BBEG use an ability that I gave him when I designed him weeks before a game, by golly he is gonna use it.
As long as it is within the rules.
Because without rules it's all just a bunch of kids yelling at each other about "gotcha!" and "no you didn't!", which is what this thread appears to be degrading into.
You said that the GM determines modifiers. Full stop.
I think that might have projected a greater degree of freedom than you really intend for the GM to take. I think that's what Kirth is disagreeing with.
Apparently you don't agree with me on that.
I don't agree with making an absolute statement out of a situational thing. And still don't.
I can say "The sky is blue. Period. Full Stop." But that's only true sometimes. At other times, it's dark out, or overcast. Me adding "Period! Full Stop!" doesn't change that -- all it does is make me wrong. If I then turn around and say "Well, obviously I only meant sometimes," I'm actually contradicting my own previous statement.
If you mean to say, "the DM can apply situational modifiers," then say that. Don't declare the DM decides ALL skill results, and then add a bunch of punctuation to double-underline yourself, and then try and weasel out of it by saying "that's not what I meant."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You can ask an audience to believe the impossible, but not the improbable."
Thats what it boils down to (regarding Bluff and believing Magic Missiles and Dragons).
I get that. I get the suspension of disbelief, but what seems less plausible to you:
Situation 1:"Wait a minute guys, we're in trouble, someone is drawing a bow on the other side of that 1 foot thick stone wall"
Or
Situation 2:
"Man I'm good, totally convinced that guard, I belong here"
Out of those two situations, I would say Situation 1 is much harder to stomach, but we accept it out of hand because of the chart in the Perception skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's hard to find a Bluff rule that works well. Skills checks tend to be very binary rolls that don't capture the nuances of social interaction.
"Your highness, we're on a mission from the gods. We urgently need two hundred thousand gold pieces to buy some items that are needed to save the world. Please hand over the contents of your treasury. We'll pay you back."
(Note that in an RPG universe this is not an 'impossible' story.)
If I roll high, does the king have to do whatever I say?
If you roll low, does the king automatically know I'm lying and condemn me to death?
It's hard to find a Bluff rule that works well. Skills checks tend to be very binary rolls that don't capture the nuances of social interaction.
"Your highness, we're on a mission from the gods. We urgently need two hundred thousand gold pieces to buy some items that are needed to save the world. Please hand over the contents of your treasury. We'll pay you back."
(Note that in an RPG universe this is not an 'impossible' story.)
If I roll high, does the king have to do whatever I say?
If you roll low, does the king automatically know I'm lying and condemn me to death?
Exactly.
If I ran that encounter, I would probably have the king even if successfully bluffed say something like, "Really? What great danger threatens us? Please tell me the details so I can direct my troops to support your efforts. And please take a few of my scouts with you so they can verify this information. Unfortunately I can't just give you the treasury to my kingdom without some further proof, and we may have great need of it here to protect ourselves from whatever is coming. However, once the threat is verified we will provide you with what help and support we can muster."
Alternatively, if the king succeeded in his sense motive he might just kick the man out of the palace, perhaps out of the kingdom. Depending on the audacity of the bluffer and the nature of the king he might arrest or condemn to death the bluffer.
The problem is that people react very differently to being bluff depending on the situation and what they are being bluffed about.
Military base?
Bluffer - "Sir I forget my ID, the general knows me though and I'm here to bring him his lunch."
MP - "Stand right there and I'll call the general and sort this out. Try to cross into the base and I will shoot you."No amount of bluff should overcome certain scenarios, IMO.
I don't know about that. A guard who is not suspicious due to a successful Bluff check isn't likely to make that phone call. After all, if he believes the lie and hasn't had his suspicions aroused, why would he double check?
I think it would only go down the way you describe IF there was a protocol in place to make a call whenever someone was missing their ID--since the protocol would operate independently of the guard's current beliefs (assuming he follows proper protocol). Otherwise, the guard will believe the liar and let him through.
I don't know about that. I think it would only go down the way you describe if proper protocol was to make a call whenever someone is missing their ID--since the protocol would operate independently of the guard's belief (assuming he follows proper protocol). Otherwise, the guard will believe the liar and let him through.The problem is that people react very differently to being bluff depending on the situation and what they are being bluffed about.
Military base?
Bluffer - "Sir I forget my ID, the general knows me though and I'm here to bring him his lunch."
