RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What I said is that an impossible lie takes a -20 penalty - this is straight out of RAW. So, if you have grief with this fact, take it up with the game designer. Does that mean that all impossible lies take a -20 penalty? Can you, for example, tell a person "you're paralyzed" and have them instantly fall over, unable to move? No. Nor did I say it could.
The example in 3X for an impossible lie which can be believed is "I am a Lammassu".
And some lies are too impossible, RAW.
I called it a god mode skill not him.
My point is simply that the power of the bluff skill varies greatly based on the DM. Some DM won't let you do more than feint in combat with it. Other DMs will let you use it to convince an entire village to jump off a cliff.
Based on your attitude earlier in the thread that it can do the impossible and that it is an acceptable replacement for diplomacy, you have a DM who is very lenient on what you can do with bluff. this makes the skill more powerful for you that is would be for most other players.
It can do a lot of things that diplomacy can't do and diplomacy can do a lot of things that bluff can't do and there is a lot of things that both can do.
What I said is that an impossible lie takes a -20 penalty - this is straight out of RAW. So, if you have grief with this fact, take it up with the game designer. Does that mean that all impossible lies take a -20 penalty? Can you, for example, tell a person "you're paralyzed" and have them instantly fall over, unable to move? No. Nor did I say it could.
The example in 3X for an impossible lie which can be believed is "I am a Lammassu".
So we agree that bluff cannot take the place of diplomacy.
A good face will have both. Further, a good face will also have sense motive to know when they are being lied to.
A sorcerer with just bluff cannot take the place of a proper party face.
Also your analysis ignores that bluff is an opposed roll.
You said that with a +15 modifier and some evidence manufactured via magic, you can easily get someone to believe an impossible lie.
Lets say your manufactured evidence gets you the maximum bonus of +10.
With a +15 skill modifier, you have a net +5 modifier.
That means you have a 75% chance to convince a commoner with +0 sense motive of your impossible lie. If you are trying to convince a group of 5 commoners, they each get a sense motive roll. There is a 76% chance that one of them is going to beat you.
Now make the target a level 5 cleric with an 18 wisdom and max sense motive(5 + 3 + 4) +12, and you have have a 15% chance of convincing them of your impossible lie. You only have a 85% chance to convince the cleric of something that is merely unlikely with the best manufacturered evidence you can get.
Further, any target with ranks in spellcraft has a chance to recognize your manufactured evidence is a spell if they see you cast it. Knowledge(Arcana) will let them recognize the obvious effects of a spell. Finally, they get a will save if they actually interact with the illusion. Any one of these will negate your +10 bonus, and probably make your target suspicious giving them a circumstance bonus to their sense motive.
Without spellcraft, you have no way on knowing that the spell your bluff target just cast was discern lies.
Logic still not completely convincing me. Just because the Still Spell and Silent Spell feats individually provoke AoO, doesn't mean they do when combined. When you cast a still spell, it can still be heard. When you cast a silent spell, it can still be seen. When you combine them, what clue do you have that a spell is being cast and the caster's concentration is down? Is the combination addressed specifically in the rules, or just the individual feats? Again, we're talking about a two-feat combination, which should be pretty potent.And we're not talking about not being able to attack the wizard with a sword, just about whether the fighter gets an extra attack based on the perception of an opening, which is how I understand AoO. Can the opening, in this situation, realistically be perceived? In final analysis, I would say yes, it could, but it wouldn't be automatic. I'd call for a Perception skill check in order to get off the AoO, perhaps with a target somewhere between 15-20.
Spell-like abilities have no verbal, somatic, or material components. In fact, a demon casting a silent, stilled fireball with eschew materials would look identical to that demon using a fireball spell-like ability. If anything, a sorcerer would be MORE likely to provoke because their silent, stilled fireball would be a full round action where a wizard or spell-like ability would only be a standard action.
From the Table: Special Ability Types
Spell-Like Ability, Attack of Opportunity, YesSpell-like abilities do provoke AoOs, period. Nowhere in the rules does is state that you need a perception check to make that AoO.
