|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I'm reading through my pdf yesterday - good stuff, by and large, very happy with it! - and I came across two seemingly nonsensical abilities.
The first is the Gunslinger's "Utility Shot." A little mechanic for shooting locks? Is this not something you can already do? Locks are objects. They have hardness and hit points. Nothing stops me from shooting (or smashing, etc.) a lock without this class feature, right? What's the point?
The second is the "Convincing Lie" rogue talent. Basically it says: if you convince a target that your Bluff is true, they can use your Bluff modifier to convey that same lie when they relay your lie to others.
The Utility Shot is redundant at worst, but this is just a screw-up. First, Bluff never convinces anyone that the truth is a lie. Sense Motive can tell you that something isn't true, but failing your Sense Motive doesn't mean you determine a lie to be true; it just means you don't necessarily know whether or not what you heard a lie.
Second, if you understand or percieve something to be true, you aren't lying - and you don't make a Bluff check. If the rogue telling the Convincing Lie gets the guard to believe that he needs to get inside the palace because he has a secret message for the queen, and the guard believes him, he doesn't roll Bluff vs. the guard captain when he reports at the end of his shift. This ability is mechanically flawed and it's effect is pointless.
...unless I'm missing something. Thoughts?
PS: Nonsense asdie, Ultimate Combat is great so far.
Bluff is the skill used whenever you are lying. If you succeed on a Bluff you convince people you're telling the truth... because usually people do, and if you WERE telling the truth in the first place, you wouldn't need a Bluff check. It would likely be Diplomacy instead, to convince the guard you need to get inside the palace.
Convincing Lie does let that guard use your +27 Bluff check instead of his own +3 when it comes time to convince the Queen's Brigade of how he has legitimate business with Her Majesty, and they should let him pass.
You're right- it doesn't suddenly make the truth become a lie. It DOES, however, make people THINK that it is so. If the truth of the matter is I am not Sir Eustace, hyper-obscure relative of Her Majesty here in the capital to visit, but an agent of the Death's Head Assassination Society here to kill her, then a Bluff check could be used to convince a guard of that "truth."
The truth (I am an assassin) is still true, but the target of my successful bluff (the guard) thinks that the lie (I am the queen's fourth cousin thrice removed from the Carnassa branch of the family) is true, and is likely to let me in so I can speak to my long lost "relative."
When questioned about it later, that same guard gets to use my far superior Bluff check instead of his own when the Inquisitor comes calling. He repeats my lie with my mod, which is likely going to be much, much better. THAT'S what convincing lie gets you.
Bluff is the skill used whenever you are lying. If you succeed on a Bluff you convince people you're telling the truth... because usually people do, and if you WERE telling the truth in the first place, you wouldn't need a Bluff check. It would likely be Diplomacy instead, to convince the guard you need to get inside the palace.
Convincing Lie does let that guard use your +27 Bluff check instead of his own +3 when it comes time to convince the Queen's Brigade of how he has legitimate business with Her Majesty, and they should let him pass.
You're right- it doesn't suddenly make the truth become a lie. It DOES, however, make people THINK that it is so. If the truth of the matter is I am not Sir Eustace, hyper-obscure relative of Her Majesty here in the capital to visit, but an agent of the Death's Head Assassination Society here to kill her, then a Bluff check could be used to convince a guard of that "truth."
The truth (I am an assassin) is still true, but the target of my successful bluff (the guard) thinks that the lie (I am the queen's fourth cousin thrice removed from the Carnassa branch of the family) is true, and is likely to let me in so I can speak to my long lost "relative."
When questioned about it later, that same guard gets to use my far superior Bluff check instead of his own when the Inquisitor comes calling. He repeats my lie with my mod, which is likely going to be much, much better. THAT'S what convincing lie gets you.
What Garden Tool is getting at though, is that since said guard GENUINELY BELIEVES that the lie is true, the guard should not be making a bluff check to relay that info...period. If someone believes a lie is truth, they aren't bluffing when they tell someone else. Now, if changed to use your Bluff mod as their diplomacy mod, THAT would make more sense.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. The listener doesn't get to use your lie as it applies to him. The Convincing Lie ability just lets him use your modifier when he is questioned later. So, for example:
Convincing Rogue: (successfully Bluffing) Hey, let me past. I'm working for the Queen's Secret Service, I have an urgent message.
