| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis).
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
When lying, is it possible to do so concurrently with other actions? Talking is a free action, which means it can be done during other actions, and the Bluff skill says it takes at least one round to do, rather than something like "a full round action" (or any other kind of action for that matter). This leads me to believe that I could tell a lie while, say, making a full attack, for example.
What do you think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you asking and what do you plan on doing with it?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Your wife is cheating you." is within the 6 second limit of the round.
"I am the son of the king, born out of wedlock to his mad cousin that was secreted in an nunnery. I was raised by a sect of monks .... blah, blah, blah ..." isn't.
It all depend on the lie and the contest.
Why are you asking and what do you plan on doing with it?
My GM has expressed concerns about Nives' ability to use Diplomacy and Bluff during combat.
I told him that Diplomacy cannot typically be used in combat (either it takes far too long, or the enemies are too hellbent on killing me to listen).
However, lying doesn't seem to have quite the same restrictions, so I was wondering just how much I'd be able to do with it in various "active" situations.
Could I tell lies while fighting, while climbing, while taking the run action?
I think yes, but I wanted confirmation/second opinions. The one round (plus) thing seems to be less "an action spent," and more "how long it takes before you see the results of your check."
|
|
Why are you asking and what do you plan on doing with it?My GM has expressed concerns about Nives' ability to use Diplomacy and Bluff during combat.
I told him that Diplomacy cannot typically be used in combat (either it takes far too long, or the enemies are too hellbent on killing me to listen).
However, lying doesn't seem to have quite the same restrictions, so I was wondering just how much I'd be able to do with it in various "active" situations.
Could I tell lies while fighting, while climbing, while taking the run action?
I think yes, but I wanted confirmation/second opinions. The one round (plus) thing seems to be less "an action spent," and more "how long it takes before you see the results of your check."
Realistically, yes. However, I find that diplomacy seldom works in combat. Bluff can be used in combat. So a lie using the Bluff skill to feint can be no different than making a foe think that you are moving one way and then another. So, I think that you have to consider the situation and use common sense.
I'm referring to the lying aspect of the Bluff skill, rather than the Feint in Combat or Send Secret Message applications of the skill.
|
|
Given that Feint is a standard action, I'd be inclined to require you to take a standard action to use bluff in combat, especially if the purpose is to gain a combat advantage. Alternately, if you're trying to gain some sort of social advantage during combat, then I might be inclined to allow you to do it as a move, or possibly even swift action...but I'm not likely to allow you to use a free action in combat to gain any sort of advantage.
Yes, free actions can be used in combat, and the results of them may be advantageous to you...but I'd generally only allow a result in line with the amount of effort you put into it. So a free action-level effort wouldn't give you a meaningful bonus in combat, because it isn't a meaningful amount of effort.
I was thinking of using Bluff to convince the opposition of things like (A) we are not worth fighting, (B) there are higher priorities than bringing us harm at the moment, or (C) we are not who they think we are.
Just to name a few examples.
For example, when fighting the town guard, I could cry out "Hold! We are King's men! There's been a misunderstanding" or something to that effect, in order to get them to stop, or at least hesitate.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that ends combat? In order to sell that lie at my table, you'd need to be willing to REALLY sell it: step away from your opponents, lower (or even drop) your weapons, and stop threatening them, or some such obvious move. Otherwise the lie isn't believable. Something to get them to hesitate in combat (giving you a bonus of some sort)? That's a Feint. Standard action.
A good lie requires victim-participation, usually. You need to start off by saying things the mark knows to be true, to build trust and get them in an "agreeing" mindset. And then you can start by leading them on, all the while egging the victim on to agree with you. Simply saying something that isn't true isn't going to cut it. That's a lie merely by a technicality. Considering you can "bluff the truth", stating an untruth does not equate bluffing.
Lying is speaking. Bluffing is not speaking. It's not a free action.
*takes RAW and kicks it out of the window because it's useless in this situation*
I would probably give you a penalty for the combat situation (enemys are clearly not going to be inclined to listen to what you have to say while they are hellbent on killing you) and if you do anything else besides bluffing during that round, this penalty would increase dramatically.
This is based on how I understand the bluff skill.
This skill allows you to say something that is untrue and have the opponent believe that it is true.
This is not simply an act of talking.
Aside from carefully wording what you say, there is a lot more to that. When bluffing someone, you don't simply TELL the lie, you have to LIVE it.
This involves facial expressions, body language, intonation, all of which have to be faked to look "real" and make the opponent believe that you are telling the truth.
This is obviously hard if you are busy whacking someone with a sword.
To illustrate, try singing a difficult song with a completely calm and serene face while swinging around a very heavy object and jumping up and down.
THAT is, in my opinion, how difficult it is to bluff someone in the midst of combat. Of course it's doable, but you'd have to be GOOD (which Nives is, as far as I know)
If you are interested in some inspiration concerning the art of lying, i recommend "going postal" by Terry Prattchet. The main character gives some wonderfull descriptions of how lying and manipulation work.