As I stated earlier, my assumption has always been that, in triggering a spell-like ability, the creature must make some sort of motion or sound or give some clue as to what it is doing, which gives some logic to the rule that it provokes an AoO. I do like to assume there is some logic beyond game balance and arbitrariness behind the rules. You're welcome to just follow the RAW, of course. If you want to say that what I came up with is a house rule, fine, but I think it is consistent with the the intent of the rules.
As I stated earlier, my assumption has always been that, in triggering a spell-like ability, the creature must make some sort of motion or sound or give some clue as to what it is doing, which gives some logic to the rule that it provokes an AoO. I do like to assume there is some logic beyond game balance and arbitrariness behind the rules. You're welcome to just follow the RAW, of course. If you want to say that what I came up with is a house rule, fine, but I think it is consistent with the the intent of the rules.
Usually, a spell-like ability works just like the spell of that name. A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spell-like ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somatic component.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerers do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spell-like abilities and actual spellcasting power.
Paralyzed
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.
SLAs are purely mental actions. You can activate SLA even when paralyzed. Oddly enough, by the RAW, you would provoke when activating a SLA while paralyzed.
If you are having creature make gestures to let the player know what is coming, that is a something the creature is doing for dramatic effect. No gestures or words are required to activate the ability.
It is the lapse in concentration that provokes the AoO.
Look at it in reverse, if I flail my hands around and gesture wildly like I am casting a spell, do I provoke an AoO?
As I stated earlier, my assumption has always been that, in triggering a spell-like ability, the creature must make some sort of motion or sound or give some clue as to what it is doing, which gives some logic to the rule that it provokes an AoO. I do like to assume there is some logic beyond game balance and arbitrariness behind the rules. You're welcome to just follow the RAW, of course. If you want to say that what I came up with is a house rule, fine, but I think it is consistent with the the intent of the rules.** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Good example of why I am not a great RAW devotee.
I would actually say that the point is that it does not fit an "role" even though some roles such as party face can be subsumed in a character that can easily do other things. The problem being that since it does not fit into a role someone else in the party is going to have to pick up the slack that the sorcerer is leaving everywhere but in the "casts arcane spells role" and in picking up that slack they make the sorcerers contribution of marginal utility at best.Basically to use your analogy you are saying that the round peg you have completely fills several other holes of various shapes in addition to the round one.
I'd argue that your point is flawed.
For example, assume the party has a Paladin and this Sorcerer.
The Paladin may have a great Diplomacy rank, but be not all that keen on sneaking around, using bluff, etc.
After you criticize the Sorcerer for not being a pure face, are you then going to turn around and do the same to the Paladin - even though, together, they cover all the bases?
It is for this reason that roles are among the top ten dumbest ideas in the game.
I guess I don't get this hating roles thing. You can't really have a functioning party with 4 fighters. Or 3 rangers and a Bard. I don't feel that roles are necessarily dictated by one's class; you can have a Bard or Sorcerer or Rogue or Paladin easily be the party face. But things DO need to get done. Monsters need to be murdered, traps need to be disarmed, information needs to be gathered, wounds need to be healed, etc.
The problem with your sorcerer is really only in a small-ish party. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are 6 players at the table. A TH half-orc falchion fighter, an archer Ranger, an Inquisitor, a healing domain Cleric, a combat maneuver focused Monk and your sorcerer. Exactly what does your sorcerer bring to the party? At the level we've given (5th). The inquisitor and cleric have the healing and social skills down pretty solid. You have, with identify, still less of a chance to identify a magic item than those two either. You have no knowledge skills, and you can't disarm traps. Those are the holes in that party.
It seems your character is pretty selfish, none of your abilities really help the party, other than potentially Invis.