MP - "Stand right there and I'll call the general and sort this out. Try to cross into the base and I will shoot you."No amount of bluff should overcome certain scenarios, IMO.
Proper protocol would normally be to tell someone who doesn't have ID to leave. Alternatively if they know someone on base they can call ask that person to come to the guard gate to escort them in base.
Now, if we're not talking about a military base but a bar and a kid trying to bluff he way past the bouncer...well policies aren't as strict and the repercussion are usually lower.
The whole point of my example is to point of circumstances where it is possible to bluff successfully but for it to not really work the player would want it to.
There are extenuating circumstances to bluff, that the skill description simply doesn't account for.
I don't run bluff as written and never will. I also don't run diplomacy as written. Both are shoddily written skills that haven't been updated properly.
It's hard to find a Bluff rule that works well. Skills checks tend to be very binary rolls that don't capture the nuances of social interaction.
"Your highness, we're on a mission from the gods. We urgently need two hundred thousand gold pieces to buy some items that are needed to save the world. Please hand over the contents of your treasury. We'll pay you back."
(Note that in an RPG universe this is not an 'impossible' story.)
If I roll high, does the king have to do whatever I say?
If you roll low, does the king automatically know I'm lying and condemn me to death?
If you roll high the king believes you're on a mission from the gods, how the king reacts to that is up to the GM.
People on these boards have a real issue with what I'm about to say, but Paizo will (most likely) never provide rules for how to role-play. There will be no rules for social interactions, I know it sounds scary, but you'll have to trust your GM to handle this type of thing.
I know it sounds like I'm being snarky, but I'm serious. I see this type of thing all the time. People are asking for rules on how to role-play and seem upset when there aren't any. If you doubt that, take a look at all the "Paladin falls" threads. People want a structured list for what does, or doesn't make a paladin fall. They want a list of what is or isn't an "impossible lie". Tell them it's situational and the GM will have to decide what happens based on the situation, and that throws them into a panic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked how skills worked in the Victory Games 007 game -- on a "Quality Results" system: the higher you beat the margin for success, the better the results. So, for the example of asking the king for the treasury, the range of results might be:
50% Outright failure
20% Acceptable (he's uncommitted and demands for more information)
18% Good (he sends guys to check on your story)
6% Very Good (he authorizes a loan of X amount, and is willing to extend the balance when he sees what you do with that amount)
6% Excellent (he hands over the keys).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that. I get the suspension of disbelief, but what seems less plausible to you:
Situation 1:
"Wait a minute guys, we're in trouble, someone is drawing a bow on the other side of that 1 foot thick stone wall"
That's DC 35, at least.
OrSituation 2:
"Man I'm good, totally convinced that guard, I belong here"
That sounds "far-fetched" (-10).
Out of those two situations, I would say Situation 1 is much harder to stomach, but we accept it out of hand because of the chart in the Perception skill.
Going by the rules, Pathfinder seems to agree with you. It is usually easier to make a far-fetched Bluff than to hear a bow through a wall. Particularly if there are a lot of other things going on (+5 DC).
But even if the guard believes you belong there, that doesn't mean they become demented. It just means they start treating you as someone who belongs there. They still have procedures to follow. They could still be indifferent or even unfriendly.
If you can pull off "I'm the King, who has been polymorphed," that will get you pretty far, but the difficult is pretty high. And even if you convince the guards you are the king, they might believe it, but they would be very foolish not to try to verify it.
The rules are far from perfect, but they seem to cover these two situations fairly well.
bluff does not equal mind control
I get that. I get the suspension of disbelief, but what seems less plausible to you:
Situation 1:
"Wait a minute guys, we're in trouble, someone is drawing a bow on the other side of that 1 foot thick stone wall"
That's DC 35, at least.
OrSituation 2:
"Man I'm good, totally convinced that guard, I belong here"
That sounds "far-fetched" (-10).
Out of those two situations, I would say Situation 1 is much harder to stomach, but we accept it out of hand because of the chart in the Perception skill.Going by the rules, Pathfinder seems to agree with you. It is usually easier to make a far-fetched Bluff than to hear a bow through a wall. Particularly if there are a lot of other things going on (+5 DC).
But even if the guard believes you belong there, that doesn't mean they become demented. It just means they start treating you as someone who belongs there. They still have procedures to follow. They could still be indifferent or even unfriendly.