Well I was thinking of take the total defense action, or casting a defensive buff while telling the lie, not continuing to cut the foe's head off. As a conman, it's in my interest to avoid violence.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're casting a spell while trying to convince the town guard your're not still trying to kill him? Total defense I could MAYBE see as acceptable, but not casting spells (remember, your average town guard doesn't have ranks in Spellcraft - which is not the same as 'he has no idea you're doing anything other than waving your hands around and saying weird stuff'). Also, if you're casting a spell, unless it's a silent spell, you need to talk; thus no bluffing while doing so.
I'd certainly say that a lie that you're using to end combat would be a full-round action.
If you are using it in a non-combat way it seems like the gm should be lenient. As long as you are careful you aren't trying to engineer a free action combat maneuver.
Bluff paired with disguise can make opponents to hesitate quite consistently. Which might allow you to buy some time for your allies or even yourself to kill/deal with the opponent. Ravingdork you also might want to put a couple more offensive spells on your list because as it stands the majority of your spells are defensive which your party might not like.
You're casting a spell while trying to convince the town guard your're not still trying to kill him?
Who ever said anything about trying to kill anyone? Certainly not I! I merely said "in combat."
Perhaps, my conman was caught robbing a place, or had a mark who got mad and called for the town guard, and it was the town guard who initiated the combat. I'm not even armed yet--and indeed CAN'T be as Nives doesn't carry weapons.
Ravingdork you also might want to put a couple more offensive spells on your list because as it stands the majority of your spells are defensive which your party might not like.
They've already expressed similar concerns. I think I can get by on blindness/deafness, magic missile, and major image for this one level though. After that, I gain FIVE new spells known, which ought to help augment my combat abilities.
I think his spell list is purposeful.
Meaning what? That he's built to be a competent spellcasting conman? (Which is true.) Or that I'm going out of my way to deliberately troll my own gaming group? (Which is false.)
Nicos, I'm not so much concerned about the length of time it takes to tell a lie, so much as I am whether or not I can tell the lie concurrently while taking other actions.
It wasn't taken as anything at that point, blackbloodtroll, it was merely unclear, which is why I asked for clarification.
Lying is, but not so as it would color anyones actions, beliefs or be beleiveable. That's a Bluff check, and Bluff is a Move action.
Bluff (CHA)
You know how to tell a lie.
Check: Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent's Sense Motive skill. If you use Bluff to fool someone, with a successful check you convince your opponent that what you are saying is true. Bluff checks are modified depending upon the believability of the lie.....
Action: Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round, but can possibly take longer if the lie is elaborate (as determined by the GM on a case-by-case basis).
Umm, didn't you tell us that you werent going to play this character?
Umm, didn't you tell us that you werent going to play this character?
I did say that, yes, but the more I look at that chain fighter I made, the less I want to play him. The inverse happens to be true of Nives. :-/
Also, I spoke to the GM about them at a game I was hosting this past weekend. He didn't seem nearly as upset about Nives as he did previously. What's more, he wouldn't even look at Guudrun.
Odd.
He even gave me a brief outline for how he wants to introduce Nives into the campaign (which doesn't come close to resembling any ideas I previously held), so I think maybe he's come to accept it.
Hopefully it's not just a ruse to put me at ease, kill off Nives in-game, and then force me to move on--but then again, I'm probably just being paranoid. Right?
To be honest, "Length of a Lie" really sounds like a James Bond flick.
I like it...
To be honest, "Length of a Lie" really sounds like a James Bond flick.
I like it...
At the very least, it should be a name of an event in an AP.
...
Event 007: Length of a Lie
It is the motion of the misdirection.
We are becoming silly.
On original question: if the purpose of your lie is to get someone to drop their guard (and the verbiage of it is about 6 seconds), the bluff is in all purposes a feint. With a good bit of role playing, I'd figure you'd warrant a circumstance bonus, at GM discretion.
If you're being grilled, or you're just fast talking to by time, you'll just to have to work out something with the GM.
I vaguely recall somehow using bluff to 'fascinate' non hostile creatures. But perhaps this existed only in my imagination.
You're a bard right? You can essentially do that stuff with bardic performance correct? Just a variation on presentation.
I was going to say as long as free action when I stared to think about other examples of "takes 1 round" like things in the rest of the rules. Summon Monster comes to mind right away with its casting time of "1 round". So based on that I'd be inclinded to rule Bluff to lie works the same way. It takes 1 complete round and the results of they lie are not acted upon until your next turn or later. A GM would not be obliged to change NPC actions until then, even if the fail a reactive sense motive check.
Now to the second half of this deal, the actual lie. Bluffs are highly dependent on how believable they are. Screaming "I AM JUST A LEAF ON THE WIND" the round after you stave in a foes head with your warhammer is not exactly the most believe lie. Like wise casting a purely defensive spell can be taken as hositle depending on the Role Playing context (ooh GM Fait rulings on bonus and penalties how you rub a RAW warrior raw). If magic and defensive magic is common to the culture/area then likely no biggie. If magic is taboo and feared, it could be a serious negative.
