|
Dammit, I fired a broadside there and now I can't even see if my shots hit the mark :/Whoah, that was the first time on these forums that I saw explicit racism. The hell... There's a first time for everything, I guess.I understand the policy to remove the posts, but I'm a bit sad I missed the show.
Oooh, tell those of us who missed it what happened.
Has anyone yet to decipher what mechanic hole Convincing Lie is filling? Unless a long, complicated, well-detailed rule explanation is provided outlining "passing on lies," Convincing Lie is entirely pointless and does nothing.
I think everyone is missing the point, here. This is an ability that modifies a dice roll, between two NPCs, with no player present. Obviously, it is meant to make your GM go insane role-playing out scenes by himself! :Dthe above is MADE OF WIN
It is both humorous and the only discernible use for the ability. Well done.
|
|
The guard is not (consciously at least) rolling a bluff check. You are effectively bluffing through him, because your lie was that good. The concept makes perfect sense. Where I agree with you is that it shouldn't be a feat, but instead, just the way that Bluff works.
No character is ever consciously rolling any check. All checks are game mechanics to resolve the activities taken by characters in a world that is real to them without any dice spinning around somewhere.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bullsh*t is still bullsh*t no matter how you dress it up. The fact that the Guard believes the story does not change the fact it is utter crap. When he retells the tall tale to his captain it is a Bluff check because the same nonsense story is being used on the captain and despite the guard believing it to be true it is still a lie (though as others have pointed out, the Bluff modifier is used but no claim is made that it is actually a bluff check)
I meet the Guard 'Excuse me old chap, I am Humperdink, cousin to the Queen, I need to quickly pop in to give her a message but I am in a rush because I have double parked my Kangeroo. Would you mind telling me exactly how I get to her room?'
The Guard may believe that story, but it is BS of the BSiest kind. When telling the Captain this tale a Bluff modifier makes sense.
---------------------------
As for the Utility Shot issue. Are you kidding? This is an ability all about style and flare. How can it be crap? Party is in a room, it's a trap! the bad guy slams the door shut and locks it, the ambush is set, you are fighting for your lives. You don't have time to get to the door and start hacking at the lock (also very uncool) enter The Jerusalem Man - the party run for the door, he pulls out his pistol and shoots the lock off and the party escape. Awesome.
Is the ability mechanically amazing? Nope. There is more to the game and abilities than their power.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you could explain that Convincing Lie provides the ability to not just tell a lie well (the initial bluff check) but to impress upon the person being lied to all the little details and facts and explanations that make the lie work. You basically don't just fast talk the guard, you make a point of getting him to remember the reason why he had never heard of the queen's brother before, and why he couldn't possibly the famed adventurer because of XYZ.
Its the difference between...
Captain of the Guard: Why did you let that man in the Royal chambers?
Guard: He said he was the Queen's brother
Captain: The queen has no brother you idiot! Don't you know anything?
Guard: But, he, oh what did he say? He did prove it.
Captain: What possible proof could he have given, you idiot?
Captain (to his other guards): Quick capture that man!
...and this...
Captain of the Guard: Why did you let that man in the Royal chambers?
Guard: He said he was the Queen's brother
Captain: The queen has no brother you idiot! Don't you know anything?
Guard: No, she really does, you see he is her half brother apparently. It happened back in King Adriel's reign and got hushed up - he had another child out of wedlock.
Captain: What? Preposterous!
Guard: No really, I didn't believe it at first, I remember thinking how could such a scandal have been covered up so well. But he explained that, you see the woman King Adriel made pregnant was a close friend of the Queen's she willing went into hiding to protect her friend from her betrayal.
Captain: Really? It sounds odd, but not totally implausible. Perhaps I should make a discrete enquiry before disturbing the queen and her brother. You did well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think everyone is missing the point, here. This is an ability that modifies a dice roll, between two NPCs, with no player present.This.
I get Utility Shot, but I can't see any point to Convincing Lie. It would be a totally wasted feat in any game I run, because I don't care how many feats you have, I'm not roll-playing out scenes that don't involve players.
That's stupid.
You don't have to roleplay it out. At most, all you need to do is roll the guard's modified bluff against the captain's sense motive, pretty much the same thing as just rolling the captain's sense motive against the rogue. You could even go for less and just say "Ok, because you have this talent, you were so convincing that the guard convinces his captain."
A good GM should have some idea how that conversation would go, so when the PCs ask the guard "what did the captain say?", you'll be able to answer them.