If you can pull off "I'm the King, who has been polymorphed," that will get you pretty far, but the difficult is pretty high. And even if you convince the guards you are the king, they might believe it, but they would be very foolish not to try to verify it.
The rules are far from perfect, but they seem to cover these two situations fairly well.
Umm did you read any of the posts leading up to this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that people react very differently to being bluff depending on the situation and what they are being bluffed about.
Military base?
Bluffer - "Sir I forget my ID, the general knows me though and I'm here to bring him his lunch."
MP - "Stand right there and I'll call the general and sort this out. Try to cross into the base and I will shoot you."No amount of bluff should overcome certain scenarios, IMO.
My reply to that, for a successful bluff to enter a Military Base, watch Real Genius.
It's hard to find a Bluff rule that works well. Skills checks tend to be very binary rolls that don't capture the nuances of social interaction.
"Your highness, we're on a mission from the gods. We urgently need two hundred thousand gold pieces to buy some items that are needed to save the world. Please hand over the contents of your treasury. We'll pay you back."
(Note that in an RPG universe this is not an 'impossible' story.)
If I roll high, does the king have to do whatever I say?
If you roll low, does the king automatically know I'm lying and condemn me to death?
Nope , like Jodokai said , the king will just believe that you were sent on a mission from the gods , like it is written in the bluff skill.
The target will believe your lie , that is it.
You could say you are a god even , the GM allowed the roll? Did you get a success even with the -20? Then hell now you are Desna to the king or whatever god you said you were.
Sure he can then try to verify it , but he believes it until he manages to find any proof that you arent.
You want the king to give you anything? That is what diplomacy is for or maybe even intimidation if you want to sound pissed he is questioning you , a god.
Ofc this assumes the GM even allows you to roll to pretend to be a god.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to keep in mind that bluffs does not prevent someone from using a skill or ability they have, that includes perception. So even if you convince someone the sky is different color all they have to do is make the appropriate perception roll. In this case probably a DC of -20 to notice the color of the sky. If they cannot see the sky for some reason then that is different.
Another thing that people are forgetting about is skill unlocks. The rank 20 skill unlock for bluff allows you to use the equivalent of suggestion on a person that lasts up to an hour. This is supposed to be the ultimate use of bluff. So to allow someone to exceed this with a simple roll is simply wrong. So if you have 20 ranks in bluff and have the skill unlock for bluff you can indeed convince someone the sky is purple and he will believe it for an hour. If you don’t have 20 ranks and the skill unlock then you will be able to fool the person as long as he is not able to see the sky.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rank 20 skill unlock for bluff allows you to use the equivalent of suggestion on a person that lasts up to an hour. This is supposed to be the ultimate use of bluff.
So the best bluffer in the world can barely replicate what a 4th level bard can do right out of the box. If that doesn't tell you that skills don't really matter in this game, nothing will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Magic SHOULD do better than base skills. Magic is limited after all. That Bard can only use his spells so many times a day. A highly-trained Bluffer can Bluff all day long (within physical time limits of course).
Nah, see, if you want "all day long", you have to upgrade from a FOURTH level spell like Suggestion to a FIFTH level spell, Dominate Person. Oh, no, wait, Dominate Person is actually better than the 20th level skill-unlock for bluff, and it lasts significantly longer than one day (one day/level is at least 10 days for a bard, and at least 11 days for a wizard).
But don't worry, magic is totally balanced with skills if you are adventuring for more than 10 days in one day....
Being able to get someone to believe something is completely different from making someone do something.
The sky is blue, but there are hundreds of variants of the color blue that incorporates other colors. One particular color being purple. The particular shade we are looking at in the sky just happens to have a name synonymous with purple. Hence the sky is purple.
As an example above it is quite feasible to get someone who is gullible to possibly believe the above statement. Gullible meaning a low sense motive.
As far as getting a guard to let you on the base, it depends a lot on the guard. A successful bluff roll will get the guard to believe you. However it will be successful diplomacy roll to get the guard to allow you to enter the base without proper documentation.
Being able to get someone to believe something is completely different from making someone do something.
The sky is blue, but there are hundreds of variants of the color blue that incorporates other colors. One particular color being purple. The particular shade we are looking at in the sky just happens to have a name synonymous with purple. Hence the sky is purple.
