Two notes regarding Glibness.
1) One of the short descriptions of the spell indicates +30. The full description indicates +20. I assume the +20 is correctÉ
2) One thing I had hoped for in the update was for glibness to be updated into what I might consider to be the realm of other spells its own level. Am I the only one that considers this spell to be brokenÉ And if not, how do other GM`s handle a bard with +30 bluff, let alone factoring it into his or her own bluff skill as an add? Even if +20 is the way that pathfinder is going, that is still unbelievable, unless perhaps this doesn't stack with the bards own bluff.
Cheers!
jasharen wrote: Two notes regarding Glibness.
1) One of the short descriptions of the spell indicates +30. The full description indicates +20. I assume the +20 is correctÉ
2) One thing I had hoped for in the update was for glibness to be updated into what I might consider to be the realm of other spells its own level. Am I the only one that considers this spell to be brokenÉ And if not, how do other GM`s handle a bard with +30 bluff, let alone factoring it into his or her own bluff skill as an add? Even if +20 is the way that pathfinder is going, that is still unbelievable, unless perhaps this doesn't stack with the bards own bluff.
Cheers!
3.5 has it as a +30 bonus. Either it was revised, or a typo.
-Steve
Having had issues with that spell in the past, I hope it's +20
Yeah, I like +20 better than +30. It's still a little extreme though. Anyone remember this gem from the WotC boards?
Bard: *casts Glibness*
Shopkeeper: What did you just do?
Bard: Nothing.
Shopkeeper: Oh, okay.
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote: Yeah, I like +20 better than +30. It's still a little extreme though. Anyone remember this gem from the WotC boards?
Bard: *casts Glibness*
Shopkeeper: What did you just do?
Bard: Nothing.
Shopkeeper: Oh, okay.
Yeah you know I'm the guy who started the thread that was posted on? It was the first thread I ever had that got more'n a hundred hits. I was quite proud at all the quotables that came from it, and there were a few.
If they changed it to be +20, and added the clarification that it does NOT stack with the bards existing bluff skill then I don't think it would be broken and would be happy with it.
In essense, a 20 *skill* (not a +20 to the skill) means a 0 bluff roll to try and convince someone of something totally off the wall and impossible. Which is still pretty impressive, in addition they gain the benefit of being able to dodge magical detections of lies and the targets get no saving throw, and an unlimited number of targets.
A 3rd level spell (even accounting that a bard has to be 7th level for that), allowing you to dodge magical detections of lying, while adding +30 to your own bluff skill, means that without any stretch a 7th level bard is pushing +44 (30+10 ranks+4 chr) bluff skill at 7th level. And for 70 minutes, unlimited targets during the duration (cause lets face it, they can say its affecting the bard, but the reality is its affecting the people he's using the bluff on).
I hope someone from the development team of Pathfinder looks at this, in my opinion its single handedly the most broken spell in the game. As long as you can communicate, you can do pretty much anything you want.
An extreme example, as spell resistance does not apply, there's no saving throw, a 7th level bard could concievably take an ancient dragon and tell him whatever he wanted and the ancient dragon would buy it if you figure 20 HD, roughly 23 skill + stat of say 5 or 6, for around 30 total sense motive, that same bard who hasn't crunched the heck out of the spell (ie skill focus, greater skill focus etc) has a +14 net d20 against an unmodified d20. Now pitty the poor bard that fails that roll, but still no other spell in teh game would give that bard (or any caster for that matter) even a remote chance.
I've always wondered if I was missing something about that spell, but everyone I've ever talked about it to, in person or on boards, feels the same way.
What do you all think?
Wow, never thought of it that way... hehe! Well, I don't know if it's broken or not, but until they fix it, my bards and sorcerers will be learning it right away!
Of course, the issue with Bluff (and Diplomacy and Intimidate) is that they have to be heavily adjudicated by the DM. When you run games with social skill monkey characters, you always have to be aware of what the stopping point is for the NPC. For most people, there's only so much they're going to believe unless you're able to prove it in some way.
In my campaigns, someone who is consistently rolling 40+ on their Bluff check isn't convincing every NPC of anything he wants; he's convincing them of the most they're willing to believe.
For people who want some good examples of Bluff (and Diplomacy and Intimidate) in action, do yourself a HUGE favor and rent a couple seasons of the BBC's Hustle, a TV show about a group of con artists. What I see there are people who have a massive Bluff skill, but are smart enough not to try to over-bluff their marks (well, except for Danny).
I have no problem with the level of the spell - it's supposed to be the natural counter for Discern Lies. It's one of the reasons why Bards are the top dogs when it comes to social interaction. That being said, even I have to wonder why Glibness grants a +20 to your Bluff check. Keep in mind that the largest penalty that you can receive on your Bluff check is -20 for lies that are "way out there, almost too impossible to consider". This bonus basically eradicates that penalty and allows Bards to make regular rolls for impossible lies. However, I don't think that dropping the bonus to +10 would be too powerful. But hey, maybe I'm missing something here. If there's a reason for such a high bonus, I'd love to know what it is.
On a related note: I prefer the more in-depth description of the Bluff skill that was in the original SRD. I also believe that the description in the Beta document is a little oversimplified. Finally, I think that it needs to be made clear that some lies really are completely impossible (i.e. telling someone that the sky is red when it is clearly blue) and will automatically fail no matter how high your Bluff skill is.
And I still believe that Reincarnate is more broken the Glibness.
jasharen wrote: Two notes regarding Glibness.
I think Glibness is broken, as the bonus is so ridiculously high, that it removes the need for an actual discussion.
Stereofm wrote: jasharen wrote: Two notes regarding Glibness.