Guard: Alright, you may pass.
Later;
Guard Captain: How did this man get inside the palace?
Guard: He said he was working for the Queen, and he had an urgent message.
The problem with the above scenario is this:
The guard doesn't need to use your Bluff modifier instead of his own, because he isn't Bluffing. In the scenario described by the Convincing Lie ability, (i.e. being questioned later about your statement or story), the listener will never need to roll a Bluff check, because he isn't bluffing. He's just repeating what he believes.
An ignorant goblin who believes that fire is magic doesn't roll Bluff when he teaches his offspring that fire is, in fact, magical.
When would this ability's effect ever come into play?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Garden Tool is getting at though, is that since said guard GENUINELY BELIEVES that the lie is true, the guard should not be making a bluff check to relay that info.
I think it's supposed to work like this.
Rogue: "I'm the Queen's half brother, let me pass." *rolls great bluff*
Guard: "Ok, come right in. She's all alone upstairs."
later...
Captain: "Guard, why did you let that man pass?"
Guard: "He was the Queen's half brother."
Captain: "Idiot, the Queen doesn't have a half brother, ALARM!"
vs
Captain: "Guard, why did you let that man pass?"
Guard: "He was the Queen's half brother." *rolls your bluff*
Captain: "Oh, good job then, lets give them a bit of privacy."
-edit-
It's not that the captain thinks the -guard- is lying, it's that he thinks -you- were lying and the guard was duped. The guard convinces him that you were telling the truth.
|
So if I'm reading this right (for the Convincing Lie thing)...
Normal: Making a Bluff check convinces the initial target that what you say is true, but if that target tells others those others they are under no obligation to believe it, even if the original target whole-heartedly believes it to be truth.
Convincing Lie: Making a Bluff check convinces the initial target that what you say is true, and when they tell others they make a roll using your Bluff check which (if successful) forces the secondary target to believe as well.
As for Utility Shot, I believe the point is that Utility Shot allows you to shoot the lock and unlock it with the shot, where normally shooting it would almost certainly just jam it (unless you destroyed all/most of the surrounding material, which could take several shots with weaker weapons like Pistols).
EDIT: It seems Grick ninja'd me on the Convincing Lie thing.
That's a really great rogue ability. I see the issue that you are raising, but there's a numerical issue at play here too that is equally as important.
Say you use your Bluff with a +20 modifier to lie to the guard. The guard believes you, so he should be making a Diplomacy check from there on out, but what check he makes doesn't matter so much because he is using your Bluff MODIFIER to his roll. In essence, your +20 Bluff modifier replaces his +5 Diplomacy modifier because your story was just that good. He's not bluffing; he's using his Diplomacy skill to tell the truth, so to speak, but he's not using his numbers; he's using your Bluff modifier for the roll.
That actually works to prevent a very common problem with bluffing: once you convince the peon to let you do something, he goes and tells the higher-ups and they realise he's been duped. Now you are using your Bluff modifier (so all those ranks and your CHA and the feats and other modifiers that you've worked so hard to get) to keep anyone from ever figuring out that it's a lie.
All I can say is I want that if our party's rogue and my bard could both get that ability, no one in our game would ever know up from down.
|
|
Grick's theory sounds good, but the ability states that the guard is rolling Bluff using your modifier instead of his own. That makes no sense, because the guard would never roll Bluff just to tell the captain what happened. As far as he knows or believes, it's not a lie - he would never roll Bluff in the first place.
I like the idea behind the ability, but it makes absolutely no sense as-written. I think it was meant to "force" the guard to make a Bluff check (using your modifier) unkowingly.
Grick's theory sounds good, but the ability states that the guard is rolling Bluff using your modifier instead of his own. That makes no sense, because the guard would never roll Bluff just to tell the captain what happened. As far as he knows or believes, it's not a lie - he would never roll Bluff in the first place.
I like the idea behind the ability, but it makes absolutely no sense as-written. I think it was meant to "force" the guard to make a Bluff check (using your modifier) unkowingly.