As an example above it is quite feasible to get someone who is gullible to possibly believe the above statement. Gullible meaning a low sense motive.
As far as getting a guard to let you on the base, it depends a lot on the guard. A successful bluff roll will get the guard to believe you. However it will be successful diplomacy roll to get the guard to allow you to enter the base without proper documentation.
You are completely correct in that bluff does not actually allow you to directly cause a person to do anything. That would be either diplomacy or intimidate, both of which have rules for getting people to do what you want. You could use bluff to indirectly cause someone to act, but you will have limited control over the actions.
Most of the examples given in this thread should have been using different skills besides bluff to get the target to act. Both the general’s lunch and the mission from the gods would use intimidate. In both cases you are threating the person with a higher power. Intimidate actually specifies the help will be limited and that the target will not put themselves in danger. Diplomacy allows you to do more, but also states it fails if it goes against the creature’s values or nature.
If you use bluff to convince the guard that the king is an imposter he could react in a number of different ways. You have no control over which one he chooses to do. Once he believes you, you could use diplomacy or intimidate to get him to act the way you want.
Bluff = Mind control?
Interesting question, in my games bluff is in some ways more useful than magical mind control because I allow it to potentially work against any kind of creature even those who are mindless or immune to mind effects. In other ways it is less powerful because I only allow it to implant a single (usually false) idea, which may be quickly overturned once new evidence comes to light. To actually get an NPC to perform a desired action would normally require an additional check like diplomacy, disguise or interrogation.
I am not very familiar with the unchained rules, but in the spirit of giving more options to players I allow very creative uses of skills, whereas with magic I tend to follow the rules as written. For example if a PC being chased by skeletons ducks into a room (breaks line of sight) and pretends to be a statue, a DC15 disguise check in conjunction with a DC15 bluff check would be sufficient to fool the skeletons. The skeletons are mindless so they should be easy to fool. In the same situation a charm monster spell would be totally ineffective against the skeletons.
Yes bluff is really Really REALLY poorly written.
"Impossible is minus 20, but if it's particularly improbable to the point of being impossible, it's a minus infinity. Paizo OUT *drops mic*"
...No. Bad Paizo. Bad.
Just announce a house rule that sounds better to you (i.e. almost anything else) and carry on.
I like the way the bluff skill is described because it reads like a set of guidelines to help the GM make a decision rather than a set of rules that will inevitably lead to silly outcomes through loopholes, unforeseen circumstance or interpretation. It also reminds us that what the GM decides is more important than any set of guidelines or rules.
I really hate when GM's pull the "they believe YOU believe what you're saying" because what's the f*^*#$%^*ing point of bluff then?
I tend to agree. I would be okay with that being the result of a failed bluff check, but not the result of a successful one.
|
But even if the guard believes you belong there, that doesn't mean they become demented. It just means they start treating you as someone who belongs there. They still have procedures to follow. They could still be indifferent or even unfriendly.
If you can pull off "I'm the King, who has been polymorphed," that will get you pretty far, but the difficult is pretty high. And even if you convince the guards you are the king, they might believe it, but they would be very foolish not to try to verify it.
This is the reality of the situation. Bluff only convinces those you are bluffing that what you are saying is true, not to forget everything they have ever learned before that. It might make them believe that there is an intruder hiding under the dress of the bride during the wedding of a prince and princess, but he a standard guard would only relay this to his superiors, who would likely think that he is insane.
This is the reality of the situation. Bluff only convinces those you are bluffing that what you are saying is true, not to forget everything they have ever learned before that. It might make them believe that there is an intruder hiding under the dress of the bride during the wedding of a prince and princess, but he a standard guard would only relay this to his superiors, who would likely think that he is insane.But even if the guard believes you belong there, that doesn't mean they become demented. It just means they start treating you as someone who belongs there. They still have procedures to follow. They could still be indifferent or even unfriendly.
If you can pull off "I'm the King, who has been polymorphed," that will get you pretty far, but the difficult is pretty high. And even if you convince the guards you are the king, they might believe it, but they would be very foolish not to try to verify it.
For ordinary levels of bluff I agree. But that is a little boring and this is a game of high fantasy, characters with 20 skill ranks should be able to convince the palace guard that he really is a chicken and then distract him with bird seed.
|
|
For ordinary levels of bluff I agree. But that is a little boring and this is a game of high fantasy, characters with 20 skill ranks should be able to convince the palace guard that he really is a chicken and then distract him with bird seed.