I think Glibness is broken, as the bonus is so ridiculously high, that it removes the need for an actual discussion. Without discussion, it cannot be fixed. Hence the discussing. :)
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote: Of course, the issue with Bluff (and Diplomacy and Intimidate) is that they have to be heavily adjudicated by the DM. When you run games with social skill monkey characters, you always have to be aware of what the stopping point is for the NPC. For most people, there's only so much they're going to believe unless you're able to prove it in some way.
In my campaigns, someone who is consistently rolling 40+ on their Bluff check isn't convincing every NPC of anything he wants; he's convincing them of the most they're willing to believe.
For people who want some good examples of Bluff (and Diplomacy and Intimidate) in action, do yourself a HUGE favor and rent a couple seasons of the BBC's Hustle, a TV show about a group of con artists. What I see there are people who have a massive Bluff skill, but are smart enough not to try to over-bluff their marks (well, except for Danny).
The difficulty with this approach is that the wording of bluff is pretty clear, in fact it goes into the wording saying that you could let the player know that his bluff was just to far fetched to be believable (and then gives the numbers indicating that the roll fell between the normal success numbers and the DC due to situation).
So accounting for just the bluff skill, its pretty clear it was intended to not be adjusdicated on a case by case basis. So in principle you can fall back on the "I'm god, and I say so approach", which to me just simply says you are acknowleding how broken the situation is, and instead of fixing it, you're using common sense to rule that its impossible.
I'd rather not have to fall back on heavy handedness to stop innocent abuse of a skill thats clearly created to do exactly what it says, bluff someone.
Sueki Suezo wrote: I have no problem with the level of the spell - it's supposed to be the natural counter for Discern Lies. It's one of the reasons why Bards are the top dogs when it comes to social interaction. That being said, even I have to wonder why Glibness grants a +20 to your Bluff check. Keep in mind that the largest penalty that you can receive on your Bluff check is -20 for lies that are "way out there, almost too impossible to consider". This bonus basically eradicates that penalty and allows Bards to make regular rolls for impossible lies. However, I don't think that dropping the bonus to +10 would be too powerful. But hey, maybe I'm missing something here. If there's a reason for such a high bonus, I'd love to know what it is.
On a related note: I prefer the more in-depth description of the Bluff skill that was in the original SRD. I also believe that the description in the Beta document is a little oversimplified. Finally, I think that it needs to be made clear that some lies really are completely impossible (i.e. telling someone that the sky is red when it is clearly blue) and will automatically fail no matter how high your Bluff skill is.
And I still believe that Reincarnate is more broken the Glibness.
I agree that this is a counter to Discern Lies, however compare:
Discern Lies
4th level cleric / 3rd level paladin
Duration: 1 rnd per level concentration
Detect lies when concentrating.
Glibness
3rd level bard
Duration: 10 minutes per level (100 times longer duration)
Gives ability to avoid lies(even magical detection of said lies), gives +30 (or potentially revamped +20) to bluff skill, stacks wtih your own bluff skill, and the only limitation is that it can't be used for several abilities that most characters dont' use it for anyway. And can be used repeatedly on the same target for the entire duration.
Picture this, 7th party encounters a (insert nearly any level of BBEG) on the side of a volcano (for whatever reason) the bard opens up with glibness.
BBEG: What did you just do?
Bard: Nothing important.
BBEG: oh ok...well prepare do die scum
Bard: You don't want to fight us, we aren't the droids you are looking for.
BBEG: ...you aren't? hmmm I guess you are kinda pathetic and hardly worth my attention.
Bard: Thats right, we are completely harmless. Hey, say the water over there looks warm, you were just thinking about having a swim weren't you?
BBEG: Swim?!?! Thats laval!! I'd die instantly!!!
Bard: ohhh you must be the weak willed BBEG, thats a paltry illusion, its actually a healing lake and the guardian puts an illusion over it to protect it from people like you. If you go swim in the lake, you will become immortal!!
BBEG: hmmmm, a swim DOES sound nice....
Again, using 'common sense' this is rediculous. But by the rules as they are written, its completely feasable. And the above example has no finesse whatsoever, a player with some real skill to weave in real truth with falsehoods, and all I can say is all the bad guys better be deaf and pray the bard doesn't gain a helm of telepathy.
jasharen wrote: Gives ability to avoid lies(even magical detection of said lies), gives +30 (or potentially revamped +20) to bluff skill, stacks wtih your own bluff skill, and the only limitation is that it can't be used for several abilities that most characters dont' use it for anyway. And can be used repeatedly on the same target for the entire duration. The reason it has such a long duration is because it is a "buff" spell. But unlike a typical combat spell, it's not likely that you're going to be able to get to the target you want to use it on within 1 minute/level. And I'll once again reiterate that if you drop the bonus to +10 or remove the bonus altogether, it becomes a much more manageable and reasonable spell.
Sueki Suezo wrote: jasharen wrote: Gives ability to avoid lies(even magical detection of said lies), gives +30 (or potentially revamped +20) to bluff skill, stacks wtih your own bluff skill, and the only limitation is that it can't be used for several abilities that most characters dont' use it for anyway. And can be used repeatedly on the same target for the entire duration. The reason it has such a long duration is because it is a "buff" spell. But unlike a typical combat spell, it's not likely that you're going to be able to get to the target you want to use it on within 1 minute/level. And I'll once again reiterate that if you drop the bonus to +10 or remove the bonus altogether, it becomes a much more manageable and reasonable spell. I agree completely, reduce the bonus to +10 and leave the rest of the spell as is, and I would be comfortable with it. Its still an extremely nice spell, but not 'broken'.
Either that or a +20 Skill check, that does not stack in any way would also work. Eventually the spell would only be useful for its protection from lie detection, but again by that level it will still be useful. Either approach works.
Hopefully someone is looking at this and taking it to heart.
Recent threads in Playtest Reports
|