One, is that the word for word entry from the book?
Two, what's there in the post says he uses your Bluff modifier for the roll. It doesn't say he makes a bluff check with your modifier. It says he uses your Bluff modifier for his roll. I assume this is intentionally written to sidestep the issue that he is actually using your Bluff modifier for a Diplomacy roll, if any roll would even need to be made. You are effectively allowing other people to Bluff for you, even though they don't realise that they're Bluffing.
|
Kaft is correct in the mechanical workings of the trick, at least in my interpretation of how it works.
When a rogue with this talent successfully uses
the Bluff skill to convince someone that what she is saying
is true, if that individual is questioned later about the
statement or story, that person uses the rogue’s Bluff skill
modifier to convince the questioner, rather than his own.
Bolded for emphasis. It is not saying the target uses the bluff skill, only that they use your bluff skill MODIFIER for whatever check they make to retell the lie. So yes, they believe its true so they use a diplomacy check, however, they use YOUR bluff mod to do so. Actually a pretty neat trick, narrow in scope but cool never-the-less.
Grick's theory sounds good, but the ability states that the guard is rolling Bluff using your modifier instead of his own. That makes no sense, because the guard would never roll Bluff just to tell the captain what happened. As far as he knows or believes, it's not a lie - he would never roll Bluff in the first place.
I like the idea behind the ability, but it makes absolutely no sense as-written. I think it was meant to "force" the guard to make a Bluff check (using your modifier) unkowingly.
One, is that the word for word entry from the book?
Two, what's there in the post says he uses your Bluff modifier for the roll. It doesn't say he makes a bluff check with your modifier. It says he uses your Bluff modifier for his roll. I assume this is intentionally written to sidestep the issue that he is actually using your Bluff modifier for a Diplomacy roll, if any roll would even need to be made. You are effectively allowing other people to Bluff for you, even though they don't realise that they're Bluffing.
Why would said guard be making a Diplomacy check? Every time a character speaks they are not making a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check. The guard is merely relaying information. If my roommate changes my clock, and I then later tell someone what time it is, based on said clock, I am not making a Bluff check to convince them what time it is.
|
|
Why would said guard be making a Diplomacy check? Every time a character speaks they are not making a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check. The guard is merely relaying information.
Im thinking it would be for situations like Grick discussed. As such the lie is being called into question, and the guard has to convince someone else that its true. That's a diplomacy check in my book.
As I said, its a trick that wont come into play very often, as such its a niche trick. In a city based campaign I can see it being immensely useful.
|
|
Why would said guard be making a Diplomacy check? Every time a character speaks they are not making a Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate check. The guard is merely relaying information. If my roommate changes my clock, and I then later tell someone what time it is, based on said clock, I am not making a Bluff check to convince them what time it is.
Your answer is in the title: Convincing Lie.
The target is convinced. Not merely satisfied that you might not be lying, but actually advocating your version of the truth.
To steal from above...
----------
Captain: "Guard, why did you let that man pass?"
Guard: "He said he was the Queen's half brother."
Captain: "Idiot, the Queen doesn't have a half brother, ALARM!"
----------
vs
----------
Captain: "Guard, why did you let that man pass?"
Guard: "He was the Queen's half brother."
Captain: "Idiot, the Queen doesn't have a half brother-"
Guard: "-I didn't think so either, but he really is who he says he is. We wouldn't want to make her Majesty angry, now would we?" *rolls your bluff*
----------
Just try to imagine how you might represent something you were convinced to be true. E.g.
"You might want to check out what Paizo has done with Pathfinder."
vs
"Pathfinder is the best thing to happen to D&D since Dave Arnison!"
|
|
The first is the Gunslinger's "Utility Shot." A little mechanic for shooting locks? Is this not something you can already do? Locks are objects. They have hardness and hit points. Nothing stops me from shooting (or smashing, etc.) a lock without this class feature, right? What's the point?