I would actually say that the point is that it does not fit an "role" even though some roles such as party face can be subsumed in a character that can easily do other things. The problem being that since it does not fit into a role someone else in the party is going to have to pick up the slack that the sorcerer is leaving everywhere but in the "casts arcane spells role" and in picking up that slack they make the sorcerers contribution of marginal utility at best.Basically to use your analogy you are saying that the round peg you have completely fills several other holes of various shapes in addition to the round one.
I'd argue that your point is flawed.
For example, assume the party has a Paladin and this Sorcerer.
The Paladin may have a great Diplomacy rank, but be not all that keen on sneaking around, using bluff, etc.
After you criticize the Sorcerer for not being a pure face, are you then going to turn around and do the same to the Paladin - even though, together, they cover all the bases?
It is for this reason that roles are among the top ten dumbest ideas in the game.
No, i would argue that Diplomacy and sense motive are more important for a party face than bluff. As I said earlier, diplomacy gives you long term benefits of improved relationships. Bluff gives you a short advantage. I have had plenty of groups where no on in the group had ranks in bluff. We had several people with sense motive and diplomacy though.
i would argue that Diplomacy and sense motive are more important for a party face than bluff.I wouldn't.
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against those who intend to hurt you in the immediate future.
And it's effects only generally last 1d4 hours. Certainly, the effects of Bluff can last that long. Bluff can potentially last quite longer than that (eg. "I just poisoned you. You'll be dead in a week. I have the antidote and will give it to you if you do X.")
You can't gather information with Bluff. Bluff doesn't increase a creature's attitude toward you, and likely will only piss it off. Diplomacy isn't an opposed check. Etc etc.
|
Roles are similar to classes, which are similar to archetypes. IF you don't like roles, classes, or archetypes, you should look into some skill-based games.
Sorcerers are less effective than wizards in my opinion for two general reasons.
First is slower spell access.
Second is increased casting times with metamagics.
Can you build a good sorcerer around these issues? Yeah, sure. You can build a good wizard around them too, but the wizard doesn't need to be built around them.
The wizards greatest weakness is his spellbook. It can be somewhat mitigated with the spell mastery feat. Unfortunately, there isn't a feat that mitigates the increased casting time for metamagics, or that gives sorcerers earlier spell access.
I still say that the action would provoke an attack of opportunity, but is not a "detect spell casting" power. There are lots of things which provoke attacks of opportunity and only through metagaming of the most egregious sort could the player determine that the AoO was the result of a spell casting attempt.
I'm thinking it's more of the Barbarian not having "detect spell casting" power either, but instead is waiting until the caster "does something I don't understand." With no Spellcraft or K (Arcane) they have to guess from the clues they can detect. A caster dropping their guard is a BIG clue.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
And the fact is that some lies may be too impossible, subject to the DM.
Here's another rule log for the fire.
The Legend Lore spell says, "As a rule of thumb, characters who are 11th level and higher are 'legendary,' [...]"
If I'm going to lie to some peasant I'd expect a little bang for my buck if I'm halfway to being a legend.
OTOH, choose your lies carefully. If the dupes believe you when you say, "Settle down or I'll melt your skin off," might make them say, "Aaaaahh! Kill th' witch quick afore 'e git us!" (cue pitchforks and scythes)
You might want to look into Intimidate for that. Getting someone to believe what you say and getting them to react in a particular way are two surprisingly different things.
I still say the AoO has nothing to do with whether the caster is doing something the Barbarian doesn't understand and everything to do with the Barbarian sensing when the caster has his guard down.
I thought that's what I said.
I'm thinking it's more of the Barbarian not having "detect spell casting" power either, but instead is waiting until the caster "does something I don't understand." With no Spellcraft or K (Arcane) they have to guess from the clues they can detect. A caster dropping their guard is a BIG clue.I still say the AoO has nothing to do with whether the caster is doing something the Barbarian doesn't understand and everything to do with the Barbarian sensing when the caster has his guard down.
Which has no basis in the rules, otherwise SLAs wouldn't provoke AoO.
Also, roles have been there since 1974.