I think everyone is missing the point, here. This is an ability that modifies a dice roll, between two NPCs, with no player present.This.
I get Utility Shot, but I can't see any point to Convincing Lie. It would be a totally wasted feat in any game I run, because I don't care how many feats you have, I'm not roll-playing out scenes that don't involve players.
That's stupid.
You don't have to roleplay it out. At most, all you need to do is roll the guard's modified bluff against the captain's sense motive, pretty much the same thing as just rolling the captain's sense motive against the rogue. You could even go for less and just say "Ok, because you have this talent, you were so convincing that the guard convinces his captain."
A good GM should have some idea how that conversation would go, so when the PCs ask the guard "what did the captain say?", you'll be able to answer them.
I think what Gail meant is he would never be making a roll like that...period. He would decide as GM whether or not the captain was convinced with no roll whatsoever.
I think what Gail meant is he would never be making a roll like that...period. He would decide as GM whether or not the captain was convinced with no roll whatsoever.I think everyone is missing the point, here. This is an ability that modifies a dice roll, between two NPCs, with no player present.This.
I get Utility Shot, but I can't see any point to Convincing Lie. It would be a totally wasted feat in any game I run, because I don't care how many feats you have, I'm not roll-playing out scenes that don't involve players.
That's stupid.
You don't have to roleplay it out. At most, all you need to do is roll the guard's modified bluff against the captain's sense motive, pretty much the same thing as just rolling the captain's sense motive against the rogue. You could even go for less and just say "Ok, because you have this talent, you were so convincing that the guard convinces his captain."
A good GM should have some idea how that conversation would go, so when the PCs ask the guard "what did the captain say?", you'll be able to answer them.
It's possible, but it's in the same category as someone attempting to track the PCs. Either the GM rolls, as per the game mechanics (and with whatever penalties the PCs' abilities provide), or the GM decides via fiat, in which case it doesn't matter what abilities and modifiers the PCs have to help them avoid being tracked.
Here's another feat that really doesn't do much of anything as written:
Cavalry Formation (excerpt)
Benefit: You and your mount can overlap the space of mounts whose riders have this feat, although no more than two creatures can share any one square.This is worthless. A mounted character shares every square of his mount's space automatically and with no option to reduce the number of shares they share. Thus, if your mount overlaps spaces with another character's mount, you and that other characters also overlap spaces. Thus, you have four creatures in a single square.
The intent is obvious, but the editors dropped the ball on the wording.
I assume it's counting you and your mount as a single creature, because it's already an exception to the space-sharing rule. You effectively become a diffuse cloud occupying any arbitrary point in your mount's space, while not counting as being there at all. This then lets your horse share space with other horses (and you just diffuse right through the other rider's diffused self too).
Here's another feat that really doesn't do much of anything as written:
Cavalry Formation (excerpt)
Benefit: You and your mount can overlap the space of mounts whose riders have this feat, although no more than two creatures can share any one square.This is worthless. A mounted character shares every square of his mount's space automatically and with no option to reduce the number of shares they share. Thus, if your mount overlaps spaces with another character's mount, you and that other characters also overlap spaces. Thus, you have four creatures in a single square.
The intent is obvious, but the editors dropped the ball on the wording.
Not necessarily. Remember a horse is 1x2 squares. So you could have one horse doing this:
**
and another doing this:
*
*
And the feat would allow them to do this:
**
*
with the upper left corner of the formation shared by two horse, the upper right shared by horse 1 and rider, and the lower left shared by horse 2 and rider.
If the captain knows that [for a fact] that the queen doesn't have a half brother then he gets a +100 on his sense motive skill check modifier. I'll fill out the other values for you. These are off the top of my head.If the captain Knows, via some semi-divine ability to perceive absolute truths such that he has read the queen's mind, determined that she was not hidden the story of her long lost half brother from him, he has a list of every single person her father boinked and the knowledge of genetics to identify all such children of said father as not really being his, and exactly how many children the Queen's mother bore, then yes, he should absolutely get a +100 on his sense motive skill check. He's a god (or more powerful still - the DM!).
But, if the captain has been told the queen doesn't have a half brother, and knew her family while she was growing up and didn't witness any half-blooded children, then sure, give the guy a +20 bonus on the Sense Motive check. Also, buy yourself a trophy for being the biggest ball-busting DM on the block.