Can we see the text for that shot? Because it reminds me of the cowboys shooting through hangman's ropes as well. I was wondering if this was a device to do 'x' at range, where 'x' is something you could do with a small knife. Don't have the book, so I'm purely speculating. Heck, if I'm wrong, maybe houserule that in. :)
Suppose (in one of the above examples) the the Guard that let the assassin through later realizes that he is the one that let said assassin in, and is then questioned by the Guard Captain. At that point, the Guard would definitely want to roll Bluff, to avoid being the one executed for letting the assassin in.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I read Convincing Lie, I thought it was really cool. I imagined it like this:
Party Wizard: We need the Queen to believe that the King is cheating on her.
Party Rogue: I got this. (walks up to watchman, whispers into his ear. Player rolls bluff.)
Wait 3 days, during which the following scene is repeated many times:
Guard 1: I hear the King is cheating on the Queen.
Guard 2: No way! You believe that rubbish?! (rolls Sense motive)
Guard 1: I heard it, and I'm pretty sure the guy wasn't lying. (opposes Sense Motive with your Bluff mod).
it essentially allows you to lie without being present.
Rumor makes it's way to Queen, Queen gets P.O.'ed, etc. etc.
Your answer is in the title: Convincing Lie.
The target is convinced. Not merely satisfied that you might not be lying, but actually advocating your version of the truth.
To steal from above...
saving space
Just try to imagine how you might represent something you were convinced to be true. E.g.
"You might want to check out what Paizo has done with Pathfinder."
vs
"Pathfinder is the best thing to happen to D&D since Dave Arnison!"
If they now believe me, they are no longer lying and thus no Bluff check is made. If the Captain knows that the queen does not have a brother, than the bluff will not convince him otherwise(and the guard wouldn't be that likely to force the issue with the captain) without proof or something else to go on. Even then I would say he would investigate the matter. The way you put it makes it sound like convincing lie charms whoever you lie to in to feverishly trying to convince everyone else of the lie as well. This of course would require a different mechanic text.
Suppose (in one of the above examples) the the Guard that let the assassin through later realizes that he is the one that let said assassin in, and is then questioned by the Guard Captain. At that point, the Guard would definitely want to roll Bluff, to avoid being the one executed for letting the assassin in.
Yes he would, but why would he use the rogues Bluff check? At this point, he knows that it was a lie and the rogue was in fact an assassin.
|
|
I guess my point is, passing a piece of false information to someone shouldn't simply guarantee that everyone who hears the subject repeat that information will believe it completely. They're likely to Sense Motive on that person, and if you just say "the person believes it's true, the check is unopposed therefore the Sense-er of Motive must believe it to be true as well" - well, I think that's not how things work. In order for the Motive Sense-er to actually believe the lie themselves, it's got to be opposed by a bluff check.
Granted, this is all interpretation and personal preference, but in my games this would be a strong feat.
I think you guys are making to much of a really cool roleplaying feat. i think I agree with the op to an extent but the guard is not real and he is a dm creation so the feat would be more story driven.I think in a land of flying unicorns and awakened talking trees I am willing to let this one go.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they now believe me, they are no longer lying and thus no Bluff check is made.
You're missing the point of Bluff. The idea is to make someone else believe something they currently do not believe. The truth is exactly necessary. You could, for example, use Bluff to convince a madman to behave sanely: "The imaginary purple dragon wants you to put your clothes back on..."
If the Captain knows that the queen does not have a brother, than the bluff will not convince him otherwise(and the guard wouldn't be that likely to force the issue with the captain) without proof or something else to go on. Even then I would say he would investigate the matter.
Okay, first, this example is very bad for your point. How would it EVER be possible for the Captain to know that there aren't any unknown children in the family? No love children? No black sheep? Are you serious? This is medieval society we're talking about. TV wasn't invented, and neither was birth control... I'm just saying.
Second, isn't what you're describing just a feature of the DC? Convincing someone of something when they believe the opposite without proof has 'x' DC. Let the dice do the rest.
The way you put it makes it sound like convincing lie charms whoever you lie to in to feverishly trying to convince everyone else of the lie as well. This of course would require a different mechanic text.
'Advocate' doesn't mean 'feverishly charmed'. I assume someone has attempted to convince you of something in the past. Were they 'charmed'? You can disagree that I'm reading the intent of the mechanic correctly, but it might make more sense to explain your understanding of it as an alternative. Rather than simply trying to demonstrate that you'd have to be charmed to try and change someone else's mind.
| 12 people 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. Obviously, it is meant to make your GM go insane role-playing out scenes by himself! :D
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all inadmissible as hearsay!