Last bit, lies are not the Suggestion spell or even Command. Just like diplomacy can be hard while someone is already out to hurt you, so to is using a lie to get them stop attacking. Much is left to GM Fait to roleplay those NPCs reactions to believing or not believing the lie. Much like picking a fight with a guy who comfortably uses a 12 foot hunk of metal that kind of has a passing resemblance to a sword, why would do so in the first place?
403 Forbidden
Anyone else? Seems to work for me.
I was thinking it was the depth of the lie.
"Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion)"
OotS is funny and good a poking fun at the holes in 3.5 rules but sometimes can be a bit over the top. At least two examples from those strips would very likely fall under the above catch all.
*edit, worked on my iPad.*
Not something you can do in a free action during combat. That's just plain against the rules.
Not something you can do in a free action during combat. That's just plain against the rules.
The literal wording of the rules is that "Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round," but it does not say that deceit takes a move action, a standard action, or a full-round action. A feint is a standard action, but that is a particular form of bluff check.
Thus, I would treat it as requiring time but not actions. Talking to communicate the bluff would take a free action, and playacting out the bluff might take standard or move actions, but the bluff can be concurrent.
GM: The guard sees through your peasant disguise. "Hey, you're Nives, one of those adventurers from the Shady Corner Tavern."
RAVINGDORK: How'd he manage that on a Take 10?
GM: Make a Perception roll.
RAVINGDORK: 15.
GM: You recognize him as a regular at the Shady Corner. You are a familiar face to him.
RAVINGDORK: I move away from Borick the Bold. I want to Aid Another on Borick's disguise check, by taking the guard's eye off of him. And I bluff, "Sir, I don't know this Knives fellow. My brother and me, we come from Bluewillow."
GM: Your Aid Another is giving you a -2 to your bluff, because you aren't cowering like most peasants. Okay, roll the aid and the bluff.
It makes sense to me that Nives could do the Aid Another and the bluff at the same time, just like he could make that Perception check as a non-action, too.
The literal wording of the rules is that "Attempting to deceive someone takes at least 1 round," but it does not say that deceit takes a move action, a standard action, or a full-round action. A feint is a standard action, but that is a particular form of bluff check
As I said in a prior post there are examples of things that take 1 round.
A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed.
....
When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the casting is complete, you lose the spell.
So if you're looking for a definition of what "at least 1 round" looks like there it is. 1 round is a full round action that comes into effect just before the start of your next turn.
So you are citing an example that specifically states you need to spend a full round action?
I don't see how that supports your case as the Bluff skill has no similar language in it.
Any time I have attempted this kind of action in the past, it was coupled with total defense, or simply not attacking. A full attack may detract from your story. I know thus doesn't help with RAW ruling.
Okay here is another case where 1 round is linked with needing a Full Round action, Disable Device.
Even from the combat section...
When the rules refer to a “full round”, they usually mean a span of time from a particular initiative count in one round to the same initiative count in the next round.
Which you can take the other way, if something requires 1 round to do then it takes a Full Round action and is completed just before the next initiative count. The bluff rules state clearly that the default use of bluff "takes at least 1 round". You can't gainsay that.
I would counter you setzer9999 by saying that a GM is free to let a Bluff take less time then 1 round if the sitution is appropriate.
Words have that consequences (tangible game changing effects) in the majory take an action beyond a free actions. Diplomacy and even Intimidate both require longer then just yelling "I will kill you if you don't help us." Fairly clear but isn't going to make the other persons Friendly and helpful. Even command word activated magic items require a standard action by default.
Let's take the common school lie, "the dog ate my homework." While you can say the words, how they are delivered, supporting evidence, and further adjustments to play off the teacher's reaction take longer and more effort then walking by the teacher to your desk while saying the same thing and playing your GameBoy.
|
Talking is a Free Action, but Bluffing is not. I would rule it takes one Standard Action per round. I go with Standard action because of the concentration involved in selling the lie. I would probably allow it to be a Move action instead, with some sort of penalty taken to the roll, depending on the attention required for the other action they wished to take.
As for the number of rounds the Bluff takes, I have been known to pull out a stop watch and time conversations, to figure out an approximate number of rounds, in some circumstances. (Like if one party has Detect Lie up.) If there was any disagreements about time taken, that's how I would solve it.
Because body language is a large part of Bluffing, I would give negative circumstance modifiers for any visible action taken during the Bluff which contradicts the lie.
Let's take the common school lie, "the dog ate my homework." While you can say the words, how they are delivered, supporting evidence, and further adjustments to play off the teacher's reaction take longer and more effort then walking by the teacher to your desk while saying the same thing and playing your GameBoy.
I have to agree.
Bluff is not just speaking, it's body language, posture, tone, expression, amonst other things. Just because you can speak as a free action doesn't mean you can Bluff as a free action.
|
|
Where in the rules does it say that Bluff is an action? It says how long it typically takes, but it doesn't say its a full-round action.
If you are going with any RAW quotes, the closest thing it should be is a full-round action, not a standard or a move.
In my reading of the rules, everything is a Standard Action, unless it is defined as something else. That's what Standard means.