Maybe, but at that point it's reasonable. At that point you're already a god and it's not too likely that a guard would be anything but a momentary distraction for a single PC.
I really hate when GM's pull the "they believe YOU believe what you're saying" because what's the f*^*#$%^*ing point of bluff then?
It overcomes the magic 'lie detector' powers of the Sense Motive skill.
So under the 'weak Bluff' interpretation, if you want to persuade someone to help you using the truth (which is only possible if your interests align with the person you're talking to), it requires a Diplomacy check, and if you want to persuade someone to help you using a lie (which is possible even on sworn enemies), it requires a Bluff check and then a Diplomacy check.What's most obnoxious is that in spite of the enormous vagueness in the bluff rules, this 'interpretation' is one of the few that actually contradict the actual rules.
Obviously, but otherwise bluff = mind control, and that's just stupid.
I can simply make a bluff-focused character who walks around telling enemies things like, "I am your god in human form, throw down your weapons." Even with the -10 "far-fetched" penalty (since it's not impossible that a god would take human form), that should have at least a 50% chance of working on most intelligent foes at level 1, increasing to 75% or so by mid-levels.I wonder how those people would react to being told that, say, Dominate Person doesn't actually allow you to control the target, it just allows you to ask them nicely to do something.
See the Charm Person debate, where it apparently allows you to force people to do things that are completely against their nature by making an opposed Charisma check, and many GMs interpret that rule away because it's too powerful for a level 1 spell.
For ordinary levels of bluff I agree. But that is a little boring and this is a game of high fantasy, characters with 20 skill ranks should be able to convince the palace guard that he really is a chicken and then distract him with bird seed.
Not a chance.
Bluff is TALKING. That's all. Just talking. No magic, no mysticism, no mojo. Just talking.
Nobody, nobody, NOBODY can convince me that I'm a chicken. Even the best professional hypnotists in the world will freely tell you that you can only hypnotize the willing. Never the unwilling. I go to a magic show and the magician wants to hypnotize me, i don't think he can, even if I'm willing, because I'm also willing to prove he can't. Dunno which would win out. But I'm guarding a palace, he can't. Period.
Put me in a world where magic works and then throw some magic spell in there with the talking, and I'll peck the ground for seed like anyone else.
But just talking?
Ain't gonna happen. Ever.
And no amount of Bluff skill can achieve something like that.
If you don't start out with something believable, you auto-fail. Period. Because you just can't talk anyone into believing something that is obviously not true unless for some reason they WANT to believe the untruth (in which case, you're really just permitting them to believe what they want to believe). All other cases of OBVIOUS untruth are auto-fail.
For ordinary levels of bluff I agree. But that is a little boring and this is a game of high fantasy, characters with 20 skill ranks should be able to convince the palace guard that he really is a chicken and then distract him with bird seed.Not a chance.
Bluff is TALKING. That's all. Just talking. No magic, no mysticism, no mojo. Just talking.
Nobody, nobody, NOBODY can convince me that I'm a chicken. Even the best professional hypnotists in the world will freely tell you that you can only hypnotize the willing. Never the unwilling. I go to a magic show and the magician wants to hypnotize me, i don't think he can, even if I'm willing, because I'm also willing to prove he can't. Dunno which would win out. But I'm guarding a palace, he can't. Period.
Put me in a world where magic works and then throw some magic spell in there with the talking, and I'll peck the ground for seed like anyone else.
But just talking?
Ain't gonna happen. Ever.
And no amount of Bluff skill can achieve something like that.
If you don't start out with something believable, you auto-fail. Period. Because you just can't talk anyone into believing something that is obviously not true unless for some reason they WANT to believe the untruth (in which case, you're really just permitting them to believe what they want to believe). All other cases of OBVIOUS untruth are auto-fail.
Well , they did create baleful polymorph for cases like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For ordinary levels of bluff I agree. But that is a little boring and this is a game of high fantasy, characters with 20 skill ranks should be able to convince the palace guard that he really is a chicken and then distract him with bird seed.Not a chance.
Bluff is TALKING. That's all. Just talking. No magic, no mysticism, no mojo. Just talking.