Now, if we're talking about a fact that's extremely difficult to hide and easy to verify (e.g., trying to convince a vampire that it's not really sunny outside, despite the nearby open window), that's a different story. But whether the Queen does or does not have a half brother is not even in the same zip code of obvious lies.
I've been in games where people have tried this, and gotten angry when it was turned down by the DM because it's patently ridiculous. I'm sure there are a wagonload of people out there in the world who will try to do the same with this new ability.
Not necessarily. Remember a horse is 1x2 squares. So you could have one horse doing this:
**
and another doing this:
*
*And the feat would allow them to do this:
**
*with the upper left corner of the formation shared by two horse, the upper right shared by horse 1 and rider, and the lower left shared by horse 2 and rider.
Ah, no. Actually, not one single statement in this post was true.
Horses are Large creatures and are thus 2x2 squares. There is no 1x2 space in Pathfinder, and wasn't one in 3.5, either.
Riders occupy all squares of their mounts. If a medium Human Cavalier is riding a Large horse, the cavalier occupies all 2x2 squares of the horses's space.
Thus, there is no possible configuration where two cavaliers' mounts could overlap where the cavaliers would not also overlap.
Huh. You are right - I have been doing it wrong for a long time. I blame the people who taught me to play...
Not necessarily. Remember a horse is 1x2 squares. So you could have one horse doing this:
**
and another doing this:
*
*And the feat would allow them to do this:
**
*with the upper left corner of the formation shared by two horse, the upper right shared by horse 1 and rider, and the lower left shared by horse 2 and rider.
Ah, no. Actually, not one single statement in this post was true.
Horses are Large creatures and are thus 2x2 squares. There is no 1x2 space in Pathfinder, and wasn't one in 3.5, either.
Riders occupy all squares of their mounts. If a medium Human Cavalier is riding a Large horse, the cavalier occupies all 2x2 squares of the horses's space.
Thus, there is no possible configuration where two cavaliers' mounts could overlap where the cavaliers would not also overlap.
It's more like this:
Two horses, side-by-side, with riders:
aa OO
aa OO
Two horses sharing space with this feat:
a@O
a@O
The riders don't count at all.
"For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat." - Mounted Combat
That's the only rule words on the issue. For simplicity it is assumed, not guarantied. Yes in game language the feat is not well written. However a Medium creature can still only occupy one space leaving 3 to be filed.
I removed some posts. Let sleeping drama lie.
Let sleeping drama lie.Must...
Resist...
Urge...
To quote...
Hamlet
Nothing wrong with Hamlet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing wrong with Hamlet.
Oh come on. His father dies under mysterious circumstances, his uncle marries his mom before the body is cold, and that doesn't hint at "My uncle did it?"
On top of that, his father's ghost comes back in front of 20 witnesses says "Your uncle murdered me". follow this up with 2 hours of goth rage "whoa is me what do i do i want the world to end before i have to DECIDE something" before he hints on a ridiculously circuitous plot that gets him his cousin, his mother, and (at least) his uncle killed. He isn't holding the idiot ball he's holding the idiot moon. The play should have taken 5 minutes "Alright you 20 armsmen, my dad over there said my uncle killed him. Who's guarding the king next tuesday.. Bob.. good.. Garth.. you. Excelent. Execute the king for the murder of my father and there's some large tracts of land in it for you when i replace him"
|
The playtest of the gunslinger was essentially a bad joke. The writers already knew they wanted a lame class and weren't open to making it worthwhile.]
Sadly, this was brought up in the playtest and nothing was done of it.
Lame class? A pistolero with a double barreled pistol is probably the strongest damage dealer in the whole game, dealing more than 600 points of damage per round at 16th level against opponents with a touch AC of 23 or lower (which includes most monsters).
|
|
Lame class? A pistolero with a double barreled pistol is probably the strongest damage dealer in the whole game, dealing more than 600 points of damage per round at 16th level against opponents with a touch AC of 23 or lower (which includes most monsters).A fair bit less when you take into account misfires. Double pistols are kind of insane, though.
Pistolero. No misfire. Same goes for musket masters. Normal gunslingers are underwhelming, though.
|
Pistolero. No misfire. Same goes for musket masters. Normal gunslingers are underwhelming, though.
I will admit that I didn't even bother to read the archetypes of a class that felt so lame.
Having gone back I am still not impressed. Levels 1-12 represent at least 90% of most of the characters I play (and 100% of any characters in PFS). Therefore getting rid of misfire at level 13 does not change my opinion of the class.
|
|
I will admit that I didn't even bother to read the archetypes of a class that felt so lame.