Also, and keep in mind, this is coming from a lawyer, the definition of lying as "something which is not literally true" is a poor, flawed, easily exploited definition and one that even I wouldn't try to use with a straight face.
Here's how professionals trained in lying define the truth (for our purposes, statements that would not require a Bluff test):
The statements do not contain and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact and do not and will not omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements or facts contained herein or therein, in light of the circumstances made, not misleading.
If you insist on a hyper-technical (and overly narrow) definition of lying, (a) you're players are going to walk all over it and (b) they might as well scratch Bluff off their character sheet because it will never be used.
If you can't come up with a misleading statement that does not contradict an actual fact, you're either stupid or not trying hard enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they now believe me, they are no longer lying and thus no Bluff check is made. If the Captain knows that the queen does not have a brother, than the bluff will not convince him otherwise(and the guard wouldn't be that likely to force the issue with the captain) without proof or something else to go on. Even then I would say he would investigate the matter.
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.
Positive it's a lie +100 or auto succeed
Almost positive +30
Pretty sure +20
Skeptical or dire consequences +10
Not sure or bad consequences +5
Uneasy +2
No consequences +0
Benefits you or you want to believe it -5
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 also think some of this plays into RAI or RP, even if it is just the DM talking to himself, lol.
Sometimes there's a difference in HOW something is said as well. This is usually the first bonus trick children learn, how to manipulate words and or people so that they can get what they want. (or don't get blamed for getting what they weren't suppose to have.)
Using the example above:
"The man TOLD me he was the Queen's half-brother."
- or -
"He's the Queen's half-brother."
Also the difference between the guard sounding like an idiot slacker(who lets anyone pass) and sounding like he might know what the heck he was doing. (having made an INFORMED decision, despite being a lie)
|
. If the Captain knows that the queen does not have a brother, than the bluff will not convince him otherwise(and the guard wouldn't be that likely to force the issue with the captain) without proof or something else to go on.
Then what's the point of the bluff modifier for an Impossible lie. According to you the developers and the rules as written are wrong.
|
|
If they now believe me, they are no longer lying and thus no Bluff check is made. If the Captain knows that the queen does not have a brother, than the bluff will not convince him otherwise(and the guard wouldn't be that likely to force the issue with the captain) without proof or something else to go on. Even then I would say he would investigate the matter.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.
Positive it's a lie +100 or auto succeed
Almost positive +30
Pretty sure +20
Skeptical or dire consequences +10
Not sure or bad consequences +5
Uneasy +2
No consequences +0
Benefits you or you want to believe it -5
Well, that's well and good for your home game but the rules don't support it at all.
here's the actual rule.
when the person rolling a sense motive knows the lie is impossible, the person rolling the bluff takes a -20 to his bluff. The person rolling sense motive doesn't get a modifier. If that person bluffing still beats the sense motive roll, then the person making the sense motive is convinced despite the fact that they thought they knew it to be impossible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules also say "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."
The text you have list an impossible lie as something that can be overcome, while this text suggest a GM can say an impossible lie can't be overcome. They should have labeled the impossible lie with a -20 as highly improbable instead.
|
|
The rules also say "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."
The text you have list an impossible lie as something that can be overcome, while this text suggest a GM can say an impossible lie can't be overcome. They should have labeled the impossible lie with a -20 as highly improbable instead.
Right but, the queen has a brother that no one knew about isn't an impossble lie, royalty take mistresses all the time, and even keep legitimate children under wraps. And we're in a world where magic makes almost everything possible if highly improbable. An impossible lie where DM discretion comes in is a lie like, "I'm the virgin queens son, the reason that no one remebers me and the queen still seems to be a virgin is that a great wizard wiped everyones memory and restored her hymen." Not "I'm the queens brother, I was kept secret because at the time of my birth blah blah illigimacy blah blah rebellion blah."