I thought that's what I said.I guess I misunderstood you. You said the Barbarian is "is waiting until the caster "does something I don't understand". I say the Barbarian is waiting for the caster to drop his guard".
The SRD actually defines attacks of opportunity as such, "Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity."
This brings to mind Casting on the Defensive. You don't drop your guard, but defending youself while trying to focus on casting means you have to make a concentration check. If you succeed there's no AoO, and the barbarian genuinely has no clue that you were doing anything but dancing around like a clothie. I don't think I'd even allow a perception roll without a very good reason, the Disruptive feat comes to mind.
|
I haven't read every single post on here so I don't know if someone has already brought this up but Wizards have always held the advantage over Sorcerers.
Each time a new book comes out the Wizard can technically purchase any of those spells he wants. The Sorcerer has to wait a level, but can't obtain more than the Wizard can.
I have always found that some people play a sorcerer because it's easier to keep up with. Sure it's frustrating at times trying to decide what spell you will get the most use out of, but you don't have to worry about swapping spells on a daily basis.
Personally I have always played Wizards and they are my favorite class.
By RAW and RAI a stilled silenced spell provokes. If the two could be combined to ignore an AoO it would be stated.
Also from the 3.5 FAQ:
A spell-like ability is essentially a spell without verbal,
somatic, or material components (and is described on page 180
of the Player’s Handbook as being activated “mentally”) so
that qualifies as purely mental. This would also include psi-like
abilities.
This bolded area is important because it describes a stilled silenced also. Before the "3.5 isn't pathfinder" argument comes up, the wording of the these feats has not changed, therefore the meaning behind them has not changed.
Also from the PRD
The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can't use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device.
Metamagic feats that eliminate components of a spell don't eliminate the attack of opportunity provoked by casting a spell while threatened. Casting a spell modified by Quicken Spell does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Remember when on the boards with other posters you have to go by RAW so everyone does not bring in their houserules. You can fluff SLA's and spells however you like, but a silenced stilled still provokes since casting puts your guard down, and as for readying an action, the game does not require any type of skill check to determine if someone is casting a spell.
By RAW whatever advantage LT was trying to give to her sorcerer with the argument is gone. When a rule is listed you have to list the exception to the rule in order for it to be a fact. No such exception can be quoted because no such exception exist.
As far as the cosmopolitan feat you the PRD should be the source, not a random SRD, but if the people building the wizard are willing to accept it there is not much I can say about that.
As far as the bluff versus diplomacy argument. I would think diplomacy would work better in most cases since you are trying to get someone to like you. A lie might never be discovered, but your lie won't make me like you any more, and if I did not like you before I still probably still wont like you the next time.
PS: I am sure there are exceptions to this rule such as if you pretend to rescue the king's daughter when someone else really did all the work.
You do know that the Wizard has to pay for his spells (as scrolls), pay for his spell books (which will most likely be blessed books), and pay for the wards on his spell books, right? All of which reduce the gold that would otherwise be spent on magical items - such a reduction being something that the Sorcerer doesn't have to deal with.I haven't read every single post on here so I don't know if someone has already brought this up but Wizards have always held the advantage over Sorcerers.
Each time a new book comes out the Wizard can technically purchase any of those spells he wants. The Sorcerer has to wait a level, but can't obtain more than the Wizard can.
I have always found that some people play a sorcerer because it's easier to keep up with. Sure it's frustrating at times trying to decide what spell you will get the most use out of, but you don't have to worry about swapping spells on a daily basis.
Personally I have always played Wizards and they are my favorite class.
Those are all minor expenses, and still cheaper than all the wands you have bought. For the same price you paid for 3 (largely useless) wands, a wizard could have every 1st and most 2nd level spells in the book.
And then just craft scrolls of all of them and have every single one handy at the drop of a hat. I mean, it's really not that expensive.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Casting a spell provokes attacks of opportunity.
Argument over.
As to this nonsense about whether someone can tell if you're casting a spell or not, perhaps not. But they know you're doing SOMETHING. Something weird.
|
|
By RAW and RAI a stilled silenced spell provokes. If the two could be combined to ignore an AoO it would be stated.