Pistolero. No misfire. Same goes for musket masters. Normal gunslingers are underwhelming, though.
The Pistolero is extremely powerful and the Musket Master is better than the standard gunslinger. Gun Tanks and Mysterious Stranger are at least as bad as the vanilla gunslinger.
Compared to the Pistolero, the Musket Master is a bit underwhelming.With Signature Deed (Up and Close), the Pistolero does more damage than the Musket Master and Double Barreled Muskets have an miserable range increment, less than the Double Barreled Pistol.
strongest damage dealer in my opinion is the vivisectionist+beastmorph, do well over 1000 damage in the first round.
However the damage might be a little circumstantial, it mainly reques flat-footedness and sneak attack and nonlethal weapon.
However the damage is very far from optimized and could get a good +hit, or brilliant energy for a near sure hit.
still, hit someone unconscious for 1-2 months is damn funny.
|
|
Even with a normal pistol, 300+ points of damage is adequate for a 16th level character.
A 20th level Pistolero with two Double Barreled Pistols (and a glove of storing and a weapon cord for reloading), would be able to deal more than 1100 points of damage on average per round. Considering that even a CR 25 opponent like treerazer has less than 600 hp, it's pretty pointless.
|
|
If the captain knows that [for a fact] that the queen doesn't have a half brother then he gets a +100 on his sense motive skill check modifier. I'll fill out the other values for you. These are off the top of my head.If the captain Knows, via some semi-divine ability to perceive absolute truths such that he has read the queen's mind, determined that she was not hidden the story of her long lost half brother from him, he has a list of every single person her father boinked and the knowledge of genetics to identify all such children of said father as not really being his, and exactly how many children the Queen's mother bore, then yes, he should absolutely get a +100 on his sense motive skill check. He's a god (or more powerful still - the DM!).
But, if the captain has been told the queen doesn't have a half brother, and knew her family while she was growing up and didn't witness any half-blooded children, then sure, give the guy a +20 bonus on the Sense Motive check. Also, buy yourself a trophy for being the biggest ball-busting DM on the block.
Now, if we're talking about a fact that's extremely difficult to hide and easy to verify (e.g., trying to convince a vampire that it's not really sunny outside, despite the nearby open window), that's a different story. But whether the Queen does or does not have a half brother is not even in the same zip code of obvious lies.
There's a great book by Jason Stanley called "Knowledge and Practical Interests". His key claim is that knowledge ascriptions are evaluated relative to how much is at stake in terms of practical interests. Suppose you roughly know that it's 3pm. You meet two people, the first one wants to blow some time and thinks he MIGHT want to see a movie; recalling loosely that one starts at 3.15 he asks whether you know the time, and if so, whether you can tell him. You answer him that he's in time for the movie and yes, that you know that it's just around 3pm.
The second person you meet is running down the street, he's trying to catch a train at the station which leaves at 5 past 3. He asks you whether you know the time (because, if it's past 3 he might as well give up running), and you answer "I think it's around 3, but I honestly don't know".
And the same applies to the guard example above. The junior guard says that it might not be wise to ask the queen whether she has actually a brother - the sort of indecent question that's not quite within the guard's pregorative to ask, given matters of etiquette. HOWEVER. The queen's very own security is at stake. It's perfectly ok for both guards to conclude that since they don't KNOW if the man before them IS the queen's brother, it makes MUCH more sense to compromise etiquette and discretion. A disgruntled queen is preferable to one whose security you have compromised.
In other words, the +100 skill bonus on the guard's opposed Sense Motive check is perfectly called for.
Lame class? A pistolero with a double barreled pistol is probably the strongest damage dealer in the whole game, dealing more than 600 points of damage per round at 16th level against opponents with a touch AC of 23 or lower (which includes most monsters).The playtest of the gunslinger was essentially a bad joke. The writers already knew they wanted a lame class and weren't open to making it worthwhile.]
Sadly, this was brought up in the playtest and nothing was done of it.
How does one reload without a free hand?
|
|
How does one reload without a free hand?Lame class? A pistolero with a double barreled pistol is probably the strongest damage dealer in the whole game, dealing more than 600 points of damage per round at 16th level against opponents with a touch AC of 23 or lower (which includes most monsters).The playtest of the gunslinger was essentially a bad joke. The writers already knew they wanted a lame class and weren't open to making it worthwhile.]
Sadly, this was brought up in the playtest and nothing was done of it.