Nobody, nobody, NOBODY can convince me that I'm a chicken. Even the best professional hypnotists in the world will freely tell you that you can only hypnotize the willing. Never the unwilling. I go to a magic show and the magician wants to hypnotize me, i don't think he can, even if I'm willing, because I'm also willing to prove he can't. Dunno which would win out. But I'm guarding a palace, he can't. Period.
Put me in a world where magic works and then throw some magic spell in there with the talking, and I'll peck the ground for seed like anyone else.
But just talking?
Ain't gonna happen. Ever.
And no amount of Bluff skill can achieve something like that.
If you don't start out with something believable, you auto-fail. Period. Because you just can't talk anyone into believing something that is obviously not true unless for some reason they WANT to believe the untruth (in which case, you're really just permitting them to believe what they want to believe). All other cases of OBVIOUS untruth are auto-fail.
Nobody in our world can talk you into thinking you're a chicken.
A level 20 Fighter can punch a T-Rex to death. A level 20 Rogue with 20 ranks of Bluff being able to talk an idiot into acting like a chicken isn't any more ridiculous. (Whether it's a good balanced game mechanic is another question.)| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A level 20 Rogue with 20 ranks of Bluff being able to talk an idiot into acting like a chicken isn't any more ridiculous. (Whether it's a good balanced game mechanic is another question.)
Now you're talking.
"convincing an idiot to act like a chicken" is VERY MUCH DIFFERENT than "convincing the palace guard that he really is a chicken".
Leaving aside the "idiot" part (I think they're more easy to bluff than most people by definition), there is still a big difference. Giving someone a reason to do something, even something weird, is not even in the same ballpark as trying to make them believe something that is absolutely not true.
Something like this:
Joe the clueless buffoon: You're a chicken!
Guard: No I'm not.
Joe: Yes, you are!
Guard: No, I'm not.
Joe: But hey, look at your feathers!
Guard: I don't have feathers.
Joe: And your beak!
Guard: I don't have a beak.
Joe: You just laid an egg!
Guard: No I didn't.
Joe: What was that? I can't understand your clucking!
Guard: I didn't cluck. I spoke clearly.
Elsewhere...
Fred the clever convincer: Hey, village idiot, wouldn't it be fun to act like a chicken?
Idiot: Probably not.
Fred: Yeah, sure it would. Think about it. You get to make funny noises and act silly.
Idiot: Why would I want to do that?
Fred: See that kid over there? It's his birthday and he's a little sad that nobody threw him a party. Doesn't that make you feel bad?
Idiot: Well, yeah, I guess.
Fred: So, the least we could do is make him laugh! Act like a chicken. Be really funny about it. Make him laugh.
Idiot: Well, I don't know...
Fred: And later, come to the tavern across the street and I'll buy you a beer. You'll feel good for helping the kid, and you get a free beer!
Fred: Well, all right. It's for the kid, after all. Cluck, cluck!
Meanwhile:
Joe: You live in a coop!
Guard: No I don't.
Joe: Your favorite food is bird seed!
Guard: Nope, wrong again.
Joe: Why did you cross the road?
Guard: To punch you in the face?
Joe: Look out! Here comes Colonel Sanders!
Guard: Get lost before I deep fry you, you moron...
|
|
Superhuman feats are different than convincing a reasonable person of something clearly impossible to the point of comedy (i.e., "you're a chicken").
It's reasonable to let a level 20 do it because a guard is a meaningless obstacle at that point, and it's funny. Wizard Joe could cast level 1 charm person, or you could let the 20 rank bard lie to him. At that point, I would let it happen. It's funny as hell.
@ DM_Blake
Why does it matter what is realistic? This is a fantasy game.
But I think you are wrong about hypnotism, most people are prone to hypnotism and professional stage magicians can tell who is most susceptible.
Milton Erickson wrote a great book about it called: Monsters and Magical Sticks: There's No Such Thing As Hypnosis? if you want to learn more.
I also recommend anything written by Derrem Brown.
|
|
For ordinary levels of bluff I agree. But that is a little boring and this is a game of high fantasy, characters with 20 skill ranks should be able to convince the palace guard that he really is a chicken and then distract him with bird seed.Not a chance.
Bluff is TALKING. That's all. Just talking. No magic, no mysticism, no mojo. Just talking.
Nobody, nobody, NOBODY can convince me that I'm a chicken. Even the best professional hypnotists in the world will freely tell you that you can only hypnotize the willing. Never the unwilling. I go to a magic show and the magician wants to hypnotize me, i don't think he can, even if I'm willing, because I'm also willing to prove he can't. Dunno which would win out. But I'm guarding a palace, he can't. Period.