Also from the 3.5 FAQ:
A spell-like ability is essentially a spell without verbal,
somatic, or material components (and is described on page 180
of the Player’s Handbook as being activated “mentally”) so
that qualifies as purely mental. This would also include psi-like
abilities.This bolded area is important because it describes a stilled silenced also. Before the "3.5 isn't pathfinder" argument comes up, the wording of the these feats has not changed, therefore the meaning behind them has not changed.
Also from the PRD
** spoiler omitted **
The only advantages that Still Spell and Silent Spell give are listed below:
1: In an area of a Silence Spell or you can't Speak or you are Deaf.
2: You are tied up or grappled etc....
3: If you don't want to be heard.
4: Fool another caster who is trying to Identify your spell.
|
|
You do know that the Wizard has to pay for his spells (as scrolls), pay for his spell books (which will most likely be blessed books), and pay for the wards on his spell books, right? All of which reduce the gold that would otherwise be spent on magical items - such a reduction being something that the Sorcerer doesn't have to deal with.I haven't read every single post on here so I don't know if someone has already brought this up but Wizards have always held the advantage over Sorcerers.
Each time a new book comes out the Wizard can technically purchase any of those spells he wants. The Sorcerer has to wait a level, but can't obtain more than the Wizard can.
I have always found that some people play a sorcerer because it's easier to keep up with. Sure it's frustrating at times trying to decide what spell you will get the most use out of, but you don't have to worry about swapping spells on a daily basis.
Personally I have always played Wizards and they are my favorite class.
With the right Craft skills, Profession skills, and Craft feats a Wizard can have hoards of money coming in at a steady rate on top of what he finds adventuring. Realistically money is not a problem.
|
I wouldn't.Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against those who intend to hurt you in the immediate future.
This is the plague of the game. You cannot base everything on combat. D&D (Save POSSIBLY 4th ed.) and by extension Pathfinder is not all about hitting the bad guy with your sword.
Someone with proper ranks in diplomacy and playing things up right should rarely ever even NEED to engage in combat outside of the generic "Dungeon Crawl" he might decide to go on.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
Casting a spell provokes attacks of opportunity.
Argument over.As to this nonsense about whether someone can tell if you're casting a spell or not, perhaps not. But they know you're doing SOMETHING. Something weird.
We were also discussing a disrupting Readied Action.
In a world where everyone knows someone who can do magic, even if it's just the 1st level cleric at the church, most people would probably know how to go about disrupting spellcaster.
Remember the axiom: Primitive does not mean stupid.
Lets break down the clues:
- Gestures. Waving a hand around, and they only need one hand free. Pretty much self explanatory.
- Pulling weird junk out of a pouch. Ditto. (Sorcerers don't do this, mostly)
- Saying weird stuff. Depends on your game world, Clerics might invoke a prayer in the common tonuge, and in some fiction rhyming is popular. Druids might cast using Druidic.
Any of these and the caster's probably going to get the Readied Action in the face.
Less obvious clues:
- Provoking an AoO. This might look like standing still with a funny look on their face. I'd accept an Int roll / Sense Motive / a few character levels to indicate experience.
I'm having trouble deciding what would pick out a Still / Silent spell to trigger a Readied Action. Any ideas?
|
|
I'm having trouble deciding what would pick out a Still / Silent spell to trigger a Readied Action. Any ideas?
The hair on the back of the foes neck rising. Really, that is the basis in ANY number of fictional plots as far as spell casting goes. They know there is a spell being cast somewhere near them because the air is "charged" with energy.
This may seem/sound like fluff to you, and has no real grounding in RAW but this is what makes SENSE. I don't know about you guys but when I play my games I like them to feel visceral and make sense to the players. An argument saying "The rules say I can, so I can" would not fly for me or anyone I know for that matter. This touches on the powergaming/munchin mindset that some people seem to adopt whenever they are gaming.
