tsumechk's page

Before continuing, should note I was not the one making the bluff check. Just so this is not misinterpreted as a player getting upset at the GM giving him penalties. Someone else made the roll.

The situation wasn't a matter of him adding in other penalties, he flat out said why he was giving them (for the lie being unlikely and far-fetched).

As for a lack of automatic bonuses and the GM attempting to fix what he perceives as an issue, while I'd agree if we were talking about Diplomacy or Intimidate there needs to be something to actually make the DC matter beyond the first couple levels, Bluff has an automatic counter-balance in the Sense Motive skill. Admittedly builds that focus entirely on bluffing can easily get a high enough check to make it really just a formality, but still it is there. And while it does require a skill investment, I rarely see people complain that they need to invest in Perception to avoid getting tripped up by Stealth all the time (and I personally worry far more about Perception than Sense Motive).

Anyway the exact way the GM worded it (while I don't memorize everything that happens per session things that irk me tend to get remembered, plus I write them down for future reference and it may have been a good idea to include this in the original post): "See Bluff is an interesting skill. Depending on what you try to say it gets harder. So the lie is unlikely for -5, and the lie is far-fetched for a -10. So take a -15 penalty to the roll". At no point did the GM mention he was using this as a way to counteract bluff builds (which no one in the group is even using so it'd reduce the skill to an optimize it to death or leave it skill), and he was actually smiling and laughing as though he thought he was clever for this.

Plus this is also a new GM. He regularly makes mistakes with basic rules and demands proof when I point it out. And if it's not spelled out or even slightly ambiguous he goes with his interpretation.

That being said the fact that thus far no one has chimed in supporting his ruling should be enough. Plus looking at other skills they do seem to list when bonuses and penalties are cumulative, it doesn't do so with Bluff so that may also help.

Agree wholeheartedly on how an impossible lie is just a much higher version of an unlikely lie. If they did stack it would mean an impossible lie is always a -35 before other modifiers. Not that it couldn't be, but if they were meant to stack I think they'd be more incremental. Unlikely would be -5, far fetched another -5, and impossible a -10 which adds up to the -5/-10/-20 set up.

Personally I see it like using Acrobatics to jump. The DC is equal to the amount you're jumping (going with horizontal jumps for now, not vertical). A 10 ft. jump is DC 10. If you took the DC of all the previous increments up until that point (for one foot, two feet, three, etc) it would be DC 55. Given how it's specifically spelled out as DC 10, that's clearly not the case.

Unfortunately this is a bad example since the jumping section specifically calls this out whereas bluff does not such thing. Which means it's very easy for an inexperienced GM to claim that they do.

And no way of knowing about perception vs disguise since that situation hasn't come up. Given how he ruled bluff he probably would make it a +28 bonus to perception if you're intimately familiar with them.

I didn't mean having a developer come in and give a comment (or a link to a comment on another thread). I meant if there was a rule in a book, or if there was something in a FAQ or errata that I've missed I'd appreciate a page number so I can crack open my own book and show it.

And I agree with different bonuses for different circumstances stacking (though nitpicky the target wanting to believe you is a +5, not a +10 unless there's separate bribery rules I'm unaware of), though that's because I'm of the opinion these are all circumstance bonuses/penalties (though they aren't spelled out specifically as that, this is one of those it's pretty obvious they are as far as I'm concerned), which specifically stack with each other provided they don't come from essentially the same source.

Which is in turn why I'm against the penalties stacking since as far as I'm concerned they're - as you said - varying severity of the same penalty (which in my mind is basically the same source - how believable your lie is on its own merit - as far as circumstance bonuses go).

Problem is while this GM knows they're really new, they're also really bad at reading the rules and interpreting them. He can't really figure out RAI all that well and sticks to what he sees as RAW (which given how he has a flimsy understanding of the rules to begin with means a lot of mistakes, usually to the detriment of the players). Having more than just "this player says this is how it works" would be useful.

In the bluff skill section it lists various modifiers to your bluff skill check based on how believable your lie is. I've always worked off the assumption that you just pick the one that fits and use that. Recently I've had a GM who thinks you take all the penalties/bonuses from that chart and add them together (in other words, if a lie is unlikely and far-fetched it's a -15 penalty). And he did specifically say this is what he's doing saying what we got the penalties for ("The lie is unbelievable, and the lie is far-fetched so you take a -15 penalty."), not a variety of circumstantial penalties.

So my question is pretty simple: which is correct? I'd like citations if at all possible (citations make any situation like this easier) so I can bring this up at the next session. I didn't bring it up at the table since the situation didn't particularly matter, but would like it resolved for future reference.

To me it seems pretty cut and dry - the ladder of modifiers is just that, a ladder. You go up or down on it and use the appropriate modifier, not the appropriate modifier plus all other possible penalties from the chart. Unfortunately I'm unable to find any specific place in the book or online that makes this clear. This keeps it just ambiguous enough that I'm unsure. Maybe every group I've ever been in is wrong.

I interpreted it as "prepares as a cleric" as well. Given that Wild Arcana allows a wizard to cast (at Tier 1) any spell from their spell list at +2 caster level without using a spell slot up to five times a day I personally don't see Perfect Preparation being prepare as a cleric as overpowered. If you can't break your GM's encounters in five spells, you're not playing your wizard very well (joking).

And even then it wouldn't be that hard to deal with a wizard who had access to their entire spell list. A lot of it is chaff anyway, and any wizard who's building/playing their character as a "I'm going to do everything in my power to be a god" type wizard will probably have all of the game breaking spells in their spellbook anyway. And those that don't want to play their wizard like that will probably just ignore most of the "I win" spells and go with ones that are fun. I know the one I'm playing (who has this ability) still uses most of his spell slots on flashy evocation spells rather than encounter ending spells.

Add to that the fact that Mythic Adventures is basically Pathfinder's own version of Epic Levels. Yes, a wizard having access to their entire spell list is powerful. But (assuming that's how it works) that's kinda the point of Mythic Adventures: turning characters up to eleven.

Lastly the "knows their entire spell list" isn't how I interpreted it. I kinda see it as a wizard going to prepare his spells and thinking "I want to use a spell that turns enemies into ashes (Disintegrate). How would I go about doing that...AH! Right just do this, and that, and there we go! One spell of ray-based 'tear enemies down to their base components' death." It's less of "Knowing all their spells" and more of "I have such a deep understanding of magic that I can figure out how to cast basically any arcane spell without needing to consult an instruction manual".

Of course if someone from Paizo comes in and says "It's a mental spellbook" then this is all me spouting useless information and I'll concede the point with no objections, but that's just my two GP on the subject.