Right but, the queen has a brother that no one knew about isn't an impossble lie, royalty take mistresses all the time, and even keep legitimate children under wraps. And we're in a world where magic makes almost everything possible if highly improbable. An impossible lie where DM discretion comes in is a lie like, "I'm the virgin queens son, the reason that no one remebers me and the queen still seems to be a virgin is that a great wizard wiped everyones memory and restored her hymen." Not "I'm the queens brother, I was kept secret because at the time of my birth blah blah illigimacy blah blah rebellion blah."The rules also say "Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)."
The text you have list an impossible lie as something that can be overcome, while this text suggest a GM can say an impossible lie can't be overcome. They should have labeled the impossible lie with a -20 as highly improbable instead.
I was not commenting on the unknown relative issue, just the rules issue when I noticed that impossible and "impossible" were not the same.
I do agree that the queen could have a brother nobody knew about though.
I removed a post and the replies to it. Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements.
Also, flag it and move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second is the "Convincing Lie" rogue talent. Basically it says: if you convince a target that your Bluff is true, they can use your Bluff modifier to convey that same lie when they relay your lie to others.
- I believe the purpose of this is so you can tell tall tales.
"And then i saw the zombie army, who could only be killed by being shot through the left eye, but i only had one bullet left. So i killed my horse and dragged it behind me for three days, luring them into Richochet canyon. I lined up the sights, and fired, sending my one remaining bullet through the left eye of all 800 zombies!"
I think the trick with convincing lie is it changes how the NPC retells the lie, and how the NPC reacts when faced with conflicting stories.
A really fun way to use this is in a courtroom situation. You bluff to a guy that you were with them in a tavern when a crime was committed. Your lie is so convincing that after they think about it, they start to believe that they actually did see you at the tavern. "I am sure I saw him hunkered down in the corner all night." You call them up in court, and they bluff with your modifier. Without convincing lie, they would say, "It was crowded in the tavern that night. I am sure he was there, but no, I didn't actually see him"
think of the bluff test as the quality of the lie/story, and the sense motive check not to see if the target is lieing or not, but whether or not they see through the lie.
of course the guard isn't lieing, he believes what you told him with your successful bluff check, now though, instead of the guard captain going "oh wait, the queen ain't got no brother!" you get to roll to see how well the lie holds us to his scrutiny, thus using the bluff mechanic on someone you are not even present to interact with.
a pretty cool ability if you ask me.
|
|
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.
|
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.
Dammit, I fired a broadside there and now I can't even see if my shots hit the mark :/
|
|
Grick's theory sounds good, but the ability states that the guard is rolling Bluff using your modifier instead of his own. That makes no sense, because the guard would never roll Bluff just to tell the captain what happened. As far as he knows or believes, it's not a lie - he would never roll Bluff in the first place.
I like the idea behind the ability, but it makes absolutely no sense as-written. I think it was meant to "force" the guard to make a Bluff check (using your modifier) unkowingly.
I think what is not being understood is the principle of transference at play with this ability. You tell the lie to the guard, the guard believes it, but when he tells the captain the same line you told the guard, there is another bluff check needed for the captain to buy the same story you told the guard. Without this ability the above scenario quickly comes to a halt when the guard tells the story to the captain and the captain shakes his head in exasperation at the gullibility of his guards and sounds the alarm.
You have the gist of it though :)
|
|
I guess my point is, passing a piece of false information to someone shouldn't simply guarantee that everyone who hears the subject repeat that information will believe it completely. They're likely to Sense Motive on that person, and if you just say "the person believes it's true, the check is unopposed therefore the Sense-er of Motive must believe it to be true as well" - well, I think that's not how things work. In order for the Motive Sense-er to actually believe the lie themselves, it's got to be opposed by a bluff check.
Granted, this is all interpretation and personal preference, but in my games this would be a strong feat.
I see this principle in play everyday I hop on the internet or watch "E" TV, many are the rumors both true and false that are spread by word of mouth or media. Where do these rumors originate? The original rogue (i.e. gossip monger or reporter) of course. For the sake of the example here let's say the reporter had a bluff of +20, every person who hears, believes, and spreads the rumor uses the +20 to convince others of the truth of the bluff. This happens in politics on a daily basis too, just watch any of the pundits on any of the news channels to get a full dose. :)