The above pistolero has a free hand. As for TWF pistoleros, weapon cord plus glove of storing.
And most Adventure Paths don't end at 12th level.
How does one reload without a free hand?
Great. Now every Pistelro is going to take 2 levels of alchemist for the vestigial arm.
What area they PUTTING in that whiskey...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In other words, the +100 skill bonus on the guard's opposed Sense Motive check is perfectly called for.
If you were talking about a situation where the queen has escaped 3 dozen assassination attempts in the past week and the guards have been given a complete list that states who and who is not to visit her then maybe, maybe I can see +100 on the Sense Motive check.
But even that's pushing it. I could easily see an elaborate lie being spun by a charismatic individual about how only he, the queen's half-brother, can save her from the assassins and that the guards can't risk verifying his claim or else the assassins would make their move quickly. The guards, fearing for their jobs/lives if the assassins aren't stopped by the half-brother, may still be doubtful as to the claim (and have a bonus on their check), but could reasonably conclude that the risks are great either way (the assassins succeed if the half-brother isn't allowed in; the assissins fail if the half-brother is allowed in). Unlike the DM, the guards don't have access to the full range of information relating to the half-brothers, the assassins, etc. Furthermore, they are humans, susceptible to having their emotions manipulated, their fears exploited and, most commonly, just not making the correct and optimal decision. The only way you arrive at a scenario with a +100 to the check is when you manufacture it in an absurd way where the bluffer makes stupid and easily verifiable claims and the guards are perfectly rational, capable of evaluating all risks accurately, and have some level of heightened awareness or scrutiny regarding the lie.
In the generic situation in which (a) the queen is not in any particular peril and (b) the guards just aren't that intamately familiar with her family tree, which, I submit, is the standard situation 99 out of 100 times, lying about being the queen's brother in law is not a national security crisis that will send the guards into a freak out.
If I had a DM tell me the modifier was +100 in that situation, I'd find a new table. Hell, if I had a DM tell me the modifier was +100 to the modifier to convince a vampire to go out in the sunshine, I'd be annoyed, and that is actually a situation where it could be justified.
There's no way, barring insanely contrived circumstances, that "I'm the queen's half-brother" is going to result in a +100 to the DC on a Bluff check. If it results in a +20 to the DC, that's probably the wrong answer too unless, again, the situation is ridiculously contrived (or, maybe the liar is a dwarf and the queen is an elf, and even then, creative lying can save the day ("I gots the curse what done this to me!")).
And, setting aside the realism of the situation, there's still the fact that such a game would suck ass to play in. If every NPC I encounter is perfectly rational, has access to all the information the DM has, and always makes the correct decision (aka, the decision the DM knows will have the greatest adverse effect on the players), I won't bother with diplomacy, bluff, indimidiation, etc. It's obvious at that point the DM is a dick who is playing the worst version of "me against them Pathfinder" and I would find someone capable of staying in the rules and compartmentalizing DM information from NPC information.
|
|
One aspect of a convincing lie that I believe is missing from the feat as written;
The assumption of the feat as written is that the bluffer is tricking someone, who passes on their story.
Most of the examples given have been (IMO) poor examples, as they consist of throwaway one-liners, with little if anything to back them up. If the stooge actually did go off to report such a flimsy tale, then the jig is up. They would be subjected to further questions, which they would have to deal with, using their own initiative.
The only way the feat can work as written, the only way it can be possible for the stooge to be as convincing as if the bluffer were there in person, is if the bluffer anticipates all the questions the stooge is likely to be asked later, and pre-empts them, with a web of self-supporting, semi-plausible 'evidence'.
That way, the stooge isn't just left with some pitiful excuse of "Well, he said he was the Queen's half-brother, and that's good enough for me.".
The bluffer would be building a complex cover, with several overlapping layers of redundancy, to satisfy upper levels of the heirarchy, more discriminating than some gopher at the front line.
If he's able to do this with an unwitting bystander, then why not as a way to coach a willing accomplice?
That's the part I would add.
If a factoid can pass in a soap opera (ex. half-brother noone knew the Queen had), then +100 to Sense Motive is ball busting. By RAW, An _impossible_ lie is a -20
Actually by RAW "impossible lie" has two definitions.
One is the negative 20, but is also says an impossible lie is one where the player just can't make it work by GM Fiat.
Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).
I really really wish the -20 lie had been labeled "highly improbably"
instead.PS:I thought I had posted this over 3 hours ago. I guess I for got to hit the enter button.