Put me in a world where magic works and then throw some magic spell in there with the talking, and I'll peck the ground for seed like anyone else.
But just talking?
Ain't gonna happen. Ever.
And no amount of Bluff skill can achieve something like that.
If you don't start out with something believable, you auto-fail. Period. Because you just can't talk anyone into believing something that is obviously not true unless for some reason they WANT to believe the untruth (in which case, you're really just permitting them to believe what they want to believe). All other cases of OBVIOUS untruth are auto-fail.
To continue the example used earlier in this thread, perception is just LISTENING. But you can use it to do things that are clearly not possible in the real world at the higher DCs - something ridiculous like hearing a bow being drawn through 1 ft stone wall whilst asleep is DC45. That's unlikely to be heard, but at level 20 it's certainly possible. If you're so sure that bluff should have no effects that are different to reality, why should perception be able to? They're both mundane skills.
On top of that, your comment that if you don't start out with something believable you auto-fail is simply against the core rulebook rules. The rules state that if a lie is impossible, the DC is 20 higher than it normally would be. That means it's possible - not an autofail. For an impossible lie. So yeah, you can have your opinion, but that's home rules and not the Pathfinder rules, so should be discussed in the home rules section of the forum, not here.
Edit: If by believable you mean not-impossible, then I could understand where you're coming from, as the rules have the weird conflict of impossible means the GM can stop the roll, but then it also means a +20 to the DC of the roll. But I interpreted believable as the literal rules definition, which is to say if the lie is even a little unlikely, your rule is that it cannot be rolled at all - the bluff skill is not applicable for an unlikely lie. If you meant impossible, then I take back the post basically :P
|
|
Problem I see with Bluff is that convincing someone that what you are saying is true when you actually believe it is automatic. Or more precisely, no matter how high his Sense Motive roll, he believes you are telling the truth. Which is exactly the same as beating his roll with your Bluff.
I saw many problems and abuses of this at tables through skillful mixes of RP and metagaming.
I much prefer using Bluff as Sincerity in L5R : convincing others that you wholeheartedly believe in what you say. Regardless of whether you believe it or not.
Fred the clever convincer: Hey, village idiot, wouldn't it be fun to act like a chicken?
Idiot: Probably not.
Fred: Yeah, sure it would. Think about it. You get to make funny noises and act silly.
Idiot: Why would I want to do that?
Fred: See that kid over there? It's his birthday and he's a little sad that nobody threw him a party. Doesn't that make you feel bad?
Idiot: Well, yeah, I guess.
Fred: So, the least we could do is make him laugh! Act like a chicken. Be really funny about it. Make him laugh.
Idiot: Well, I don't know...
Fred: And later, come to the tavern across the street and I'll buy you a beer. You'll feel good for helping the kid, and you get a free beer!
Fred: Well, all right. It's for the kid, after all. Cluck, cluck!
That's +5 Bluff skill.
At +15 Bluff skill:
Percival the Pretty Amazing Persuader: Hey, Cluxley! I finally found you!
Guard: Who are you?
Percival: Darn. The false memory is still in effect, eh?
Guard: What are you talking about?
Percival: Try to remember! You were awakened by druidic magic, remember? And you asked the genie for human form? And then for your second wish, you wished to believe you were a regular human. So we sent you out to live as a man for one day. Only you forgot your true form entirely.
Guard: This is ridiculous.
Percival: Is it? We live in a world of magic! Look, we need your third wish to save the village, but the genie won't recognize you if you can't recognize yourself. Think about it. Doesn't your life seem to have gone by in a flash? Don't you think you were meant for something greater than guarding this door?
Guard: Well, maybe, but...
Percival: You were meant to have wings!
Guard: This is a joke, right?
Percival: Look into my eyes. Do I look like I'm joking?
Guard: No...
Percival: Then trust me, old pal. Do this one thing for me. Give me a chance. Crouch down, close your eyes, and smell this seed. Remember your true nature.
Guard: OK, I'll give it a try, but...
Percival: And crow like a rooster!
Guard: Cock-a-doodle-doo! Cock-a-doodle-doo! Hey, where did he go?
At +30 Bluff, you can start to persuade people of really unlikely things.