By RAW and RAI a stilled silenced spell provokes. If the two could be combined to ignore an AoO it would be stated.
Also from the 3.5 FAQ:
A spell-like ability is essentially a spell without verbal,
somatic, or material components (and is described on page 180
of the Player’s Handbook as being activated “mentally”) so
that qualifies as purely mental. This would also include psi-like
abilities.This bolded area is important because it describes a stilled silenced also. Before the "3.5 isn't pathfinder" argument comes up, the wording of the these feats has not changed, therefore the meaning behind them has not changed.
Also from the PRD
** spoiler omitted **Remember when on the boards with other posters you have to go by RAW so everyone does not bring in their houserules. You can fluff SLA's and spells however you like, but a silenced stilled still provokes since casting puts your guard down, and as for readying an action, the game does not require any type of skill check to determine if someone is casting a spell.
By RAW whatever advantage LT was trying to give to her sorcerer with the argument is gone. When a rule is listed you have to list the exception to the rule in order for it to be a fact. No such exception can be quoted because no such...
You'd make a pretty convincing point if I had ever actually argued that a still, silenced spell doesn't provoke an AoO. Since I never did (in fact, I argued that it did provoke on AoO - not because of the casting in and of itself but because of the associated dropping of the guard), I have absolutely NO idea what your point is suppossed to be. How, -exactly- is it that "By RAW whatever advantage LT was trying to give to her sorcerer with the argument is gone."??
Minor edit: Billy Blork raises a very good point. Casting on the defensive will mean that the AoO isn't even provoked.
Are you trying to tell me I assigned an argument to you that was made by someone else? Impossible. I don't make mistakes. You can ask concerro.
With the right Craft skills, Profession skills, and Craft feats a Wizard can have hoards of money coming in at a steady rate on top of what he finds adventuring. Realistically money is not a problem.
Only if your DM allows you to sell retail. Otherwise you're selling at half price. But we've been over this in this thread. Lets move it to this thread.
Just to clear up any remaining confusion, what we are actually discussing is as follows..
Can someone detect that a caster is casting if that caster is casting a still, silent spell?
It has been argued that the AoO is a "spell casting detector". I've argued that it is not - not without an egregious amount of metagaming.
The AoO is provoked because the caster has dropped their guard, not because the caster is casting.
Likewise, an SLA provokes an AoO because the critter drops it's guard, not because of the SLA in and of itself.Billy Blork points out that, with casting on the defensive, the AoO isn't even provoked, because the guard isn't dropped. This supports the argument that it isn't casting the spell which provokes the AoO, but the associated dropping of the guard which provokes it.
So, we go back to the point I started this part of the thread with - there seems to be no rules which indicate that a person can detect a spell being cast if they don't see it or hear it and aren't being targetted by it.
All you have to do for a ready action is state the condition. Nothing is needed to know if someone is casting a spell by RAW. From a simulation point of view there should be a way to tell when a spell is being cast, but by the rules, there is no rule to detect spell casting. If there was a skill it would be spellcraft, but spellcraft only tells you what spell is cast. Maybe the intense stare of the caster lets it be known that a spell is being cast and if you can ready an action against and SLA then you can do it against a spell. RAW nothing supports your view. You would have to find a rule that supported spell casting needing a skill to be detected. Currently the rule is "state it". It being the condition you want to ready an action to attack on. See the bold sentence below.
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
As to the fluff for the silent silence spell thing it could be that maybe the caster's focus on the spell causes him to go into a blank stare, but when he is casting on defensive he is able to focus on present activities as well as the spell.
|
|
I don't believe anyone here is saying that a Sorcerer is useless by any means, but in the end the Wizard will come out on top because the Versatility of the Wizard will prevail over the Quantity of the Sorcerer.
With regards to Bluff - there are only certain circumstances that Bluff would come into play. The DM truly decides when a moment arrives that the Bluff skill can be used.
There are just certain circumstances that can happen that a Bluff check would be irrelevant, or wouldn't make sense.