The bonus to Bluff checks to avoid detecting lies needs to be reduced from a +20 bonus to a +10 bonus. 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". A +20 bonus basically eradicates that penalty and allows Bards to make regular rolls for impossible lies. Given the high ranks in Bluff that a Bard is already likely to have, a +20 bonus to Bluff this lets Bards run amok in any campaign where social interaction is crucial.
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.
I also 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 what the result of your Bluff skill check is.
Finally, I believe that if you fail to deceive someone, any further checks made to deceive them should be made at a -10 penalty. The only thing that should be left to the GM's discretion is whether or not any further attempts to lie to the target are impossible or not.
Its a third level bard spell, and on top of that, all a failure to detect a lie means is that the NPC in question believes that the character is telling the truth, as they know it. It all still comes down to role playing.
A bard could cast it to convince someone they were one of Calistria's mortal children, but even of the NPC believed it, that wouldn't mean that the NPC wouldn't also think that the bard was touched in the head to actually believe it, or perhaps just incredibly stupid and trusting of some wild tale that their mother told them in their youth.
I guess maybe seeing a playtested incident where this actually caused a problem might do more to convince me that yet another spell needs a change/nerf/alteration from 3.5 baseline, instead of just assuming that its a problem based on big numbers being involved.
Edit: Because I respect what hogarth said about "no true GM" syndrome, I wouldn't be against the bluff skill pointing out that an NPC will believe that the "bluffer" believes what they are saying, not automatically that what the "bluffer" says is the absolute truth, so outrageous lies may not have the desired effect that the "bluffer" is hoping for.
Its a third level bard spell, and on top of that, all a failure to detect a lie means is that the NPC in question believes that the character is telling the truth, as they know it. It all still comes down to role playing.
As per the PRPG rules, a successful Bluff check means that you convince others that what you are saying is true. They don't believe that you believe that you think what you are saying is true - it means that they do in fact believe what you are saying is true. And as the rules are currently written, it is far too easy to make people believe impossible lies - the bonus to Bluff that Glibness provides simply further compounds the problem.
That's fine and all, and now that I reread it, it does seem that bluff is a little to broadly worded . . . why not call for the old, more carefully worded bluff skill from the SRD rather than nerfing a spell that, if the bluff skill were more carefully worded, wouldn't be a problem?
I think it's more an issue with the Bluff skill than it is with the spell Glibness. Personally, I think getting someone to believe something impossible ("You don't really exist; you're just a figment of my imagination") or even something really far-fetched ("Your boss just fired you, so you can go home now") should be much more difficult than just a -20 to your DC.
That's fine and all, and now that I reread it, it does seem that bluff is a little to broadly worded . . . why not call for the old, more carefully worded bluff skill from the SRD rather than nerfing a spell that, if the bluff skill were more carefully worded, wouldn't be a problem?
I'm calling for both. Glibness originally granted a +30 bonus to Bluff checks in the 3.0 SRD and was dropped down to +20 in the PRPG, but seeing as how "possessing convincing proof" only grants you a +10 bonus to your Bluff checks, I don't think that Glibness should grant a bonus that exceeds this modifier.
|
Its a third level bard spell, and on top of that, all a failure to detect a lie means is that the NPC in question believes that the character is telling the truth, as they know it. It all still comes down to role playing.As per the PRPG rules, a successful Bluff check means that you convince others that what you are saying is true. They don't believe that you believe that you think what you are saying is true - it means that they do in fact believe what you are saying is true. And as the rules are currently written, it is far too easy to make people believe impossible lies - the bonus to Bluff that Glibness provides simply further compounds the problem.
I don't see it as a problem that it is easy for people to believe lies. It is true to real life.
Somebody posts that George W Bush has been a closet homosexual during his presidency and some one will believe it. People are almost predisposed to believe anything that supports or is close to their own way of thinking. Tap into that and you can even convince people to believe in the opposite of what they have believed.
People are stupid and believe anything. It should be easy to lie to people.
I don't see it as a problem that it is easy for people to believe lies. It is true to real life.Somebody posts that George W Bush has been a closet homosexual during his presidency and some one will believe it.
Right, but that's implausible, not impossible. Impossible would be something like "The movie E.T. is the true story of how George W Bush came to Earth from a far-away planet and made friends with Drew Barrymore." :-)
Right, but that's implausible, not impossible. Impossible would be something like "The movie E.T. is the true story of how George W Bush came to Earth from a far-away planet and made friends with Drew Barrymore." :-)
I don't see it as a problem that it is easy for people to believe lies. It is true to real life.Somebody posts that George W Bush has been a closet homosexual during his presidency and some one will believe it.
I thought that was true. I read it on the internets!
The GM is the final arbiter. If the bard is saying things that are just too incredible to be believed, it shouldn't work.
I've never seen it abused that way, anyhoo.
I don't see it as a problem that it is easy for people to believe lies. It is true to real life.
As a Bard, you can already lie to most people fairly easily. Even with only a +10 bonus to Bluff from Glibness, a Bard can use Bluff to tell reasonably believable lies to everyone but characters of the same level that have max ranks in Sense Motives and high Wisdom scores. Toning down Glibness and tweaking the rules for Bluff simply prevents them from being able to convincingly tell impossible lies to everyone all of the time as soon as they hit 7th level.
Somebody posts that George W Bush has been a closet homosexual during his presidency and some one will believe it.
Someone out there might believe this lie, but I think most reasonable people would dismiss this notion rather quickly. But if we were to classify this as an "impossible lie" under the rules, a Bard would need to make a Bluff check at a -20 penalty to get someone to believe this statement. Assuming you have a Level 7 Bard with a 19 CHA, max ranks in Bluff, and a +10 bonus from the Glibness spell, you're going to have have a total in +24 worth of bonuses to offset the -20 penalty for telling an impossible lie. So the chances are good that most normal people will believe your lie, but characters of the same or higher level as you still have a very good chance to see through your slander.
But if the bonus for Glibness is left at +20, then you'll be able to lie with utter impunity right as soon as you hit level 7 - even to higher level characters with max ranks in Sense Motive and high WIS scores. And once again, I believe that some lies should be considered to be so far out there that they will automatically fail. For example, I don't think that a member of the President's Secret Service detail - someone that constantly monitors the President's actions to ensure his safety - would believe this lie under any circumstances.