Problem I see with Bluff is that convincing someone that what you are saying is true when you actually believe it is automatic. Or more precisely, no matter how high his Sense Motive roll, he believes you are telling the truth.
Under the Sense Motive rules, someone needs to make a DC 20 roll to get a hunch that someone is trustworthy.
There is no RAW way to use Bluff skill to persuade someone of something that isn't a lie.
It's a GM's call thing. I'm running a campaign right now with a player who specializes in bluff, and my ruling is that he can't just roll a bluff check. He has to actually role-play out telling a convincing story. If he can do that, I let him make the check. If not, I don't even let him try. So far it's worked out well, it rewards role play and prevents ridiculous situations.One of the main points of role playing games is to play a character that has skills and abilities you lack. What happens when someone without good social skills wants to play a charismatic social manipulator? Do you make someone who wants to climb a wall or use acrobatics perform similarly?
Requiring them to role play the situation is fine, but only allowing them to roll if they succeed in a skill they may not have is in my opinion poor role playing. What I do is to have them state what they are saying and then let them roll. If they succeed at the role that alone determines if they succeed. I adjust what they actually say depending on how well they succeed. A character should not get the benefits of a player’s skill. People complain when a player uses out of character knowledge so why is this any different.
The way I run it when someone successfully bluffs someone the other person will at least consider what the other person is saying is true. They are unsure enough that they will at least check to see if it is true. In the case where someone is saying the sky is purple they will at least glance up to see if the sky is purple. When they see that it is not they obviously don’t still believe it. If it they were telling the kings body guard the king was an imposter they would at least seek to confirm this. The person who was bluffed is not required to act on the situation unless it was a situation they would normally act on. Convincing someone the sword you have is magical is not going to make them buy it, unless they would normally buy a magic sword.
I regret the "telling a story" language, what you describe is exactly what I do. I just ask the player to tell me how they're approaching the lie. The specifics of his lying skills are obviously down to the roll and his skill bonus.
At one point I managed to bluff a cleric into believeing his god was going to betray him after his plan was enacted therefore getting him to destroy an important artifact to said God. Was this off the spectrum?
Actually bluff can convince a person he is a chicken, but will not convince him to act a like a chicken. The thing to remember about bluff is it does not force you to take any actions. That requires different skills. The skills to force someone to act in a particular manner are intimidate and diplomacy.
A person with a very high bluff could easily convince another person they are actually a chicken that had been turned into a human. In the real world this would be extremely difficult but in a fantasy world it is actually a lot more reasonable. There are spells that can actually turn a chicken into a person. But this person would not start clucking and pecking the grounds looking for worms. With intimidate you could force a person to cluck and peck at the ground. I think even DM Blake would agree if someone had an assault rifle trained on him and told him to cluck like act like a chicken or die, he would be clucking and pecking on the ground just like anyone else. Likewise you could use diplomacy to cause someone to act like a chicken in this case it would probably be along the lines of a joke. Even DM Blake may play along with a joke to act like a chicken for a good laugh.
Magic will be able to achieve things that skills cannot, but skills are not useless. Magic for the most part is highly limited in either scope or duration, and sometimes both at once. Dominate Person can make a person do nearly anything but only affects one person and has a limited duration. Mass Hold Monster only affects a limited number of creatures and lasts 1 round per level. In each case the caster is limited in how many times per day they can cast the spell. There are ways to increase this number, but it is still limited.
Skills on the other hand have not limits to how often they can be used, and in many cases no limit to how many people they can affect. With bluff I can affect any number of people and there is no real limit on how long it lasts. As someone earlier in the thread brought up you can affect entire nations for years with bluff. Show me a spell that affects that many people for that long. With bluff I could convince an entire town that I a great wizard who will turn them all into toads if they don’t give me what I want. Strangely enough an actual wizard may have a harder time pulling this off.
For those that say a character with 20 ranks of bluff should be able to perform supernatural acts, the rules already support this. Sill unlocks often allow you to perform almost supernatural abilities. This does require the use of Pathfinder Unchained. The 15 rank skill unlock for bluff allows you to fool magical detection. At this point you can be a chaotic evil character and fool the paladin into thinking you are a good person. You can also lie and detect lies or zone of truth may not catch you. At 20 skill ranks you are able to cast suggestion with a full round action. You can pretty much do this all day long and it even works in a anti magic field.